mckinney@cs.uiuc.edu (C.R. Mckinney) (07/22/89)
This is not a topic of current discussion, but I am curious to see what people on this notesfile have to say about it. I am not a computer virus expert or a biology expert, so please no flames... I was having a discussion with a friend about computer viruses, and he was saying that he thought that they weren't really like biological viruses. Several other people have expressed this view, that the term "virus" is misleading. Seems to me that it captures quite a few of the critical qualities of computer viruses, and the analogy holds up quite well, for several reasons: * First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has of replicating itself. That is, if you view organisms as merely vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses represent the minimal means of doing so. Likewise, computer viruses are programs whose primary task is to replicate them- selves by attaching to other programs, just as bio-viruses attach to cells. Some computer viruses have code that helps to camouflage them, or keeps them dormant until a specified time. Likewise, some bio-viruses have DNA that codes for traits that hides them or keeps them dormant until conditions are right... * Second, in most cases bioviruses harm their hosts, and often lead to their deaths, but they allow them to live long enough to infect other hosts. The same is true of computer viruses, which may or may not be intended to bring down the machine; or may do so as a "byproduct" of their replication, just as a host may die as a "byproduct" of over-replication of a biovirus. * Third, there are "vaccines" for computer viruses, just as there are vaccines for bio-viruses. When the vaccine is administered, the virus is no longer a threat. In summary, the computer virus metaphor is very apt, and I don't know why people want to criticize it. I welcome your replies and comments. --Randy McKinney Urbana, IL mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu [exercise for the reader: Why is it unlikely that nanotech will produce "bio" viruses that are worse than those that could be produced by existing (ie, gene-splicing) techniques? --JoSH]
ems%nanotech@princeton.edu (07/25/89)
[ C.R. Mckinney draws apt analogies between computer and biological viruses.] >....In summary, the computer virus metaphor is very apt, and I don't know >why people want to criticize it. I welcome your replies and comments. > >--Randy McKinney > Urbana, IL > mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu Probably the analogies are criticized to guard against a natural human tendency to lump things that are called by the same name together. As time goes on, and parallelism makes more inroads in computer technology, and as "parallel" computer viruses appear, I think that it's likely that even more analogies may be drawn. Even so, it is good to remember that these viruses are covered by two different scientific disciplines, that we are used to thinking of today as being widely separated. (No flames from biological chip designers, please, but other mail is welcome :-) >[exercise for the reader: Why is it unlikely that nanotech will > produce "bio" viruses that are worse than those that could be produced > by existing (ie, gene-splicing) techniques? > --JoSH] May I answer this question? I assume that by "worse" you meant "more lethal". One reason may be that every means of producing illness or death in an organism has already been ferreted out by chance during the long evolutionary battle. Hence there is some gene complex, already coded for each ill, available for gene splicing. Nanoviri could at best, only equal this lethality. After all, dead is dead. But, I don't think this is quite the entire picture. One promise of nanotechnology is the ability to make that nanovirus vastly more *selective* in it's targets, hence a better weapon. One might build an AI-based nanovirus that would only spare ardent capitalists, for instance. ( Thereby giving new meaning to the phrase "never volunteer" :-) I'd hope that neither means of producing such a virus is ever attempted. It's more realistic to assume that both techniques *will* be tried by various groups of unethical technologists. After all germ warfare labs do exist. It's also likely that gene-splicing, as the much more mature technology, has already been used to create some new disease. By a clear choice of vector, even a splicing-derived virus could be made more selective, although never to the degree of a nanotech virus. If someone told you that a blood-borne disease, lethal to drug addicts and promiscuous persons, but *unable* to use the mosquito vector, just arose naturally, would you believe them? And lest we believe we're safe just because most of us fall into neither category, remember that a virus may mutate. (OK, I finally admit I'm being a little paranoid here :-) This is part of the whole category of questions relating to the unethical misuse of technology. Let me now suggest a "fix" that one day, just *might* be possible thru nanotechnology. The leading force might use their time advantage to design an artificial conscience, and apply it to *everyone*, to modify behavior. The artificial conscience would make it impossible for anyone to attempt to injure others using technology, sort of like an enforceable Hippocratic Oath. Sounds like an abhorrent restriction of freedom? Well, just keep in mind that it may be the only practical means of permitting us to explore powerful new technologies without courting world disaster. Perhaps the artificial conscience would only need to be applied to those persons who desired to actually learn the dangerous technologies. This would result in a future where everyone would be forced (at their majority?) to choose between complete knowledge and complete freedom. Ed Strong princeton!nanotech!ems [The major advantage of a virus is that it hijacks the "construction machinery" of the host's cells. Thus it must consist in large part of host-compatible DNA. Thus the putative advantages of novel construction and/or coding methods would be inapplicable. This is what I meant by my conundrum... I think your "conscience" mechanism has a great similarity to Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics. A good starting place (Asimov is no dummy) but with some unsettling ultimate implications--read Asimov's later works where he follows some of them up (he's still no dummy...). --JoSH]
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (07/26/89)
In article <Jul.24.23.27.40.1989.19198@athos.rutgers.edu> ems%nanotech@princeton.edu writes: >But, I don't think this is quite the entire picture. One promise >of nanotechnology is the ability to make that nanovirus vastly >more *selective* in it's targets, hence a better weapon. One might >build an AI-based nanovirus that would only spare ardent capitalists, >for instance. I find the idea of a nanovirus that could read personalities very unlikely, due to the inherent complexity of mapping from neural activity in the brain to even abstract thoughts, much less political inclinations. Before we have the ability to design such a nanoagent, we will probably need the ability to design minds from scratch -- and *that* would have far greater implications (both promises and problems) than mere biowarfare. On the other hand, a much more tractible nanoweapon would be one which could scan a person's genetic code. The simplest variant might be something like Frank Herbert's White Plague -- a virus which searches for XX or XY chromosomes and is lethal to only one sex. A more sophisticated version might scan gene patterns for race-specific genotypes such as skin pigmentation and kill people of a certain color. The good news is that genocide is not really in the best interests of any major power. Even South Africa, arguably one of the most racist high-tech nations, would not benefit from having all of the blacks in their country die, since it would leave them without much of their manual labor force. On the other hand, the Holocast wasn't particularly useful for Nazi Germany in military terms, and if an anti-Jewish nanovirus was developed, Syria or the PLO might not hesitate to use it. >If someone told you that a blood-borne >disease, lethal to drug addicts and promiscuous persons, >but *unable* to use the mosquito vector, just arose naturally, >would you believe them? How about the reverse? What kinds of research could be done (and probably is being done -- possibly in the US, probably in the USSR) to turn HIV into a weapon? You would need rapid-onset and a highly contagious vector (contact/water/air). Perhaps a recombinant DNA splice between HIV and some type of flu virus? Is this or something similar possible? (If so, it's probably been done.) >This is part of the whole category of questions relating to the >unethical misuse of technology. Let me now suggest a "fix" that one >day, just *might* be possible thru nanotechnology. The leading force >might use their time advantage to design an artificial conscience, >and apply it to *everyone*, to modify behavior. The artificial >conscience would make it impossible for anyone to attempt to >injure others using technology, sort of like an enforceable >Hippocratic Oath. For the reasons I stated above, I find this extremely unlikely short of a complete solution to both psychology and AI. This would require knowledge of how extremely high-level concepts such as "other people" and "harm" are stored in extremely low-level neurological processes. Furthermore, it requires knowing how to modify neurological structures to acheive a very complex high-level behavior. If we can do this, I feel we will be able to design minds to our own specifications, and when this happens we will need to deal with much more complex issues. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
ems%nanotech@princeton.edu (07/28/89)
>In article <Jul.24.23.27.40.1989.19198@athos.rutgers.edu> ems%nanotech@princeton.edu writes: >>But, I don't think this is quite the entire picture. One promise >>of nanotechnology is the ability to make that nanovirus vastly >>more *selective* in it's targets, hence a better weapon. One might >>build an AI-based nanovirus that would only spare ardent capitalists, >>for instance. > >I find the idea of a nanovirus that could read personalities very >unlikely, due to the inherent complexity of mapping from neural >activity in the brain to even abstract thoughts, much less political >inclinations. Before we have the ability to design such a nanoagent, >we will probably need the ability to design minds from scratch -- and >*that* would have far greater implications (both promises and >problems) than mere biowarfare. > Au contraire, mon frere :-) You're trying to do the job by the most direct route, which is probably also the toughest. There is a much simpler way the nanovirus can get a pretty good picture of how good a capitalist you are, (as well as much else). It simply contacts its compatriots, that have infiltrated your financial records, which are already in convenient electronic form. Now, if you fall outside certain preset parameters, zzzzt! No mind reading is required. In fact, variations of this technique can yield a great deal of selectivity, without requiring "true" AI at all. (Hmmm, should this be meme be discouraged? ) [ Much interesting thought on genocide, HIV elided...] >>This is part of the whole category of questions relating to the >>unethical misuse of technology. Let me now suggest a "fix" that one >>day, just *might* be possible thru nanotechnology. The leading force >>might use their time advantage to design an artificial conscience, >>and apply it to *everyone*, to modify behavior.... >For the reasons I stated above, I find this extremely unlikely short >of a complete solution to both psychology and AI. This would require >knowledge of how extremely high-level concepts such as "other people" >and "harm" are stored in extremely low-level neurological processes. >Furthermore, it requires knowing how to modify neurological structures >to acheive a very complex high-level behavior. If we can do this, I >feel we will be able to design minds to our own specifications, and >when this happens we will need to deal with much more complex issues. I admit that designing an artificial conscience is much tougher than the capitalist nanovirus described earlier. I would attempt it this way: First, map the neuron structure of a human brain using nanotech. Next, use the virtually unlimited amounts of CPU available thru nanotech to simulate the interaction of a computer model of this brain with a (simplified) model of an "outside world". (You can run this simulation very fast, and also run many copies in parallel). Finally, "all" you do is treat this brain model as a black box, and determine the set of outputs you want to avoid. Deciding when the "outside world" has been harmed (by the brain model outputs) could possibly be determined by examining increases in the disorder of the "outside world" part of the simulation. Sounds simple? It's not, but it does outline at least one approach to the job, that is more tractable than creating complete theories of psychology & AI. (I started with CPUs having a whole 8K. After a while, I learned to never make my machines do anything that they don't have to. :-) >Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester >yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department Ed Strong AT&T, Bell Labs princeton!nanotech!ems And in < 1 month -> Princeton University Computer Science Department [The simulation method for implementing the "conscience" seems unlikely to work, primarily because (remember) the thing we're trying to protect against is mischief done by complex nanosystems. I find it difficult to believe that an nth-generation system could simulate (a) the designer's thoughts, (b) the nth-generation CAD system, (c) the n+1st generation system being built, and (d) enough of the real world, almost necessarily at the molecular level, to detect craftily laid schemes. Though offhand, I can't think of a better one... --JoSH]
ems%nanotech@princeton.edu (08/01/89)
>I admit that designing an artificial conscience is much tougher than >the capitalist nanovirus described earlier. I would attempt it this >way: First, map the neuron structure of a human brain using nanotech. >Next, use the virtually unlimited amounts of CPU available thru >nanotech to simulate the interaction of a computer model of this >brain with a (simplified) model of an "outside world". (You can run >this simulation very fast, and also run many copies in parallel). >Finally, "all" you do is treat this brain model as a black box, >and determine the set of outputs you want to avoid. Deciding when >the "outside world" has been harmed (by the brain model outputs) >could possibly be determined by examining increases in the >disorder of the "outside world" part of the simulation. > >Sounds simple? It's not, but it does outline at least one >approach to the job, that is more tractable than creating >complete theories of psychology & AI. (I started with CPUs having >a whole 8K. After a while, I learned to never make my machines >do anything that they don't have to. :-) [ Some signatures elided...] >[The simulation method for implementing the "conscience" seems unlikely > to work, primarily because (remember) the thing we're trying to protect > against is mischief done by complex nanosystems. I find it difficult > to believe that an nth-generation system could simulate (a) the designer's > thoughts, (b) the nth-generation CAD system, (c) the n+1st generation > system being built, and (d) enough of the real world, almost necessarily > at the molecular level, to detect craftily laid schemes. > Though offhand, I can't think of a better one... > --JoSH] (Brace yourself! More facile hand-waving "explanations" ahead ...:-) I think by focusing the "conscience" on a person's *intent* to commit technicide (killing/immoral acts via technology?) we could come up with something to do the job. Remember Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange"? Alex, the protagonist, was conditioned to become sick whenever he *thought* about violence. (In actuality his emotional state was monitored. This prevented Alex from outsmarting the conditioning just by dreaming up a new form of violence.) The techniques used were crude but effective. (Of course the rest of the society he was in was *not* conditioned, but that's another story.) Using our nanosimulations, we could do this in a vastly improved form, winding up with exactly the behavior controls that we want. By controlling those negative impulses from the onset of nanotechnology we could ensure that those killer nanoviri never get built. (This type of conditioning might not work on someone who was insane from the start, but I think that serious insanity would probably be apparent anyway). By the way, I'm not advocating making people sick whenever they think the dangerous thoughts. Something gentler could be just as effective. Perhaps the subjects would be conditioned to undergo a pseudo "religious" experience, controlled hallucinations along with emotional overtones, that would effectively steer them off of the wrong track. The simulations would help the leading force design the best techniques. However much I've sugar-coated it, I'm still talking about some form of "mind control". I've outlined a reasonable approach to the technical question of "how". A more important question is whether the leading force should undertake this task at all. If for instance, the leading force is not completely honest, and leaves back doors for themselves in the conditioning, the world might be worse off than before. Ed Strong email: att!mtuxo!ems1 or {princeton,mccc,attmail}!nanotech!ems [Remember that in Clockwork Orange, "violence" is defined to the victim by example, ie showing him violent films. However, when any more complex chain of reasoning is involved, people exhibit an amazing capacity to deceive themselves about the reasons and consequences of their actions. I think you are going to wind up needing something so complex, that you may as well discard the people and let your machine do whatever it is you were going to control them into doing. Like Eric wrote, a nanotech totalitarian state would probably discard us rather than enslaving us. I feel that if people are to remain anything like recognizably human, the answer lies more along the path of increasing their ability to withstand accidents, than of decreasing their ability to have them. --JoSH]
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (08/02/89)
The reference lines are a mess, but somebody writes: | | | ||But, I don't think this is quite the entire picture. One promise | ||of nanotechnology is the ability to make that nanovirus vastly | ||more *selective* in it's targets, hence a better weapon. One might | ||build an AI-based nanovirus that would only spare ardent capitalists, | ||for instance. | | | |I find the idea of a nanovirus that could read personalities very | |unlikely,... | Au contraire, mon frere :-) ... There is a much | simpler way the nanovirus can get a pretty good picture of how good | a capitalist you are, (as well as much else). It simply contacts its | compatriots, that have infiltrated your financial records, ... It's actually far easier to create a virus that spares only ardent capitalists, and far more likely -- just create something extremely deadly, extremely contagious, and extremely expensive to cure. Then let it infect everyone. Only the ardent capitalists who can afford the cure will survive. In fact, this seems a likely scenario in the near future. (It's certaily one effective way for the wealthy to solve the overpopulation and pollution problems.) Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Please don't email, unable to reply outside AT&T) Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion. Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily [If I were wealthy, capitalist or not, and I wanted to wipe out any section of the population, the *last* thing I would do would be something that required me to shell out for an expensive cure. Besides the expense, people might catch on, become envious, and take your money by force. The obvious way to go about killing off the human race is to do it selectively, a small unpopular group at a time, so that most of the people spend most of their effort saying "thank god I'm not one of *them*" until it's too late. Of course, it's not the rich who want to upset the applecart anyway-- after all, they're on top now. It's usually the poor who feel they would benefit from major upheavals (not that they do...). --JoSH]
pmb@swituc.uucp (Pat Berry) (08/05/89)
> In article <Jul.24.23.27.40.1989.19198@athos.rutgers.edu> ems%nanotech@princeton.edu writes: > >day, just *might* be possible thru nanotechnology. The leading force > >might use their time advantage to design an artificial conscience, > >and apply it to *everyone*, to modify behavior. The artificial And who is going to play God and decide what my conscience is to consider right and wrong? What if this decision-maker happens to admire Hitler? (or any of an inumerable list of individual-specific "evils") No, leave me out of your mass conscience... I prefer to find my own way to Nirvana. Pat Berry -- Pat Berry KN7B pmb%swituc.uucp@arizona.edu KN7B @ WB7TLS.AZ packet radio