Further, the basic method of monitoring multiple
semi-autonomous artificial agents can be applied to other circumstances. For
example, evolutionary algorithms may one day give us the ability to have a host
of agents operating in defense of a computer network – perhaps even a national,
multi-national or effectively global network. A sufficient advanced artificial
intelligence or a team of human security experts or some combination thereof
might maintain oversight and focus resources automatically when the normal,
lower-level agents seemed challenged or outmatched. The triggers for this
intervention would likely be numerous, and balanced by the need to avoid
overreacting or overcommitting resources. But events such as an indication of clear
data breaches in a sub-network, or encryption requiring intense supercomputing
or quantum-computing analysis, or even a tricky political judgement call (such
as repeated attacks seemingly sourced from the computers of a hostile nation or
private organization) may require more advanced thinking or vastly greater
processing power than might otherwise be available.
Similarly, an AI and/or human team attempting to deal with a
nanotech attack involving a multitude of differing and rapidly changing
molecular machines might have to allow a degree of automatic response occur on
the local level while gathering information, assessing successful and
unsuccessful tactics and sourcing resources as appropriate. A bioweapons attack
using a multitude of natural and/or artificial plagues might require a similar
capacity to respond at both a conscious and unconscious level.
The basic system would effectively be multi-layered. The
simplest and most widespread elements of each system will collect information
and begin any reflexive responses they have automatically – whether they are
digital medical instruments, spectroscopic air readings, online objects in the
Internet of Things, anti-virus programs running on individual PCs, tablets,
smartphones and microcomputers, independent software security agents, or
nanites or natural or artificial biological elements of a human or
civilizational immune system.
Hence, antivirus programs looped into this system would
engage their usual resources, but also alert another node about attacks that
were unusual in their frequency or nature, and pass on what was observed
diagnostically as well the real or apparent source of the attacks. The node
being contacted would collect information either to be passed on further or
analyzed there. Once analyzed, the software would determine if there were a
source – or a highly compromised network or set of networks – which could be
cut off in response to the issue, or whose operators could be alerted to their
vulnerable state. That analysis would also help determine whether experts
should be proactively notified of the issue. As the technology advanced,
running genetic algorithms to see how existing security software could be
immunized against a virus and its immediate variations would also be an option.
The power to perform critical actions, such as contacting a hostile
organization being used unknowingly as the host for attacks; determining the
source of the attacks or actively going after that source would be left in the
hands of the highest-level decision makers in the system.
Alternatively, a doctor examines a patient with very bad
case of the flu, and the strain is automatically analyzed and its DNA
transmitted securely for at least partial sequencing. A cursory examination of
the strain determines whether it is a normal strain of the flu, a more
dangerous variant, or something altogether different from a known normal
disease to newly discovered natural virus to a bio-weapon. Anything flagged as
dangerous triggers a notification, but also begins whatever responses can be
automated in terms of assessing the risks, geolocating incidents of infection
and its vectors, developing a vaccine in a secure location and notifying all
networked sensors and medical personnel to be aware of this specific threat. If
information came about additional instances involving different diseases, for
example in the case of a rapidly mutating virus, multiple diseases being
released intentionally and/or artificial bioweapons, this information could be
gathered and cross-referenced even as the work to deal with the existing health
issues continued in the field. Dealing with nano-terrorism could be similar,
though the first signs could come from security systems that carefully analyze
and filter air noting unusual materials (or unusually structured materials)
showing up in their continuous spectroscopic analysis of the solids, liquids
and gases filtered out or other high-end security options. Alternatively, as
sensors and immense processing power become more ubiquitous, information
collected for medical or scientific reasons may note such an intrusion,
especially if the raw data (particularly data collected at a government’s
behest, or with their primary funding) is used to help assess potential
catastrophic threats (such as bio or nano-terrorism).
If dealing with such a problem, the creation of countering
agents or even immunizing species – viruses which have no effect other than
triggering natural immune systems against dangerous plagues, or defensive
nanites built to eliminate invasive ones – could occur locally under the
direction of a central source or, especially in the case of furiously changing
bio- or nano-threats, could transpire semi-autonomously, with responses
occurring within established parameters and data on the steps taken being
transmitted to the oversight centers which would be given veto power on extreme
measures (fire to purge contaminated buildings, releasing potentially
uncontrollable, self-sustaining nanites into the wild) and which could
intervene as needed, but which would otherwise allow each local actor respond
to the best of their ability, albeit while fully informed of the best practices
as yet uncovered.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home