Security work is not productive.

Imagine that the whole city has to install iron doors and window grilles, because wooden doors and glass windows are not safe enough anymore.

That's a lot of work, but is it productive in the end? Probably not.

With AI it's the same. World was fine with lax security approach before. Today it is not fine. Tomorrow we might need to prove every code line before shipping, will that be more productive? Hell, no.

▲

Gigachad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The physical world comparison is interesting. In the real world we have a small amount of security, but most things could be broken in to. Instead of fortifying everything, we just imprison the people breaking stuff.

Obviously this doesn't work on the internet since most hacking comes from overseas out of our control. Which makes me wonder if there is a possible future where we just block packets coming from countries that don't lock up the hackers.

	▲	js8 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Obviously this doesn't work on the internet Not obvious to me. I am generally a fan of Cyberspace manifesto and the free Internet, I think it's great people can reach outside their ingroup and talk to strangers and ostensible enemies. But, that doesn't mean we should give up physical security, the guarantee that the connecting party comes from a certain physical location (state, company). I think allowing connections from anywhere by default is fundamentally flawed security architecture, for certain things.

▲

gonzo41 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it actually is productive, because steel bar retailers and metal door installers will make a ton of cash and then 'trickle' that money into the economy.

▲

idiotsecant an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

In the rest of the world making sure your product works like it is supposed to is considered table stakes. In software we somehow consider checking the parts of it we can think of 'good enough' and the rest unproductive

	▲	vbezhenar 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> In the rest of the world making sure your product works like it is supposed to is considered table stakes. I don't think that's true. In medicine, science often doesn't know how specific drug really is working. They just do a lot of tests and if these tests are positive enough, they ship it. I think it's good analogy. Biology is very complicated and it's out of our grasp to truly understand how various parts of it interact with each other on so many levels. But if something helps, it's stupid not to use it just because we don't fully understand it. Sometimes it bites. Sometimes it bites 30 years later. But we still follow that approach. Software is similar. The complexity of the systems we build is enormous, when we're taking in account all the moving parts. I just read that someone emits radiowaves toggling memory bit and ex-filtrating information. How can you account for that? Probably you can't. But we still need software for good things.