US, Britain, Other Countries Ink Agreement To Make AI 'Secure by Design' (reuters.com) 36
The United States, Britain and more than a dozen other countries on Sunday unveiled what a senior U.S. official described as the first detailed international agreement on how to keep AI safe from rogue actors, pushing for companies to create AI systems that are "secure by design." From a report: In a 20-page document unveiled Sunday, the 18 countries agreed that companies designing and using AI need to develop and deploy it in a way that keeps customers and the wider public safe from misuse. The agreement is non-binding and carries mostly general recommendations such as monitoring AI systems for abuse, protecting data from tampering and vetting software suppliers.
Still, the director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Jen Easterly, said it was important that so many countries put their names to the idea that AI systems needed to put safety first. "This is the first time that we have seen an affirmation that these capabilities should not just be about cool features and how quickly we can get them to market or how we can compete to drive down costs," Easterly told Reuters, saying the guidelines represent "an agreement that the most important thing that needs to be done at the design phase is security."
Still, the director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Jen Easterly, said it was important that so many countries put their names to the idea that AI systems needed to put safety first. "This is the first time that we have seen an affirmation that these capabilities should not just be about cool features and how quickly we can get them to market or how we can compete to drive down costs," Easterly told Reuters, saying the guidelines represent "an agreement that the most important thing that needs to be done at the design phase is security."
Yes but (Score:2)
Did they specify how to do it?
Re:Yes but (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not. They're politicians. They have about much idea of how AI works as your cat.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. They're politicians. They have about much idea of how AI works as your cat.
In other words, we should expect something similar to IoT security from the intertube gang. Great.
And protecting it from 'rouge actors' conveniently overlooks the concern regarding what our own governments will do with the technology.
To be honest... (Score:2)
... I'm an experienced dev and have a pretty good handle on most types of software and a fair amount of hardware, but I also have have about as much real idea of how these ANNs work deep down as the cat. Yes training data at the top, yes neurons with weightings and back propagation at the bottom. But how the magic happens in between? Not a fecking clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, IIUC, current designs use tensor algebras to select probably correct choices. (Whoopi!)
P.S.: I think that's the wrong approach, as it leads to systems that are inappropriately homogeneous. But I've never tried to build one, either.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course not. They're politicians. They have about much idea of how AI works as your cat.
I doubt that even the foremost AI experts know how to do it. The agreement might as well recommend that the arms industry should start making guns and bombs that only hurt bad people.
The agreement is part of that ever-popular Security Theater genre. "Don't be afraid, we're on it!"
Re: (Score:3)
this is the "agreement": https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/files/... [ncsc.gov.uk]
the main focus is on hardening the lm against exploits but the recommendations are pretty vague indeed. for the most part it's a short summary of generic software development good practices.
Oh, you mean you want security?! (Score:1)
Oh, so you are saying that distributing pre-loaded guns for free isn't a good idea?
But it's so convenient for our customers... We'll tell you what, we'll put safety switches on the guns... problem solved...
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if only agree on this (Score:2)
The article says: "The rise of AI has fed a host of concerns, including the fear that it could be used to disrupt the democratic process, turbocharge fraud, or lead to dramatic job loss, among other harms."
AI isn't limited to what chat models produced by the US. Sure, these could also be used for fake news and fraud, and there's probably not much that could be done about that, but other players could develop their own models, and use them to do whatever they want, including disrupting the democratic process
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's pretty much true. People only worry about things that they notice or expect to notice.
Corporations promise... (Score:2)
Mmm... sounds like "tethics(TM)." Let's see how that plays out.
Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Is AI that dumb? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AI will discover a cure for cancer, decide that we don't deserve it, then give us something that actually makes cancer worse. After a few dozen or more people die in clinical trials, AI will say, "Oops, my bad, bro! I guess I was hallucinating again!"
Re: (Score:2)
The "security" part they're interested in is making sure the cure for cancer doesn't get accidentally released to everyone and is only controlled by a few powerful monopolies.
Hahaha ha (Score:2)
hahaha no (Score:2)
It's a non binding agreement to do something impossible.
We wasted time and money on this when real issues are at stake.
Remember when you vote that everyone who was involved with this is not a serious person.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but nobody knows how to solve the real problem. And countries don't do just one thing. (See today's article about the US military robotic swarms.)
Think of this "treaty" as a consciousness raising event...because that's all it is. I'd be really surprised if they got this "treaty" through the Senate.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody knows how to solve the real problem
You cannot solve it unless every country and everyone of their citizens agree.
So you cannot solve it.
Re: hahaha no (Score:2)
"nobody knows how to solve the real problem"
Frank Herbert knew.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately(?) both mentats and genetic memory are fictional.
Re: (Score:2)
They were a bit overzealous about it. You could keep CPUs but ditch AI.
It would however take religion to accomplish that at this point, and we don't need more of that more than we don't need potentially hostile AI.
An how is that supposed to work? (Score:2)
Because the only currently known way is to switch if off. Politicians and lawmakers again hallucinating that they control how reality works?
hahahhaahhahahahaha (Score:2)
"The agreement is non-binding and carries mostly general recommendations such as monitoring AI systems for abuse, protecting data from tampering and vetting software suppliers."
I thought the entire post of 'making AI secure by design' was ludicrous until I read the above, then I realized this is pure bureaucratic comedy.
Here's how you make AI "intrinsically secure" : DON'T EVER FUCKING CONNECT IT TO ANYTHING.*
What are the odds that anyone is going to follow that utterly basic principle? 0? Lower? Of cour
And it only takes one (Score:2)
With no agreement about what secure is. (Score:2)
US, Britain, Other Countries Ink Agreement...... (Score:2)
...to perform the futile exercise of 'putting the AI cat back in the bag'
Uhuh (Score:1)
So no AI until (Score:2)
Remember the evil bit? (Score:2)
Not possible (Score:2)
anything the Brits and US agree to make secure (Score:2)
How's that going to work? (Score:2)