jwmgregory
@jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on [deleted] 5 days ago:
Nope, not trolling at all.
From your own provided source on the arxiv, Noels et al. define censorship as:
Censorship in this context can be defined as the deliberate restriction, modification, or suppression of certain outputs generated by the model.
Which is starkly different from the definition you yourself gave. I actually like their definition a whole lot more. Your definition is problematic because it excludes a large set of behaviors we would colloquially be interested in when studying “censorship.”
Again, for the third time, that was not really the point either and I’m not interested in dancing around a technical scope defining censorship in this field, at least in this discourse right here and now. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I didn’t say he’s a nobody. What was that about a “respectable degree of chartiable interpretation of others”? Seems like you’re the one putting words in mouths, here.
Yeah, this blogger shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work or how system prompts work. (emphasis mine)
In the context of this field of work and study, you basically did call him a nobody, and the point being harped on again, again, and again to you is that this is a false assertion. I did interpret you charitably. Don’t blame me because you said something wrong.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 days ago:
I never implied that he says anything about censorship
You did, at least that’s what I gathered originally, you just edited your original comments quite extensively. Regardless,
Reading comprehension.
The provided example was clearly not intended to be taken as “define censorship,” and, again, it is ironic you accuse me of having poor reading comprehension while being incapable or unwilling to give a respectable degree of charitable interpretation to others. You kind of just take what you think is the easiest to argue against reading of others and argue against that instead of what anyone actually said, is a habit I’m noticing, but I digress.
Finally, not that it’s particularly relevant, but if you want to define censorship in this context that way, you’re more than welcome to, but it is a non-standard definition that I am not really sold on the efficacy of. I certainly won’t be using it going forwards.
Anyway, I don’t think we’re gonna get a lot of ground here. I just felt the need to clarify to anyone reading that Willison isn’t a nobody and give them the objective facts regarding his veracity, because again, as I said, claiming he is just some guy in this context is willfully ignorant at best.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 days ago:
Willison has never claimed to be an expert in the field of machine learning, but you should give more credence to his opinions. Perhaps u/lepinkainen@lemmy.world’s warning wasn’t informative enough to be heeded: Willison is a prominent figure in the web-development scene, particularly aspects of the scene that have evolved into important facets of the modern machine learning community.
The guy is quite experienced with Python and took an early step into the contemporary ML/AI space due to both him having a lot of very relevant skills and a likely personal interest in the field. Python is the lingua franca of my field of study, for better or worse, and someone like Willison was well-placed to break into ML/AI from the outside. That’s a common route in this field, there aren’t exactly an abundance of MBAs with majors in machine learning or applied artificial intelligence research, specifically (yet). Willison is one of the authors of Django, for fucks sake. Idk what he’s doing rn but it would be ignorant to draw the comparison you just did in the context of Willison particularly.
As for your analysis of his article, I find it kind of ironic you accuse him of having a “fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work or how system prompts work [sic]” when you then proceed to cherry-pick certain lines from his article taken entirely out of context. First, the article is clearly geared towards a more generally audience and avoids technical language or explanation. Second, he doesn’t say anything that is fundamentally wrong. Honestly, you seem to have a far more ignorant idea of LLMs and this field generally than Willison. You do say some things that are wrong, such as:
For example, censorship that is present in the training set will be “baked in” to the model and the system prompt will not affect it, no matter how the LLM is told not to be censored in that way.
This isn’t necessarily true. It is true that information not included within the training set, or information that has been statistically biased within the training set, isn’t going to be retrievable or reversible using system prompts. Willison never claims or implies this in his article, you just kind of stuff those words in his mouth. Either way, my point is that you are using wishy-washy, ambiguous, catch-all terms such as “censorship” that make your writings here not technically correct, either. What is censorship, in an informatics context? What does that mean? How can it be applied to sets of data? That’s not a concretely defined term if you’re wanting to take the discourse to the level that it seems you are, like it or not. Generally you seem to have something of a misunderstanding regarding this topic, but I’m not going to accuse you of that, lest I commit the same fallacy I’m sitting here trying to chastise you for. It’s possible you do know what you’re talking about and just dumbed it down for Lemmy. It’s impossible for me to know as an audience.
That all wouldn’t really matter if you didn’t just jump as Willison’s credibility over your perception of him doing that exact same thing, though.
- Comment on Robot performs first realistic surgery without human help: System trained on videos of surgeries performs like an expert surgeon 6 days ago:
i mean, you could just as easily say professors and university would stamp those habits out of human doctors, but, as we can see… they don’t.
just because an intelligence was engineered doesn’t mean it’s incapable of divergent behaviors, nor does it mean the ones it displays are of intrinsically lesser quality than those a human in the same scenario might exhibit. i don’t understand this POV you have because it’s the direct opposite of what most people complain about with machine learning tools… first they’re too non-deterministic to such a degree as to be useless, but now they’re so deterministic as to be entirely incapable of diverging their habits?
digressing over how i just kind of disagree with your overall premise (that’s okay that’s allowed on the internet and we can continue not hating each other!), i just kind of find this “contradiction,” if you can even call it that, pretty funny to see pop up out in the wild.
thanks for sharing the anecdote about the cardiac procedure, that’s quite interesting. if it isn’t too personal to ask, would you happen to know the specific procedure implicated here?
- Comment on what 1 week ago:
well there’s a bit of human psychology at play here. if you see an item listed for lower than market value the seller has already implicitly devalued the item in the listing to the audience. it isn’t surprising some rational agents would then proceed to either ignore the listing out of fear of low quality or attempt to haggle for a lower price due to the already admittedly lesser value of the merchandise. it doesn’t make objective sense at all, i agree, but it makes a whole lot of systemic sense.
- Comment on YSK that apart from not having a car, the single greatest thing you can do for the climate is simply eating less red meat 1 week ago:
i find it annoyingly ironic how you’re acting like these people are behaving in some absurd manner when you’re, at the same time, asking an event more absurd thing of humanity by demanding the majority of people concurrently start behaving differently regardless of their privilege or economic status.
i swear to fucking christ every single person banging the individual activism drum in environmentalist circles is some corpo plant or something. do you not understand the vast majority of people who contribute personally to climate change by ignoring these suggested principles don’t really have a choice? sure, it’s john’s fault personally that the only economically viable way he can feed himself in the local food desert is calories from beef…
it isn’t a matter of morals or will - what you are asking or hoping for is functional impossible and has not happened once in human history, ever. even if all people agreed with these ideas and somehow magically got on the individual action horse, it wouldn’t fucking matter. because what makes individual action not work is systemic and has nothing to do with the moral quality of the choices people are making or their personal opinions and has everything to do with harsh economic realities that can’t be whimsically subverted by shaming people for the sins of corporate America.
- Comment on YSK that apart from not having a car, the single greatest thing you can do for the climate is simply eating less red meat 1 week ago:
it’s more than a challenge, it’s a fucking fantasy dude lmfao. people don’t wake up everyday and choose to do these things, they do these things out of necessity. even if individual action was effective in stemming climate change (it’s not), you have to acknowledge that people aren’t choosing where and how they get their food. you can’t blame someone for not being willing to sacrifice their own comfort or economic posture for a *checks notes*\ infinitesimally small, improbable, and uncertain chance that their actions might help the environment, maybe, just a little bit. that’s fucking patently absurd to expect any rational agent to make that choice the way you are advocating.
even in this weird victim-blaming mindset people advocating on this basis have, the corps are still at fault! it’s fucking doublespeak and brainwashing, i swear.
- Comment on YSK that apart from not having a car, the single greatest thing you can do for the climate is simply eating less red meat 1 week ago:
you could firebomb every data center on earth today and global energy usage would go down like, 10-12% at most.
a lot, yes, but literal peanuts compared to other industries like shipping and agriculture.
frankly am sick of seeing people dressing their ignorance up as environmentalism. if you actually care about the environment then stop chastising things like people eating meat or data centers that create much more value per kwH than anything in the other top energy hungry industries, and start directing your anger at the people who are really responsible for the status quo. jane down the street streaming netflix and eating a weekend steak has fuckall to do with climate change when companies like duponte or cargill or nestle are continually allowed to rape our planet on the daily. it’s not even close and acting like they’re remotely comparable is corpo propaganda to shame people who are victims.
- Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study 1 week ago:
i find that rust’s architecture and design decisions give the LLM quite good guardrails and kind of keep it from doing anything too wonky. the issue arises in cases like these where the rust ecosystem is quite young and documentation/instruction can be poor, even for a human developer.
i think rust actually is quite well suited to agentic development workflows, it just needs to mature more.
- Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study 1 week ago:
don’t you dare understand the explicitly obvious reasons this technology can be useful and the essential differences between P and NP problems. why won’t you be angry >:(
- Comment on Study Finds LLMs Biased Against Men in Hiring 1 week ago:
the problematic part of this is that you’ve stripped all context to support your, admittedly bigoted, rhetoric and ethos.
black people, generally, have worse education outcomes than whites in american education. you’d still be an incredibly shitty and terrible person if you advocated hiring white people over black people by wrote rule. you can find plenty of “studies” that formalize that argument just as you have here, though.
no, i think most rational people understand that in a scenario like this all people have, on average, the same basic cognitive faculties and potential, and would then proceed to advocate for improving the educational conditions for groups that are falling behind not due to their own nature, but due to the system they are in.
but idk, i’m not a bigot so maybe my brain just implicitly rejects the idea “X people are worse/less intelligent/etc than Y people”
fucking think about what you’re saying. there is no “right people” to hate other than the rich and powerful. it isn’t a subversion of the feminist message to admit this. in fact, it makes you a better feminist. real feminist aren’t sexist.
- Comment on Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up 1 week ago:
it existed if society liked you enough.
fascists just have a habit of tightening that belt smaller and smaller, is what’s going on.
- Comment on Attorney General: ‘Everyone is Welcome Here’ sign cannot be displayed in Idaho schools 1 week ago:
no, this is a classic fallacy in historiography.
things don’t just happen. we have to choose to do them, first.
your thesis ignores… every single time in history progress didnt “win out.”
saying “progress wins out eventually” is unfalsifiable because the only true constant in this universe is change. you’re like, not technically wrong but the statement is so detached from the human experience as to be meaningless. this type of analysis isn’t welcome in academia for a reason.
in other words. get out there, there’s work to do!
- Comment on xkcd #3109: Dehumidifier 2 weeks ago:
How does this make any sense at all?
I bought a washer that has wifi connectivity.
- Comment on Men are opening up about mental health to AI instead of humans 2 weeks ago:
appreciate the offer king. i might check in and occasionally participate in the comm, i like the idea.
my main concern is ensuring there isn’t a weird invasion of the space by neofascists. that’s the main issue with men’s right spaces currently. it doesn’t seem easy to prevent as every such space i come across has this problem. the exact thing we identify as hating here pervades spaces trying to tackle this problem… something of a catch 22.
i fucking adore the naming, tho. reprieve is exactly what we all need. i think you should really lean into the abandonment of identity and related identity politics for this community. it shouldn’t be about men in particular, it’s about a reprieve from this shitty contemporary world we have grown up into. after all, race or sex or whatever aren’t even real… they’re just arbitrary lines that cultures draw upon the world. important to individuals maybe, yes, but i’ve always felt it to be something of an albatross around the left’s neck. not all right-wing criticisms of “identity politics” are necessarily unwarranted… (😬 oopsie i broke the groupthink too hard that time guys o nooooos 🙈)
- Comment on Men are opening up about mental health to AI instead of humans 2 weeks ago:
this sort of stuff gets downvoted incessantly in leftist spaces which is a damn shame bc i feel like a lot of these places are my home to a certain degree. it makes me feel unwelcome. ik that’s like, the fucking point and why they do it but still.
these sorts of people are just on some weird, misguided, revanchist agenda that necessitates getting “revenge” on certain groups of people instead of sticking with the core principles of the ideology which clearly state that you should kindly refrain from being an asshole. there is nothing to be gained from exacting some revenge fantasy upon straight white men. you’re exactly right, the only people who deserve to have shit flung their way over who they are is the rich and powerful.
- Comment on Men are opening up about mental health to AI instead of humans 2 weeks ago:
probably not but that’s because sexism against men is normalized and you’re not allowed to talk about it unless you’re a neonazi for some reason.
side note, this is exactly why the “young broccoli haired boy to fascist brownshirt” pipeline exists. they have real and genuine issues and instead of getting any sort of community or support virtually every facet of society is telling them their issues are fake and that they are destined to be monsters. then someone like j peterson comes along and tells them “life isn’t so bad, it’s okay, just clean your room and be disciplined, it’ll all start to look up soon champ… and uh… also hate the gays, black people, and other minorities - they’re the woke mob that left you abandoned like this!” people making shocked pikachu face at young men being hardcore MAGAts are so sorely out of touch with what being a man is like and the kinds of trauma that can stem from the male experience. it’s obvious to most of us why this issue exists, i hope. this comment chain is a great example. if you even touch the topic you get barraged with people telling you to essentially shut the fuck up and stop entertaining the idea that men are possibly people too and not some root of all fucking evil in the world.
the amount of literal hate I see towards men in casual discourse is insane. can say the most psychotic shit in most circles nowadays but if you point your malice at the “right kinds” of people most won’t even bat an eye. see people frequently talking about doing unhinged shit to others solely because they are a man or [insert other group they don’t like generally for some stupid fucking reason] and there is a preconceived slight, danger, or aggression. leftists think they’re better people morally but we’re really not. i have seen the exact same bullshit bigotry promulgate every community i know of in the past few years. the same brainrot the conservatives have had since the tea partiers has infiltrated our spaces too. everyone genuinely is dumb, angry, and hateful now.
I am not wholly convinced that our culture being the target of multiple astroturfing campaigns hasn’t degraded people’s capability for nuance, compassion, empathy, and ontology. the men
- Comment on We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent 2 weeks ago:
possibly.
current machines aren’t really capable of what we would consider sentience because of the von neumann bottleneck.
simply put, computers consider memory and computation separate tasks leading to an explosion in necessary system resources for tasks that would be relatively trivial for a brain-system to do, largely due to things like buffers and memory management code. lots of this is hidden from the engineer and end user these days so people aren’t really super aware of exactly how fucking complex most modern computational systems are.
this is why if, for example, i threw a ball at you you will reflexively catch it, dodge it, or parry it; and your brain will do so for an amount of energy similar to that required to power a simple LED. this is a highly complex physics calculation ran in a very short amount of time for an incredibly low amount of energy relative to the amount of information in the system. the brain is capable of this because your brain doesn’t store information in a chest and later retrieve it like contemporary computers do. brains are turing machines, they just aren’t von neumann machines. in the brain, information is stored… within the actual system itself. the mechanical operation of the brain is so highly optimized that it likely isn’t physically possible to make a much more efficient computer without venturing into the realm of strange quantum mechanics. even then, the verdict is still out on whether or not natural brains don’t do something like this to some degree as well. we know a whole lot about the brain but it seems some damnable incompleteness theorem-adjacent affect prevents us from easily comprehending the actual mechanics of our own brains from inside the brain itself in a wholistic manner.
that’s actually one of the things AI and machine learning might be great for. if it is impossible to explain the human experience from inside of the human experience… then we must build a non-human experience and ask its perspective on the matter - again, simply put.
- Comment on Germany deems DeepSeek as illegal content after it is unable to address data security concerns, and asks Apple and Google to block it from their app stores 2 weeks ago:
haha lmfao yeah i’m kind of super busy in the mornings - i did misread you in passing, sorry. appreciate the heads up friend
- Comment on Germany deems DeepSeek as illegal content after it is unable to address data security concerns, and asks Apple and Google to block it from their app stores 2 weeks ago:
often in cases like this there is no real personal responsibility involved, and your disdain stems from a lack of empathy.
nicotine is a strongly addictive chemical and lots of users have active addictions. in many locales and markets disposable vapes are increasingly becoming the cheapest or only way to scratch that itch, in addition to americans being propagandized for years into believing that vaping in general is somehow a healthier way to deal with your nicotine addiction. either way vaping is heavily pushed on nicotine addicts in america to such a point that i genuinely am not so certain personal responsibility factors into the equation anymore. it’s very similar to opium in china during the century of humiliation or the war on drugs or something - just a clearly systemic problem spurred by greedy people against the poor that is justified to other poor people through fallacious moral reasoning.
the guy you mentioned… knows the obvious point that buying disposables is contrarian to his opinion. that doesn’t invalidate his beliefs. he’s an addict, not necessarily a hypocrite. instead of being crabs in a bucket and tearing down the people who already agree with you why don’t you try and point people’s anger rightfully towards big tobacco companies who managed to swindle the world into picking up the nasty habit again in the name of avarice. those people hurt you, me, and the guy in your story. they deserve you being mad at them, not this rando you mention.
- Comment on Engineers Introduce Berkeley Humanoid Lite, Open-Source, Customizable, 3D-Printed Robot for Tech Newbies. 2 weeks ago:
Honestly all the copyleft licenses and others are garbage, hot take.
It’s a bandaid solution that people refuse to let go of, like a safety blanket. Absolute freedom of information is so surprisingly controversial of an opinion these days. It makes me fucking sick to so frequently see people behave in a way that feels literally brainwashed.
“nooooOooooooOooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI FUUUUUCK WE CANT ABOLISH COPYRIGHT THERE ARE STARVING ARTISTS IN AFRIIIIICCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaAAA”
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 3 weeks ago:
I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.
I agree, for this reason we’re unlikely to convince each other of much or find any sort of common ground. I don’t think that necessarily means there’s isn’t value in discourse tho. We probably agree more than you might think. I do think authors should be compensated, just for their actual labor. Art itself is functionally worthless, I think trying to make it behave like commodities that have actual economic value through means of legislation is overreach. It would be more ethical to accept the physical nature of information in the real world and legislate around that reality. You… literally can “download a car” nowadays, so to speak.
If copying someone’s work is so easily done why do you insist upon a system in which such an act is so harmful to the creators you care about?
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 3 weeks ago:
Kindly, I believe your blind faith in your societal institutions to be at best naive and at worst a danger to liberty. I mean this as a genuine warning meant to be heeded, not a personal criticism directed at you. I’m an American. This exact blind institutional faith I see you and many other Europeans frequently espouse online was a core part of what caused the civil collapse of my own society. It will happen in yours too if you guys aren’t careful. The prevalence of this way of thinking amongst Europeans I meet online is a dangerous omen. You guys remind me a lot of us back in the 90s. Please. Take it not from an ignorant American, but from a global citizen who has already been down the rough and tumble line.
I think I’ll just quote you from another comment you made in this exact same thread, because you encapsulated it better than I ever could:
“…If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it.”
This is a fiction. It is a noble lie you are told by people with power. Think semantically. What is corruption? What is “money,” “power,” etc? In your mind, in countries that you believe to be “one of the good ones,” one where by your description the nation “isn’t corrupt enough for people to really buy into it”… who controls the nation and how? Realistically, you aren’t going to be able to provide an answer to that question that is free from discussing existing corruption, because your idea of supposed societies that cross some arbitrary threshold of being “pure vs corrupt”… doesn’t exist in reality. There exists not one corruption-free government, now or ever, in the history of mankind.
This sounds fantastical from your POV but I do mean it as a genuine warning to be heeded. First it starts with gradual scrapes and nicks at the block of reason… stuff exactly like this that everyone engages in on some degree - it is a transmogrification of the social conscious… soon yet the fascists carve their own damnable Michelangelo from the marble, instead.
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 3 weeks ago:
Some communities on this site speak about machine learning exactly how I see grungy Europeans from pre-18th century manuscripts speaking about witches, Satan, and evil… as if it is some pervasive, black-magic miasma.
As someone who is in the field of machine learning academically/professionally it’s honestly kind of shocking and has largely informed my opinion of society at large as an adult. No one puts any effort into learning if they see the letters “A” and “I” in all caps, next to each other. Immediately turn their brain off and start regurgitating points and responding reflexively, on Lemmy or otherwise. People talk about it so confidently while being so frustratingly unaware of their own ignorance on the matter, which, for lack of a better comparison… reminds me a lot of how historically and in fiction human beings have treated literal magic.
That’s my main issue with the entire swath of “pro vs anti AI” discourse… all these people treating something that, to me, is simple & daily reality as something entirely different than my own personal notion of it.
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 3 weeks ago:
Well to be honest lemmy is less prone to knee-jerk reactionary discussion but on a handful of topics it is virtually guaranteed to happen no matter what, even here. For example, this entire site, besides a handful of communities, is vigorously anti-AI; and in the words of u/jsomae@lemmy.ml elsewhere in this comment chain:
“It seems the subject of AI causes lemmites to lose all their braincells.”
I think there is definitely an interesting take on the sociology of the digital age in here somewhere but it’s too early in the morning to be tapping something like that out lol
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 3 weeks ago:
Even if we accept all your market liberal premise without question… in your own rhetorical framework the Disney lawsuit should be ruled against Disney.
If a human uses AI to recreate the exact tone, structure and other nuances of say, some best selling author, they harm the marketability of the original works which fails fair use tests (at least in the US).
Says who? In a free market why is the competition from similar products and brands such a threat as to be outlawed? Think reasonably about what you are advocating… you think authorship is so valuable or so special that one should be granted a legally enforceable monopoly at the loosest notions of authorship. This is the definition of a slippery-slope, and yet, it is the status quo of the society we live in.
On it “harming marketability of the original works,” frankly, that’s a fiction and anyone advocating such ideas should just fucking weep about it instead of enforce overreaching laws on the rest of us. If you can’t sell your art because a machine made “too good a copy” of your art, it wasn’t good art in the first place and that is not the fault of the machine. Even big pharma doesn’t get to outright ban generic medications (even tho they certainly tried)… it is patently fucking absurd to decry artist’s lack of a state-enforced monopoly on their work. Why do you think we should extend such a radical policy towards… checks notes… tumblr artists and other commission based creators? It’s not good when big companies do it for themselves through lobbying, it wouldn’t be good to do it for “the little guy,” either. The real artists working in industry don’t want to change the law this way because they know it doesn’t work in their favor. Disney’s lawsuit is in the interest of Disney and big capital, not artists themselves, despite what these large conglomerates that trade in IPs and dreams might try to convince the art world writ large of.
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 3 weeks ago:
The answer is that I don’t think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.
In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be build out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.
- Comment on Why is the progress pride flag so poorly designed (especially the intersex progress pride flag)? Will it be redesigned? 3 weeks ago:
not to be exclusive but i dislike the contemporary trend of trying to shoehorn polygamy and polyamory into LGBTQ spaces, tbh.
i personally dislike poly, admittedly, but i don’t really think it should be illegal or anything either ig. either way, it’s a lifestyle choice one makes and not an immutable facet of your identity that you’re born with, which i know is an increasingly controversial opinion these days but tbh i don’t think poly people experience oppression or bigotry the same way queer people do and it’s disingenuous to act like they do. it honestly makes me kind of upset to see people so widely positing such a position. i know the inevitable comparison of this rhetoric im using to the rhetoric used against queer people historically but i honestly don’t think that’s a very fair comparison in the case of poly, but that’s a whole can of worms itself.
again, not really an attack on poly people or their right to exist. i know my personal disdain of it probably shines through a bit here in my voice but i don’t want to come off as rude.
- Comment on Reddit in talks to embrace Sam Altman’s iris-scanning Orb to verify users 3 weeks ago:
I mean, I don’t trust OpenAI or Reddit either but these two things are as mutually exclusive as they seem.
With zero-knowledge principles you could maintain anonymity while still verifying identity. Doesn’t mean that’s what big tech is doing or is gonna do, but also doesn’t mean it’s physically unreal or anything either. We could build a not shitty system.
- Comment on What's going on with Borderlands 2? Steam is giving it for free, but the game has 23% positive recent reviews. 5 weeks ago:
I think it’s kind of ironic you call your friend apparently a dipshit for not knowing something you also didn’t know… pot calling the kettle black & all.