Software genies

Note, the title doesn't say 'genius' as some might expect. There is a lot of hubris that has been generated by systems weenies, what with the exhibited prowess, the accumulated monies, and the wizardry aura.

Guess what, folks? Throughout our times, humans have been foil for peddlers and malfeasance. Nothing wrong with that, capitalism comes out of that realm. Too, our materialistic, and scientific, progress has caused us to ignore the fact that there is a whole lot that we don't control.

For the most part, the systems, including control, people have won the day. Certain operating systems just crash with no warning (and on a massive scale). So we grumble, but to whom can there be a complaint? Too, the web user, many times, runs into some interminable process (hey, peoples, the basic notion here is undecidability). In this case, just redoing the action can overcome the problem.

There are many, many examples. And, OS, and system, crashes have been the direct cause of billions of losses. How much is being bled, malfeasance'd, from our economy with web-assisted means?

Anyone take the blame here? With these types of losses?

---

Well, in some cases, such as medical computing, we've seen cases where culpability was established and enforced. Too, in flight systems, there is a lot of thought and effort put into safe computing. And, finally, there is going to be an effort at beefing up cyber security.

Ever think the WWW as safe? Of course, that question is directed in the context of mature reason and actual experience. The actions of a whole bunch of unawares seem to indicate that the real problems are not understood. Perhaps, training ought to be better (computing, like other important things, ought to be safe).

Now, did you ever think that computer-related failures would show up in your car? Again, 'computer-related' here subsumes a whole lot, including the systems and the mathematics. Did you think that hubris would allow the spawning of potential 'genies' on the populace on such a large scale (thank goodness, for the older technology)?

But, it has happened and will continue.

---

It's interesting that Consumer Report did some testing before the fact. One thing to be concerned about is the completeness of those things tested before a car is released to the public. Of course, 'completeness' is used advisedly (think Godel), as we cannot attain such, to the nth degree that the political types would like to have us believe.

No, there will be tradeoffs which will require us to be smart. And, the tradeoff analysis ought to be done in a visible arena.

So, we'll see failures. Is the forum open? No, and, then they 'hack' a solution and cast it out across the waters! I guess we need to make it more apparent that changes, themselves release new 'genies' in a manner that requires extreme care (like making software an industry problem, for example).

---

One thing to point out is that hubris leads many to think that some entity that is a collection of systems and sensors is equivalent to a real being. Part of the hubris rests on advances that show that control, and convergence, are partly algorithmic. Yet, that success can hide just how close we come to divergence.

The recent test results point to an area that we need to rethink. And, from this blogger's view, it'll end up requiring what might be specified as 'truth' engineering (of course, there may be a better moniker to use as a handle for the subject).

Remarks:

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

03/09/2013 -- Zeno can be put forth today in other than a facetious sense.

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, driver in the loop, ...

05/10/2010 -- Out of control, essentially. Commentary, and cartoon, via USA Today is right on.

Modified: 01/23/2015

Bottles and genies

Today, we hear rumblings that Russian paid trolls to put out fake news. Heck, Silly Valley has allowed us to get to a situation where we do not know what is what.

And, we just followed them down the path of perdition (I have used perdition a lot in these blogs over the years). How can anyone be surprised? We ought not have let loose the Internet as we did. So, now, it's a mess. It was a mess the whole time after the commercial thrust got going.

I have harped on this a long time. In fact, from a mobile sense, I am 1G/2G. From a computational sense, I do a lot of local processing. I rent a VM for my website. Cloud? It's a muddy mess. I do use it for storage. Carefully.

When I see Silly Valley's results over the past couple of decades, I grieve. I'm old. But, the youngsters are going to have to clean up the messes. Oh sure, jobs.

And so, here we are. I'll have to get back to writing posts, such as these: We let the genie out of the bottle and Genie out of the bottle

Remarks: Modified: 03/31/2017

03/31/2017 --

Trojan hardware

With so many things and events being reliant upon computers now, and with more dependencies being built (and added on) all the time, one has to wonder if anyone has really looked at how good the basis might be.

I know. Several have stuffed their pockets with money (almost beyond calculation) through offerings in these realms. But, we hear the horror stories all the time (genies let out of the bottle?).

On the other hand, there is a seemingly never-ending demand for more and more. How far can we go before we find ourselves entrapped so as to not be able to extricate ourselves?

A recent IEEE Spectrum article looks at one potential area of concern. How much trust can we place in the current methods and the products?

Mitra, S, Wong, H-S, Wong, S. "Stopping Hardware Trojans in Their Tracks" (February 2015)

---

Concern about obtaining compromised hardware has received some attention (see Wikipedia, for example). The IEEE Spectrum article describes some methods for proving that hardware is not problematic and, at the same time, itemizes limitations.

Questions remain: How can we place such unquestioning trust? Who is involved in helping to tackle the problem?

Well, truth engineering has had this focus from the beginning, albeit from a broader scope.

It is nice to see that the NSF has their trust-HUB effort. As well, advanced research (IARPA) under the auspices of national intelligence has been working on ways and means to handle the related problems.

Remarks:   Modified: 03/20/2015

03/20/2015 -- "Can you trust your fridge?" is the head-line in the print version.

Who knows?

Earlier, there was a question about 'who is to know?' in the financial context. Economics is not called 'dismal' for no reason.

Then, we observed the frenzy created by the media about some car problems. Essentially, there are many assumptions about quality that go unaddressed until after the fact of accidents, it seems. Some of this may be due to a slackening of effort, since business has been driven by costs for some time now (that is, the CEO as king as opposed to making the consumer the king, okay?).

But, some problems arise from the difficulties of the cyber-physical. That is, this topic is now being addressed by the NSF, however there is much more to it than the current views cover.

It was good to see in the case of the car problems that experts who are outside the discipline, namely NASA and NAS, are being brought in as these issues go fairly deep. That action raises the level of talent being devoted to the problem and may become more necessary than not as products become more complicated.

By the way, one set of experts addresses myths vs facts. This is an interesting read as it shows that the manufacturer has to consider failure modes in order to instruct the driver what to do when an incident occurs that needs attention. Actually, problem avoidance requires identifying these modes of possible failure, too, so as to lower their possibility during design or to anticipate corrective actions, as we see here.

This, then, raises, again, the question of who represents the consumer in this case? Who would have thought that the merely rolling (as we all do when at a stop light on a hill while we move our foot from the brake to the gas pedal) would raise the likelihood of such a dire consequence?

Remarks:

02/26/2011 -- Another go.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

08/13/2010 -- Recent news that it's user error.

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

Modified: 02/26/2011

Can of worms

Well, who are we to believe? It's turning out that the answer to this question is less certain through time than we would like, in many situations.

In a recent one, the past couple of days has us seeing Toyota trying to disprove one professor by using another. Nothing new about that; science is supposed work via a type of dialectic. But, gamemanship, and such, as the main focus? (A third professor's view)

That people have experienced, and suffered the consequences of, some type of failure of auto control systems is the one fact not to be forgotten.

And, one would hope that the illustrious car company, whose reputation has always been associated with value and quality, will take the high road and do the right thing. Which is? (Note: 03/12/10 -- ah, they are, here is their web site related to recalls)

Well, Congress' panels ought to take the thing to its full extent, or at least as far as their monied selves will let them (definition of the politico set, of late, is characterized by a salivation response to the stimulus of money under the nose).

The Administration needs to live up to its responsibility. Which is? Act as mediator for disparate views (see below) and be an advocate for us, the wee people.

Now, for some of the other roles and views. Engineers need (and ought to be allowed) to work out the technical issues as they may. However, that we're talking hardware (operational and computational - with software for the latter) means that it's a new game. Perhaps, this dilemma might be an opportunity to learn some necessary lessons.

Lawyers? Well, several things here. But, one of these ought not be suppressing the truth by manipulating fear. That counsel goes for both sides. Whose first principles apply?

People, and drivers? Wake the heck up to the growing presence of little hidden 'bots' (general use of a term which is meant to imply that the genie has been let out of the bottle) that can play havoc with us if we don't pay attention. But what are we to do?

Evidently, for awhile, there has been a growing computational framework for the driving platform due to our technical progress of the last few decades. Surprise! Of course, this has been obvious, but we've let ourselves trust too much.

Too, some of us seem to have gone to a total zombie state (you know who you are), in this sense: mind warped by, and wrapped around, an abstracted, thereby virtual, cloud via thumb and eye, in the driving mode, to the extent that the vehicle has become a mindless WMD with no one in control.

Such behavior, on the part of the reckless, has allowed the potentials for devastation, for the driver and for those unlucky souls in the presence of the driver, to increase inordinately.

Of course, we might use that last condition as evidence of the influence that the 'gaming' generation's upbringing (computation in their blood, almost) has had some insidious repercussions that seriously need our attention.

That comment is not being negative; it is more this: the issues related to truth engineering need to be at the forefront (more below) of both an analytic and corrective (in the sense of control theory) stance.

Does failsafe mean anything to the people? Well, we could think of several connotations that are general, but that any of these might pertain to some type of increased certainty needs to be lifted to view for some serious scrutiny.

Why? For a computational system to be risk minimal, there are several things that need to happen. For one, all domains need to be decidable. Okay, sub-domains will be decidable. Any arbitrary collection of these will not, by default, be decidable. It (that is, the order and stability that we all desire) has to be imposed.

By the way, for now, just think of decidable as subsuming stability, convergence, and other numerically behaved properties (technical geeks, be patient, we'll get there - quasi-empiricism).

Too, even if we attain the desired, decidable, state, it may have been due to some type of cleverness and accomplished by a man-in-the-loop. Yet, that 'man' is not everyman but is someone who needs to be cognizant of the decisional issues, to be awake (aware, see above, zombie reference (state of mindless flow (apologies to Buddha) which is insensitive to subtle changes in the related sensors)), and to be experienced (one impetus for the growing use of simulation/visualization in the modern world).

What is decidable? Well, it is not something to assume. Some designers will argue that they've accomplished the necessary assumption set for closure. Ah! In an open framework, such as we see with driving, there is no proof of this. Why do you think that new products require so much testing? Even those with mathematical, and modeling, support need some type of empirical workout (an airplane, for example).

You see, there is really no basic mathematical foundation for these types of decisions that alleviates us of the need for caution. Why do you think that managers and lawyers get involved? Too, the required, onerous, aspects are costly both in time and resources (money, people) so we get the bean counters involved.

Engineers know these things, but they are human and can err.

Who to believe? Well, this is solvable, folks, but requires some effort. We'll use the situation to explore some of the issues and propose possible outcomes.

Leaping ahead: how can we get the proper stable computational bases for these operational entities without some serious cooperation across the industry to the extent, even, of having common platforms?

What? Yes, any creative, and competitive advantage, aspect probably ought to be limited to a small region of performance that could easily be tested.

So, let's bring the concepts of failsafe to fore. This will take a few posts, but here is a short list, for starters.

• Failsafe - acknowledges the possibility of failure and attempts some type of prevention (and lessening) of consequences
• Failure mode - recognition of these is necessary to know how to manage the failures even if they are to occur with minuscule probability
• Who to believe? - yes, in the small world of a system, there will be sensors, decisioners (bow to the great GWB), connectors, and more which at any time can be in conflict (computational sense - constraint satisfaction, NP, meaning hard) about what they know and what to do; too, there will be need some type of rectification (we might say, auto programmers, like quants, ignore complexity) even if the situation is undecidable (that's one reason for overrides, folks - yet, a mere brake override is not sufficient)

In terms of the last item, yes, the macro issues very much parallel those of the micro view. Or, we can look at it the other way.

We all learn conflict resolution in kindergarten or earlier. As we know, conflicts are real, some may even say essential (think ca-pital-sino). And, we know that power from the top-down (hammering down the opposition, for the politocos) can suppress the truth, thereby causing easy (or so it seems) resolution (which usually is a partial solution).

That this situation exists can allow a more complete discussion of some important issues (subsequent posts).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/26/2011 -- Another go.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/15/2010 -- Response to Toyota by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. Did Toyota really use 'infallible' in describing their systems? One professor seems to think so.

03/12/2010 -- Of course, some media may be better than others. Popular Mechanics has a good article about the Toyota issue. Notice the comments: a wide range, some seemingly coherent and well expressed. However, that the overall tone of the article suggests user error as the chief problem is something that ought to be analyzed itself. For instance, if the accelerator and the brake pedals are being confused by the foot and mind of the driver, is that not indicative that someone didn't think to cause sufficient means to differentiate the two? Ah, ought there not to have been some studies to 'optimize' such selection? One problem with the modern world, folks, is that we apply set discriminators (in general, separation algorithms) without regard to some of the nuances that apply. Oh yes. One criticism of Lean (and Toyota's system) is that is cuts to the quick in a very efficient manner; at the same time, these actions leave a state in which it is very hard to recover traces sufficient for analysis, many times. That is one thing the NHTSA ought to look at in terms of what might be necessary to perform ex-post-facto diagnosis.

03/12/2010 -- Forgot to mention one player, namely the media, especially TV. Guys/gals, don't monkey with reports in order to emphasize some viewpoint, such as ABC is accused of doing. Oh, it's just editing, they claim. Wait, aren't media businesses just like the car makers driven by market share and profit? ... The question was asked: doesn't the public know that Toyota, with all its resources, hasn't looked at the underlying issues? Well, we also know that Toyota publicly admitted moving negatively on a quality line in order to put resources toward expansion of the market share. How to attain balance? Good question in that even the best-and-brightest fail regularly.

Modified: 01/22/2013