Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw food delivery couriers on scooters having a balaclava-style mask (only eyes visible).
...when driving.
Today I saw one who also had kind of snowboard goggles in addition to a mask.
Never Give Them Your Face
371–380 of 468 posts
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#372Who's "they?"
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same can happen with any type of authentication, unless you are ok with someone pointing a webcam and authenticating you non stop.
This is underselling it -- an adult can sell these yubikeys untraceably, pocket the cash, and never think about it again in their life. If we tie the person's identity to the token (THIS IS A BAD IDEA) then if underage use is detected, the adult who sold the token can be prosecuted for selling adult tokens to minors.
An adult could also sell alcohol or drugs to minors so what? Should we add a code to every bottle and require passport to buy them?
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#374Can't we even write a short text like this without LLMs anymore, not even when it's really important, when it's about humans against the inhumane ?
I think it is great that people point out LLM generated articles here on HN. Sadly, it feels like I am slowly loosing my skill to identify LLM speak. Maybe I am getting worn out of all LLM content... So, please, list the indicators and telltale signs from the specific article or blog post (like others have done here already). At least I would appreciate it a lot.
I think it will become pretty simple. Does the author say somewhere on their site that they don't use AI for writing? If yes, then great. Otherwise, it's very likely LLM-generated — particularly if the author spends a lot of time writing positively about AI. (And what if they lie? They will be discovered eventually, at which point they can be blacklisted.)
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is not age verification. It is identity verification. > You can change a password. You cannot change your face. > This is not a popularity contest, and refusal is not a vote you are trying to win These were a couple sentences that were immediate flags to me. There've been countless articles written on this (I can dig them up if you want), but IMO there are pretty clear semantic rhythms you start to notice. It is…
I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write. I use the "it's not X it's Y" framing a lot of the time because it's a quick way to get my point across. It's probably the sign of a bad writer because I can't come up with a different/better way to say the same thing, but I'm not AI.
I could tell it was AI, but it was interesting nonetheless. FWIW, I don't think AI enablement is inherently bad; this can be a game changer for an individual with an interesting thought yet difficulty expressing themselves in written word. (Obviously, it's also created a real problem with the ability to create near infinite well-written content, especially in the case of propaganda.)
I do agree with you that the quotes cited out are literary constructs used by humans, and there's a risk we get trigger-happy in calling out AI-slop. Still, those are just the most obvious tells — there were absolutely other, less notable mannerisms that confirmed it for me. If you interact enough with an LLM, you can become quite good at detecting their output through subtle subconscious cues that are hard to put to words.
I do wonder where some of the tropes came from. Claude tends to say "____ is doing a lot of work in this sentence", yet I don't recognize that as a common construction for humans overall or even a specific community (e.g. journalists). Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with some vernaculars found in training data. Yet sometimes, it legitimately feels like they've actually developed a lingo of their own — an emergent property.
I find it all truly fascinating (along with other feelings…), and I never expected computers to be able to "understand" language anywhere near the degree we see today. Will it soon plateau, requiring another breakthrough? Or is there plenty of juice left to squeeze?
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is underselling it -- an adult can sell these yubikeys untraceably, pocket the cash, and never think about it again in their life. If we tie the person's identity to the token (THIS IS A BAD IDEA) then if underage use is detected, the adult who sold the token can be prosecuted for selling adult tokens to minors.
An adult could also sell alcohol or drugs to minors so what? Should we add a code to every bottle and require passport to buy them?
Adults can be prosecuted for selling alcohol to minors (I mean, they can be prosecuted for selling drugs to other adults even). Because there is a physical handoff, there is risk in doing so, and thus there is high friction, which we deem to be sufficient to curtail the risk.
No such friction or accountability can possibly exist when we're talking about a bunch of yubikeys, unless we attach identity to them (THIS IS A BAD IDEA).
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it screams "conspiracy theories" because it is literally a theory that involves malign conspiracies. And yes, this is repellent to many people. It is most repellent, I think, to people who genuinely hold the belief ("I want to prevent minors from using websites that are generally agreed to be harmful to minors"). When you tell these people "no, you actually want a totalitarian state that controls what adults are…
I need to figure out some way to communicate how these things really work. I think lots of people around here would agree that "the rich" are doing nefarious things. But people get real fuzzy on what those things really are and how they work. Like, the rich don't just stand around in a well-apportioned fancy study with a big wooden desk, smoking a cigar and ambiently shouting into the void "GEE I SURE HOPE THINGS GOO…
> I think lots of people around here would agree that "the rich" are doing nefarious things
I'm sorry, while it may be true that many people around here believe this, you have lost me in particular at this line.
It may be true that some rich people, like people from all walks of life, are occasionally doing nefarious things. I think generalizing this to an entire group, "The Rich", sounds as off-kilter as people talking about crystal energy or pyramid aliens or bigfoot to my ears.
To put another way, the supply of rich people who desperately want to change the world to support their desires vastly exceeds the ability of the world to meet that demand. For every rich person who successfully bankrolls and gets a person elected there are 10,000 or 100,000 who fail to do so at early and late stages of this process, and imagining that "The Rich" have access to some facility to change the world is just untenable.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
Combination of factors, but mostly because Meta is pushing it globally: https://www.reuters.com/world/meta-lobbies-congress-protecti...
One would think that after the Burma genocide the millionaires at Meta would have learned a lesson and keep their fingers out of politics.
I don't think they could tell you where it was on a map, unfortunately. Probably not something that they've ever thought about.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is great that people point out LLM generated articles here on HN. Sadly, it feels like I am slowly loosing my skill to identify LLM speak. Maybe I am getting worn out of all LLM content... So, please, list the indicators and telltale signs from the specific article or blog post (like others have done here already). At least I would appreciate it a lot.
> It is not age verification. It is identity verification. > You can change a password. You cannot change your face. > This is not a popularity contest, and refusal is not a vote you are trying to win These were a couple sentences that were immediate flags to me. There've been countless articles written on this (I can dig them up if you want), but IMO there are pretty clear semantic rhythms you start to notice. It is…
Tons of people write that way.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#380I have yet to receive my federal tax refund because I submitted my taxes through a preparation service and, thinking that physical checks were still an option (the tax software didn't tell me otherwise), I did not give the federal government an ACH account number for direct deposit. The IRS then told me I'd have to open an account to update/provide direct deposit info, which in turn requires me to register with ID.me…
A lot of them got fired by Trump, it likely did get lost. Depending on how much it is, it might be worth dedicating an hour a month to following up.