3 ms·

The only way to address generative AI is to strongly authenticate human content. Camera manufacturers, audio encoders, etc, should hold subordinate CAs and issu

The only way to address generative AI is to strongly authenticate human content. Camera manufacturers, audio encoders, etc, should hold subordinate CAs and issue signing certs to every device. Every person should have keys, issued by the current CA system, not the government (or at least not necessarily). You should have a ability, as part of the native UX, to cross-sign the device certificate. Every file is then signed, verifying both the provenance of the device and the human content producer. You can imagine extensions of this: newspapers should issue keys to their journalists and photographers, for the express purpose of countersigning their issued devices. So the consumer can know, strongly, that the text and images, audio, etc, came from a newspaper reporter who used their devices to produce that work. Similar for film and music. Books. They can all work this way. We don't need the government to hold our hands, we just need keys. Lets Encrypt could become Lets Encrypt and Sign (the slogans are ready to go: "LES is more", "Do more with LES", "LES trust, more certification"). Doctors already sign their notes. SWEs sign their code. Attorneys could do the same. I'm sure there's a straight forward version of this that adds some amount of anonymity. You could go into a notary, in person, who is present to certify an anonymous certificate was issued to a real person. Does the producer give something up by taking on the burden of anonymity? Of course, but that's a cost-benefit that both society and the producer would bear.

m4rtink 3y ago
Seems like something that could be very easily missused for censorship, catching whistleblowers and similar.
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  That's actually why it's urgent to set this up outside of government, like the browser CA system, and develop methods to issue verification of "human" while preserving other aspects of anonymity.
  - Zuiii 3y ago
    There is no universe where governments will make the mistake of allowing something like the browser CA to come with into existence without "oversight" twice. That the browser CA still exists independently is nothing short of a miracle.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    There is no outside of government, they hold a monopoly in violence.
    - killjoywashere 3y ago
      Ah, there are definitely constructs that governments find more useful. Plenty of companies, for example, managed to operate on both sides of both world wars.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist: 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
      - killjoywashere 3y ago
        Great fact-checking, thank you.
        dredmorbius 3y ago

m4rtink 3y ago

Seems like something that could be very easily missused for censorship, catching whistleblowers and similar.

killjoywashere 3y ago
That's actually why it's urgent to set this up outside of government, like the browser CA system, and develop methods to issue verification of "human" while preserving other aspects of anonymity.
- Zuiii 3y ago
  There is no universe where governments will make the mistake of allowing something like the browser CA to come with into existence without "oversight" twice. That the browser CA still exists independently is nothing short of a miracle.
- pixl97 3y ago
  There is no outside of government, they hold a monopoly in violence.
  - killjoywashere 3y ago
    Ah, there are definitely constructs that governments find more useful. Plenty of companies, for example, managed to operate on both sides of both world wars.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist: 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
    - killjoywashere 3y ago
      Great fact-checking, thank you.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago