4 ms·

Pandora's box is already open on that one.. and none of the model providers are really attempting to address that kind of issue. Same with impersonation, deepfa

by elif 3y ago

Pandora's box is already open on that one.. and none of the model providers are really attempting to address that kind of issue. Same with impersonation, deepfakes, etc. We can never again know whether text, images, audio, or video are authentic on their own merit. The only hope we have there is private key cryptography. Luckily we already have the tools for this, NFT in the case of media and DKIM in the case of your spam email.

hef19898 3y ago
So we needed AI generated spam and scam content for Blockchain tech for digital content to make sense...
- elif 3y ago
  Whether it is hindsight or foresight depends on the perspective. From the zeitgeist perspective mired in crypto scams yea it may seem like a surprise benefit, but from the original design intention this is just the intended use case.
mort96 3y ago
Oh I definitely agree that there's no putting it back into the pandora's box. The technology is here to stay. I have no idea how you imagine "NFTs" will save us though. To me, that sounds like buzzword spam on your part.
- elif 3y ago
  An NFT is a way to attribute authorship in a mathematically guaranteed way. If Taylor Swift signs ownership of a picture of her, you can know it is what she presents as real. If Elon musk signs a YouTube video of him offering crypto doubling giveaways, you can know he intended to represent the message as real. If the New York Times publishes an article signed with their key you can know it is meant to be published by the New York Times.
  - mort96 3y ago
    1) That's just using normal public/private key cryptography to sign messages, there's no need to bring in cryptocurrencies or NFTs 2) Public/private key cryptography would give us a way to verify that a message (or picture or whatever) from Taylor Swift is signed with Swift's private key, but it wouldn't help at all with e.g telling me that I'm responding to a real message and not a bot right now. Not to mention that it wouldn't even help much against deep fakes, since if I publish what I claim to be a secret recording of Swift, there would be no reason to expect her to have signed it with his private key. Those two are the hallmarks of most of these "legit use cases for cryptocurrencies/NFTs" suggestions I've heard from cryptobros by the way: they're always some combination of "old technology that has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies" and "doesn't actually solve the problem".
dbspin 3y ago
NFT's as currently employed only immutably connect to a link - which is in itself not secure. More significantly, no blockchain technology deploys to internet scale content creation. Not remotely. It's hard to conceive of a blockchain solution fast enough and cheap enough -- let alone deployed and accepted universally enough, to have a meaningful impact on text / video and audio provenance across the internet given the pace of uploading. It also wouldn't do anything for the vast corpus of existing media, just new media created and uploaded after date X where it was somehow broadly adopted. I don't see it.

by elif 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

So we needed AI generated spam and scam content for Blockchain tech for digital content to make sense...

elif 3y ago
Whether it is hindsight or foresight depends on the perspective. From the zeitgeist perspective mired in crypto scams yea it may seem like a surprise benefit, but from the original design intention this is just the intended use case.

mort96 3y ago

Oh I definitely agree that there's no putting it back into the pandora's box. The technology is here to stay. I have no idea how you imagine "NFTs" will save us though. To me, that sounds like buzzword spam on your part.

elif 3y ago
An NFT is a way to attribute authorship in a mathematically guaranteed way. If Taylor Swift signs ownership of a picture of her, you can know it is what she presents as real. If Elon musk signs a YouTube video of him offering crypto doubling giveaways, you can know he intended to represent the message as real. If the New York Times publishes an article signed with their key you can know it is meant to be published by the New York Times.
- mort96 3y ago
  1) That's just using normal public/private key cryptography to sign messages, there's no need to bring in cryptocurrencies or NFTs 2) Public/private key cryptography would give us a way to verify that a message (or picture or whatever) from Taylor Swift is signed with Swift's private key, but it wouldn't help at all with e.g telling me that I'm responding to a real message and not a bot right now. Not to mention that it wouldn't even help much against deep fakes, since if I publish what I claim to be a secret recording of Swift, there would be no reason to expect her to have signed it with his private key. Those two are the hallmarks of most of these "legit use cases for cryptocurrencies/NFTs" suggestions I've heard from cryptobros by the way: they're always some combination of "old technology that has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies" and "doesn't actually solve the problem".

dbspin 3y ago

NFT's as currently employed only immutably connect to a link - which is in itself not secure. More significantly, no blockchain technology deploys to internet scale content creation. Not remotely. It's hard to conceive of a blockchain solution fast enough and cheap enough -- let alone deployed and accepted universally enough, to have a meaningful impact on text / video and audio provenance across the internet given the pace of uploading. It also wouldn't do anything for the vast corpus of existing media, just new media created and uploaded after date X where it was somehow broadly adopted. I don't see it.