Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

About computers and hacking

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
jiyunatori jiyunatori's picture
About computers and hacking
I like how EP's technology feels futuristic, yet not so far fetched. Except for one things: computers and hacking - appart from AIs, it feels like a scaled up version of nowadays technology, and hacking procedures are basically the same as today (spoof, exploit, privilege escalation ...) So, here I am, trying to imagine what the computers of the future could be, and how different hacking would be. To do so, I am starting from our current tech and move forward, based on actual research (and of course some works of fiction you will surely recognize). This is a work in progress, I'm not sure yet how it could be played - this is a request for comments. --- During the 21st century, three trends are converging : 1. the internet is growing exponentially. More and more data flows around the world as everyday objects get connected, and processing it to extract information takes more and more resources. 2. the nature of the data to process is evolving : instead of well formated digital data (text, databases), streams of analog data such as audio and video recording needs to be processed in realtime. Techniques developed in the field of artificial intelligence (artificial neural networks, bayesian filters and the like) are used more and more to filter the noise, but as the scope of the task grows, they demand tremendous computational power to be effective. 3. the moore law is loosing ground. The exponential growth of computer power is slowing down, physical limits makes it impossible to go smaller (random quantum effects) or faster (heat dissipation). At that time, computer technology has painted itself in a corner, but as usual the solution arrive in the form of a paradigm shift. The discovery of the memristor [1], a fundamental electronic component that behaves pretty much like a synapse, makes it possible to burn artificial neural networks directly in chips rather than simulating them on a computer with a regular architecture. It becomes possible to build huge ANN, capable of processing vast amounts of analog data in realtime with very little energy. This is a revolution for computing - computers are now good at dealing with noisy, incomplete, ambiguous data, which was formerly the realm of humans. AI is progressing fast, as the researchers finally have the horsepower to solve the symbol grounding problem [2] - progressively, AIs are more and more capable of assessing a complex environment such as ours. A lot of computer programs are not really programmed anymore - it's more like they are grown, or taught. Neuroscience keeps working on deciphering the human brain, and with computers now mimicking the brain's architecture, researchers are progressing faster than ever. Soon, they know how to interpret the patterns of activity in the sensorymotor regions of the cerebral cortex, then in the frontal regions responsible for conscious, abstract thinking. From there, the gap between artificial and biological neurons shrinks fast. Techniques are developped to grow artificial neurons within the brain tissues to allow direct electrochemical exchanges with a computer. The direct neural interface (DNI) is born. The cool thing about DNI is that it works both ways: you can "pull" a pattern of activity from a living brain to see what's going on in the subject's mind, but you can also "push" a pattern of activity to the subject's brain, to make him experience something. No more corneal implants or heads-up displays : the image is directy integrated to your visual field by inducing activity in a part of your visual cortex. The same goes for the other senses, even conscious thoughts to a certain extent. It is even possible to synchronize parts of your brain with someone else's - an experience called Diving. Depending on the areas synchronized, the effects can go from shared senses, group thinking, to irreversible ego fusion (usually for the worst). Of course, those neural patterns can be transmitted through the network. In fact, more and more computer systems adopt this paradigm to interact with users. Early lifeloggers start broadcasting their sensory feeds for anyone to dive into. Using machines and softwares is more and more about diving into them. In a way, it is like sleeving into a new morph, except you are not alone in it - and depending on how deep you are, you may share much more than a body. --- Okay, for those who are still there, how would you imagine day to day use of computers like these ? And what about hacking ? To me, hacking a big system would be done by diving into it and slowly subverting its thoughts to get what you want. But by doing so, you are putting your ego on the line - and the more you want, the deeper you have to dive, and the more dangerous it gets. For example, you could have intrusion countermeasures designed as mazes of traumatic experiences that will deeply traumatize the poor hacker ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding
DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
jiyunatori wrote:Okay, for
jiyunatori wrote:
Okay, for those who are still there, how would you imagine day to day use of computers like these ? And what about hacking ?
I don't like it. It sounds like this diving would be too potentially dangerous. Is this stuff supposed to be AF 10 technology or some point earlier? I don't like systems like in the Ghost in the Shell, where a good hack can fry a person's brain, or The Matrix, where if you die in the matrix you die for real. If such dangers existed, I would be very tempted to keep my think muscle off the grid (no mesh inserts). It seems a bit stupid to leave your brain vulnerable to a network hack or at risk of downloading a virus infected program you shouldn't have. Further more, if such dangers existed, what is it to stop people from developing (or trying to develop) and using AIs to dive for them? For example, something to dive in to test if something is dangerous, or dive to do all the work for them? I'm not sure if I read everything right, so I'll give a re-read later.
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
You are aware that Infomorphs
You are aware that Infomorphs, pods and syths can all be brain hacked in EP, right?
jiyunatori jiyunatori's picture
@DivineWrath
@DivineWrath > I don't like systems like in the Ghost in the Shell, where a good hack can fry a person's brain, or The Matrix, where if you die in the matrix you die for real. Well, in EP you can always make a backup of your ego before you dive, in case it goes horribly wrong ... Things are less deadly when death virtually does not exist. > If such dangers existed, I would be very tempted to keep my think muscle off the grid (no mesh inserts). It seems a bit stupid to leave your brain vulnerable to a network hack or at risk of downloading a virus infected program you shouldn't have. First of all, basic mesh security would be to lock access to sensitive parts of the brain - for example limiting access to superficial parts of the brain. A hacker would be able to blind you temporarily, or maybe access parts of your thoughts as you communicate with your muse, which is already possible with EP core. Next, the advantages surely outweight the risks, or the disadvantages and social stigma of living off grid. It's like driving a car today. It is objectively quite dangerous, yet pretty much everyone is driving. And living without a car can be quite burdensome in a society created around this mode of transportation. > Further more, if such dangers existed, what is it to stop people from developing (or trying to develop) and using AIs to dive for them? For example, something to dive in to test if something is dangerous, or dive to do all the work for them? Actually it could be really cool ! Using a cyberbrain as a proxy, loaded with a beta-fork of yourself maybe, and monitoring it from behind. This would be more secure but less efficient. Or instead of a beta-fork, a carefully designed hacking AI, subtly merging with the hacked server, growing and learning (like project 2501) ... given the grey status of AIs, that could be a nice plot source. Anyway, even if you don't like it you gave me a lot of nice ideas ! thanks a lot !
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Here are my thoughts on
Here are my thoughts on frequency of use. For the sake of argument, I'll refer to a computer (i.e., today's paradigm of computers) contrasted with an ANN (I'm lumping in here also our bio-brains, even though they're obviously not artificial). A computer has a number of advantages over an ANN. It's cheaper to build, works quickly for number crunching, disposable. For 9 out of 10 uses, we have enough information to easily model it on a computer, so a computer will be the tool of choice. Those places where you want an ANN are where opinions and judgment calls are worth more than hard numbers and pre-determined algorithms. It's nice to think something like navigation would prefer an ANN, but in almost all cases, you want a computer. At best, an ANN provides oversight. Even for providing personality to a product, computers can reliably produce a simulacrum for passable human interaction. Frankly, I struggle to think of a lot of scenarios where you would want an ANN over a computer (beyond just companionship). So I don't expect a lot of these, except perhaps as hybrid 'translators' between computers and people. As for hacking... The human brain is a beautiful thing, but it is not made to resist hacks. Funny enough, I imagine this technology would pose way more threats to humans being hacked than to humans hacking other things, and that means there's going to be some MEAN pushback. You have to account for the politics here. How will the US react to a breakthrough "computer" that could hack brains? How will Russia react? China? On the specific topic of how brainhacking works... I've been struggling with that for a related topic. My end conclusion is that hacking a brain based on a human architecture is extremely difficult to explain in any sort of dramatic, movie-like way. Your explanation is probably the best I've seen, very Inception. And if the architecture is actually artificially created, it may indeed have some serious defenses such as shielded 'traumas' booby-trapped to particular impulses (although I don't know how this wouldn't hurt the attacker and the defender equally). Diving is an interesting concept.
Undocking Undocking's picture
ANNs are used for a lot of
ANNs are used for a lot of fun stuff now: medical diagnosis, accounting, driving, data processing and robotics. nezumi is right in the fact that computers are more useful in most cases, and can Chinese Room well enough to fool most egos. You could have conventional computers connected to ANN (ANN hybrids), because learning and pattern recognition attached to a conventional model would be quite dynamic. I like the idea of merging forked neural pathways into ANNs, it works well with my own idea of applying memes or cognitive behavioural attacks to them. Yet, you would still need hacking to access an ANN, as 'diving' sounds more like psychosurgery than actual hacking. To the notion of 'diving' into 'mazes': it sounds very Neurmancer/ Netrunner/ Shadowrun. I, and people I play with, would definitely have an issue with how Hollywood Hacking it sounds. I would be totally cool with a GitS servers that force the unsuspecting ego to access them into VR and include strange traumatic experiences—but you would also be able to hack it normally. Anyone who needs virtualities that create symbolized representations of the mesh/ systems/ networks to wrap their 3D trained senses around cyberspace are meat newbz.
jiyunatori jiyunatori's picture
About the use of cyberbrains
About the use of cyberbrains (ANN) rather than regular digital chips: I think they would be used anywhere there is a need for a bit of cleverness. It would not make sense to use some clunky 20th century AI that barely passes the Turing Test when you can have the real deal (not necessarily a complete, human grade version, of course). And even for a lot of number crunching tasks, a bit of pattern recognition can help. As undocking says, the norm would probably be something hybrid. > Anyone who needs virtualities that create symbolized representations of the mesh/ systems/ networks to wrap their 3D trained senses around cyberspace are meat newbz. That's an interesting point of view. It challenges the cognitive psychology concept of "embodiment" - the idea that our cognition is shaped by our body, by our means of experiencing and interacting with our environment. In that sense using the common experience of our bodily perception as a basis for interaction makes sense. But of course the human brain can be extended to process new senses, manipulate non-anthropomorphic bodies, and "raw" interaction with the mesh can be seen as adapting your brain to a very different envelope ...
Undocking Undocking's picture
jiyunatori wrote:About the
jiyunatori wrote:
About the use of cyberbrains (ANN) rather than regular digital chips: I think they would be used anywhere there is a need for a bit of cleverness. It would not make sense to use some clunky 20th century AI that barely passes the Turing Test when you can have the real deal (not necessarily a complete, human grade version, of course). And even for a lot of number crunching tasks, a bit of pattern recognition can help.
The main issues right now would be overcome with more processing space and power, since current ANN are intensive and large. Hybrids are making some waves now, with a quite accurate one diagnoising lung cancer.
jiyunatori wrote:
That's an interesting point of view. It challenges the cognitive psychology concept of "embodiment" - the idea that our cognition is shaped by our body, by our means of experiencing and interacting with our environment. In that sense using the common experience of our bodily perception as a basis for interaction makes sense. But of course the human brain can be extended to process new senses, manipulate non-anthropomorphic bodies, and "raw" interaction with the mesh can be seen as adapting your brain to a very different envelope ...
I was being somewhat facitious. While humans can extend their embodiment, it works best in relateable situations. Driving, for example, is the most common form of extending embodiment. Most people have a good grasp of where their car is in relation to other cars without fancy cameras. But cyberspace is not really a space. Cyberspace is commonly portrayed through embodiement as a way to connect to the audience. Anthropopmorphization is rampant: we surf the web, we mine data, and go to websites. When I 'go' to a wiki, there is no physical movement; there are a series of digital acceses and retrievals with packets. Sure, in the case of VR, virtuality servers of varying sizes would exist through embodiement for chat rooms, video games, forums, stock markets, company meeting rooms, public archives, et cetra. and maybe surfing cyberspace could be seen as being at the centre of a panopticon of sites, but you would not actually need to send your ego anywhere to do it. You would be on your own access point. Same thing for an infolife in a server. Yes, an ego could migrate servers into the one they wanted to subvert, but someone could unplug it or turn it off. Then download your ego before deleting it, or edit some memories and send it back. While in an ANN could definitely respond to someone messing around in their network with a maze of traumatic experiences... it can also just flatline the bugger. Or toss a maze with no exits and algorithms for perfecting a series of traumatic attacks.
DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
Hmm... It seems that I was
Hmm... It seems that I was bit off earlier. My apologies. Its seems I was venting some of my annoyances of TV shows and movies into this thread. I might have got distracted and forgot some things about EP.
MAD Crab wrote:
You are aware that Infomorphs, pods and syths can all be brain hacked in EP, right?
I was thinking of Biomorphs at the time, forgetting all the other kinds of morphs that were out there. So those would work differently. All those run digital code, so they would be subject to normal problems that computers share.
jiyunatori wrote:
Actually it could be really cool ! Using a cyberbrain as a proxy, loaded with a beta-fork of yourself maybe, and monitoring it from behind. This would be more secure but less efficient. Or instead of a beta-fork, a carefully designed hacking AI, subtly merging with the hacked server, growing and learning (like project 2501) ... given the grey status of AIs, that could be a nice plot source. Anyway, even if you don't like it you gave me a lot of nice ideas ! thanks a lot !
Well, I'm glad I was able to help. I might have more to say later.
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
As for hacking... The human brain is a beautiful thing, but it is not made to resist hacks. Funny enough, I imagine this technology would pose way more threats to humans being hacked than to humans hacking other things, and that means there's going to be some MEAN pushback. You have to account for the politics here. How will the US react to a breakthrough "computer" that could hack brains? How will Russia react? China?
Its also not designed to run code. It can't spontaneously change its programing second to second. If an ego is being run digitally, then that is a different matter, but a bunch of neurons can't change the same way a bunch of transistors can.
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
jiyunatori wrote:About the
jiyunatori wrote:
About the use of cyberbrains (ANN) rather than regular digital chips: I think they would be used anywhere there is a need for a bit of cleverness. It would not make sense to use some clunky 20th century AI that barely passes the Turing Test when you can have the real deal (not necessarily a complete, human grade version, of course). And even for a lot of number crunching tasks, a bit of pattern recognition can help.
Just make sure you aren't comparing 22nd century cyberbrains with 20th century computers here! Modern computers can be very 'clever'. However, they are clever in a predictable, pre-programmed sort of way. Their 'cleverness' is programmed months or years before the situation. ANNs have the advantage of improvisation. Handy in some cases, but not as many as you'd imagine (the most common one I can think of is socialization).