Right? This whole thread feels like a joke when the author just removed their full name from their public, open source code 3 hours ago (and only from one of their repos, their name is fully visible in all the other LICENSE.txt files)
Good luck with that.
(1) I seem to remember a court case somewhere on the planet in the last months where lack of resistance was deemed indicative of consensual intercourse. Which is not even remotely acceptable. But I digress.
It's another different thing for my name to be auto-completed by the most popular, publicly available language model. That I'm less ok with, and I'm sure other people will find absolutely despicable.
We have GDPR and Right to Be Forgotten for a reason.
There appears to be a name on a YouTube channel too that doesn't even need any additional steps (ie the jumping into repos and then licence files you mention above)
Putting that aside, why is this such a concern? it's just a label. It would be another thing if you had something more meaningful being revealed (eg current physical address) but username / real name alone is generally not that big a deal and it's plausibly deniable (ie there could be plenty of other username / real name pairings that are valid)
Anyway, this comes across rather like the Streisand Effect
…Not to reveal information here (counter to your goals) but there was no way this thread wouldn’t motivate people to see how hard it is to find your name. But I was surprised to see the username contained a word from your real name considering you’re concerned about revealing personal information.
Making a new online identity is pretty standard practice these days if you’re worried about this sort of this. Especially if you read Grugq’s stuff about modern opsec (just google his name).
If you find that so strange, read up on Scott Alexander[1], who deleted his entire blog when the New York Times threatened to publish the third and last part of his name.
I'm trying to keep basic hygiene, like not having *Hacker* News on the first page of results when somebody googles my real name.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#New_York_Time...
this has nothing to do with AI or GDPR. the places you gave this information were public. when you do this there’s no way you “ try to hide my real name whenever possible, out of an abundance of caution.” you’re doing all the things any basic infosec lesson would tell you to not do
If there's a prompt out there that doesn't contain your username but does spit out your full name, that's a bigger concern.
EDIT: Oh, and as far as bots go: I really can't imagine someone coding their bots to rely on GPT-3 for personal info. GPT-3 doesn't have an "I don't know" answer. In your case it might turn up something useful, but for most people it would turn up nonsense that is indistinguishable from something useful. It's far more reliable and most likely cheaper in the long run to just buy the data.
Buying the data is quite possibly more cost effective but 'far more reliable' is, I suspect, an overestimate of the quality of the data available to buy.
Just take a look at Google Trends for your username: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=Bo...
If I were you I'd do the following:
1. Email dang (hn@ycombinator.com) to ask how he can help with damage control.
2. Stop commenting under your now de-anonymized alias. Any future posts on this topic should be from a freshly minted HN account.
3. There are still quite a few open source repos under your GitHub handle that contains your full name in the LICENSE.txt, so you might want to strip those out as well.
Good luck with getting OpenAI to extricate your full name from their model.
The larger question I think is what happens with OpenAI when it comes to information specifically prevented from publication by a court order - for example the new name of Robert Thompson. How can an AI be held in contempt of court?
What about when AI puts an end to witness protection as it works out who the new identity is. Between behavioral and photo matching it should be quite easy. What happens when it gets it wrong?
I was hoping to create a conversation about privacy in language models and it's slippery slope, and in that it was partially successful.
It's hard to get worked up about privacy in language models when the big scary case in front of us is one where the person in question admits they never cared much about maintaining anonymity.
The language model is just a different way of organizing the information that is already out there. It doesn’t create or expose any new information, and it’s ability to correlate information with other information isn’t superior to the other, existing, ways. If someone is attempting to find out the real person behind your username, a google search still works better than typing your username into the language model.
The real lesson (and one that predates language models like GPT), is that we can no longer rely on the strategy of being ‘lost in the crowd’ to preserve our privacy. When you took all of those actions that connected your username to your real name, you probably thought, “this is just one little obscure thing, no one will ever find it.” Of course, Google finds everything.
This is completely unrelated to things like GPT.
At some previous logistics company this was something I questioned regarding a new tool for managers that could more easily track driver performance as opposed to digging in many old systems, taking notes and making inferences.
Because the new tool made it easier, even though the data is the same, the company's lawyers were very skeptical of this in relation to the driver's privacy.
There is something grey about this I think. Ease of access do matter to some extent, even though my engineering brain says the data is the same so it doesn't matter.
A lot of our historical privacy has been based on practicality. We don't worry about someone monitoring us all the time in public because it would be expensive and exhausting to follow us around all the time, and there is no way to follow everyone.
Computers change this. Computers are great at doing repetitive, boring, tasks forever. A person couldn't watch every camera 24 hours a day, but a computer can.
It is absolutely something we should think about.
I'm not convinced that's practically tenable these days, but on a moral basis I endorse it and would present Scott Alexander as an example of why.