4 ms·

I'm a bit confused by what you're saying. It sounds like you're implying there's 3 different objects here but then you talk about only 2 in your opinion. Accura

I'm a bit confused by what you're saying. It sounds like you're implying there's 3 different objects here but then you talk about only 2 in your opinion. Accuracy/authenticity of the digital content, authenticity of the distribution of that content, and the interpretation of that content (using external context). I'd think the first is a mathematical/cryptographically solvable problem, assuming you trust (human decision) whatever hardware/software generates the content. The 2nd is solvable in a decentralized way when the first is solved. and the latter is probably always a human/societal decision. But why does the need for social trust impact technological solutions to the first two? Especially when deep fakes become more and more relevant in society.

eternalban 4y ago
> you talk about only 2 in your opinion. Truth, authority, trust. (3) The first is not mathematical. Any device that relies on mathematics at its core will fail to meet the demand of "is this true?" (Yes it can sign, authenticate, and verify (and store) sequences of 0s and 1s.) The second is a social phenomena by definition. Authority affects the suspension of disbelief. That is [one of] its primary function. At best technology can stake a claim to subordinate qualities of reliability of function, and fidelity to specifications. This tech is certified implementation of such and such wonderful design. It's an 'authoritative' realization. There is the limit for authority of technology. Finally, trust. Picture this trial in an imaginary 'hate hour' type of country. The defendant is a political prisoner. "Your honor, these facts have been established mathematically. Unequivocally, these messages were sent and signed by the defendant. This is a proven fact." "Your honor, they put a gun to my client's privates and had him sign that message which he didn't even write with his keys." So on to trust. Continue imagining that you are a "red-pilled" citizen of that society watching it on the tubes. Now try being blue-pilled and repeat the exercise. What technology will rid us of these pesky colored pills? -- We should not waste resources on solutions that can not even theoretically address the critical issues around (perceived) truth, authority, and trust, since these are ultimately and fundamentally human social issues. Beyond costs-benefits considerations, a secondary ill effect of the blockchain madness here is obfuscating the matter just discussed and creating a pervasive errant thought in a portion of the lay public that technology has obviated the need for authority and trust on certain matters, contrary to the actual state of affairs. p.s. technology should only be pervasively adopted to improve the human condition.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  Do you treat truth and authenticity as the same thing? A camera can take and sign a picture while proving it's not compromised. That picture is authentic but depending on the context the picture is presented in may or may not be true.

eternalban 4y ago

> you talk about only 2 in your opinion. Truth, authority, trust. (3) The first is not mathematical. Any device that relies on mathematics at its core will fail to meet the demand of "is this true?" (Yes it can sign, authenticate, and verify (and store) sequences of 0s and 1s.) The second is a social phenomena by definition. Authority affects the suspension of disbelief. That is [one of] its primary function. At best technology can stake a claim to subordinate qualities of reliability of function, and fidelity to specifications. This tech is certified implementation of such and such wonderful design. It's an 'authoritative' realization. There is the limit for authority of technology. Finally, trust. Picture this trial in an imaginary 'hate hour' type of country. The defendant is a political prisoner. "Your honor, these facts have been established mathematically. Unequivocally, these messages were sent and signed by the defendant. This is a proven fact." "Your honor, they put a gun to my client's privates and had him sign that message which he didn't even write with his keys." So on to trust. Continue imagining that you are a "red-pilled" citizen of that society watching it on the tubes. Now try being blue-pilled and repeat the exercise. What technology will rid us of these pesky colored pills? -- We should not waste resources on solutions that can not even theoretically address the critical issues around (perceived) truth, authority, and trust, since these are ultimately and fundamentally human social issues. Beyond costs-benefits considerations, a secondary ill effect of the blockchain madness here is obfuscating the matter just discussed and creating a pervasive errant thought in a portion of the lay public that technology has obviated the need for authority and trust on certain matters, contrary to the actual state of affairs. p.s. technology should only be pervasively adopted to improve the human condition.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
Do you treat truth and authenticity as the same thing? A camera can take and sign a picture while proving it's not compromised. That picture is authentic but depending on the context the picture is presented in may or may not be true.