3 ms·

The TL;DR of the linked comment/explanation above is: * OP built a neural network (Deep Paranoia) similar to GPT-2 + DeepDream that can generate text for any n

The TL;DR of the linked comment/explanation above is: * OP built a neural network (Deep Paranoia) similar to GPT-2 + DeepDream that can generate text for any narrative, and identified that anyone could use such a system to reinforce any (false or not) narrative they want * OP then built a symmetric surveillance system (Grassland) focused on "truths" (derived from proof of work from IRL video feeds) to help protect humanity against a future in which auto-generated false narratives are widespread, intending to provide common people with something closer to omniscience such that they can see more (spatially and temporally) to be able to verify fact against potentially false narratives It's doomsday-ish, but seems like a natural evolution of tech in this space. And understandable why building the former (Deep Paranoia) would prompt someone to build the latter (Grassland). Obviously you can't have a "we have the right to harass you" clause in a copyright agreement, though. Threatening to do so is quite extreme.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
david_at 8y ago
It's not 'Deep Paranoia', lol. It's 'Deep Schizophrenia' The user 'vessenes' got the name wrong. Read my replies.
david_at 8y ago
The words people throw around here, "dystopian", "doomsday", etc. etc. are all from fiction. These are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're seriously trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can people possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? You can't take stories you know are fake and map them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving people mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss. And here you've put words in my mouth to suit your narrative. The story you want to believe. A story that's fake by defintion. Don't you see how messed up that is? Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". My software is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world. And it's not 'deep paranoia'. It's 'Deep Schizophrenia'

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

david_at 8y ago

It's not 'Deep Paranoia', lol. It's 'Deep Schizophrenia' The user 'vessenes' got the name wrong. Read my replies.

david_at 8y ago

The words people throw around here, "dystopian", "doomsday", etc. etc. are all from fiction. These are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're seriously trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can people possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? You can't take stories you know are fake and map them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving people mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss. And here you've put words in my mouth to suit your narrative. The story you want to believe. A story that's fake by defintion. Don't you see how messed up that is? Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". My software is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world. And it's not 'deep paranoia'. It's 'Deep Schizophrenia'