Skip to main content

Scott Shapiro - Five Way Interview

Scott Shapiro is the Charles F Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School, where he is Director of the Centre for Law and Philosophy at the CyberSecurity Lab. He is the author of Legality and the co-author with Oona Hathaway of The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. His latest book is Fancy Bear goes Phishing.

Why information technology?

Two reasons. First, I like playing with computers. They’re fun. Second, information technology is a vital interest.  As venture capitalist Marc Andreessen said in his 2011 essay, 'software is eating the world.' It’s transformed industries, businesses, and society. The ten richest people in the world, with a combined wealth of $250 billion, six are tech billionaires and two—Bill Gates and Larry Ellison—are founders of operating system companies—Microsoft and Oracle. That means a couple of things: first, vast global power is now in the hands of those who understand and control the technologies, and second, we have become so interconnected digitally that if one system fails, it can compromise the rest. If we can’t understand how the internet works, how our information is stored, transferred, and manipulated, we can’t keep our information safe. 

Why this book?

Most cybersecurity books fall into two categories: a joyless, 'eat-your-vegetables' style or a breathless, 'run-for-the-hills-now' one. I didn’t want to make people feel guilty about their password choices or terrify them with catastrophic scenarios. That’s counterproductive. The goal of Fancy Bear Goes Phishing is to avoid the two extremes. If anything, it’s more funny than scary. It offers an engaging, entertaining perspective on hacking culture. Hackers are often bored, anxious, insecure teenage boys or underemployed men with the capacity to destabilize our digital lives. I try to provide a compelling account of this human side of hacking while also explaining the more technical elements to people with no background in computer science. 

Does AI have anything to offer to either side of the cybercrime story?

Generative AI is AI that can create new things from existing data. This brings new potential attack, such as the hacking of biometric authentication systems. With deepfakes, voice cloning, and fingerprint generation, hackers can impersonate victims using these new AI technologies. More interesting are 'Hallucination' Attacks. Chatbots often 'hallucinate'—make stuff up (events, people, books, computer programs). In a Hallucination Attack, the hacker creates programs that correspond to hallucinated ones but secretly places malware in them. This is extremely dangerous because users willingly download the poisoned program directly from the hacker’s website. People using AI engines for coding, therefore, should make sure that the AI-recommended module hasn’t been maliciously created by a hacker.

What’s next?

I’m writing a history of Artificial Intelligence and the philosophical critique of AI. The premise of the book is that much of our current confusion with AI—not understanding black box algorithms and how to hold them accountable—has been tackled, and for the most part solved, by 20th century philosophers. These philosophers were perplexed by how we can understand each other; after all, as far as we’re concerned, our skulls are black boxes to one another. Privacy is the hallmark of mental life, yet we understand each other constantly—our intentions, beliefs, feelings—and we hold each other accountable for our actions daily. The goal of the book is to show how to apply philosophical principles that have been developed by philosophers to explain natural intelligences and use them to explain artificial intelligence.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Two years ago, I teamed up with the Yale Computer Science Department and won an NSF grant on Designing Accountable Software Systems. The following example illustrates the focus of our research: Imagine there’s a car accident, and a child is hit by a self-driving car using AI. How do we respond? Whom do we hold responsible? The sad truth is that we don’t know, because we don’t really understand how self-driving cars work. Using philosophical techniques developed in the 20th century and automated reasoning techniques from the 21st century, our team has developed tools to determine the intentions of a self-driving car. No one can immediately tell what the car intends just by looking at the code, but our tool can figure them out by asking the car questions. We can ask the car how it would respond if the child were, say, on the sidewalk. Would it climb the sidewalk? If so, that would be evidence that the car wasn’t suffering from a sensor malfunction, but intended to hit the child. What excites me about the project is that we are using philosophical tests for the existence of intentions, beliefs, and desires and then implementing them computationally using techniques in automated reasoning. Going from a high-level philosophical theory to an app is exciting. 

Image © 2018 Guy Jordan



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more