Plans? I assumed lots of people were already working on this. There's already a lot of training data out there, and I suspect most users can be identified by use of a handful of uncommon trigrams and sentence stats. I know you can recognize things I've written at work because they have real em dashes—people rarely type with those.
NSA already does this. "Stylometry" I believe is the term. Perhaps they used heuristics and algorithms so far? I would NLP was good enough for this years ago.
Back in 2015 you might have some linguists work with data scientists to do feature engineering and use those as inputs to an LR model. I suppose you can let a deep learning model feature engineer for you, but either way, you'll get to some of the same heuristics you're thinking of.
Someone unintentionally did something similar with HN comments to find users who sound most similar to you/eachother and people were finding their throwaway and alt accounts.
Interesting. There was commentary about finding anonymous/throwaway accounts, but on mine, I did not find my anonymous account (although I use that very rarely). The accounts that turned up seemed to be all real, and in a couple cases I could guess what might have made the checker match us (e.g., mentions of MFAs or Apple //e or similar politics), but not all. I didn’t notice any linguistic similarities.
I'm supportive of helping our convicts reintegrate into our society as healthy contributors and seeing they receive the support they need to find their niche in our diverse economy and social landscape.
I doubt TrueCrypt developers decided that it was Not Secure As Microsoft’s bitlocker after considering the paper that got released the following year.[0]
rng shuffling of style and library usages, paradigms. and naming convention. camelCase vs NOCAMELCASE based on a coinflip, etc. leverage Lint static analyzer tools to enforce prior to submission.
lot of fun ways to stick it to those bulk surveillance data lakes that may be the targets of such training sets
Running all writing through AI to re-write everything in a different style while conveying the same information might work. Create a way to apply it to all online writing and you have something like a writing VPN.
Exactly. You barely need "AI" for this. Changing style enough to put some sand in a sophisticated text identifier could be as simple as introducing some spelling and grammar variations. It could easily be commoditized (isn't grammarly doing this already minus the privacy part?). Of all cat and mouse games LE and intelligence are playing, for this one I'm betting on the mouse.
Just write all your 'sensitive' texts in leetspeak, use very few words, and very short words and it should be fine. It's like the typing equivalent of cutting letters out of magazines.
I proposed this as an automated process for our provinces social services/inquiries email. The idea being that the text would be harder to use as a method of discrimination.
"Ernest Hemingway: he has no courage, has never crawled out on a limb. He has never been known to use a word that might cause the reader to check with a dictionary to see if it is properly used."
Ernest Hemingway:
“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."
No. Look, I had some "fight" in these pages two days ago because somebody complained of my style.
It is the farthest from legitimate to suppose that one's intention is to impress - that is accusing people of childishness, and you need to have solid grounds to suppose that. There are higher chances that one wants to be _precise_.
That would be precision in the expression of some content, to have such expression match as perfectly as possible a defined structure of thoughts you elaborated. You may want to describe the facts precisely, and/or the mental processes that those facts provoke.
Also some image subtly (and not so subtly) emerged, days ago, of "language as a cage": but if you want to express exactly some "/that/", it is the language that will have to provide the means - as opposed to a horrifying idea of "expressing what language allows".
There are contexts in which it is of paramount importance that the reader understands the message (e.g. instructions) - pay attention towards using the most digestible expression then. But when you want your content to be expressed as the defined sculpture of structures of ideas, while many different expressions are possible they are pretty much "what they are, because they are what they should be".
Don't agree. Like the commenter upthread, I have for some years had the feeling that my language is bloated with subordinate clauses, and that I use too many ten-dollar words. It's easy to use flowery language to conceal from yourself the shallowness of your understanding. So I get out my Xacto knife, and cut out the crap. Sometimes.
More precisely: not just having people less intellectually exercised¹, but also and especially creating some sort of "demand" that "things have to be simple". Non-recognition of complexity is also one of the cracks allowing populism. Your duty is to "spend one further thought", while some instances seem to defend an idea of an "as-if-constitutional right to reduced consideration".
(¹ I wrote the other day, «I also believe that "Now drop and give me twenty" will return us fitter personnel than "Please, be fed from a straw"»)
To quote the late philosopher Dr. Rick Roderick, "Deeply rooted in our culture is anti-intellectualism; our fear of eggheads. The work of intellectuals has always been separated off from the work of ordinary people - you have to be freed from the constraints of manual labor. When I was a dishwasher, I didn't have time to do this. Any time I was involved in manual labor, I didn't really have the time to do this intellectual work."
Most people do not have time, nor desire to do additional intellectual work after slaving away doing whatever it is they do for income.
Your example doesn't match the principles you highlighted. Obviate->remove is replacing a perfect-fit with a generic alternative. "Obviate" was neither a word salad nor complex, it was straight up (marginally) better. This was a tradeoff to appeal to people whose vocabulary is narrow, not improve comprehension.
"Register": I immediately know what it means and it takes tenths of a second for me to make the decision to click (or not to).
"Sign up": despite having a CEFR C2 level of English and using it at work every day, I still need to think for a few seconds if this is a registration or a login (cf. "sign in").
For a native speaker I suppose the latter is (marginally?) easier, but for a non-native, it's much harder, not even close.
Your examples are very illustrative, but I would argue that both phrases suffer from being too generic. I wish that there wasn’t such a push for “one word” CTAs. Examples of alternatives I’d advocate for depending on context:
As a native speaker, it's very unpleasant to write like that. I will if necessary for effective communication, but it's like wearing a straitjacket. It can be awful to read, too. Rarer synonyms and the phrasal verbs (both commonly avoided in a simple style) are sometimes necessary to avoid excessive repetition.
It is one of the downsides of being a native speaker. I write pretty much like how I speak. It's hard to use it like a foreign language, but that's what technical international English feels like to me, in a way. In my experience, fluent second language learners master that style more easily than native speakers do.
> This was a tradeoff to appeal to people whose vocabulary is narrow, not improve comprehension.
”Comprehension” is not some audience-independent property of a text. Comprehension is what happens when a text is well-calibrated for an audience. If your audience is unlikely to know the word ”obviate” (which seems true of many engineering settings, where the audience is international), you absolutely improve comprehension by replacing it with words the audience is more likely to know.
I agree with you that ”obviate” sounds better, and in a setting like a blog post, monograph, or even an hn comment, that’s probably what I’d use. But in e.g. a work email for colleagues in another country, you reduce the risk of miscommunication by following OP’s suggestion.
There lies the spring coil. The less it is established what your audience is, the more you shift from "calibrated expression" to a form of expression which is as absolute and universal as possible. (See my previous post here, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33045225 .) If you have a message for an audience, you will try and condition its expression according the audience; the more the audience is abstract, the more the expression will be unconditioned, as if intended for an ideal audience.
Nit pick. Fair point in some ways but it depends on your audience. If the latter consists primarily of folk with an extensive vocabulary that enables them to detect the nuance that might be intended by the use of a supposedly unusual word (like obviate) then they won't know what you mean by 'word salad' unless you're using some word inappropriately. Seven letters versus twenty three characters. No competition. If obviate is what you mean then use it. For a general audience however, you're absolutely right.
Occurs to me there's another point in your favor as expressed in Orwell's version of a well-known passage from the Old Testament 'Ecclesiastes' into modern English. He makes the point brilliantly. Aesthetics does come into it!
About 15 years ago, at JHU, I heard about an algorithm that detected a writer's gender with more than 90% of accuracy, and the NLP professor considered that problem solved.
I briefly considered making one. My idea was simple — build a Markov chain for each person plus the text with the unknown author, do a dot product of the intersection of the all the chains, pick the author with the best match. Never got around to it. Perhaps this weekend?
How robust is it though? If you scale to thousands or tens of thousands of people.
If it depends on trigrams and uncommon characters it can be countered by incredibly simple measures.
As someone who expects this to have happened years ago (maybe not under the moniker of AI but who cares) I'm more shocked by the fact that they'd publically announce this. The chilling effects of this will be all too real.
If this works it's pretty much the equivalent of a mandatory state ID on every online interaction.
If it doesn't work very well, then it's going to be that, plus the risk of randomly being flagged.
As a society I don't think we have anything to gain from it; it's certainly tech that's put of Pandora's box, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use all our cultural/legal means to prohibit/control it.
Anyone in their basement could build this today, but it only becomes a problem if that person has control over police and intelligence forces. Which means the potential for good regulation is bigger than with other tech.
> The chilling effects of this will be all too real.
Maybe that's the point.
It could also be announced because they plan to use it publicly soon, to "prove" that some person they want to get for political reasons is the same as some evil terrorist/pedophile/serial killer.
This is 100% going to happen, so my guess is it can’t be authoritative. It’s likely to be used to whittle down a list so that humans can review the results.
Feels like the beginning of a hybrid Minority Report + Enemy of the State movie. I’d watch that. I don’t want to live in that world, though.
How many people write similar to you? I’d imagine it is more than one. Someone even did a show HN to find other accounts that write similar to you, which was entertaining.
One relatively straightforward countermeasure would be to feed your text through multiple rounds of machine translation using DeepL, Google Translate, and other similar services and applying corrections when necessary. That should break any personally identifying features in your original text.
That of course has its own risks, if you assume full government access to providers and unlimited surveillance capabilities. If you are fully paranoid you could even run your text through a local instance of (less accurate) Apertium[0] for the first few rounds, or even for the whole process if you find the result is different enough from your original.
An offensive one would be to post fake offers to trade government/military intelligence on the dark web writen in the style of the politicians backing up this measure, so that they are put on the feds list and thoroughly investigated.
Seems like an impossible task.
There's just not enough signal to noise ratio to make that distinction. Not if the goal is to distinguish among thousands of people.
Among tens or hundreds, might work if they don't take any countermeasures.
Even if it doesn't exactly work, like with facial recognition fucking up for non-white skin colors, they will use it anyway and real people will be saddled with real adverse consequences.
Im not smart enough to know if this is the same thing as what you're saying, but it just doesnt seem like there are millions of writing styles. There might just be too many literary doppelgangers.
The best protection against this type of de-anonymization is to take measures now, while you still have time, to prevent it. It is possible to change the style of one's writing by using a language model which alters the original text in order to create a new piece with a different style. For example, to translate your text into the grandiose and flowing diction of a bygone era, you might consider the project below.
Tools like this probably fool traditional stylometry, but what about de-anonymization tools that find similar ideas, not writing style? Perhaps most people have boring common ideas they got from others, but the sort of people the US Government is most interested in are likely quirkier than most.
Then they'd literally just go after people because they think they might harbor certain ideas?
"sir you are under arrest for maybe thinking about banning dairy production, which is at conflict with national security. We found an anonymous text online that has the same idea."
There is a case to be made, not just for natural language but code.
AFAIK there is quite a bit of examples from security labs where malware authors aren't necessarily identified but at least fingerprinted based on naming conventions, patterns they use across multiple projects etc...
That sort of fingerprinting could expand to correlating someone's anonymous software projects to other examples of code elsewhere (ex: if they contribute to source available stuff).
re: the example project you mention specifically, it does feel like using tools like that almost as a linter for natural language would be a fingerprint in itself.
EDIT: As far as OPSEC goes, a fun tidbit. A friend of mine identified a PR I submitted anonymously to them, simply because of the style of PR comments I made.
I find the examples given in the README to be quite tame for Victorian English. Compare it with the ending lines of A Tale of Two Cities:
"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.",
or this from Pride and Prejudice:
"However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters."
Kennyblanken opens up the fifteen inches of aluminum that is his aging Macintosh Book Pro, produced by a company laughably named after a piece of fruit and formerly headed by a brilliant but somewhat psychopathetic man, now long pushing up the daisies, and taps out the commands to login to his account on the antiquated and increasingly inaccurately named hackernews, bathing in the yellow-orange theme as he stretches across the pale green couch in his small apartment in the big city. Outside, a 2007 Neopolitan Flyer bus roars by, half full with tired commuters.
He expertly massages the worn keys to type out a lengthy and witty response about how he'd imitate the style of a famous novelist whose prose exists mostly to result in the sacrifice of as many innocent trees as possible - demonstrating how to stretch "I'd use Dan Brown's writing style" into nearly two full paragraphs of text.
To be a proper Dan Brown, you'd need to start with "Internet Commentator KennyBlanken" (or some other prefixed descriptor.)
cf [1]
"I think what enabled the first word to tip me off that I was about to spend a number of hours in the company of one of the worst prose stylists in the history of literature was this. Putting curriculum vitae details into complex modifiers on proper names or definite descriptions is what you do in journalistic stories about deaths; you just don't do it in describing an event in a narrative."
There's a tool called Anonymouth, written by folks at Drexel's PSAL lab, which is intended to help writers with anti-stylometry analysis.
If anyone is looking for an impactful project, Tails OS maintainers and it's author academics seem receptive to bringing it onto that privacy-minded platform:
I suspect it’s how Fake Steve Jobs was unmasked 15 years ago:
The New York Times found Mr. Lyons by looking for writers who fit those two criteria, and then by comparing the writing of “Fake Steve” to a blog Mr. Lyons writes in his own name, called Floating Point
Further violations will lead to the balances of your close friends and family being adjusted by -20%, and the balances of acquaintances being adjusted by -5%. Help protect against the threat of misinformation and safeguard your Balance for up to 28 days by reporting anything that you think could lead to harm. Remember, We're All In This Together.
If I want to write anonymously, I cycle my text through Google Translate multiple times and keep all the grammatical errors intact. So, English > Italian, and then Italian > French, then back to English.
I also pass it into Hemingway[0] first to make my text lean and non-superfluous.
Am I the only one seeing the irony and contradiction here? Not the same people at all -- subgroups at best , but the Director of National Intelligence is part of the administration. Perhaps I am missing something -- feel free to comment -- I am curious what everyone thinks.
I built something like that more than a decade ago to identify alter-egos in an online game from in-game chat. It was reasonably successful and I thought about commercial applications for it, but ultimately decided most things that could be used for are creepy or evil.
I remember hearing DARPA was actively seeking research in the field around that time. In principle, I'm not absolutely against my software being part of the chain of events that leads to the decision to kill someone, but I don't trust the US government (or, realistically, anybody else) to independently verify an identification made by such a system.
I'd be surprised if the three letter agencies aren't using something at least as good as what I wrote by now.
I'd describe it as fairly simple. It was just a classifier where each account name was a category: there was no fancy NLP. It used a single feature type and an algorithm from a well-known family. I don't want to say what either was lest I further proliferate the technique.
I cross checked using statistically improbable words, which helped confirm or exclude weak matches.
Content marketers in the digital marketing space commonly put blog posts through "spinners" that take your text and modify it through replacing words/phrases with similar equivalents. This lets you take one article and turning it into 5-10+ unique ones, even though they still discuss the same things. It would be a shame if a service like this was marketed towards those interested in privacy, it would probably break this entire system...
I’ve found plenty of articles that seem to be run through these spinners, but hand made corrections are likely to be necessary (unless it can be automated with ML for example) as you can almost always tell that something is odd based on context lacking word choices
And thats exactly what newer programs do, look at AppSumo and its practically all of them. The older gen simply used a giant dictionary, then picked a random option from the list of acceptable choices.
There exists such a practice, and it is known as academic publishing.
Every verb is done in passive voice, punctuation is added - wherever possible - to make sentences appear more complex than they need be, and of course there is an effervescent use of sesquipedalian terms where shorter similes would otherwise suffice.
Seems very doable given the state of google translate.
Trouble is if you are a revolutionary leader of some kind you are probably going to be saying new things that no-one else talks about - which renders both anonspeak and the ai detection kind of redundant.
I guess the application for this then is in the interim to stop people or online groups becoming revolutionary by tracking and deradicalising them with targeted manipulation.
I'm sure this has already existed for years. The AI technology needed to implement this has exited for years. You just need to do web crawling and keyword and link matching.
You don't even need a 'writing fingerprint', you just need to parse comments which reveal identifying information such as 'I participated in project x', 'I taught at university y', 'I invested in startup z'... then when you combine all the identifying information, you can narrow down the pool of possible matches to a single person.
You could probably do it with just basic text matching, no AI required.
Credit scores are not determined by the government. If a credit ratings agency took that step, it would harm them because Twitter posts are unlikely to represent a meaningful variable when predicting someone's creditworthiness.
Don't confuse that with "social credit" systems, whereby China prevents you from riding trains if you say something naughty.
that's why the US wants to ban TikTok asap, because they don't want china to be able to do what they are doing for decades too
> it would harm them because Twitter posts are unlikely to represent a meaningful variable when predicting someone's creditworthiness.
people get fired and arrested already for posting stuff on twitter, in both the US and Europe, so no, it's not just just a "twitter moderation" thing
Ask yourself why they are allowed to exist and still operate despite unable to grow and are loosing money for years, talk about anti-competitive practices, unless it's in reality a government body in disguise
When online comments get worked up about The Social Credit System, a key thing I believe they're trying to do is spread awareness of how disturbing it is that a government is even considering such a thing that, as we understand it, is closely related to being a core technology in an authoritarian dystopia.
While it's not implemented at scale, the unnerving fact is that govt policy makers did a careful enough take on a social credit system to decide that it was worthwhile investing (probably non-trivial amounts of ) money and resources into exploring it and did eventually reach a point where they were a handful of steps short of wide-scale implementation.
Ok. If we’re talking speculative planning, the US also considers bringing privatized credit score system under government control instead, the very thing OP is criticizing. I have no problem with criticizing authorities but the us vs them look how much worse it is in red china god bless our freedoms here angle is tired bootlicking too
thank you. the most specific citation I could find in your link was this, regarding the 80% rollout statistic:
>As of December 2020, more than 80 percent of all the provinces, autonomous regions, and municipal cities had issued or were preparing to issue local credit laws and regulations.
your citation still doesn't say much, just that most are at least still "preparing" or have rolled out a limited pilot, which is what I said originally
I'm old so I've been planning on this for awhile. I have a folder that contains all my personal data: photos and videos, journal, all my saved social media posts, all my emails and all my anonymous handles leading to everything I've ever written online. My thinking is an AI could create a reasonable facsimile of myself that my descendants could have a conversation with. I think it'd be better than a autobiography since Joyce Carol Oates convinced me by something she tweeted that no one reads autobiographies, not even close family, unless you are famous.
If I had a bot that replicated my great great ancestor I’d probably get bored quickly and then try to prod it into revealing it’s deeply outdated and inappropriate social views
Ok, so would the simplest way to solve this be an open source AI that can normalize specific text / writing to force it to be too similar to all other text so it's less identifiable.
Such as, you write a comment or an essay, feed it in and it just dumps all your styles, idioms etc and makes all your stuff sound bland and normal.
Seems like it would only work if you had a targeted population and a writing / style sample ffor a lot of people.
Sure but your output will probably have the same signature as well unless you keep updating the model each time. It’s already hard to do the first thing, almost no one is going to do step 2 for a comment on the internet.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it links anonymous writings together? If you don't have any writings under your real name there's nothing it can do except indicate two pseudonyms belong to the same person.
If precision isn't super important you can already run your text through machine translation into another language and then back again. Spammy content sites already seem to do that to avoid copyright detection.
Presumably they can already unmask 99.99% of high-value persons of interest already, this sounds like they want a tool to unmask all the lower-value anons for the journalists to pick off.
If it's an actual ML model then someone can leak it and develop countermeasures. If it's a contractor who claims to be AI but is actually some guy in a room in Maryland, that's not possible but also the results wouldn't be very reliable.
Of course, the article just says they're planning to do this. It doesn't say it's going to work, and our closest examples, forensic science like handwriting and blood spatters and polygraphs and all that, generally don't actually work.
What's almost as bad as the increased powers of government surveillance is thinking about the people who will be jailed, waterboarded and/or shipped to Gitmo for horrific tortures because our benevolent overseers in government make a mistake and think they are someone else due to the flawed algorithm fingering the wrong person.
The thing is, AI is a good mask for a "backend process that you don't need to explain how it works". Assuming that the US government already has private conversations on multiple content and messaging platforms, this AI will provide the perfect excuse to connecting a blog post with a given id in a process.
My first cynical take was that this will be used for "hunch laundering." There could be no indication that user A is an alias for user B, other than someone's hunch, but getting a computer to say that they match might be good enough to get a warrant when someone's hunch wouldn't be. It would be similar to having drug sniffing dogs affirm their handlers' feelings.
Hang on, is this rooted in the same technique (obviously they didn't have "AI"/technological processes like this back then) the FBI used for Ted Kaczynski (in which they literally analyzed his text to figure out who he was)?
This already exists. There was actually someone who posted something on HN that would use your public profile to find your anonymous Reddit username and it found mine. That’s when I stopped anonymously using Reddit.
I always wondered about voice deanonymization as well. I feel like between accent, gap between words, tonal variation, and rhythm, there's enough there to fingerprint speech, even with voice changers.
This seems to be a particularly bad time to implement this dumb idea. If it does become successful and prevalent, who do they think is going to be the writers apart from gpt3 clones.
Creepy factor aside, a similar tool for attribution would be very useful for content creators (or copyright holders) currently worried about stable diffusion.
Nakamoto Satoshi has not been unmasked despite the very short list of people capable/interested in creating what he made.
Stylometric analysis did suggest a single person on that list. The easier thing for governments to do at the time would have been to just spin up a node in the first year and look at the IP addresses.
He had no desire to become known back then and likely never will. It's only more dangerous now compared to the threat before of being locked up like the LibertyCoin guy (who just got released a year ago).
NS is happy to stay in the shadows, nearly everyone respects that decision especially in a world of crypto scams and ponzis. Surprised they never linked the domain name purchase to him though.
In my case and I suppose for most HN posters there'd be little point—for on demand Ycombinator would be compelled to hand over email and IP addresses to Government—as I'd reckon in most instances that'd be a much easier and faster way of obtaining relevant information.
In an era when privacy has become hugely diminished under the hands of both governments and corporate interests it raises the question of what rights to anonymity anyone has in either a public or private forum, and at present there's little if any consensus on this which ought to signal that any such project is premature.
Unlike yours truly—who usually speaks his mind irrespective of whether he's known to his audience or does so anonymously—many will not speak their minds out of fear of being ridiculed, or humiliated, or exposed, or out of the risk of offending—risking the breakup of a friendship, etc. Same goes for whistleblowers whose public utterances, if not done anonymously, usually costs them their jobs.
If people fear that their autonomy to act in an anonymous manner has been removed then they're unlikely to act at all, silence being the better part of discretion.
This would have huge negative repercussions for society, our institutions and our governance—after all, the secret ballot is one of the cornerstones of our democracies. If we're not careful AI could undermine the ballot by unmasking what users think or how they actually vote and it's not hard to see how this would lead to coercion thence totalitarian government.
That said, in this world of widespread almost instant communications, actors who intentionally act out of bad faith can do widespread damage, especially so when they do so anonymously. Knowing who they are would minimize the damage they are able to cause.
Similarly, in a distantly-related post on HN a few days ago I referred to the increasing loss of respect for our important institutions and for the way we're being governed and how I thought that faith could be restored. There, I suggested that as a part of that process we need to unmask the hidden processes of government and that this would also include the naming of those who originate policy, law, etc.:
"If we're to restore any faith in our governance then this protection [hiding originators of policy] must stop. Decisions made by government employees must be open to public scrutiny, similarly, the origins of government policy—laws, regulations etc.—must be traceable back to its source (those who initiated said policies).
Systems without accountability will always become corrupt."
Thus, there's a real dichotomy at work here. For some things anonymity is essential, at other times it's a curse. And from the many recent instances of where the gnomes within government haven't acted in our best interests then I'm damned sure that putting AI to work here won't bode well for us either.
I've little doubt that the technology will be abused, and by virtue of the fact it will automatically silence a large proportion of the population who need speak out and who should do so anonymously in the interests of all. Even if they aren't targeted directly just knowing that there are systems in place that have the potential to expose them would be sufficient to silence many—as AI analysis of their words could be used to determine their identity at any future time (living with ongoing stress from potential exposure of one's ID would likely be unbearable for some).
Given past history and current bad behavior of governments in these areas, I do not believe that it is possible to put such a system in place that would gain the full confidence of all players involved. It would have to have sufficient protections locked in place to provide full public accountability as well as having inbuilt mechanisms that would ensure the system could not be abused by governments. At present, such conditions cannot be realistically met—not by a long shot.
Before anyone or any entity could let AI loose on this project and simultaneously state with all honesty that sufficient protections were in place for the project to proceed with safety would require many other prerequisite protections and 'safety measures'—which currently do not exist—to be incorporated (locked) into our governance. For instance, a whole raft definitions and concomitant laws pertaining to privacy are needed—and that's just for starters.
No doubt this project will proceed without those prerequisite protections, ipso facto, it will also be abused.
PS: note my quoted point about government policy etc. being open to public scrutiny. Here such questions arise such as where did this idea originate, what are the names of its instigators and what are their motives for instigating this development—not to mention others such as what are their qualifications, experience, etc. (perhaps, given the enormous potential of this AI application to damage society, we may even need to pose questions concerning their political beliefs and allegiances).
It's no accident that this information is missing with this announcement.
This is why I write my shit under my own legal name, even going to notarize this account at some point. Yeah throwaway yeah. Anonymous speech. Oh yeah darknet, Tor, cryptography, like yes sometimes, but it's a game of cat and mouse, it's purely a question of cost.
Furthermore I consider games like poker or Magic the Gathering unplayable, that is the extent to which there is literally absolutely no privacy.
