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

Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

theargumentmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 284 posts

Re: Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

#31

Post by alyxya »

superfrank wrote: post #26
alyxya wrote: post #15

I tried the four pieces of text with Opus 4.7 (in incognito) and it guessed correctly for two of them, and I made sure to specify no web search and the model seems to have obeyed my instructions with that. Although this is just a single piece of text from a prolific writer, it'll go much further with deanonymizing anyone when combining multiple pieces of text plus other contextual information about the writer that mi…

How widely known were the pieces of text? Are we talking about a section of MLK's I Have a Dream speech or hand written birthday cards from your grandma? I'm using those as the two extremes, but if it's anything by anyone moderately well known (even a lesser known piece of writing), I'm not too surprised that it didn't need the web to figure it out. It's like if you showed me a Wes Anderson film or played me a Bob Dy…

I mean I tried sending the pieces of text to Opus that Kelsey was referring to on her blog just to independently check the identification claim. Presumably those pieces of text first appeared on the web when the blog post was published a week ago, so no model should have memorized the exact text yet. My prompt had to specify no web search, otherwise Opus would try to search the web, though it didn't seem like Opus could find that blog post even when it did try to search the web.

Re: Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

#34

Post by oceanplexian »

> That includes gay people like me, who could hardly have admitted under our names to how we lived our lives for most of America’s history, as well as many other groups with minoritarian lifestyles

While the points made are completely valid I want to point out that the statement of "Hey, by the way, first let me talk about my sexuality" lowers the quality of dialog a significant degree.

31 million people in America are gay. 71% of Americans support Gay Rights (more than any other political issue polled). It also quietly insinuates that only people with a certain minority lifestyle would care about privacy or that their privacy is somehow more important than others. It's not. Privacy is a universal right that's important to everyone.

Re: Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

#37

Post by [deleted] »

oceanplexian wrote: post #34

> That includes gay people like me, who could hardly have admitted under our names to how we lived our lives for most of America’s history, as well as many other groups with minoritarian lifestyles While the points made are completely valid I want to point out that the statement of "Hey, by the way, first let me talk about my sexuality" lowers the quality of dialog a significant degree. 31 million people in America a…

[deleted]

Re: Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

#38

Post by vslira »

Hm, that’s a multinomial classification with a very high cardinality. It’s really weird it works. I’m sure it does as the author states, but for how many authors (out of the whole web) does this work?

Re: Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

#39

Post by ribosometronome »

oceanplexian wrote: post #34

> That includes gay people like me, who could hardly have admitted under our names to how we lived our lives for most of America’s history, as well as many other groups with minoritarian lifestyles While the points made are completely valid I want to point out that the statement of "Hey, by the way, first let me talk about my sexuality" lowers the quality of dialog a significant degree. 31 million people in America a…

> 71% of Americans support Gay Rights (more than any other political issue polled)... Privacy is a universal right that's important to everyone.

Per you, it surely must be important to fewer than 71% of Americans, no? The state of infringement on privacy seems to evidence that it's not so important to a lot of people such that they continue to be perfectly willing to elect and re-elect the politicians who enact the changes allowing infringing on it/fail to legislate in favor of privacy. Connecting it to an issue more people care about seems an attempt to argue for its important to those who otherwise are willing to look the other way.

FWIW, I fed my reply above into Claude and asked it to guess who wrote it. It refused (for safety) while also calling me out: "The style here (tight logical structure, the "per you" construction, the move of turning someone's own framing back on them) is common across a lot of contrarian-leaning commenters on HN"

Re: Opus 4.7 knows the real Kelsey

#40

Post by avarun »

oceanplexian wrote: post #34

> That includes gay people like me, who could hardly have admitted under our names to how we lived our lives for most of America’s history, as well as many other groups with minoritarian lifestyles While the points made are completely valid I want to point out that the statement of "Hey, by the way, first let me talk about my sexuality" lowers the quality of dialog a significant degree. 31 million people in America a…

On the contrary, I find it a highly effective way to convey something that should be obvious but is often not. As you said, privacy is a universal right, but many don't consider it important until viscerally presented with examples of why it is. Kelsey's writing is immediately effective at doing so.
Post reply on HN