>> Not to mention they lack Phil's epic level of competence and hacking finesse.<<
Finesse may be the saving element here. As an example, if Jarvis were programmed to display an "intruder alert" on every screen, the most subtle, least invasive change to his programming would be to simply alter the color assigned to said display-- not to the point of invisibility, but well into the range of dimmed, muddy grays that'll be completely overwhelmed by the otherwise unchanged display, even if the text is flashing. That allows the program to run otherwise unmolested, and if Phil can get past that without triggering the next level of defenses (e.g., an audio alert), it's also the least amount of effort on Phil's part. Elegance and gentleness- changing a visibility element, rather than bashing the subroutine into nonexistence- would appeal to Tony, and thus to his offspring, Jarvis.
Jarvis, a self-directed AI, would have self-checking subroutines which compare his current programming to both his defaults and to the short- and long-term backups made in regular cycles. (Imagine how long a single hour is in processing cycles, computations per second, and the relatively tiny window of opportunity makes Phil's accomplishment all the greater.) Because Jarvis is self-directed, he wouldn't blindly follow a protocol which would overwrite ANY part of his code. How DID Phil accomplish that? Either through misdirection, conducting simultaneous changes to two or more subroutines (How much free processing power, equaling 'attention' in humans, does Jarvis denote to certain areas? How much wiggle room does that allow for any potential hacker?), outright subversion/deletion (which is akin to amputating a finger to treat a hangnail), or--
The "or" is where the focus of the story shifts. The "or" is actually the first evidence in movie canon that Jarvis made a judgement call about Agent Coulson of SHIELD. And that same "or" will show us an awful lot about Phil, perhaps even a little bit of how Flip developed into Agent Coulson.
Re: Oh, Phil!
Finesse may be the saving element here. As an example, if Jarvis were programmed to display an "intruder alert" on every screen, the most subtle, least invasive change to his programming would be to simply alter the color assigned to said display-- not to the point of invisibility, but well into the range of dimmed, muddy grays that'll be completely overwhelmed by the otherwise unchanged display, even if the text is flashing. That allows the program to run otherwise unmolested, and if Phil can get past that without triggering the next level of defenses (e.g., an audio alert), it's also the least amount of effort on Phil's part. Elegance and gentleness- changing a visibility element, rather than bashing the subroutine into nonexistence- would appeal to Tony, and thus to his offspring, Jarvis.
Jarvis, a self-directed AI, would have self-checking subroutines which compare his current programming to both his defaults and to the short- and long-term backups made in regular cycles. (Imagine how long a single hour is in processing cycles, computations per second, and the relatively tiny window of opportunity makes Phil's accomplishment all the greater.) Because Jarvis is self-directed, he wouldn't blindly follow a protocol which would overwrite ANY part of his code. How DID Phil accomplish that? Either through misdirection, conducting simultaneous changes to two or more subroutines (How much free processing power, equaling 'attention' in humans, does Jarvis denote to certain areas? How much wiggle room does that allow for any potential hacker?), outright subversion/deletion (which is akin to amputating a finger to treat a hangnail), or--
The "or" is where the focus of the story shifts. The "or" is actually the first evidence in movie canon that Jarvis made a judgement call about Agent Coulson of SHIELD. And that same "or" will show us an awful lot about Phil, perhaps even a little bit of how Flip developed into Agent Coulson.