Ferrari exec foils deepfake attempt by asking a question only CEO could answer
fortune.com
fortune.com
"What creature sat in the corner the first time that Harry Potter visited my office at Hogwarts?"
Though, given the events of the fourth book, every participant in the war must be incompetent at warcraft – which we do see in subsequent books. You could argue it's consistent with the characters being incredibly complex (traumatised veterans, ego-fuelled tunnel-vision, not actually caring about victory, etc)… but realistically they were written by a millionaire[1] with no experience of war, and are fairly one-dimensional characters.
[1]: Sunday Mirror, Jul 9, 2000.
That's what you think the biggest issues is with the writing in Harry Potter, and not the underutilization of a time travelling deice they only hand out to a student so she can ... take extra classes?
Don't get me wrong, I loved the books as a child, but as a grown-up now, they haven't aged well at all when you start to realized all the massive plot holes and sloppy writing.
Read the books instead of assuming things. The books are very clear on the point that food cannot be magically created.
I did, but that was about 20 years ago, I don't remember much from then except bits and pieces which may or may not be accurate as they're mixed in with the residual images form the movies.
You couldn't make it up.
via auto translate, the 10 points are: Complexity has always existed. Complexity always increases. There is a light side and a dark side of complexity. The signature of complexity is the power law. Complexity manifests itself according to models that can be reconstructed ex post. There is the dilemma of complexity. The complexity of the social world is the highest. Complexity, paradoxes and metamorphoses: the hidden plot. Autonomy and cooperation: the mix for navigating complexity. Complex thought and simple action.
everyone's a spy now.
We’ve graduated to everyone being a scammer / impersonator / saboteur.
Maybe we will pivot back to in-person meetings for important transactions.
Some large company will claim to invent a product that solves the problem. It will fail some of the time, but that doesn't matter as customers of the product will have someone to blame. No one will ever be actually held accountable for failures as some combination of lawsuits and "you're holding it wrong" will be sufficient to deflect liability from the large company. And anyway there's no real choice as all the other large companies who also have solutions in this area are equally as bad.
There’s many hopes riding on decentralized options.
But verification is hard.
Which is why all information networks tend to concentrate in some form or the other - to reduce the effort needed to authenticate
We even have hardware keys that are capable of that in most big corp techworkers pockets already.
When an "emergency" happens, and the caller claims they're not able to use the regular channels of communication, how do you authenticate them?
What is hard is getting this implemented in consumer apps in a way that user doesn't need to know nor fully understand it, but only understand it to a degree to differenciate unsafe channels from safe.
> The Vigna deepfaker began explaining that he was calling from a different mobile phone number because he needed to discuss something confidential
Also, phones get stolen and people lose their phones. This is fundamentally a social problem. Technology can help but not solve it.
hallucinations aren't a problem for well trod ground.
SSH is another example of something that productized the ideas in PGP but easy and straightforward (for typical Unix users at least)
I'm sure there's others
<https://web.archive.org/web/20230603101919/https://old.reddi...>
It turns out that the inconvenience and costs of face-to-face and even physical written communications are both their bad and good characteristics. Yes, you incur costs, yes, they're inconvenient, but you can far more readily verify that someone is who they say they are, and increase any possible attackers' costs phenomenally.
The thought occurs that very limited communications / interactions channels may be an increasingly valuable trust feature in future, though the current pitfall of such approaches is that you're very often interacting with someone who's using the same (or very similar) insecure systems as you'd be using yourself directly.
The other possibility is that new protocols and institutions will emerge to help deal with the problem. One interpretation of the Axial Age[1] is that the emergence of writing and sprawling empires co-evolved social-alignment mechanisms, a combination of moral philosophy and religion, which enabled at least four cultures to deal with the emerging complexities and trust challenges, in persia, India, China, the Greco-Roman world, and the Levant. The religious and philosophical institutions which emerged emphasized trust, obedience, loyalty, and respect, and probably had much to do with the success of those societies. Keep in mind that the level of reliability needn't match what we generally expect today in high-trust cultures, only that there be a relative advantage to the contemporary immediate neighbours those empires engaged with.
It's also true that comms can interact positively to trust, or at least to validation and enforcement, though audits, registers, double-entry bookkeeping, monitoring, and surveillance. Though to my mind those replace social trust values with technological trust mechanisms. Which somewhat underlines my initial point.
_______________________
Notes:
1. See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age>
Google Translate changed it to "Decalogue of complexity. Act, learn and adapt in the incessant evolution of the world". Evolution is a much better word than "Becoming", but "Acting, Learning and Adapting" from their translation is better.