Aside from the issue of biometrics not being covered by the 5th amendment (so I won’t use them for login purposes), I’m hesitant to arrange incentives such that melon baller based crime is lucrative.
Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
131–140 of 165 posts
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone deserves food and political freedom in my opinion. We could probably do it too if we actually tried.
I agree! I think what rubbed me was the idea that the people taking Altman’s deal “do not know the consequences of what they are doing.” Down that road lies a paternalistic flavor of charity, a spirit of “protecting them from themselves.” And that seems to evoke the idea that poor is the same as ignorant. That there’s only one correct value to assign to your biometric data, and anyone who values theirs differently mu…
People are selling things that should be inalienable, ostensibly because they really need to. The most immediate, glaring problem is that they are poor. This can be answered:
> > Is it certain that impoverished people would weigh those potential consequences more heavily than being paid today?
The answer is: No, it is not certain. Why? Because they are poor.
Poor people have less agency. That’s just a fact. And they are being preyed upon by Altman. Making this about whether poor Filipinos are making an informed agreement with an AI bro is tone-deaf.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poor people would sell a kidney if the otherwise consequence is starvation. That is not a good measure for the willingness of a decision
True, but does that mean the solution is to force the starvation because their choice to alleviate it was insufficiently willing for our tastes? At least they’ll starve with two kidneys, and we hope the would-be kidney recipient can get by on dialysis a while longer? By all means let’s engineer a world where people are never faced with crappy choices. But people are living in the present, not the glorious future: Tak…
> True, but does that mean the solution is to force the starvation because their choice to alleviate it was insufficiently willing for our tastes? At least they’ll starve with two kidneys, and we hope the would-be kidney recipient can get by on dialysis a while longer?
That’s not what anyone who objects to this thinks and you know it. Anyone who objects to people selling away something dear because they are poor want (1) those people to not be poor and (2) those other people to not prey on them. People are outraged when people are forced to drink dirty water—they are not outraged at desperate people for drinking dirty rainwater.
It’s a false choice.
> By all means let’s engineer a world where people are never faced with crappy choices. But people are living in the present, not the glorious future: Taking away the choice in this case doesn’t seem to fix the situation, and deprives people of a benefit they’d accept if you let them choose.
I’m Sam Altman and I approve this message.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
When talking about government surveillance, people often ask some version of 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?'. My response is always, 'It's not that I don't trust our current government, I don't trust all future governments that come after this one'. I hope given the recent events of having some hired thugs rifle through government databases (including the OPM, which supposedly has…
Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.
Sorry, I was only giving government surveillance as an example, I trust no one to protect my privacy, government or corporation.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the only way you'll be able to tell if you're talking to a human is with... Or the tried-and-true method of trusting only friends, friends of friends, recommendations from friends, etc.
Yes but the point is not to ensure that you know that you're interacting with a human. The point is for whoever paid for the ad to know that a real human is seeing it (and not, for instance, and AI in a docker container).
That's a good point, thanks. I interpreted "sell you the cure to the disease they created" as selling it to the public, but I'm sure advertisers would love to make Fifteen Million Merits a reality.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#136I'm an ophthalmologist. I look at irises all day. People's irises change over the course of their life. Sometimes dramatically if they have some kind of pathology. Are they updating their model periodically? What keeps someone from getting locked out of their crypto gains if they develop an iris nevus or have cataract surgery or start on flomax?
I presume that you would want your crypto gains to require “proof of identity” to access, not just “proof of humanity”, which is what World provides.
Also, once you have generated keys with your eyes, you use the keys, not your eyes, as tokens to validate your humanness.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone deserves food and political freedom in my opinion. We could probably do it too if we actually tried.
I agree! I think what rubbed me was the idea that the people taking Altman’s deal “do not know the consequences of what they are doing.” Down that road lies a paternalistic flavor of charity, a spirit of “protecting them from themselves.” And that seems to evoke the idea that poor is the same as ignorant. That there’s only one correct value to assign to your biometric data, and anyone who values theirs differently mu…
If I tell you to give me your money or I'll kill you, by your reasoning it is good for you that you gave me the money. You are completely ignoring the situation that I set up where you had to do a bad thing to protect yourself from an even worse thing, and that you'd be even better off if some guy killed me so that I couldn't kill you.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#138Biometric data is valuable. Assuming that Musk's DOGE crew copied data obtained from US gov agencies, they may have also obtained biometric data of EU citizens. At least some countries have shared citizens' fingerprints with the US. Not just Visa Waiver Program applicants' but as I understand, previous government of Poland made a deal to share all citizens' fingerprints. And these are collected from anyone renewing t…
You got me thinking and I’m not sure my fingerprints or any other biometric data have ever formally been recorded by the federal, provincial, or local governments. In most cases the most biometric data is your photo and I guess height? So beginning to normalize the collection of eyeball data as a thing is a pretty significant escalation.
In EU, obtaining an identity card needs one’s recent biometric(important!) photo and certain finger prints. Not sure about US.
Also where I work, to enter certain facilities, I also need to not only scan my badge, but also my fingerprint or sometimes palm(may sound absurd but I am sure some of you work in same sector).
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for this interesting point of view. However, it may makes sense to consider whether the gap you point to can be reduced significantly with AI, by training it separately with aging eye data using existing medical data independent from the general iris pool. I have no idea how realistic that would be personally.
Are you willing to gatekeep you wealth behind an AI that might hallucinate that your iris has changed more than it actually has?
Why would you assume I'm in any way partial to this technology? If AI is being used to tackle medical domains, it stands to reason they would try to use it to overcome what the GP considers to be important constraints, especially since the guy in question also runs an AI company.
And what part of "I have no idea how realistic that would be personally" implies that I think it can be done without the danger of hallucinations.
Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve been working on KYC recently, curious to hear what the problems with it are in your opinion?
Speaking as a fraud detective, it appears to be completely ineffective.
Well yeah, you're only looking at the instances of fraud. You're not investigating fraud that never happened because it was prevented, that would be impossible.