jfyi

I don't think soft skills describes it in the traditional sense. The skillset largely needed with LLMs is more akin to being an editor or qa tester.

I suppose you could describe having the modesty to admit to yourself when you don't understand and research something deeper could be described as a soft skill, but I'd say it's a stretch. You are dealing with yourself in that scenario, not others.

I disagree, both of those are skills.

Neither are skills that a large portion of users of those services pursue to any meaningful extent, I'll grant you that. They also certainly are not synonymous with the term "soft skills" as I know it. So I think I am on your side of the fence on that part any way.

Why do you assume the cert would be tied to the camera?

Anyone that has seen someone take a strong dose of datura can attest that what you are saying is all correct. It is not a traditional psychedelic in any way, shape, or form.

It's wild seeing someone fully interact with a reality that isn't there and then come back not knowing anything about what happened. I had a friend in the early 2000's that had us video tape and babysit him. He had a half hour long conversation with his dead mother on a telephone that wasn't there. Also, he chain smoked non existent cigarettes for hours. He knew we were there and interacted with us, but he had no continuity.

How do you think it's an issue with what I've explained already? You are just repeating yourself now.

Let's see if you can even explain what I am telling you.

What would be the first step to resolve this issue in the system I am proposing?

And that's problematic if the certificate is also stolen at the same time, but that's why there is an authority to validate issues and address what needs to be done to resolve them.

Next one please.

Then the cert is pulled with a date and the timestamps on the images can be used to verify when they happened. This is generally how you'd handle theft. You can then also resign with a new cert at a later date.

Besides, after a famous journalist dies, their work is already famous, people already know it or don't. This is a contrived and irrelevant example.

Again, this is not hypothetical, we already know how this works. Next one please.

I have already said, it's done by establishing trust by tying identity to images. Your assertions aren't a counter to that. You thinking they are shows a lack of understanding of how to verify truth on a fundamental level.

Let's also list the points you have conceded by quietly giving them up:

1. Hacking the camera is irrelevant.

2. Images can be verified.

Do you want to actually engage with the conversation? The funny thing is that there are engineering challenges in this space, but you don't seem to understand the basics well enough to even get to that point.

Yes, "the public" includes experts in the subject field and independent witnesses to events.

If your argument is that images can't be verified, you are going to need to provide some kind of backing to that. We know well that there are watermarks and tell tale signs to go off. Regardless, if they are depicting real world events, outside confirmation can be used.

You also don't seem to understand the point of the signature. It's not to prevent fake images, it's to tie an identity to images so that that trust can be established and permanently lost in the case of a malicious actor. Your arguments repeatedly have failed to engage with the actual system proposed.

Same way it works for tls and code signing. Public reports bad actors to the signing authority. They and/or independent firms investigate. You self report theft. It's not like we are inventing pki from scratch here and wondering what an implementation would look like. We have decades of use to look at.

Besides wasn't your argument "hacking" a minute ago? So you concede that then? You seem to have moved on.

A camera should not need to be hacked. What do you expect to accomplish by hacking the camera?

We should be able to move certificates on and off it because they would most likely expire anyway. So, you can get the keys from the camera, what then? You use openssl to sign an image that shouldn't be signed... what then? You do this enough and get caught, you lose your cert and can never pass the kyc to get another one.

Then every picture you used it for in the past would start showing a big red exclamation point with a note, "This is a scumbag user known for forging images".

The premise is not that it couldn't be faked. It would be more practical to remove the key from the hardware and just use it to sign images if you wanted to do that.

The idea is that a centralized source of trust would revoke certificates belonging to bad actors or those that were stolen.

With photos, I could see a cryptographic solution. Of course it would still need some kind of centralized trust, but it's doable if people cared enough. It could be applied by cameras themselves.

The foundational failing I see in my countrymen is the notion that China can't innovate. Their economic reliance on exports is not untrue. Just like their reliance on energy imports is a fact (though one that we are seeing right now become more questionable.)

The average American will keep shouting over and over again that "China can't innovate" while they quietly and slowly tick off every box on their checklist of issues. It doesn't end well for us.

What exactly was my example? You agreed with me already. Kind of odd to flip around now.

> which are like you said handled

Also, I corrected your misstatement about payments. They have absolutely nothing to do with decomp, and certainly can't be used to dismiss the entire attack surface of a mobile banking app. Your example is complete nonsense.

You are really digging a hole here.

You were the one that brought up payments though. Nobody else specified. They just said it could be hacked, which you seem to agree with.

So your professional opinion is that the attack surface of mobile banking apps is limited to tokenized payments? Honestly, I'd be appalled if tokens were routed through my banking app. There is no reason the local client needs that data.

It's pretty safe to say that most people don't know what cloudflare does, if they even know that it exists.

It's ok, someone else can maintain it.

Yeah, this is the point. I don't understand the bulk of this conversation. Copyright doesn't matter, the books themselves don't matter. All that matters is that their corpus of training data grows faster than their competitors.

No, I am trying to clarify your position and have already given mine. If you were actually unclear, how did you expect a rebuttal to be taken seriously? Pick one, concede the other and we can go from there.

So, I'll ask directly. Are you a paleo-libertarian?

Can you express your viewpoint without questions or using my viewpoint for reference? Does your world view vanish if I am not around?

I'm curious about this. Can you explain your viewpoint without asking questions?

Also, do you identify as a "Libertarian" or "paleo-libertarian"? I really think the difference should be more evident in conversations like this.

We're talking early boom? Like WW2 era? It was more industrial. If we are defining tech worker as a person that worked at a factory for technology, I am pretty sure there is a history of immigration there too.

I don't think we could cleanly say either way though, it would come down to nitpicking the definition of "tech worker". I have no real interest in that, and will grant you could look at it either way.

I'm not sure you can use state violence as a counter to a complaint about state violence.

If your point is that we don't have easy solutions, yes I agree.

I'd also point out that the distinction I am making is state vs personal not violence vs non violence.

I am opposed to borders on a fundamental, ideological level. They are an expression of state violence prohibiting natural freedom of movement and trade.

I don't believe that is actually a commonly held capital "L" Libertarian belief though, and certainly would not associate myself with that party.

IDOR is a well known security issue that can result in exactly the scenario described (someone incrementing a counter in a url) and has on many occasions in different jurisdictions caused legal issues for the person doing it. Unless you are specifically asking for a hn reference, which I don't understand the relevance but I'm sure they exist.

> the main crowd are wannabe master manipulators. also, they can often be distilled to a couple chapters, not sure why they're so long.

Yes! Very similar to my own criticisms. It's thinly veiled authoritarianism. Nobody handing you one of these books is ever doing it for your benefit despite framing it that way. The message always is, "this is the behavior I expect out of you".

As to the content density, they all tend to ape Dale Carnegie's work. Carnegie himself borrowing heavily from Ben Franklin, who actually had a lifetime of interesting anecdotes. If you don't have that, you spin out 80 pages worth of filler.

Yeah, I got something similar from Gemini as the first sentence which could be taken out of the larger context easily. The overall answer is very balanced, I assume it was here too. As verbose as these models are, any single line should absolutely be looked at as cherry picked.

A generation ship is probably doable with some level of conceivable technology. We just have to figure out how to be self sufficient out there then we have all the time in the world, or universe. That's a big "just", I know.

I had books that I scoured from the visiting nurses book sale every year and phrack. That's not much different than yt or ai. I guess there was less direct context with the books, but grasping the basics got you further.

It's ok that we disagree though.