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

Humanness in the Age of AI

worldcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#91

Post by tanseydavid »

jstanley wrote: post #58
latexr wrote: post #41

Sam Altman is behind both OpenAI and Worldcoin, the latter being a well known scam to gather biometric data. So Sam Altman first creates the situation that we can no longer distinguish humans from bots, then asks everyone to trust him with even more biometric data to get around the problem he created. Either way he wins at everyone else’s expense. I urge you to not take this at face value, Sam has already shown with…

> we can no longer distinguish humans from bots I was tricked by a machine yesterday. I had to call up the bank because their online banking website had booted me out. After only a couple of rings, and no hold music, I was straight through to a person! This is unprecedented. The call was something like: "Hi, you're through to foobank. How can I help you today?" "Hi, your online banking has locked me out and said I ne…

Ava...

Can't decide if this is a nice touch or just really creepy. Might be both.

I just watched Ex Machina last night.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#92

Post by 93po »

astoor wrote: post #35

Note that this is the same Worldcoin that has been going round poor countries scanning people's eyeballs with an orb in exchange for some shady cryptocurrency with the primary objective of making some billionaires richer. See e.g. previous discussions on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28947468 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28998065 . I thought trying to turn our world into a terrifying dystopia…

I would encourage people who are otherwise deeply cynical of anything crypto (I know I am, and I hate 99% of crypto projects) to not immediately discount Worldcoin and make their own judgements based on the content Worldcoin presents. Much of the hacker news discussion on this project is making claims and assumptions that are factually incorrect or at best, misleading.

Online discussion is already largely broken, and will get much more broken in the coming years without something similar to Worldcoin.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#93

Post by 93po »

frabcus wrote: post #11

ELI5, how does this work? It claims to both identify humans and be zero knowledge. What’s to stop me registering a bunch of times then letting my bot use my identities? The answer is implied to be my iris scan. But then it isn’t zero knowledge for some entity is it? Unless it is relying on the Orb never being hacked? Any good third party write ups on it? The WorldCoin page is a bit long and doesn’t quickly explain ho…

There will be frameworks that build around your anonymous proof that allow people to block you across all platforms at your identity level. The default implementation of Worldcoin doesn't tie all your online accounts together, but I think many platforms would choose to use it in a way that doesn't identify you as any specific person, but does identify you as the same person across platforms.

With that particular implementation, if you spam on one account on one platform, people can block you across all accounts and all platforms. And I'm sure something like community maintained lists we have for adblockers will emerge.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#94

Post by mandmandam »

dang wrote: post #90
mandmandam wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a little passive aggressive there dang. I hope people do read that, and the context. There's nothing banworthy there, at least from me. Not unless you're a big fan of tptacek running roughshod over people, as you yourself admit he often does. You also claimed to have "asked me to stop" - which you didn't. And when I asked you where you said that you didn't reply. And when I emailed to ask nicely to be unbanne…

> There's nothing banworthy there, at least from me You were breaking the site guidelines repeatedly in that thread. > And when I asked you where you said that you didn't reply Sorry — usually I do reply — I must not have seen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34856255 . FWIW in retrospect, here are some places where we asked you to stop (I don't remember why I used the word 'just' though, since these are older):…

What you're calling "breaking site guidelines", I call "politely standing up to an active bully". A bully who you acknowledged was well over the line. You said nothing to tptacek about it, while banning me for putting a toe over the "guideline".

You said "we just asked you to stop" in reference to a request 12 months previous, yes. There was no other request. I think 3 exceedingly minor incidents over 30 months is pretty bad to ban someone over - and I think it's weird that you'd go so far as to dig that shit up as if it's relevant here, or improves your case.

Sure look, we all make mistakes. Since you apparently though that you'd asked me to stop recently, and in fact you hadn't, feel free to unban me.

I sent the email that day. No worries about not finding it - you're only human. Again, feel free to stop rate limiting my comments, and limiting them to those with showdead on.

I'll continue to have a spine whatever you decide, and I'll call out bullies, politely, with this account or through a VPN - your call.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#95

Post by dang »

mandmandam wrote: post #94
dang wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing banworthy there, at least from me You were breaking the site guidelines repeatedly in that thread. > And when I asked you where you said that you didn't reply Sorry — usually I do reply — I must not have seen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34856255 . FWIW in retrospect, here are some places where we asked you to stop (I don't remember why I used the word 'just' though, since these are older):…

What you're calling "breaking site guidelines", I call "politely standing up to an active bully". A bully who you acknowledged was well over the line. You said nothing to tptacek about it, while banning me for putting a toe over the "guideline". You said "we just asked you to stop" in reference to a request 12 months previous, yes. There was no other request. I think 3 exceedingly minor incidents over 30 months is pr…

I didn't acknowledge that, and it was you who were well over the line. Your comments in the thread were obviously flamewar. That's not allowed here, regardless of how right you are or feel.

People often feel like they're saying "true and important things politely" when in fact they're egregiously flaming. Then when we ban them for flaming, they feel like they got banned for saying true and important things. I don't know the way out of that perception; all I can tell you is that you broke the rules badly and that I'm pretty sure the bulk of this community would agree.

I'd be happy to unban you, but I need a reason to believe that you won't do that again.

Btw there's no email in the HN inbox that references your username and while I found one or two emails from that day that reference being banned, I replied to all of them and none were from you. It's possible your email went to spam, though we look through the spam bin pretty carefully and rescue most emails like that.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#96

Post by mandmandam »

dang wrote: post #95
mandmandam wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're calling "breaking site guidelines", I call "politely standing up to an active bully". A bully who you acknowledged was well over the line. You said nothing to tptacek about it, while banning me for putting a toe over the "guideline". You said "we just asked you to stop" in reference to a request 12 months previous, yes. There was no other request. I think 3 exceedingly minor incidents over 30 months is pr…

I didn't acknowledge that, and it was you who were well over the line. Your comments in the thread were obviously flamewar. That's not allowed here, regardless of how right you are or feel. People often feel like they're saying "true and important things politely" when in fact they're egregiously flaming. Then when we ban them for flaming, they feel like they got banned for saying true and important things. I don't k…

Honestly dang, you're like the teacher in class who punishes the kid that stands up to the bully. I've never understood that mindset.

This is your domain, and your rules go. If you say I was flame warring, then I was flame warring. But I don't think "the majority of this site would agree", and I think it's weird you think that.

If you can point out what exactly was so egregious - something which tptacek didn't do worse in the same thread - I'll endeavour to make sure it never happens again, you have my word.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#97

Post by dang »

mandmandam wrote: post #96
dang wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't acknowledge that, and it was you who were well over the line. Your comments in the thread were obviously flamewar. That's not allowed here, regardless of how right you are or feel. People often feel like they're saying "true and important things politely" when in fact they're egregiously flaming. Then when we ban them for flaming, they feel like they got banned for saying true and important things. I don't k…

Honestly dang, you're like the teacher in class who punishes the kid that stands up to the bully. I've never understood that mindset. This is your domain, and your rules go. If you say I was flame warring, then I was flame warring. But I don't think "the majority of this site would agree", and I think it's weird you think that. If you can point out what exactly was so egregious - something which tptacek didn't do wor…

Ok, I'll take your request at face value. Here's how I read the last comment you posted before we banned you (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852986):

> Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else

That's aggressive name-calling and flamebait.

> I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself.

That's flamewar fodder which adds no information.

> Even if shrill is "gendered" (The Google says it "hints" at gendered language, btw), *so fucking what*.

"So fucking what" is gratuitous, aggressive flamebait.

> The implication in GPs comment is that this justifies Newspeak-ification... It doesn't.

That's an on-topic statement! but a shallow one. This part could have been the kernel of a good comment if you had expanded on your argument instead of just saying "It doesn't."

> And neither does referencing less "agreeable" authors, such as Joseph Conrad.

That's fine, but again would have been much better with more information.

> I mean, wow dude. Talk about the worst possible takes.

That's more name-calling and flamebait.

I don't know how to read that comment except as exactly the sort of flamewar that we don't want on HN. And you broke the site guidelines repeatedly in other comments in that same thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34854019

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852816

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852697

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852642

I re-read tptacek's comments in the same thread and your comments were far, far more aggressive and flamewarrish than his. It's not close. I realize it doesn't feel this way because it always feels like the other person started it and did worse. But this is an illusion we all suffer from when we get into those sorts of conflicts. (The solution is to cultivate the habit of responding less in kind, not more; if one does that enough, it can partially correct for that bias.)

All that said, I could probably have warned you rather than banned you at that point. I don't understand why I wrote "we just asked you to stop" - assuming you weren't using multiple accounts to post, it's possible I simply mistook you for someone else that I had recently scolded, and if so, that could have tipped me in the direction of banning you.

If you want to commit to editing out flamebait and name-calling from your posts and not being aggressive in HN comments in the future, I'd be happy to unban you. Please make sure you're up on the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html because those set the parameters of how we interpret these things.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#98

Post by mandmandam »

dang wrote: post #97
mandmandam wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly dang, you're like the teacher in class who punishes the kid that stands up to the bully. I've never understood that mindset. This is your domain, and your rules go. If you say I was flame warring, then I was flame warring. But I don't think "the majority of this site would agree", and I think it's weird you think that. If you can point out what exactly was so egregious - something which tptacek didn't do wor…

Ok, I'll take your request at face value. Here's how I read the last comment you posted before we banned you ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852986 ): > Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else That's aggressive name-calling and flamebait. > I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself. That's flamewar fodder which adds n…

You know, I think I'm starting to get why teachers do that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your thought process.

I will commit to avoiding "flamebait" and name-calling in posts, and being, at worst, genially aggressive in HN comments.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#99

Post by submariner11 »

mandmandam wrote: post #96
dang wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't acknowledge that, and it was you who were well over the line. Your comments in the thread were obviously flamewar. That's not allowed here, regardless of how right you are or feel. People often feel like they're saying "true and important things politely" when in fact they're egregiously flaming. Then when we ban them for flaming, they feel like they got banned for saying true and important things. I don't k…

Honestly dang, you're like the teacher in class who punishes the kid that stands up to the bully. I've never understood that mindset. This is your domain, and your rules go. If you say I was flame warring, then I was flame warring. But I don't think "the majority of this site would agree", and I think it's weird you think that. If you can point out what exactly was so egregious - something which tptacek didn't do wor…

You'll never win this fight. For _years_ people have complained about tptacek's bullying, but he's one of the HN elite, so he'll never be punished. It's a racket.

Re: Humanness in the Age of AI

#100

Post by dang »

mandmandam wrote: post #98
dang wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll take your request at face value. Here's how I read the last comment you posted before we banned you ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852986 ): > Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else That's aggressive name-calling and flamebait. > I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself. That's flamewar fodder which adds n…

You know, I think I'm starting to get why teachers do that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your thought process. I will commit to avoiding "flamebait" and name-calling in posts, and being, at worst, genially aggressive in HN comments.

Ok thanks—I've unbanned your account.
Post reply on HN