Vouch
21–30 of 507 posts
Re: Vouch
#22I think LLMs are accelerating us toward a Dune-like universe, where humans come before AI.
Got to go through the Butlerian Jihad first… not looking forward to that bit. (EDIT: Thanks sparky_z for the correction of my spelling!)
Re: Vouch
#23Re: Vouch
#24IMO: trust-based systems only work if they carry risk. Your own score should be linked to the people you "vouch for" or "denounce". This is similar to real life: if you vouch for someone (in business for example), and they scam them, your own reputation suffers. So vouching carries risk. Similarly, if you going around someone is unreliable, but people find out they actually aren't, your reputation also suffers. If vo…
> Then again, if this is the case, why would you risk your own reputation to vouch for anyone anyway. Good reason to be careful. Maybe there's a bit of an upside to: if you vouch for someone who does good work, then you get a little boost too. It's how personal relationships work anyway. ---------- I'm pretty skeptical of all things cryptocurrency, but I've wondered if something like this would be an actually good us…
Re: Vouch
#25Re: Vouch
#26I think LLMs are accelerating us toward a Dune-like universe, where humans come before AI.
You might think this is science fiction, but the companies that brought you LLMs had the goal to pursue AGI and all its consequences. They failed today, but that has always been the end game.
Re: Vouch
#27IMO: trust-based systems only work if they carry risk. Your own score should be linked to the people you "vouch for" or "denounce". This is similar to real life: if you vouch for someone (in business for example), and they scam them, your own reputation suffers. So vouching carries risk. Similarly, if you going around someone is unreliable, but people find out they actually aren't, your reputation also suffers. If vo…
> Then again, if this is the case, why would you risk your own reputation to vouch for anyone anyway. Good reason to be careful. Maybe there's a bit of an upside to: if you vouch for someone who does good work, then you get a little boost too. It's how personal relationships work anyway. ---------- I'm pretty skeptical of all things cryptocurrency, but I've wondered if something like this would be an actually good us…
Re: Vouch
#28Re: Vouch
#29The Web of Trust failed for PGP 30 years ago. Why will it work here? For a single organisation, a list of vouched users sounds great. GitHub permissions already support this. My concern is with the "web" part. Once you have orgs trusting the vouch lists of other orgs, you end up with the classic problems of decentralised trust: 1. The level of trust is only as high as the lax-est person in your network 2. Nobody is p…
It didn't work for links as reputation for search once "SEO" people started creating link farms. It's worse now. With LLMs, you can create fake identities with plausible backstories.
This idea won't work with anonymity. It's been tried.
Re: Vouch
#30IMO: trust-based systems only work if they carry risk. Your own score should be linked to the people you "vouch for" or "denounce". This is similar to real life: if you vouch for someone (in business for example), and they scam them, your own reputation suffers. So vouching carries risk. Similarly, if you going around someone is unreliable, but people find out they actually aren't, your reputation also suffers. If vo…
One of my (admittedly half baked) ideas was a vouching similar with real world or physical incentives. Basically signing up requires someone vouching, similar to this one where there is actual physical interaction between the two. But I want to take it even further -- when you signup your real life details are "escrowed" in the system (somehow), and when you do something bad enough for a permaban+, you will get doxxed.