151–160 of 222 posts
Tangentially, I’ve been hoping someone starts talking about the AI testimonial advertisements I see for all kinds of things. In such ads, you can see entirely fabricated “people” talking about their amazing experiences with the product. Is that regulated at all? Should it be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can you possibly make due diligence when everyone around you is incentivized to lie? You can't and the correct response is a total lack of trust by default because that's the easiest way to protect yourself. They really are out to get you(r money).
> You can't and the correct response is a total lack of trust by default because that's the easiest way to protect yourself. Rather off-topic, but it's funny how this principle applies in the exact same way when it comes to traffic for instance. It is unfortunate it has to be like that, but not trusting any other traffic and assuming they can at any point do the thing you'd least expect them to do is just safer. Espe…
This mind set means that anyone on the roads or on the sea should never assume or trust any other participants, and thus to the best of a person ability communicate intend, verify that everyone is behaving correctly, and apply a defensive posture in order to create margins against unwanted outcomes.
Tangentially, I’ve been hoping someone starts talking about the AI testimonial advertisements I see for all kinds of things. In such ads, you can see entirely fabricated “people” talking about their amazing experiences with the product. Is that regulated at all? Should it be?
"I'm a doctor and I recommend..." says the actor dressed up in surgical scrubs with a stethoscope draped around his neck.
I was thinking about it, because wife was telling me story from work, where a woman was scammed with AI generated stuff and her colleague was a little too nonchalant about it ( 'it is on her to do her due diligence' ). And it made me annoyed. How can you possibly make due diligence when everyone around you is incentivized to lie? We do have a concept of fraud, but advertising seems to be able to move around its edges…
> her colleague was a little too nonchalant about it ( 'it is on her to do her due diligence' ). I’m always fascinated by victim blaming culture, which has been pervasive long before generative AI. You see it most frequently in cases where the victim is thought to be a safe target: Someone wealthier, an office rival, a corporation. On HN it appears in every thread about someone being scammed, but it was most obvious…
1. In an ideal, fair world, which parties should have to change to make the outcome not happen? Scammers shouldn't scam, murderers shouldn't murder, etc.
2. With a reasonable understanding of the world, which parties could have predicted the outcome and changed their behavior to mitigate the problem? JPMorgan not doing due diligence on a deal of that magnitude is pretty negligent. I don't carry open bags full of cash walking around the city either, and I don't comment negatively about our new glorious leader and all of his kingly power. Yes, if I had my savings stolen or were murdered on my next boat trip to the Caribbean that'd be somebody else's "fault" via definition (1), but as a practical matter my life is a hell of a lot better on average if I avoid those activities regardless.
The courts sometimes agree with point (2) to an extent as well. If JPMorgan's negligence caused harm to others, the criminals involved would still have full responsibility to JPMorgan, but the harmed parties might have a civil claim against JPMorgan. By way of analogy, what happens if your local bank's safe is found out to be an unmonitored cardboard box? The fact that somebody would eventually break in is predictable, and the bank would be liable to its customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What people say to respond to this critique is that high-trust people were always a problem. Low-trust societies have procedures in place that nobody ever considers just skipping because we're both good guys and you're from Boston, too, right? High-trust societies are self-regulating scammers paradises. Filled with people citing Occam's Razor, and affinity fraud. Even worse, for minorities the procedures never get dr…
The kind of high-trust we need to get back (at least here in the states) is the kind between neighbors on the same block. Of course it’s never been wise to trust someone just because you’re both from Boston, but in the past neighbors generally trusted each other and socialized. It’s particularly striking when I visit my parents’ house. I’m a millennial and I don’t even know my neighbors names and my parents, who are…
High trust communities need a lot of time to develop and a lot of annoying gossip and reputation stuff that can feel nosy. My grandparents were always keenly aware of "but what are they going to say?!", what will they think of the mother if this or that (if the child uses swear words, if people peek through the window and see a messy room, if there is weed in the garden, if a guest is not stuffed full with food, if the curtains are still closed at 7 am, indicating that they are lazy and sleeping in etc). They were always worried about optics and reputation. They were in turn always evaluating how everyone else lived and behaved, who helped and who didn't, who lives neatly and orderly, or who doesn't cook for his (edit: her) husband properly, or which man is a drunkard or gambler, who shows up to church and who doesn't etc. This is suffocating but necessary for the kind of reputation that prevents antisocial behavior.
Of course that's the other extreme, but the point is, you need 10+ years of living together and interacting, helping out in renovations, knowing the families, regularly sharing dinner etc to get it going. People move too often nowadays for this to be viable. And of course having to stay put has disadvantages for efficiency and adaptability, there's a reason why people are moving around.
Journalists have been manufacturing these types of pictures since the dawn of the camera. It's actually nice to see those unscrupulous types losing their jobs to AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the "root" of the problem but just a coping strategy. The root of the problem has something to do with the scammer.
we live in a globalized world of people competing to get money. hoping everyone begins singing kumbaya is nice but far from a practical solution or diagnosis of the problem.
So... the images used to be staged, but now they're generated? Seems like not much has changed and the onus still lies with the targeted to think critically about the motivation behind why they've been targeted. That being said, false advertising is a thing; and I think we need to enforce it in instances where people are clearly being misled intentionally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be perfectly clear, "every mistake you've ever made being remembered" is already in place. The only difference is that it is used to profile you and sell you more stuff as opposed building a working community, where 'bad members' can be identified and shamed.
Nah. You're taking too literally something that should only be figurative. Internet advertisers don't remember when you cut someone off in traffic by mistake, or don't wave back one morning when you're feeling grumpy, or you have a disagreement with a customer regarding when work was considered finished.