Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T

TechLich

@ TechLich @lemmy.world

Posts
2
Comments
145
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Is it rude to interrogate downvoters?

    Jump

  • I think it's simpler than that. By default, Lemmy/piefed/etc. orders comments by top using upvotes and downvotes.

    So if you want something to move up and be more visible you upvote it. If you want something to move down and be less visible, you downvote it.

    The difference between likes/dislikes is that you don't need to like something or dislike something to up/down vote it. You might like something but think it doesn't contribute or is in the wrong comm or even just that the other comments should be higher up than it. There doesn't need to be an assumption of negative judgement (although often there is anyway), they're tools for arranging comment/post order.

  • It hurts.

    Jump

  • Optional. Optical sweaty is when you are so sad that your eyes start to vacuum tears.

  • Nvidia CEO Says He Gets Where The DLSS 5 Outrage Is Coming From: ‘I Don’t Love AI Slop Myself’

    Jump

  • I think they're saying that it's not generating slop from nothing. They take the artist's "structure data" as a "ground truth" and the generation is "guided" to generate slop that won't deviate too far from the original?

  • ‘Pokémon Go’ players have been unknowingly training delivery robots

    Jump

  • I thought so too. I seem to remember it almost being a selling point. Like: "Your adventures are being used to improve maps and train AI systems for the future of humanity! Yay!"

    But I had a look at their old pages from 2017-2020ish in the Wayback machine and there's no mention of it. In fact, their privacy policies seemed to try to make it very clear that they don't sell or share user data except where needed to deliver the service or in anonymised aggregate to third parties (48 people went to your business while playing Pokemon!).

    There's some mention of using it to advertise but none of them mention using it to build an advanced geo-spacial dataset for AI. Unless I'm missing something or reading it wrong?

    Might be a Mandela effect.

  • signal w

    Jump

  • Security yes, privacy not especially.

    PGP lets you encrypt the messages and sign them to digitally prove you sent them.

    It doesn't help with the problem here which is that the metadata of who you are (the IP used to log into the webmail and the email address of the sender) and who you're talking to (the email of the recipient) and when (timestamps etc.) were able to be leaked.

    In fact, depending on the implementation, PGP could be considered slightly worse for privacy because you'd have the added identity proof of the message having a signature that only you could create with your private key (although that's encrypted, it's a stronger identity proof than the sender email address). It also generally leaks the recipients' key IDs too (although that's configurable) PGP is great for accountability, message confidentiality and non-repudiation. Not so much for privacy. For that you'd need other systems.

  • I choose violence

    Jump

  • I don't think we got rid of it on purpose. I think it was mostly that imported printing presses only had Latin characters by default. Printers also added a bunch of stupid spelling that we're stuck with (like the "b" in doubt or debt, the "s" in island) because most books were in Latin and they wanted to make it look similar to the Latin word to be more legible.

  • I choose violence

    Jump

  • Weird, I read that almost easier than normal text

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • Ah misread that it was card, not a service. That mostly works and is the same kind of thing as the other crypto solutions.

    Though a bad actor could still set up a service with a legit card that provides government signed anonymous "yes" responses on demand.

    I worry that the response will be to require an account and a full ID from it. Social media sites saying "we need to verify your identity to ensure you're an adult human and to combat bots. Scan your id card..."

    Still one of the better technical solutions here though.

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • The difference is one is physical and requires interaction with a human: "Hey uncle Bob, buy me beer?" Vs. The other one is technical and just requires them to do a Google search and click a button without interacting with anyone.

    The first one has a higher barrier for entry and at least involves some form of adult supervision. The second one makes it not much different to the classic "what is your birthday?" thing.

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • The difference with the asking an adult to buy alcohol is mostly that, because the whole thing is online, they wouldn't need to ever really interact with an adult.

    If the circumvention is as easy as looking up "free age verification" in a search engine, typing a url and clicking a button then it might not be very effective.

    If it at least required them to steal dad's id card or get uncle Bob to help or something that's a different story.

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • I agree, although in this thread I'm mostly interested in the technical puzzle.

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • How do they deal with the other requirements though? What's stopping someone from setting up a service that uses their yivi account to sign "I'm over 18" for anyone who wants to be over 18?

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • This is the first perfect solution I've heard!

    Granted it's a little slow but it meets all the requirements xD

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • It would also reveal to the government that the user was accessing 18+ content (though not what that content is if the token is blinded).

    It also doesn't stop the easy circumvent of someone who is an adult providing a service for children or others who don't want to auth with the government.

    1. The 18+ site provides Child c with a token T and it's blinded to b(T)
    2. The child sends b(T) to a malicious service run by a real adult (Mal)
    3. Mal sends the token to the AVS to create s(b(T))
    4. Mal provides s(b(T)) to the child who gives it to the 18+ site as a legit S(T)

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • How does this work to protect privacy though? Wouldn't the site need to know who you are to be able to look you up with the government?

    Or is it more like an SSO/Oauth callback style thing where you sign into the government and they send the "age bit" digitally signed and your browser gives it back the service? Either way the government would know when you're accessing 18+ material and possibly what specific site you're accessing? Or is there more to it?

  • Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

    Jump

  • they could set up an online system which allows anyone to generate a proof of age and generates keypairs on demand for a requested site

    This is the issue I have with most cryptographic solutions. There's usually a way for someone to just share their private keys or run a service that generates valid site-specific credentials. If a user can generate something that says they're over 18, it would be trivial to do that on behalf of others and set up an easy automated system for it. Adding some kind of rate or use limiting would just make it frustrating to use on multiple sites and add more implementation complexity on the side of the site.

    Once such a system exists, the whole thing becomes trivial to circumvent. I guess the governments could try to play whack-a-mole with some kind of revocation capability but if the resulting keypairs are anonymous, then that wouldn't work because they wouldn't know who is creating them.

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    TechLich @lemmy.world

    Is private age verification technically possible and if so how?

  • there is a special place in hell for these scientists

    Jump

  • So should we just assume that nothing is conscious?

    Not at all! In fact, I believe that we should assume almost everything is conscious. I think it's a bit of human arrogance to think that we brain creatures have a monopoly on perspective.

    Nobody knows why they produce consciousness or what particular mechanism is responsible for human awareness.

    Exactly my point.

    That's... irrelevant

    I don't think it is. If the argument is that it's unethical to poke a neuron because it might have consciousness, would the same argument not apply to anything else? I think you might be getting a bit hung up on the "think like a human" thing. My point is not that it's okay to torture something if it doesn't "think like a human." It's that there are potentially a lot of things in the world that are conscious that don't often get the same consideration.

    capable of experiencing suffering

    This is an interesting one. It shifts the question from "does it have a consciousness?" to "does it have a consciousness that is suffering or able to suffer?". The idea of suffering is a very human concept that we have a whole section of our brains devoted to. There's a lot of ethics devoted to alleviating suffering (eg. Humanitarianism) and we sorta use it as a means of directing our goals - we avoid things that make us suffer and seek things that bring us happiness. What makes us happy or makes us suffer varies a bit from person to person due to experience and learning/training but a lot of it is biologically evolved. Physical and emotional pain makes us suffer for evolutionary reasons.

    So in one sense, you could define suffering as a stimulus that some conscious system avoids? In which case, training neurons essentially teaches them what suffering is. They're trained to activate or not activate based on what avoids irregular stimulus (suffering) and results in regular stimulus (happiness).

    If that's how you define it though, there could be many other systems that work the same way. Obviously animals and plants and fungi etc. But also Computers and lots of mechanical systems do that too. If making decisions to avoid or seek electrical stimulus is suffering then a computer is basically a pleasure/torture box.

    Personally I think that suffering is more than that. I think it's a larger system we brain creatures have developed that doesn't necessarily apply very well outside the context in which we use it. Would a vat of 20 billion neurons be able to suffer? I think that depends on how they're arranged and whether they have that concept.

    Whether it's ethical to murder an entire village of your enemies "depends on your ethical framework and philosophical worldview." See what a slippery slope moral relativism is?

    Just because different ethical frameworks and worldviews exist, doesn't mean they should all be treated equally. Sure, if someone is super utilitarian they might be fine with torturing people for medical research when they feel that the ends justify the means. If someone has a strict deontological code of ethics that tells them homosexuality is a sin punishable by death, they might campaign for that. I think those people suck and their beliefs are evil because of my own ethics and worldview.

    When it comes to a question like "is an ant capable of suffering?" Or "is it okay to swat a fly or set a mouse trap?" Or "how many human neurons does it take to suffer while changing a light bulb?" You'll get varying answers from people based on who they are. Personally, I think the right answer to those questions is dependent on the brain of the person answering them.

    Moral universalists have the same slippery slopes you mentioned. If right and wrong are fixed and objective and not dependent on people, then groups claiming to know the one true morality will use it to persecute those labelled as evil or morally bankrupt (see the homophobic asshole example above).

    Moral relativism doesn't mean that morality doesn't matter or that it's wrong to fight against what you think is evil. I believe you should fight for what is right and I'm hopeful that the things that I think are good will win out against the things that I think are evil. Absolutism is maybe a bit easier for that because it simplifies moral choices a lot, but I think it's hubris to think that evil is the same everywhere to everyone and not an artifact of the human mind.

  • there is a special place in hell for these scientists

    Jump

  • There's a lack of evidence for anything not being conscious.

    Neurons work by generating electrical signals in response to stimulus (either electrical inputs from other neurons or physical/sensory inputs activated by light or touch etc.) and they do this in a physical way.

    If they're conscious, then there's a pretty good chance that power plants are conscious, computers are conscious and pretty much everything else in the world is conscious.

    I'm not sure there's any requirement for consciousness to include "human-like reasoning" or "understanding" for it to have some kind of experience and perspective or awareness. Humans make a lot of assumptions about the world to make it fit the patterns we're used to.

    A cluster of neurons trained to play doom might have consciousness but it's not likely to think like a human, just like a rock or a plant or an ant or an iPhone might have consciousness.

    Whether it's ethical to squash an ant or turn off an iPhone or stimulate a lab-grown neuron depends on your ethical framework and your philosophical worldview.

  • there is a special place in hell for these scientists

    Jump
  • TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name @lemmy.world
    TechLich @lemmy.world

    Irish unification coming this year!