USENIX Security '18-Q: Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible?

James Mickens on this topic: [this video] > Some people enter the technology industry to build newer, more exciting kinds of technology as quickly as possible. My keynote will savage these people and will burn important professional bridges, likely forcing me to join a monastery or another penance-focused organization. In my keynote, I will explain why the proliferation of ubiquitous technology is good in the same sense that ubiquitous Venus weather would be good, i.e., not good at all. > Using case studies involving machine learning and other hastily-executed figments of Silicon Valley’s imagination, I will explain why computer security (and larger notions of ethical computing) are difficult to achieve if developers insist on literally not questioning anything that they do since even brief introspection would reduce the frequency of git commits. At some point, my microphone will be cut off, possibly by hotel management, but possibly by myself, because microphones are technology and we need to reclaim the stark purity that emerges from amplifying our voices using rams’ horns and sheets of papyrus rolled into cone shapes. I will explain why papyrus cones are not vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks, and then I will conclude by observing that my new start-up papyr.us is looking for talented full-stack developers who are comfortable executing computational tasks on an abacus or several nearby sticks.

"Here's the pool of socially well connected people talking to each other, and here's the pool of lonely people that basically talk to nobody. Now, we could create new network edges between the lonely and non-lonely people, so that both groups of people can expand their social network and share their rich sets of deeply personal experiences with each other. But clearly, a much better solution is to direct all that lonely energy to synthetic personalities running on data center VMs. So the people who are happy can continue to be happy, and the people who are lonely can shout into availability zones on the West Coast and Northern Europe. This is clearly the humanist solution." [this video]

> If it doesn't work as I expect it so it should be banned. Well yes that's a very reasonable expectation. In most fields, when you sell something that doesn't work, it's called fraud. But in fields where it actually matter for safety, regulations are most stringent, such as in mechanics or medicine. If a car had 1% chance of blowing up killing everyone inside, would it be legal to sell it? Why is it ok for OpenAI to sell a chatbot that has 1% chance to convince you of utter bullshit when you ask it a serious question? I believe education and communication to be critical to society's wellbeing, so i would hold companies in this field to greater standards. > Also NLP can be used to protect vulnerable groups from online abuse. Automated filters do not understand sarcasm, quotation, criticism... Sure that avoids the scunthorpe problem, but for example, auto-moderation bots trying to prevent racist abuse often censor black people calling one another the n word, which is completely ok. Nothing can replace moderation. > It helps people find related content (which they enjoy). Maybe, but i doubt it. I've yet to see advertisement/recommendations for content i actually enjoy, or to meet people who have such experiences. I've only ever heard that from advertisers, but maybe you have better experience than i do? > Don't blame technology for the bad actions of companies. Their intentions would have corrupted whatever technology is available. Good point! But technology that makes it easie