4 ms·

The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. I have been making this argument for years with regards to human actors but perha

The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. I have been making this argument for years with regards to human actors but perhaps with enough fear of the machines sentiment coursing through society the argument will now be considered. Authentically Human in a World of ChatGPT https://www.williamcotton.com/articles/authentically-human-in-a-world-of-chat-gpt https://www.williamcotton.com/articles/authentically-human-i... And the article from years ago: The Tyranny of the Anonymous https://www.williamcotton.com/articles/the-tyranny-of-the-anonymous https://www.williamcotton.com/articles/the-tyranny-of-the-an...

version_five 4y ago
I'm assuming this is satire. This is exactly my concern about all the recent hype - people are going to use it as an excuse to lock down computing, for commercial benefit and as a power grab.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I double-dog-dare you to read those articles and then reconsider your comment. You’ll see why!
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  Authentication != locking down computing. Content that’s cryptographically signed by its creator would (hopefully) have more credence than unsigned AI generated fake content purporting to be from someone else, e.g. deepfakes. Anonymity would not be heavy-handedly prohibited; rather, anonymous content would simply appear untrustworthy relative to authenticated content. It is up to the viewer to decide.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    I never argued that anonymity should be prohibited.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Can't we have anonymity AND authentication somehow?
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      Sure, have some platforms that require you to authenticate with state-issued PKI and then just let 4chan and Twitter do whatever they want. If people want to hang with the trolls and AI bots, let them. But also give people the option of platforms that are non-anonymous.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
    It would be good to have a way of checking if information came from a verifiable human, but I very much doubt that would make much of a difference in the proliferation of machine-generated fake photos, videos, tweets, etc. It requires the content providers and consumers to care, and at least on the consumer side it seems people will believe what they want to believe (e.g. Q-Anon) even when it's extraordinarily obvious that it's not true. Maybe if misinformation gets too far out of hand (there's already been an AI-generated fake video used in a political campaign) verification will become required by law for anything published on the internet.
rvz 4y ago
> The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. Governments totally love this antidote. I wonder who could be selling this sort of snake-oil to them whilst also being on the other side selling the poison... ...No-one else but Sam Altman's World Coin scam. [0] [0] https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-of-ai https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-...
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I make no case for requiring such identification, rather that it be optional, much like how the post office is optional and FedEx is still allowed to operate!
  - int_19h 4y ago
    I think your opt-in approach sounds fine in theory, and I can certainly see many good uses for a reliable proof of identity like that. But, at the same time, given the history of human governance, I am extremely skeptical that such a scheme would not be co-opted for tracking and surveillance of various outgroups almost immediately, and become mandatory once its utility as such is fully realized.
- bookofjoe 4y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/india-population-biometric-id-cards https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/india-populati...
- 52-6F-62 4y ago
  Wow. What’s the end game there? Seriously, what is their actual vision for the world? I’m amazed any even moderately experienced adult thinks this is progress.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    FWIW, I do not agree with anything in that WorldCoin proposal and find it to be the antithesis of my approach to digital governance. That is, those engaged in crypto-governance schemes are choosing to engage with a fantasy. We need real world solutions based on the current state of affairs, not some year-zero reinvention of global politics.
hungryforcodes 4y ago
Sure, all the governments would LOVE this! I'll take my chances with AI fake posts. At least I can just ignore them.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Public policy is a little more nuanced than shooting from the hip with Tweet-sized morsels. Please, read the second article, it addresses your concerns. It’s maybe a 5 minute read. I spent a lot of time making it concise.
  - hungryforcodes 4y ago
    Fair enough. I'll at least have a look at it.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  > At least I can just ignore them But how will you be able to do that if they can't be distinguished from genuine photos/videos/posts ? I think we're already at that point for photos and text, and video is coming along incredibly fast - give it another year perhaps.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    If you can't tell the difference, what's the value knowing the difference?
    - HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
      To distinguish truth from lies. e.g. If you see a photo or video of a politician in circumstances that might affect your support for them - wouldn't you want to know if what you are seeing is true or not? Look at what happened with Q-Anon - just a slow stream of text messages issued by some guy in his basement, but enough to rile up millions into believing something totally ridiculous (baby-eating politicians, etc). Now imagine what a smart disinformation campaign might look like, with an unlimited number messages over all types of social media, potentially customized for the individuals that have shown interest and are being targetted ... Of course disinformation isn't anything new, but technology is a force-multiplier and with AI a very sophisticated campaign of this nature could be run by a very small group of people, even just one.
saalweachter 4y ago
Yep. Being able to opt into a layer of the internet with identifiable authorship -- maybe still pseudonyms, but pseudonyms registered and linked to real-world identities through at least one identifiable real-world actor -- is a long time coming. It's not for everyone, but a lot of people who have been scammed by anonymous online merchants or targeted by anonymous online harassment and threats would love the option to step away from the cesspit of anonymity and live in a world where bad actors don't require sophisticated digital detectives to track down and prosecute.
Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
Where i live gambling is tightly controlled and requires government id due to money laundering laws. A sad side effect is a scheme were poor people sell their identity to organisations "gambling" on their behalf, trading an intangible future risk for hard present cash. Even today most chatgpt answers aren't posted by chatgpt on the social networks, but echoed by humans. Considering how much access people are willing to grant any bullshit app, your whole concept of using a government PKI for social networks would just lead to more people getting their id stolen, while running a bot on their profile. But you probably consider these prolls acceptable losses, as long as technology is implemented that allows the ministry of truth a tight control over party members who actually matter. Because the Orwell comparison is not a false dichotomy, as you claim, communication technology is a key battlefield in the tug of war between totalitarianism and liberalism. You keep repeating that you are not in favor of outlawing non-government-certified speech, but you fail to understand that, even if not outlawed, it would be marginalised. Take note how the totalitarians keep repeating their proposals to break all encryption and listen to all communication. Even if you may not want it, they do. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and yours isn't even good. I also notice how you hope "fear" does sway public opinion to favor your concepts. Are you sure you are not playing for team evil?
- williamcotton 4y ago
  “Acceptable losses”? Totalitarians promise water filtration facilities for their citizens as well. Should we also question that infrastructure? Police can obtain a warrant for searching your premises. Should we do away with this because of how this procedure would unfold under a totalitarian government? The root cause of your concerns is poverty. We can address that with other policies. We don’t need throw the baby out with the bath water.
  - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
    Water filtration is not a key enablement tech for totalitarianism, tightly controlling who says what in communication is.
    - 4y ago
kasperni 4y ago
First step? Lots of countries have had this for more than a decade?
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Yes, such as Estonia! Their digital governance infrastructure should be a leading example for the rest of the liberal world! I apologize for the incredibly American-centric point of view!
falcolas 4y ago
In today's environment where people can't keep their computing devices safe from Facebook, let alone ransomware, what makes anyone believe your average Joe could keep a private key safe for even a day in an environment which would immediately assign a significant dollar value that PK?
DesiLurker 4y ago
yup, India already has a pretty functional Adhar system.

version_five 4y ago

I'm assuming this is satire. This is exactly my concern about all the recent hype - people are going to use it as an excuse to lock down computing, for commercial benefit and as a power grab.

williamcotton 4y ago
I double-dog-dare you to read those articles and then reconsider your comment. You’ll see why!
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
Authentication != locking down computing. Content that’s cryptographically signed by its creator would (hopefully) have more credence than unsigned AI generated fake content purporting to be from someone else, e.g. deepfakes. Anonymity would not be heavy-handedly prohibited; rather, anonymous content would simply appear untrustworthy relative to authenticated content. It is up to the viewer to decide.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I never argued that anonymity should be prohibited.
- amelius 4y ago
  Can't we have anonymity AND authentication somehow?
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Sure, have some platforms that require you to authenticate with state-issued PKI and then just let 4chan and Twitter do whatever they want. If people want to hang with the trolls and AI bots, let them. But also give people the option of platforms that are non-anonymous.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  It would be good to have a way of checking if information came from a verifiable human, but I very much doubt that would make much of a difference in the proliferation of machine-generated fake photos, videos, tweets, etc. It requires the content providers and consumers to care, and at least on the consumer side it seems people will believe what they want to believe (e.g. Q-Anon) even when it's extraordinarily obvious that it's not true. Maybe if misinformation gets too far out of hand (there's already been an AI-generated fake video used in a political campaign) verification will become required by law for anything published on the internet.

rvz 4y ago

> The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. Governments totally love this antidote. I wonder who could be selling this sort of snake-oil to them whilst also being on the other side selling the poison... ...No-one else but Sam Altman's World Coin scam. [0] [0] https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-of-ai https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-...

williamcotton 4y ago
I make no case for requiring such identification, rather that it be optional, much like how the post office is optional and FedEx is still allowed to operate!
- int_19h 4y ago
  I think your opt-in approach sounds fine in theory, and I can certainly see many good uses for a reliable proof of identity like that. But, at the same time, given the history of human governance, I am extremely skeptical that such a scheme would not be co-opted for tracking and surveillance of various outgroups almost immediately, and become mandatory once its utility as such is fully realized.
bookofjoe 4y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/india-population-biometric-id-cards https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/india-populati...
52-6F-62 4y ago
Wow. What’s the end game there? Seriously, what is their actual vision for the world? I’m amazed any even moderately experienced adult thinks this is progress.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  FWIW, I do not agree with anything in that WorldCoin proposal and find it to be the antithesis of my approach to digital governance. That is, those engaged in crypto-governance schemes are choosing to engage with a fantasy. We need real world solutions based on the current state of affairs, not some year-zero reinvention of global politics.

hungryforcodes 4y ago

Sure, all the governments would LOVE this! I'll take my chances with AI fake posts. At least I can just ignore them.

williamcotton 4y ago
Public policy is a little more nuanced than shooting from the hip with Tweet-sized morsels. Please, read the second article, it addresses your concerns. It’s maybe a 5 minute read. I spent a lot of time making it concise.
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  Fair enough. I'll at least have a look at it.
HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
> At least I can just ignore them But how will you be able to do that if they can't be distinguished from genuine photos/videos/posts ? I think we're already at that point for photos and text, and video is coming along incredibly fast - give it another year perhaps.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  If you can't tell the difference, what's the value knowing the difference?
  - HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
    To distinguish truth from lies. e.g. If you see a photo or video of a politician in circumstances that might affect your support for them - wouldn't you want to know if what you are seeing is true or not? Look at what happened with Q-Anon - just a slow stream of text messages issued by some guy in his basement, but enough to rile up millions into believing something totally ridiculous (baby-eating politicians, etc). Now imagine what a smart disinformation campaign might look like, with an unlimited number messages over all types of social media, potentially customized for the individuals that have shown interest and are being targetted ... Of course disinformation isn't anything new, but technology is a force-multiplier and with AI a very sophisticated campaign of this nature could be run by a very small group of people, even just one.

saalweachter 4y ago

Yep. Being able to opt into a layer of the internet with identifiable authorship -- maybe still pseudonyms, but pseudonyms registered and linked to real-world identities through at least one identifiable real-world actor -- is a long time coming. It's not for everyone, but a lot of people who have been scammed by anonymous online merchants or targeted by anonymous online harassment and threats would love the option to step away from the cesspit of anonymity and live in a world where bad actors don't require sophisticated digital detectives to track down and prosecute.

Jon_Lowtek 4y ago

Where i live gambling is tightly controlled and requires government id due to money laundering laws. A sad side effect is a scheme were poor people sell their identity to organisations "gambling" on their behalf, trading an intangible future risk for hard present cash. Even today most chatgpt answers aren't posted by chatgpt on the social networks, but echoed by humans. Considering how much access people are willing to grant any bullshit app, your whole concept of using a government PKI for social networks would just lead to more people getting their id stolen, while running a bot on their profile. But you probably consider these prolls acceptable losses, as long as technology is implemented that allows the ministry of truth a tight control over party members who actually matter. Because the Orwell comparison is not a false dichotomy, as you claim, communication technology is a key battlefield in the tug of war between totalitarianism and liberalism. You keep repeating that you are not in favor of outlawing non-government-certified speech, but you fail to understand that, even if not outlawed, it would be marginalised. Take note how the totalitarians keep repeating their proposals to break all encryption and listen to all communication. Even if you may not want it, they do. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and yours isn't even good. I also notice how you hope "fear" does sway public opinion to favor your concepts. Are you sure you are not playing for team evil?

williamcotton 4y ago
“Acceptable losses”? Totalitarians promise water filtration facilities for their citizens as well. Should we also question that infrastructure? Police can obtain a warrant for searching your premises. Should we do away with this because of how this procedure would unfold under a totalitarian government? The root cause of your concerns is poverty. We can address that with other policies. We don’t need throw the baby out with the bath water.
- Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
  Water filtration is not a key enablement tech for totalitarianism, tightly controlling who says what in communication is.
  - 4y ago

kasperni 4y ago

First step? Lots of countries have had this for more than a decade?

williamcotton 4y ago
Yes, such as Estonia! Their digital governance infrastructure should be a leading example for the rest of the liberal world! I apologize for the incredibly American-centric point of view!

falcolas 4y ago

In today's environment where people can't keep their computing devices safe from Facebook, let alone ransomware, what makes anyone believe your average Joe could keep a private key safe for even a day in an environment which would immediately assign a significant dollar value that PK?

DesiLurker 4y ago

yup, India already has a pretty functional Adhar system.