Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by JulianMorrison on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:08AM (#11923054)

What you're trying to solve is something very similar to the recursive self improvement problem that MIRI[1] and friends are trying to solve in the sphere of "friendly" artificial intelligence. If something rewrites its own source code, how can you assert invariants that can be relied upon? So going and looking over there at what they've come up with may be fruitful.

[1] https://intelligence.org/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by grandalf on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:19AM (#11923138)

Very interesting! Looking at the papers and going to read them. Any specific papers you'd recommend?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by Eliezer on Friday June 17, 2016 @12:41PM (#11923666)

"Tiling agents" would be the most arguably relevant. Provably correct agents that approve the construction of other probably correct agents obeying similar invariants.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by semi-extrinsic on Friday June 17, 2016 @01:31PM (#11924096)

Is "probably" there meant to be "provably"? I assume so, but I'm not sure.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by christo on Sunday June 19, 2016 @08:05AM (#11932690)

Probably.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by grandalf on Friday June 17, 2016 @01:29PM (#11924080)

Thanks! Looks very interesting!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by JulianMorrison on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:49AM (#11923327)

Sorry, not qualified to have an opinion. Opening this question to the floor?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by nialo on Saturday June 18, 2016 @12:01PM (#11929147)

Note that this probably means that designing contracts of this sort of "friendly AI complete" in some sense, and therefore not a good thing to be betting on in the short term.

[ Parent | on HN ]