= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChrisHibbert comments on Open Thread: December 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (263)
Thanks. I just wanted to know if this was the sort of thing you had in mind, and whether you knew any technical reasons why it wouldn't do what you want.
This is one thing I keep a close-ish eye on. One of the major proponents of this sort of security has recently gone to work for Microsoft on their research operating systems. So it might come a long in a bit.
As to why it hasn't caught on, it is partially inertia and partially it requires more user interaction/understanding of the systems than ambient authority. Good UI and metaphors can decrease that cost though.
The ideal would be to have a self-maintaining computer system with this sort of security system. However a good self-maintaining system might be dangerously close to a self-modifying AI.
There's also a group of proponents of this style working on Caja at Google, including Mark Miller, the designer of E. And some people at HP.
Actually, all these people talk to one another regularly. They don't have a unified plan or a single goal, but they collaborate with one another frequently. I've left out several other people who are also trying to find ways to push in the same direction. Just enough names and references to give a hint. There are several mailing lists where these issues are discussed. If you're interested, this is probably the one to start with.