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

Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#91

Post by andoando »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #60
wnevets wrote: post #38

Even if you 100% believe in your heart that Altman would never do anything negative with these scans that doesn't mean someone else won't if/when they get access to them. People may trusted 23andMe with their genetic data but now no one knows who will end up owning it and why the buyer believes buying the data is profitable. https://wydaily.com/latest/regional-national/2025/05/08/23an...

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…

I mean, I dont want the private details of my life exposed, illegal or not. Who does

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#92

Post by yks »

dmitrygr wrote: post #86
theyinwhy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.

Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.

I guess the point is whether it's a private company collecting your data, the good government, or the bad government that gives the access to your data to random non-vetted individuals for fun, the end result is the same — your data ends up with people who have the ability and desire to cause you harm.

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#93

Post by kurikuri »

dmitrygr wrote: post #86
theyinwhy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.

Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.

Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit.

Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#94

Post by dmitrygr »

kurikuri wrote: post #93
dmitrygr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.

Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit. Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.

> the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people

I see your history teachers did a poor job. My condolences.

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#95

Post by lokar »

josh2600 wrote: post #90
caseyy wrote: post #69

Meanwhile, in reality, banks have solved proof of humanity, identity (KYC), and financial services for a long time. Any account in the world can be proven human by making a debit/credit card transaction from a card with a matching name. For the first time, you can now give your biometrics to OpenAI to do nothing more than you already can. This is just a pure cult of personality.

I can only assume that you don’t work in financial technology if you believe that KYC is a solved problem. Proving authenticity in an increasingly diasporic society is difficult. We should seek to either reduce or embrace entropy in the design of our systems. You either want systems which prove there are no Sybil attacks, or you manufacture halls of mirrors. This is a continuous battle, there’s no panacea here, even…

It depends what you mean by solved.

Banks tend not to over engineer things. KYC can be seen as a 3 sided trade off: cost of KYC infra/process/etc, lost revenue from denied business and fines from regulators.

They (the banks) don’t really care about the social goals of KYC, they just try to best optimize for expected value in the trade offs.

The regulators understand this, and are basically fine with it. They have their own trade offs they are balancing.

Both sides mostly find and equilibrium.

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#96

Post by theyinwhy »

dmitrygr wrote: post #94
kurikuri wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit. Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.

> the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people I see your history teachers did a poor job. My condolences.

Personal attacks are not welcome here. Btw, "the apparent motive of the government is to serve its people" still stands even if the government does not serve its people.

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#98

Post by smj-edison »

9283409232 wrote: post #3

Why are these rich assholes so obsessed with tracking everyone? > Tools for Humanity bragged about many large partnerships that should make any privacy advocates shiver in dread: the Match Group dating apps conglomerate (Tinder, OkCupid, Hinge, Plenty of Fish), Stripe, and Visa are some of them. Visa and Stripe being involved in this should indeed make everyone shiver and push back against this. Altman is not a good…

It makes me think of the idea of legibility[1]: it's hard to understand incredibly large and complicated systems, so the solution is to simplify, and then enforce that simplification. From a high-level perspective, it seems reasonable to surveil everyone, to help them. I think someone really can delude themselves into thinking that it's necessary, utilitarian-style.

Now, if we designed technology for humans, we'd realize that most humans have local networks of trust. E.g. I talk to my friend in person, she tells me her discord handle, now we've established trust. In addition, trust is something that's gradually built, not given all at once in a EULA[2].

[1]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...

[2]: https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2024/10/15/trust-takes-time/

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#99

Post by theyinwhy »

dmitrygr wrote: post #86
theyinwhy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.

Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.

Isn't it the case that companies are hiding in the government's shadow? Who enables a government to exert power over its people?

Re: Sam Altman Wants Your Eyeball

#100

Post by sillyfluke »

the_d3f4ult wrote: post #88

I'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?

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.
Post reply on HN