You got my vote! Too bad there isn't any way to actually vote for this (and that is by design.)
5,895 karma · joined March 29, 2014
Which is why I say it would destroy privacy/pseudonymity.
> For photos and video, this might be OK if there's a way to reliably distinguish "photos of real things" from "photos of AI images";
I suspect if you think about it, many of the issues with text also apply to images and videos.
You'd need a secure enclave You'd need a chain of signatures and images to allow human editing. You'd need a way of revoking the public keys of not just insecure software, but bad actors. You would need verified devices to prevent allowing AI tooling the using software to edit the image....etc.
This are only the flaws I can think of in like 5 minutes. You've created a huge incentive to break an incredibly complex system. I have no problem comfortably saying that the end result is a complete lack of privacy for most people while those with power/knowledge would still be able to circumvent it.
I would also argue that those techniques do greatly reduce privacy and anonymity.
I understand the technical side of the suggestion. The social and practical side is inevitably flawed.
You need some sort of global registry of public keys. Not only does each registrar have to be trusted but you also need to both trust every single real person to protect and not misuse their keys.
Leaving aside the complete practical infeasability that, even if you accomplish it, you now have a unique identifier tied to every piece of text. There will inevitably be both legal processes to identify who produce a signed work as well as data analysis approaches to deanonamize the public keys.
The end result is pretty clearly that anyone wishing to present material that purports to be human made has to forgo anonymity/pseudonymity. Claiming otherwise is like claiming we can have a secure government backdoor for encryption.
I also specifically used the term "misuse" to significantly weaken my claim. I mean only to say that the risks and downsides are often poorly understood, not that there are no good uses.
Can it? We can only work with things we can name and the real numbers we can name are an infinitesimal fraction of the real numbers. (The nameable reals and sets of reals have the same cardinality as integers while the rest are a higher cardinality.)
I suspect we'll find that the amount of technical debt and loss of institutional knowledge incured by misuse of these tools was initially underappreciated.
I don't doubt that the industry will be transformed, but that doesn't mean that these tools are a panacea.
What do you think partisanship is these days?
I explained the active harm in the very sentence you quoted.
>> he told me that a SWAT team showed up with AR-15s after someone gave a false tip to the local sheriff’s office that Arbaugh was in danger.
I'm not a big fan of Musk for a number of different reasons. I'm even less a fan of the cult of hatred that pops up whenever his name is mentioned.
I'd rather look like a goof (nothing wrong with being goofy or weird sometimes) than help spread hatred.
I don't agree.
> Yes, we can borrow from German; that doesn't make it suddenly become English.
It doesn't suddenly become English. It happens gradually as more English speakers encounter the word and start using the word.
Dictionaries start adding the word as usage becomes widespread. If a borrowed word is frequently used in an English context by English speakers and is understood by English speakers and that is widespread enoythat it is listed in English dictionaries...it is pretty safe to say that the word is part of the English language.
While I do speak German, I learned the English word "schadenfruede" well before I started studying any German. Similarly, I don't speak any Russian but I know what "kefir" means. I didn't learn it from a Russian, I learned it from other English speakers in the course of speaking English about 20 years ago. In fact, I didn't even know that word originally came from Russian until very recently.
Part of why English is so hard to learn for non-native speakers is because it is full of loan words from lots if languages. Many of them you probably don't even realize originally came from other languages.
In english, "salsa" means a spicy dip made from peppers and other vegetables. In spanish, "salsa" just mean a sauce.
Loan words are a well estabished mechanism by which words enter a language from another langues. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword
Loanwords spread from their point of adoption into the wider language and can shift from the original meaning, just like other words.
"Kefir" has definitions in every major dictionary and is often used in contexts where all the other words are also english. That makes it pretty conclusively an English word.
It isn't "shifting goal posts"...It's called updating your beliefs when the evidence proves them wrong. Many religions have a strong history of doing this and it is something that flat earthers don't do.
> Flat earthers do almost the same thing just they use conspiracy theories instead.
If you don't understand the epistemological difference, you should try educating yourself. There is quite a bit of scholarly work on this...
You can't actually do that in an internally consistent way. (Or atleast I've never seen it.) It isn't only interally incosistent but those theories also break down if you look at them too closely. That's why so much of flat earthism relies on conspiracy theories that are used to justify ignoring phenomena rather than actually investigating it.
You're conflating physics and metaphysics.
> Flat earth is very similar to religion
You seem to have a beef to pick with religion. There are religious groups that do function similar to flat earthers, but that isn't true of all religious groups and many of the smartest and open minded people in history have been religious.
If anything, by making this comparison you are legitimizing idiocy.
There's a big difference between taking a position on unknowable metaphysical topics and refusing to recognize or even look at evidence when presented to you.
This could be a non-native speaker, but the complexity of the attempted sentence structure leads me to think it is a native or fluent speaker who made some mistakes (I make those kinds of mistakes all the time.)
I feel like you are missing some words or have some typos because this isn't comprehensible English.
I've yet to see a single comment here that referrences any of the facts or ideas presented in the article. It is entirely composed of people responding to the headline.
I found the section on MERS particularly interesting. Minimal training on how to asses inconsistent assements between countries, complete failure to mention massive laundering scandals at banks in the asses countries... And this is the primary method of international oversight to see if these systems work and are implemented consistently.
The amount of IP risk caused by USING (not training) AI models to produce code, especially wholesale commercial code that competes with code that was contained in the training data, is poorly understood.
Yes, the training of the model itself is (or should be) a transformative act so you can train a model on whatever you have legal access to view.
However, that doesn't mean that the output of the model is automatically not infringing. If the model is prompted to create a copy of some copyrighted work, that is (or should be) still a violation.
Just like memorizing a book isn't infringment but reproducing a book from memory is.
> The traditional solution to blocking nuisance crawlers is to use a combination of rate limiting and CAPTCHAs. The CAPTCHA forces vistors to solve a problem designed to be very difficult for computers but trivial for humans. This isn’t perfect of course, we can debate the accessibility tradeoffs and weaknesses, but conceptually the idea makes some sense.
> Anubis – confusingly – inverts this idea. It insists visitors solve a problem trivial for computers, but impossible for humans.
Fundementally, the idea that PoW is a good way to tell humans from bots just doesn't work.
Captchas, rate limiting, authentication, etc are all part of the solution.
The more bespoke a captcha solution is, the less likely that bots, especially the kind of low effort bots that ignore rate limits and hammer sites, will have the ability to break it.
Arguably, anubis has a much better harm-vs-protection ratio at much lower difficulty setting where it functions less as a PoE system and more as an obscure way to block lowe effort bots. Of course, the more it gets adopted, the less well this will work.
The reason why anubis works is not the PoW, it is that the dev time to implement the bypass takes out the lowest effort bots. Thus the correct response is to keep the PoW difficulty low so you minimize harm to real users. Or better yet, implementing your own custom check that doesn't use any PoW and relies on ever higher obscurity to block the low effort bots.
The more anubis is used, the less effective it is and the more it harms real users.