Makes sense to me. Personally I plan for a dedicated gaming machine (nothing else, no email, no browsing) on Win10 and some non-networked VM for doing office, but on a Linux machine.
Well, that is not going to happen anytime soon. And if it happens, I can still have a dedicated gaming set-up (planning one for Win10 anyways, no browsing, no email, no nothing, just games and telemetry can go f*** itself...) and do everything else on Linux.
That is unlikely to begin with. The main problem of cloud based gaming is having issues with latencies and especially inconsistent lattencies (jitter).
In principle, that can be fixed for well-connected communities by placing a local data-center. But that kind of defeats the purpose and a majority of customers will not be well-connected for a long, long time yet.
The tricky thing about these predictive networking solutions is that they have to be implemented on the client side as well as on the server side (if applicable, because it may just as well be a P2P network). And for them to work properly, the client side predictions also have to be done on the client side, which again requires hardware powerful enough to do this on the client side.
And they make cheating on the client-side a huge problem. Nobody has been willing to far to generally ban cheating players based on identity (e.g. derived from credit-card), and I predict nobody will. Hence cheaters will remain a big problem.
That seems to be obvious, yes. They will not stop fucking their customers with a wirebrush. They just may paint it pink and decorate it with some (fake) silk bows.
I mean, I would understand such a move if this was some newcomer that had been on the market for a year or so and was trying things out. But MS can still not do any high-quality engineering despite all the decades of experience and the shitload of money they have. Why again is their stuff popular and not an obscure 3rd rate-choice as would deserve to be on merit?
No, it is not. Religion is defined a bit differently from what you think. Please read up on the definition before claiming nonsense.
Your argument about outside influences being a point for physicalism is deeply flawed. If the brain is just the interface to something else, of course influencing it does have an effect of that "something else". Also, "emergence" does not happen in Physics. There is no mechanism for it. An "emergent property" is a scientist saying "oops". In Physics the whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts.
They claim they have mathematically proved that their code is secure against known attacks.
They have a list of all known attacks? Fascinating. Because nobody else has that list, there are just far too many. You are also wrong that code is math in this instance here. Many, many known attacks do use side-channels. And there code stops being math and is very much a physical system executing the code.
So while they may actually have excluded all that in their paper, what remains after that is pretty meaningless.
They are wrong. This is not possible for crypto code either. When you look at the last few years, many vulnerabilities are information leaks. Spectre and Meltdown are probably the most famous at the moment, but there are many more, for example RSA keys leaking via timing, etc. They can prove absolutely nothing for these attacks. "Secure" most definitely means secure in practice. "Free of bugs", under the assumption the machine is flawless, is something else and that is what they may have done. Of course for this to be "on the level of a mathematical proof", they need to have verified all tools and the compiler on that level as well, and bootstrapping (were you compile the compiler with itself) does not work as the resulting "proof" would be circular.
Software is Math. Software executed on a computer is Physics. Attacks are done against software executed on a computer, not against the software itself.
Bullshit. You must never have heard of Hoare Calculus or "weakest precondition" calculus. I learned both in CS 102. No functional language required. (I know a few too.)
But that is not my criticism. When they claim to "mathematically prove" some property of a real object, then the lower layers must be included. And they need to "mathematically prove" that Physics is complete and correct as well. That is impossible as mathematics can only work on abstractions, not the real world. Anybody claiming to have "mathematically proven" any property of a real-world object is lying, plain and simple (or incompetent).
A verified C compiler is nice, but they are talking correctness on the level of a very fundamental mathematical proof. Ordinary code verification does not give you that. You need to verify the compiler against the full formal description of the hardware. That is pretty much impossible.
The basic problem with mathematical proofs is that math is an abstraction (the model), and the perfect-and-complete nature of the proof can *only* ever apply to the abstraction.
And that is exactly it. Anybody claiming to have shown any real world properties are mathematically proven is either incompetent or a liar or both.
The degree of fidelity to which the model reproduces your particular real situation is another story. Mathematically proving your solution is perfect not meaningful by itself.
It's a huge red flag the the vendor in this ad is directing our attention to a meaningless mathematical proof of perfection in their product. This strongly suggests to me that there is no valid reason to trust their design.
In fact there is strong reason to _not_ trust them. They are lying by misdirection about the security. They may lie about other things as well.
Even if we stipulate a "perfect" set of cryptographic algorithms implemented in a mathematically "perfect" set of code, the solution is meaningless without proper implementation and user procedures.
For example: I've got a great VPN (it uses OpenVPN), but when it fails, all my traffic is suddenly exposed. So I adjust my firewall rules so the only traffic allowed besides that needed to establish the vpn link must go through through tun0. Or use wireguard instead. Until next week when I'm in a factory and I need to talk to some PLCs or I/O modules to configure them, then I turn off the firewall or use the "factory" instead of the "office" setting. Now I have to remember to turn it on again or I won't be protected. etc. etc. etc.
There are no "magic bullets", and somebody claiming to have one has just saved you the trouble of evaluating them any further.
Indeed. Run screaming or start laughing. But do _not_ buy the snake-oil they are selling.
There is no way to "mathematically prove" security of software on the confidence-level of a mathematical poof. It starts with the execution model not being fit to be formally represented. It continues with the used compiler not being verified. Then, formal verification is extremely high effort and infeasible for anything besides a really small code base in practice.
At the end, this is a lie. And the ones lying must know that.
Indeed. Because designing a new thing with that properties requires insight into the nature of the thing. Machines cannot do insight and it is completely unclear whether they ever will be able to.
Religious fuckup hijacking something that is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with a "god" or other such delusion. What is true, is that current Physics has no place for intelligence or self-awareness. The theory just has no mechanisms for it and "physicalists" are just fundamentalist religious fuckups as well. As such it is completely open what is missing here. Fortunately, Physics is incomplete and known to be fundamentally wrong (no quantum-gravity) at this time. Hence there can be extensions. Bu whether they eventually make the brain the computer that can create intelligence and self-awareness or whether they make the brain a sophisticated and partially autonomous interface to "somewhere else" is completely open.
It is still possible that the brain is "just a machine" and that it does indeed create intelligence and consciousness. But the scientific indications are getting less and less and the scientific indications that there is something else at work are getting more solid all the time. Because the little problem is that the brain is likely not complex or fast enough to do what smart humans can do. At the same time, it is apparently the most powerful computing machine possible in this physical universe (larger would be slower due to communications delays and wiring getting much more complex, faster elements would make it larger due to cooling, etc.). So the scientific state of the art is that we do not know and that things are getting more mysterious the closer we look. That is a good predictor for something fundamentally new to be discovered eventually. There is no reason to believe science will behave different here than what it had done when it solved great mysteries in the past.
Let me re-iterate: This has nothing to do with religion. Religion is know to be a collection of fairy-tales that use some fundamental questions humans have to manipulate them, always for behavior control and usually to create power-structures for authoritarians of a certain kind, with "God" as the ultimate authoritarian leader. (Replace with Hitler, Stalin, Kim, "mother earth", "the universe", and lately "Physics", as desired). There is no mystery how religion works and why its message is misdirection and nonsense.
Technologies that could replace horses were demonstrates > 2000 years ago. It was just a matter of time. We have absolutely nothing demonstrating even a glimmer of intelligence. Hence there is no demonstration and you analogy is fundamentally flawed.
Agreed that current AI is not "I". But 50 years or never?
Why?
Simple extrapolation from tech history. (No, for computers things do not go faster.) At the moment we have not even a credible theory how intelligence can be implemented. That means at the very least 50 years, more likely 80-100 years to general availability. It may well mean never as outside of physicalist fundamentalist derangement ("It obviously is possible!", yeah, right...) there is no indication it is possible. And there certainly is no scientific indication it is possible (no, physicalism is not science, it is religion).
At the same time, people have been trying really hard and for multiple decades. Cyc, Watson, etc. all complete failures to produce even a dim glimmer of intelligence. These things are complex statistical data-filters, but they have absolutely no element of insight or understanding. We have never had a mainstream technology that completely failed to deliver for so long and was eventually successful. Even flying cars are there (as a worthless stunt, but they are there) quantum computers can make very small, meaningless computations, robots can do simple household tasks badly, self-driving cars can do it under good conditions, even automated translations work (badly) if the conversation is simple enough, etc. But intelligence? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And that gives the "never" prediction.
Indeed. Not how anybody sane designs systems that can kill lots of people in accidents. The whole thing was completely botched, and the motivations was plain old-fashioned greed and arrogance.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense to me. Personally I plan for a dedicated gaming machine (nothing else, no email, no browsing) on Win10 and some non-networked VM for doing office, but on a Linux machine.
Well, that is not going to happen anytime soon. And if it happens, I can still have a dedicated gaming set-up (planning one for Win10 anyways, no browsing, no email, no nothing, just games and telemetry can go f*** itself...) and do everything else on Linux.
That is unlikely to begin with.
The main problem of cloud based gaming is having issues with latencies and especially inconsistent lattencies (jitter).
In principle, that can be fixed for well-connected communities by placing a local data-center. But that kind of defeats the purpose and a majority of customers will not be well-connected for a long, long time yet.
The tricky thing about these predictive networking solutions is that they have to be implemented on the client side as well as on the server side (if applicable, because it may just as well be a P2P network). And for them to work properly, the client side predictions also have to be done on the client side, which again requires hardware powerful enough to do this on the client side.
And they make cheating on the client-side a huge problem. Nobody has been willing to far to generally ban cheating players based on identity (e.g. derived from credit-card), and I predict nobody will. Hence cheaters will remain a big problem.
That seems to be obvious, yes. They will not stop fucking their customers with a wirebrush. They just may paint it pink and decorate it with some (fake) silk bows.
_One_ kick? You are far too generous. Kick them until dead, then burn the body. And that would be letting them off lightly.
Not all of us are subs.
I mean, I would understand such a move if this was some newcomer that had been on the market for a year or so and was trying things out. But MS can still not do any high-quality engineering despite all the decades of experience and the shitload of money they have. Why again is their stuff popular and not an obscure 3rd rate-choice as would deserve to be on merit?
And I will certainly do so.
If the target is a politician, sure.
No, it is not. Religion is defined a bit differently from what you think. Please read up on the definition before claiming nonsense.
Your argument about outside influences being a point for physicalism is deeply flawed. If the brain is just the interface to something else, of course influencing it does have an effect of that "something else". Also, "emergence" does not happen in Physics. There is no mechanism for it. An "emergent property" is a scientist saying "oops". In Physics the whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts.
They claim they have mathematically proved that their code is secure against known attacks.
They have a list of all known attacks? Fascinating. Because nobody else has that list, there are just far too many. You are also wrong that code is math in this instance here. Many, many known attacks do use side-channels. And there code stops being math and is very much a physical system executing the code.
So while they may actually have excluded all that in their paper, what remains after that is pretty meaningless.
They are wrong. This is not possible for crypto code either. When you look at the last few years, many vulnerabilities are information leaks. Spectre and Meltdown are probably the most famous at the moment, but there are many more, for example RSA keys leaking via timing, etc. They can prove absolutely nothing for these attacks. "Secure" most definitely means secure in practice. "Free of bugs", under the assumption the machine is flawless, is something else and that is what they may have done. Of course for this to be "on the level of a mathematical proof", they need to have verified all tools and the compiler on that level as well, and bootstrapping (were you compile the compiler with itself) does not work as the resulting "proof" would be circular.
Software is Math. Software executed on a computer is Physics. Attacks are done against software executed on a computer, not against the software itself.
Bullshit. You must never have heard of Hoare Calculus or "weakest precondition" calculus. I learned both in CS 102. No functional language required. (I know a few too.)
But that is not my criticism. When they claim to "mathematically prove" some property of a real object, then the lower layers must be included. And they need to "mathematically prove" that Physics is complete and correct as well. That is impossible as mathematics can only work on abstractions, not the real world. Anybody claiming to have "mathematically proven" any property of a real-world object is lying, plain and simple (or incompetent).
I agree that his is useful. But it is not "Mathematically Proven To Be Completely Secure and Free of Bugs" by a far cry.
A verified C compiler is nice, but they are talking correctness on the level of a very fundamental mathematical proof. Ordinary code verification does not give you that. You need to verify the compiler against the full formal description of the hardware. That is pretty much impossible.
The basic problem with mathematical proofs is that math is an abstraction (the model), and the perfect-and-complete nature of the proof can *only* ever apply to the abstraction.
And that is exactly it. Anybody claiming to have shown any real world properties are mathematically proven is either incompetent or a liar or both.
The degree of fidelity to which the model reproduces your particular real situation is another story. Mathematically proving your solution is perfect not meaningful by itself.
It's a huge red flag the the vendor in this ad is directing our attention to a meaningless mathematical proof of perfection in their product. This strongly suggests to me that there is no valid reason to trust their design.
In fact there is strong reason to _not_ trust them. They are lying by misdirection about the security. They may lie about other things as well.
Even if we stipulate a "perfect" set of cryptographic algorithms implemented in a mathematically "perfect" set of code, the solution is meaningless without proper implementation and user procedures.
For example: I've got a great VPN (it uses OpenVPN), but when it fails, all my traffic is suddenly exposed. So I adjust my firewall rules so the only traffic allowed besides that needed to establish the vpn link must go through through tun0. Or use wireguard instead. Until next week when I'm in a factory and I need to talk to some PLCs or I/O modules to configure them, then I turn off the firewall or use the "factory" instead of the "office" setting. Now I have to remember to turn it on again or I won't be protected. etc. etc. etc.
There are no "magic bullets", and somebody claiming to have one has just saved you the trouble of evaluating them any further.
Indeed. Run screaming or start laughing. But do _not_ buy the snake-oil they are selling.
There is no way to "mathematically prove" security of software on the confidence-level of a mathematical poof. It starts with the execution model not being fit to be formally represented. It continues with the used compiler not being verified. Then, formal verification is extremely high effort and infeasible for anything besides a really small code base in practice.
At the end, this is a lie. And the ones lying must know that.
It is _Facebook_. Anybody working there has already exhibited exceptionally bad judgement.
Indeed. Because designing a new thing with that properties requires insight into the nature of the thing. Machines cannot do insight and it is completely unclear whether they ever will be able to.
Religious fuckup hijacking something that is true, but has absolutely nothing to do with a "god" or other such delusion. What is true, is that current Physics has no place for intelligence or self-awareness. The theory just has no mechanisms for it and "physicalists" are just fundamentalist religious fuckups as well. As such it is completely open what is missing here. Fortunately, Physics is incomplete and known to be fundamentally wrong (no quantum-gravity) at this time. Hence there can be extensions. Bu whether they eventually make the brain the computer that can create intelligence and self-awareness or whether they make the brain a sophisticated and partially autonomous interface to "somewhere else" is completely open.
It is still possible that the brain is "just a machine" and that it does indeed create intelligence and consciousness. But the scientific indications are getting less and less and the scientific indications that there is something else at work are getting more solid all the time. Because the little problem is that the brain is likely not complex or fast enough to do what smart humans can do. At the same time, it is apparently the most powerful computing machine possible in this physical universe (larger would be slower due to communications delays and wiring getting much more complex, faster elements would make it larger due to cooling, etc.). So the scientific state of the art is that we do not know and that things are getting more mysterious the closer we look. That is a good predictor for something fundamentally new to be discovered eventually. There is no reason to believe science will behave different here than what it had done when it solved great mysteries in the past.
Let me re-iterate: This has nothing to do with religion. Religion is know to be a collection of fairy-tales that use some fundamental questions humans have to manipulate them, always for behavior control and usually to create power-structures for authoritarians of a certain kind, with "God" as the ultimate authoritarian leader. (Replace with Hitler, Stalin, Kim, "mother earth", "the universe", and lately "Physics", as desired). There is no mystery how religion works and why its message is misdirection and nonsense.
Technologies that could replace horses were demonstrates > 2000 years ago. It was just a matter of time. We have absolutely nothing demonstrating even a glimmer of intelligence. Hence there is no demonstration and you analogy is fundamentally flawed.
Agreed that current AI is not "I". But 50 years or never?
Why?
Simple extrapolation from tech history. (No, for computers things do not go faster.) At the moment we have not even a credible theory how intelligence can be implemented. That means at the very least 50 years, more likely 80-100 years to general availability. It may well mean never as outside of physicalist fundamentalist derangement ("It obviously is possible!", yeah, right...) there is no indication it is possible. And there certainly is no scientific indication it is possible (no, physicalism is not science, it is religion).
At the same time, people have been trying really hard and for multiple decades. Cyc, Watson, etc. all complete failures to produce even a dim glimmer of intelligence. These things are complex statistical data-filters, but they have absolutely no element of insight or understanding. We have never had a mainstream technology that completely failed to deliver for so long and was eventually successful. Even flying cars are there (as a worthless stunt, but they are there) quantum computers can make very small, meaningless computations, robots can do simple household tasks badly, self-driving cars can do it under good conditions, even automated translations work (badly) if the conversation is simple enough, etc. But intelligence? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And that gives the "never" prediction.
Components do not "belong" to a certain device. They are components and are intended to be fitted together in any way possible and desired.
Indeed. Not how anybody sane designs systems that can kill lots of people in accidents. The whole thing was completely botched, and the motivations was plain old-fashioned greed and arrogance.