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

Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

simonlermen.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 258 posts

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#111

Post by DrewADesign »

monksy wrote: post #101
DrewADesign wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration. I don’t think you’re wrong, but the fact that people consider it inevitable we’ll all have an immutable social acceptance grade that includes everything from teenage shitposts to things you said after a loved one died, or getting diagnosed with canc…

I think he's wrong and I'm willing to say that. The ability for people to move beyond the fundamental attribution error is well known and takes major resources to correct that. For anyone that posts a comment, assuming you want to have easy attribution later is that you must future proof your words. That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself. For example: "Ellen Page is fantastic in the…

I think it’s naive to assume the private companies selling these services will know, let alone care, let alone disclose when their black box models botch things like this. The companies currently purporting to provide this exact service to HR departments for hiring decisions clearly didn’t let that stop them.

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#112

Post by tlavoie »

ectospheno wrote: post #96
danielodievich wrote: post #88

I post under my real name here, pretty much the only place I post. It keeps me honest and straight in what I say when I choose to say it. I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration. I don't know what it will be but I would expect some adversarial stuff. Trying to keep clean is what I'd prefer f…

I expect more people over time to use local LLMs to write every single post they make online.

At that point, why bother to make any posts at all?

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#113

Post by JohnMakin »

monksy wrote: post #101
DrewADesign wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration. I don’t think you’re wrong, but the fact that people consider it inevitable we’ll all have an immutable social acceptance grade that includes everything from teenage shitposts to things you said after a loved one died, or getting diagnosed with canc…

I think he's wrong and I'm willing to say that. The ability for people to move beyond the fundamental attribution error is well known and takes major resources to correct that. For anyone that posts a comment, assuming you want to have easy attribution later is that you must future proof your words. That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself. For example: "Ellen Page is fantastic in the…

> That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself.

Also for the fact that you cannot predict how future powers will view past comments - for instance, certain benign political views 20 years ago could become "terroristic speech" tomorrow.

I operate by a simple, general rule - I don't often say anything online I wouldn't say directly to someone's face in real life.

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#114

Post by godelski »

danielodievich wrote: post #88

I post under my real name here, pretty much the only place I post. It keeps me honest and straight in what I say when I choose to say it. I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration. I don't know what it will be but I would expect some adversarial stuff. Trying to keep clean is what I'd prefer f…

While I think the strategy is effective it is also likely equivalent to the dark forest. To me that's a case of the cure being worse than the poison.

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#115

Post by 5o1ecist »

mhitza wrote: post #72
5o1ecist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't really understand the argument your proposing. Is it impressions in a stylistic sense (flurishes to the language used), which is a what I'm arguing the LLM usage for. Or is it impression in the subjective sense of what an author would instill through his message. Feelings, imagry, and such. Or the impression given to the reader? "This person gives me the impression that they know what they talk about", or "do…

[flagged]

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#116

Post by we_have_options »

antonvs wrote: post #104
monksy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's wrong and I'm willing to say that. The ability for people to move beyond the fundamental attribution error is well known and takes major resources to correct that. For anyone that posts a comment, assuming you want to have easy attribution later is that you must future proof your words. That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself. For example: "Ellen Page is fantastic in the…

> Same comment read after 1 Dec 2020 (Transition coming out): Insensitive, demeaning, in accurate. I genuinely don't understand this. Are you sure you're not imagining possible offenses against some non-existent standard?

well, how about "abortion legal" to "abortion murder"... possible to see this coming, but I know doctors in NY who are now afraid to travel to Texas.

How about DEI initiatives as good things in 2024 and a mark of evil in 2025? Lots of people were fired because in 2024 their boss told them to work on DEI and they did what their boss told them to do. Turns out this was a capital offense.

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#117

Post by Melatonic »

joe_mamba wrote: post #41
yomismoaqui wrote: post #38

I did something like this passing some of my comments here and then prompted Gemini to identify my native language by reading my not-so-good english. And surprise, a tool made for processing text did it quite well, explaining the kind of phrase constructions that revealed my native language. So maybe this is a plus for passing any text published on the internet through a slopifier for anonymization? EDIT: deanonymiza…

>So maybe this is a plus for passing any text published on the internet through a slopifier for deanonymization? Or vice versa, Indian scammers online can now run their traditional Victorian English phrasing through an AI to sound more authentically American. Interviewers now have to deal with remote North Korean deepfaked candidates pretending to be Americans. Just like the internet, AI is now a force multiplier for…

Seems like this could also be used by call centers to realtime adjust their accents. Text is obviously easier to analyze (no realtime required) but I imagine that audio is not that hard to process real time.

Calling for home internet support and getting the person on the other end (in a US Southern or Boston accent) asking you to "do the needfull" could be pretty entertaining :-D

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#118

Post by Nevermark »

DrewADesign wrote: post #97
danielodievich wrote: post #88

I post under my real name here, pretty much the only place I post. It keeps me honest and straight in what I say when I choose to say it. I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration. I don't know what it will be but I would expect some adversarial stuff. Trying to keep clean is what I'd prefer f…

> I tried talking to my children about leaving as clean of a footprint on the internet as one can in anticipation of future people/systems taking that into consideration. I don’t think you’re wrong, but the fact that people consider it inevitable we’ll all have an immutable social acceptance grade that includes everything from teenage shitposts to things you said after a loved one died, or getting diagnosed with canc…

That we identify social media as "tech" is very strange.

Yes, they have a lot of servers. But that isn't their core innovation. Their core innovations are the constant expansion of unpermissioned surveillance, the integration of dossiers, correlating people's circumstances, behavior and psychology. And incentivizing the creation of addictive content (good, bad, and dreck) with the massive profits they obtain when they can use that as the delivery vector for intrusively "personalized" manipulation, on behest of the highest bidder, no matter how sketchy, grifty or dishonest.

Unpremissioned (or dark patterned, deceptive, surreptitious, or coercive permissioned) surveillance should be illegal. It is digital stalking. Used as leverage against us, and to manipulate us, via major systems spread across the internet.

And the fact that this funds infinite pages of addicting (as an extremely convenient substitute for boredom) content, not doing anyone or society any good, is a mental health, and society health concern.

Tech scaling up conflicts of interest, is not really tech. Its personal information warfare.

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#119

Post by anjel »

antonvs wrote: post #104
monksy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's wrong and I'm willing to say that. The ability for people to move beyond the fundamental attribution error is well known and takes major resources to correct that. For anyone that posts a comment, assuming you want to have easy attribution later is that you must future proof your words. That is not possible and it is extremely suppressive to express yourself. For example: "Ellen Page is fantastic in the…

> Same comment read after 1 Dec 2020 (Transition coming out): Insensitive, demeaning, in accurate. I genuinely don't understand this. Are you sure you're not imagining possible offenses against some non-existent standard?

standards change over time. Grandfather clauses are a courtesy, not a right.

Re: Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs

#120

Post by hellojesus »

block_dagger wrote: post #85

Does this mean we'll find out who Satoshi is with a high degree of confidence?

Clearly the cia or other gov institution. Its purpose is to create an irresistible honeypot so that anyone who figures out a working and time feasible implementation of shor's law or other prime factorization technique would reveal their hand.
Post reply on HN