Imagine some day an AI starts using the proper signatures without access to the private key and no one has a clue how it does it.
Sign Everything
11–20 of 90 posts
Re: Sign Everything
#12> AI and Web3 are two sides of the same coin
That is an interesting comment.
Re: Sign Everything
#13The cryptocurrency buzzword salad is so dishonest. It pretends to own the basic public key cryptography, as if the only way to make a signature was to turn the world into an oligarchic dystopia where VCs already control the majority stake.
> I think AI and Web3 are two sides of the same coin.
It's not even the Web, and while others have been advancing ML, all "web3" has done is ugly monkeys and shouting at people "have fun staying poor" from the top of the pyramid.
Re: Sign Everything
#14Read Web3. It is an advertisement for Web3 and the blockchain.
If you want proof it is yours, print it out and sign it with a witness - with ink.
Re: Sign Everything
#15Great example of the danger of talking about a solution before you’ve truly defined the problem. What problem is Fred trying to solve?
The example he gives of writing he would sign is a blog post. The blog post is already authenticated because it’s on avc.com. Fred Wilson has the tokens, social authority etc to ensure what shows up there under his name is from him. Technically speaking, it was already signed via TLS when sent to my web browser. It is also unclear how ChatGPT potentially breaks this sort of authentication.
Again, what is the threat model, what is the problem being solved? It seems like ChatGPT is much more likely to be used by someone imitating themselves out of laziness (“I don’t feel like writing this blog post today”) than to imitate someone else out of malice and this scheme does nothing to solve it.
I suppose someone could make a HN or Reddit account and pose as Fred Wilson and then ChatGPT makes it more credible. But are HN or Reddit going to allow GPG-style signed messages? Seems more likely, if this became an issue, they would move to usernames expressly tied to visible email addresses or domains that could be authenticated by receiving an email, adding a DNS entry, OAuth etc.
Re: Sign Everything
#16Imagine some day an AI starts using the proper signatures without access to the private key and no one has a clue how it does it.
https://xkcd.com/416/
"Notifying field agents"
Re: Sign Everything
#17>I think AI and Web3 are two sides of the same coin. As machines increasingly do the work that humans used to do, we will need tools to manage our identity and our humanity. Web3 is producing those tools and some of us are already using them to write, tweet/cast, make and collect art, and do a host of other things that machines can also do. Web3 will be the human place to do these things when machines start corruptin…
Signing everything is only meaningful if you can distribute your public key in a way trusted by those who will check your signature. And not just one time; you want to be able to rotate the key sometimes. A blockchain with a proof-of-work validation may be overkill. But some kind of Merkle tree, like that offered cy TLS certificate infrastructure, is needed anyway. If it can be trustless at a moderate expense, the be…
I like the Keybase model of linking multiple online identities to a keyholder.
The PGP web-of-trust model could also work, and mobile apps to ease keysigning could make adoption more feasible than the old keysigning party idea.
Re: Sign Everything
#18I think signing things will become a lot more commonplace. At my workplace we sign code using Metamask to prove that someone made a commit. Allows us to build something like a decentralised Git
Re: Sign Everything
#19Signing things is only relevant within a bubble of trust where you just want to know that the Fred you're dealing with is the Fred you already previously knew and trusted.
"Out there in the real world", among people who work and spend money and vote and hold offices and sue and buy guns and raise kids and consume consume consume and couldn't be paid to care about your cryptographic signature, this solves absolutely nothing while dangerously pretending that the legitimate problems don't really exist or aren't really serious.
Re: Sign Everything
#20I actually don't see how signing everything solves the problem of AI generated essays unless you build a submission system that doesn't allow copy/pasting over a certain amount or that somehow assesses whether or not the 2000 words it just received were actually written by the user holding the keys or not.
Signing just is a means of asserting an authority over an item and then tracking that item once it's in the chain. The original validity of the authority isn't guaranteed just because it's signed; that was a non-trivial part of the debate over NFTs, wasn't it?
So I don't think signing really proves anything about the authorship or authority over the content written, it just tracks the content. The author's example that you can know they're the one who posted it doesn't really have anything to do with generated reports, and it doesn't even prove that they were the ones who uploaded the content any more than a classic blog with a username/password system. It just means that someone with access to the keys to upload provided content, not _who_ uploaded it. It's presumed it's the author as hopefully they kept their secrets safe, but that's not a guarantee.