• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 23rd, 2023

help-circle

  • You’re entirely correct, but in theory they can give it a pretty good go, it just requires a lot more computation, developer time, and non-LLM data structures than these companies are willing to spend money on. For any single query, they’d have to get dozens if not hundreds of separate responses from additional LLM instances spun up on the side, many of which would be customized for specific subjects, as well as specialty engines such as Wolfram Alpha for anything directly requiring math.

    LLMs in such a system would be used only as modules in a handcrafted algorithm, modules which do exactly what they’re good at in a way that is useful. To give an example, if you pass a specific context to an LLM with the right format of instructions, and then ask it a yes-or-no question, even very small and lightweight models often give the same answer a human would. Like this, human-readable text can be converted into binary switches for an algorithmic state machine with thousands of branches of pre-written logic.

    Not only would this probably use an even more insane amount of electricity than the current approach of “build a huge LLM and let it handle everything directly”, it would take much longer to generate responses to novel queries.








  • I think most would consider democracy to be the single issue to vote on. When one candidate has repeatedly said he’d be a dictator “for one day, and then stop” and actively argues in court that the position he’s running for is immune to the rule of law, I’m voting in whatever way is most likely to result in his defeat. As much as I complain about the candidates and the shitty voting system, I cannot compromise on the right to vote.





  • At first blush, that sounds really complicated for the voter to understand what happens to their ballot. Potentially delegating part of their vote to one of the candidates? That’s going to be a hard sell. Sure, the direct mechanics for voting seems simple, but the system that ballot would go into feels unlikely to lead to better satisfaction than STAR, and might even lead to less informed voters. Even reading your link several times, I’m still not sure I correctly understand how the delegated votes are supposed to work, because I keep going back to “Why would anyone want that?”

    My takeaway is either what we value in a democratic voting system is significantly different in some key area, or I don’t understand how the delegation in DYN is supposed to work, but I suspect it’s the former. I’m not a political scientist or a voting system enthusiast though, I just happen to like STAR.




  • It’s not even about selling you something, it’s about selling you, period. They sell the user’s attention to advertisers, and don’t much care about anything else because anything else is too hard to quantify in a spreadsheet.

    These days I mostly go for paid content like Nebula, alternative platforms like Odysee or PeerTube, or even Newgrounds - remember them? It’s not always possible to avoid YouTube entirely since some creators I follow only have a presence there, but transitions like this take time.


  • Unemployment is low because potential workers have either given up and stopped looking for work or are working literally anything because they will starve if they don’t; neither option lends itself to satisfaction with the economy. Labor participation rates have only just barely gotten back to their pre-pandemic levels, but a lot of people burned any savings they had to keep their heads above water, so on the whole they’re still further behind than they were 4 years ago, and they know it, but Krugman never cared to ask a real person, so he has no clue.

    Low inflation is meaningless when economic mobility is lower than ever, with education and healthcare dropping in quality and availability while increasing in price much faster than the average. Most small businesses that went bankrupt due to pandemic half-measures have not reopened, because unlike billionaires, when regular people without an army of lawyers declare bankruptcy, they actually lose everything. In spite of all this, clueless clowns who barely know how to look at numbers on spreadsheets write articles wondering why regular people aren’t satisfied with such a great economy, and concludes a better outcome was impossible.

    His only mention of consumer prices is an aggregated consumer price index, which is a “mere” 19% increase over pre-pandemic levels, and from that he concludes people are dumb babies because wages rose by about the same amount. This take is particularly insulting because he has definitely seen this chart and the numbers it’s based on:

    If that’s a great economy, I’m a firebreathing dragon.


  • Everyone knowing your identity? The drawbacks would far outweigh the benefits. However, there may be a path to the benefits of a Real ID sign-up system that mitigates the possible harms.

    First of all, let’s get this out of the way - this “minimal harm” approach would only be feasible if the government could either reach some level of technical competency or farm out the task to heavily restricted private corporations that do have that competence. If we presume that’s the case (unlikely), the question becomes whether the people would be willing to accept it. If we presume the majority of citizens also want such a thing (a tall order to be sure, I certainly don’t want it), then the question becomes what sort of system would be able to maximize privacy, and thus safety, while still requiring your real identity to be involved in creating online accounts? What would that system look like?

    (Collapsed for your convenience because I wrote way too much about this hypothetical)

    We’d absolutely need a level of abstraction. The government knows who you are anyway, but the business entity you’re interfacing with would get a unique token from the government that is not your actual Real ID number but which is a hash generated from the business’s (salted) ID number and your own salted ID number (idk I’m not a cryptographer).

    Signing up for an account would resemble using Google or Facebook to create an account; you’d be redirected to some third party Identity Verification System (IVS) which would handle identity verification and redirect you back to the account creation with the extra piece of information provided by the third party. You’d still pick a username, password, etc.; the government database would only be used to generate that unique token.

    More specifically, the website or service would only be passed a token from the IVS, uniquely generated based on the company ID and the person’s ID, and the government database would only keep the token, not any of the data used to compute it. (That’s not counting China and other authoritarian states, of course - they’d definitely retain all that information and have a list of all the sites you have accounts with. This wouldn’t solve that problem.) This would make the IVS database virtually useless on its own, as an attacker who compromises the database has no way of knowing which token is associated with which website, and cannot derive it themselves unless they’ve also compromised one or more target websites at the same time. The cryptographic stuff would be rotated once it’s known that a breach has occurred, so such breaches would likely be limited to state actors or black-hat groups that hoard zero-days.

    Now, what would all this accomplish? What would it make possible that currently isn’t outside of China?

    • Unique website signups - one person, one account, and if it’s banned, that’s it, you don’t get to log in to that site ever again until you’re unbanned. Your only option to get around a ban would be to commit identity fraud, which would be quickly traced back to you if everything really was using this system.
    • If you block someone, they can’t just make a new account and keep harassing you; they’d have to start committing crimes, and the pattern of behavior would be easily traced back to their original account, and with it, their original identity.
    • No more sock puppets. If you say something on a platform, you only get one account to say it with. Troll farms would have to openly pay thousands of people to support a particular view, which many websites would likely consider a bannable offense. Troll farms are non-viable.
    • A website doesn’t need your email address or any personal information from you in order to verify your identity for password resets. If the IVS returns the correct token, that’s good enough.
    • If a user has committed a crime, and evidence of this is visible on a website or platform, a government with jurisdiction can, with a warrant, request that user’s token. That gives them a specific identity in the ID database to investigate further.
    • If the government is investigating a particular individual over whom they have jurisdiction, they can query websites or businesses over which they also have jurisdiction for information on whether any of the tokens in their database match a user account’s identity token, and request data from the matching account. It would be a much more focused process than queries based on IP addresses which judges keep having to say are not proof of identity.

    What would this system not do? What doesn’t change compared to now?

    • Companies using this system would still only know for sure who you are if you tell them; at most, they know with certainty what country your identity is associated with, but little more.
    • Companies could still coordinate information on data such as which accounts sign in from the same IP addresses, which would tell them more about specific users and potentially let them profile you.
    • Companies will still give up any information they have on you to the government if compelled by a warrant, sometimes even without one.
    • Websites can be hacked and your data on that website exposed to the world, requiring you to reset your password, etc.
    • The government can be hacked and information about your identity exposed
    • Accounts can be hacked, and nefarious people can do nefarious things under your name without having to commit identity fraud (though this act could itself be considered a crime under such a system)
    • Stalkers can still figure out who you are based on information you post, and go after you in the real world
    • The government doesn’t know which websites you visit unless they’re actively spying on you.
    • Oppressive governments can and will continue to monitor and log everything they can about you, and attempt to weaponize this against dissenters or those otherwise deemed “undesirable”

    Even in the grandest, best-possible-case scenario I can think of, it still comes down to “Can I trust my government to not take more information than they’re allowed to, and can I trust that they will not abuse the information they do obtain?” For many, I suspect the answer to both questions is no.