@SteveBellovin@infosec.exchange
Post #3924987
2026-07-19 02:33 UTC
"NIST Mathematical Proof Supports Transition to a Continuous-Monitor-and-Update Security Model for AI Systems": https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-mathematical-proof-supports-transition-continuous-monitor-and-update
In essence, this is an extension of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to AI guardrails.
Replies (1)
-
@agreeable_landfall@mastodon.social 2026-07-19 05:24
@SteveBellovin@infosec.exchange So the AI guardrails are either inconsistent or incomplete? The article says that this is only true for a "finite" set of guardrails, yet at any point in time, they will be finite. They appear to argue that the more patches you apply, the better your code will be. Decades of software engineering literature shows that the opposite is true. At some point, software hits a point of "minimum bugs", and changes past that make it _worse_. So AI security is no better than any other code.