IBM's New Microchip Simulates Human Brain
- Thread starter Blackwell Stith
- Start date
they did it by exploiting a bug in sites code that allowed them to acess databases. A similar example was the heartbleed bug although how this one works is undisclosed as far as i know. Granted, that is not a persons fault in this case, however its worth noting that any website worth its salt will have those passwords encrypted with at least basic encryptions.elvor0 said:
Actually there are programs that DOES guess passwords based on common words, so dictionary passwords are not going to cut it on the list or off the list.
When it comes to hackers and viruses its always a lost man race though. we are always playing the reactionary game to react to what these people have done, as there is no way to be 100% secure from them with prevention. the questions are only whether the few people that can really break into anything is going to bother with your crummy forum by making a risk of being caught and how well prepared we are to make all the rest not get in.
Sadly, As far as password hacking and credit card/internet accounts hacking goes, it has been overwhelmingly taken over by organized crime nowadays, and those are the people that can afford to hire blackhats.
Oh, well presuming I'm out of the loop now, the article that was on the escapist said that the report didn't disclose /how/ they managed to get the passwords, just that they did, which was the case when I quoted you, so I'm guessing the bug is new news. In which case you were right, human error is actually applicable here.Strazdas said:
True, there are programs for that, and I'm not suggesting using one word is good as a password, just that for the most part they're more secure than they're made out to be. Obviously still not great, but more than enough to keep most garden variety hackers away from your facebooks. If someones /really/ determined and has enough skill/resources to hack something, they'll have other aways around it even if your password is extremely secure. But then of course otherwise it can tie greatly into human error/stupidity for bugs and them scary viruses.
The amount of people who are still terrified of or fucking terrible at using the internet is overwhelming. Does this ad look like it would be represented as a gangster on a corner, flipping a nickle and chewing a toothpick? Yes? Then don't fucking click it. Viruses that allow hacking would stop being an issue for the most part if people used their sodding heads. It's like all common sense goes out of the window because it's a computer and PCs are scary.
The brain has 100 billion neurons, and this tiny little chip can simulate 1 million. So in theory, couldn't you just increase the volume of the chip by 100,000 and to properly simulate a human brain? I imagine making an intelligent AI is a lot more difficult than that, given that the neurons are different and the human brain has a lot more components than that, but it's just some food for thought.
they did not disclose how, just that it was an exploit, meaning they found a bug somewhere and used it for their benefit.elvor0 said:
i do agree that there are some overzelous password management on some sites. like one forcing you to letter, number, uppercase, X characters lenght. well, you just pretty much told the cracked what to look for rather than making it secure you know.
Most facebook hacks, a vast majority, is done via social engineering instead. that is making people spell thier passwords out rather than flat out cracking. thats all human error here.
the worst ads are those that go "you got a message" or "we detected a virus on your computer" because people always click on those and download said virus. ive seen how it happens. a person opened a site, first thing he did was click on this ad. whne i asked him why he did such a stupid thing his response was "but it said i have a virus". "well, now you do".
ive seen people pretty much shut their brains off when sitting in front of computer. to the point of not even knowing how to follow specific instructions. ive read stories of people believing when some technician jokes about performing voodoo on computer to make it work or that when something burned "The magic smoke escaped" to the point of where the user used umbrelas inside a building to try and catch the magic smoke.
well, first of all, ghz is not everything. it gives you the frequency which traditionally was good way to measure performance, however a lot of improvements were done on design. IPT (instruction cycle per clock tick, Instruction Per Tick for short) is very relevant now. for example a single core of i7 processor running at 2.4ghz will give you TWICE as much processing power than a single core of dualcore intel processor running at 2.4ghz. Same frequency - twice the performance. so ghz isnt the only way to measure things.Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
quick edit: found wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle
Now lets ignore what i said here for a second and look at GHZ which is still important even if not the only measure.
A modern i7 has 4 physical, but hyperthreaded to 8 cores. lets say its overclocked to 4ghz. this means that this processor could theoretically perform at a combined 4x8=32GHz rate. This is half of your unrealistic gaming processor right there. Now, there are AMD processor chips with 16 cores, however they will not outperform that i7 due to AMD having lower IPT count which they try to compensate with more cores (basically intel use modern infrastructure but less cores, AMD use older infrastructure but more cores. looks nice whne trying to sell "look at me i got 16 core processor", but in practice i7 will outperform it. i7 is more expensive too though. also i will always suggest "i" generation chips because a single core is more powerful there and lets be honest 99% of software, including games, simply does not utlize)more than 2-4 cores.
Now we come down to you cracking in a minute. Last year a prize competition winner was a computer that can fit in your pocket and can crack a 6 character password in under 30 minutes bruteforcing it. it would take it less than a minute for a 5 character password. however, the same computer would take years upon years cracking my 11 character password that i consider my weakest password that i still use. So without knowing the lenght and complexity of the password (did it utilize full UTF spectrum or limited to letters/numbers?) i got no idea whether that Uplink cracker was realistic, but we do have impressive technology and also our passwords are pretty safe from bruteforcing yet.
A machine that could buteforce anything in a minute? damn thats fast, id wish it would never come true though because thats hackers heaven.
you would have the problem of making all those 100.000 chips work together in harmony, as human brain does. and while there are frankenstein supercomputers built out of 500 PS3 cpus, they mostly do raw number processing that some outside source feeds and splits into their cores, not even close to actually harmonically working as a single superCPU.Zak757 said:
I only read the title of this thread and I know it's bull. No microchip can simulate a human brain. That won't be possible for quite a while longer.
Well, already employers around here are you going to look at you weridly and consider you less of a candidate if you don't have Facebook. That's more than mere peer pressure.FalloutJack said:
While it's true that the only thing you absolutely, positively have no choice about doing is dying, there are more and more concessions you have to give out if you want to actually live a little.
That's no more or less than peer pressure. I don't have to bank, shop, work, or get medical help online. They're conveniences only. Communicating online by ANY means is completely elective. Facebook, in my case, is completely out of the question, as I view it distastefully as a pointless distraction rather than a boon to anything I could be doing with my time. It's all a matter of values, but there is no reason or coersion strong enough to demand you do anything.Vegosiux said:
The thing is, I don't understand the nature of the force we're talking about. It is, perhaps, because I am not personally being affected by any.Vegosiux said:
Come on, Vego. That's not a very good parallel. Gravity is completely different from anything done by a human. You can't tell a person that they're being prodded into everything when they alone decide. I'm here on the internet because I want to be. The only propelled force is my own curiosity, which is not an outside force. I don't HAVE TO be here or anywhere, so it's completely not like gravity at all. If this is turning into a philosophical free will debate, we're not going to get anywhere at all with it.Vegosiux said:
No it's not, every human does gravity. NOTE: I only said this because I felt like being a smartass.FalloutJack said:
That depends. Our decision-making is not made in a vacuum, there's always a cost/benefit analysis involved, even if it's merely subconscious. Even decisions made on a whim, that simply means we suddenly decide there's no cost.
Or let me put it this way. People using the internet is something that's second nature to the younger generations in the Western world. They use it because "that's just how the world is these days". If that's not the penultimate example of the force peer pressure can exert, I don't know what it is.
I really doubt that every day, people consciously decide "I'm going to go on internet today".
Sarcasm and being a smartass don't translate well online.Vegosiux said:
Anyway, I wouldn't view that as force. That's progression. It may be subconscious, but it's not due to anyone making anyone do it except to themselves out of a fundamental wish. There are also people whose lives don't have much of this and will never. Bigger than just the exception to the rule.
Sounds interesting and all but I keep getting bugged by the billion number.
Is is 1,000,000,000,000 (as I believe written 1 million million)
Or is it 1,000,000,000 (which I think is 1 thousand million)
Is is 1,000,000,000,000 (as I believe written 1 million million)
Or is it 1,000,000,000 (which I think is 1 thousand million)