they already read people minds non invasively, they don't really need faces, at best its just the image to put on the icon of your digitally cloned brain
Never Give Them Your Face
461–468 of 468 posts
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all caused by a Meta lobbying initiative across multiple countries as documented in https://tboteproject.com/ (sadly, the website is down right now), but you can find references e.g. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/03/the-tbote-project/
> ...jwz.org... Holy fuck, man, visiting that with a HN referer serves up a rather NSFW rude image, and evidently sets a cookie to make sure it happens next time too. replacement link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260401175031/https://www.jwz.o...
that's vaguely, at best, NSFW, mate.
i don't disagree with his assessment.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad writers do worse
I didn't ask about other worse things, I asked about this specific bad thing. Since you dodged the question, I guess your real answer is "no, people never did this" and therefore "yes, this is AI slop"
in human conversation "seen worse than that", "do worse than that" usually means the thing in question is not a concern in given context. "worse" obviously includes the thing. Are you AI?
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#464Partly this is there to kill off services that the politicans don't like. I.e. porn.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is not age verification. It is identity verification. > You can change a password. You cannot change your face. > This is not a popularity contest, and refusal is not a vote you are trying to win These were a couple sentences that were immediate flags to me. There've been countless articles written on this (I can dig them up if you want), but IMO there are pretty clear semantic rhythms you start to notice. It is…
Tons of people write that way.
Right, it's either bad writing, or an LLM that's been trained on bad writing.
I'm giving the author the benefit of the doubt and assuming the latter.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, "they" probably simply have our FaceID data that we're willingly collecting ourselves, supposedly for our own security.
Would be rather difficult for "them" to get it off my $80 CAD vertical flip phone, I dare say.
It's not coming from any of your devices.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced this is about money as much as it is about blackmail, given how centralized data collection has become and how many intelligence agencies appear to have access to numerous 0-days for routinely gathering additional information. It could be both things as well. What bothers me most isn't their corruption, but their apparent belief that it won't eventually affect them or their families - perhaps sooner…
That apparent belief is common. People with current access to power, seldom anticipate what might happen in the future if it is turned against them.
Or ... perform the calculus that however bad it might be for them, the differential power gain remains in their favour.
Power is ordinal far more than it is cardinal. Ranking matters more than absolute values.
Re: Never Give Them Your Face
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tor is not for criminals. It's for you and me. No. Tor is for the CIA. It won't work for them unless we use it as well. Criminals also find it useful. It's easy to verify this. Tor was originally written by Paul Syverson, Michael G. Reed, and David Goldschlag. While all three were working at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.
Nah, those people use plaintext Gmail as Epstein demonstrated.
That depends entirely on their perceived vulnerability.
Actors who feel they have little vulnerability --- that they can act with immunity or impunity --- regardless of the validity of that assessment, can and will act overtly.
Those who feel they are in a hostile or vulnerable environment will seek to conceal their actions and communications, and practice strong tradecraft.
Epstein (incorrectly as it happens) presumed impunity. His (mostly) unidicted co-conspirators have thus far been shown correct in their similar presumptions.