Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

fortressofdoors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 292 posts

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#261

Post by angarg12 »

michaelt wrote: post #89
angarg12 wrote: post #25

Regarding the Third point, I can already see part of this movement. I've become disenchanted with the quality of the discourse. Specifically as I've entered a more senior stage of my career, I'm looking to mingle with like-minded folks in similar situations. Thing is, these folks don't usually lurk online, and even if they do, their voices get overwhelmed by the flood of (mostly low quality) content. I'd be happy to…

I've long had a theory that services that demand an upfront payment for an ongoing service will find the payment works against their growth goals and remove it. For example, businesses that involve $$$ reusable delivery containers don't work well because they want to give first-time customers a discount not a surcharge . Whatsapp was ridiculously cheap - something like $1/year - but they still decided that worked aga…

For me it's not about a business, it's about a community. The fee is just a barrier to entry to filter participants.

I believe even a nominal amount would keep most people out, and that's by design. Also you don't need huge numbers to build a personally interesting community. Even a few dozen dedicated people can be plenty.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#262

Post by vlovich123 »

throw10920 wrote: post #220
vlovich123 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because using technology to solve human problems rarely/never works. [1] was originally written for spam and bore mostly correct. Explain how replacing spam with “AI-generated spam” changes anything? You can try to fight this stuff but it will look more like AI to detect AI (similar to our current anti-spam tech). No reason to believe cryptography has some kind of magical bullet here as it’s an unrelated problem doma…

> Because using technology to solve human problems rarely/never works. You're badly misunderstanding the parent post - it is not proposing a technological solution to a human problem, but a technological enforcement of a fundamentally human solution: > subjectively score every piece of content that crosses our phone against our social trust graph...can deputize our people in our extended social network to mark conten…

Given that GPT is already difficult to distinguish from a person who’s confidently wrong, how does this web of trust system solve the problem?

The belief that anything will “solve” this seems naive when there’s 20+ years of proof of this being an “unsolvable” problem despite repeated technological, social, and legislative attempts. There might be a new normal established with new battlegrounds drawn and we learn to “live” with it, but I’m willing to bet non-trivial domes of money against there being any true “solution” here.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#263

Post by rocqua »

throw10920 wrote: post #223
px43 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we let people generate their own keys, then use those keys to make identity claims, when people can generate on their own, or which can be generated by a third party. That gives multiple options to bind identities to arbitrary social media accounts etc without needing some monolithic root of trust. I also really like the idea of using the keys to hold some amount of value, such that if the keys ever get lea…

> How about we let people generate their own keys, then use those keys to make identity claims, when people can generate on their own, or which can be generated by a third party. That gives multiple options to bind identities to arbitrary social media accounts etc without needing some monolithic root of trust. You hit the nail on the head. Matching keys to real people can be done in-person for direct friends, then th…

The problem I brought up in the grandparent post wasn't (meant to be) about a 1-to-1 mapping. It was about asking "who owns this key".

Web of trust sounds nice, but it hasn't caught on. I would say because it has trouble going beyond one hop of trust if you actually consider adversaries. In person physical confirmation works, re-keying is a major hassle though.

I do like the idea of a 'web of trust is good enough for declaring you are a person'. If you get a vouching system with a recursive revocation system, that might work well enough for establishing you are a person (though not well enough for establishing which person you are).

Trusted third parties have problems. They centralize power, either in the state, or in some non-accountable organization.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#264

Post by Gigachad »

UncleEntity wrote: post #167
ilikerashers wrote: post #90

The article reads like an internet doomsday prophecy but also, property will go up because the internet will get worse. That is just an odd take and maybe hints that this is a generated article itself.

Not all property. The old timey neighborhoods where people wave at their neighbors and have things like block parties is what they’re talking about. Communities built around human interaction as opposed to a hundred story apartment building where maybe you can recognize a couple of your neighbors if you saw them on the street.

I get much more human interaction in my 30 level apartment than I ever did in the suburbs. Everyone goes out and walks everywhere so you see people face to face. In the suburbs everyone was always in their cars so you'd never talk to anyone.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#265

Post by swader999 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #212
swader999 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, a functioning society that benefits the most needs some form of anonymous dissent.

You guys are misunderstanding how things are developing here. The danger is not that you'll lose anonymity. The danger is that if you use anonymity, no one will listen to you. I'd wager a lot of algorithms will just shadow ban you. This is because you become viewed, effectively, the same way as the AI agent generating brand placement tweets for Bob's Bargain Basement Bar-B-Que and Bitcoin. No one will know the differ…

I think that's always been an issue, less weight for anonymous.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#267

Post by throw10920 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #262
throw10920 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because using technology to solve human problems rarely/never works. You're badly misunderstanding the parent post - it is not proposing a technological solution to a human problem, but a technological enforcement of a fundamentally human solution: > subjectively score every piece of content that crosses our phone against our social trust graph...can deputize our people in our extended social network to mark conten…

Given that GPT is already difficult to distinguish from a person who’s confidently wrong, how does this web of trust system solve the problem? The belief that anything will “solve” this seems naive when there’s 20+ years of proof of this being an “unsolvable” problem despite repeated technological, social, and legislative attempts. There might be a new normal established with new battlegrounds drawn and we learn to “…

You clearly don't actually know anything about webs of trust. I encourage you to read up on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust

It's obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity of WoTs that you seed your web with people you know in real life. GPT is not "difficult to distinguish from a person who’s confidently wrong" in real life.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#268

Post by onetokeoverthe »

blueridge wrote: post #199
angarg12 wrote: post #25

Regarding the Third point, I can already see part of this movement. I've become disenchanted with the quality of the discourse. Specifically as I've entered a more senior stage of my career, I'm looking to mingle with like-minded folks in similar situations. Thing is, these folks don't usually lurk online, and even if they do, their voices get overwhelmed by the flood of (mostly low quality) content. I'd be happy to…

I ran a private online bookclub a few years ago, really tried to filter and vet the people who wanted to join. Ended up with a decently sized group of wonderful people and lots of long form written discussion—we read good books and talked about good books, it was lovely. I approached the screening/vetting process as if I was hiring. I got some angry emails about the approach, made it seem "exclusive" and elitist, but…

[dead]

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#269

Post by eru »

collyw wrote: post #180
eru wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look inside Mao's China or Soviet Russia to cure you of the notion that capitalism is special here. Doom and gloom have been around for longer than a money based economy, too.

They arrive at the same endpoint through different means. Too much concentrated power and wealth.

It's not at all the same endpoint.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#270

Post by eru »

Ensorceled wrote: post #142
eru wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look inside Mao's China or Soviet Russia to cure you of the notion that capitalism is special here. Doom and gloom have been around for longer than a money based economy, too.

Ah yes, whenever someone complains about unchecked capitalism, there is always someone to bring up Soviet Russia.

It's quicker to make this argument by contrast, than to make the longer argument that capitalism is great in absolute terms.
Post reply on HN