4 ms·

Why are these rich assholes so obsessed with tracking everyone? > Tools for Humanity bragged about many large partnerships that should make any privacy advocat

Why are these rich assholes so obsessed with tracking everyone? > Tools for Humanity bragged about many large partnerships that should make any privacy advocates shiver in dread: the Match Group dating apps conglomerate (Tinder, OkCupid, Hinge, Plenty of Fish), Stripe, and Visa are some of them. Visa and Stripe being involved in this should indeed make everyone shiver and push back against this. Altman is not a good person and this company has already had its unethical practices exposed[0]. [0] https://icj-kenya.org/news/worldcoin-case-postponed-amid-concerns-over-data-privacy-and-ethical-biometric-use/ https://icj-kenya.org/news/worldcoin-case-postponed-amid-con...

batch12 1y ago
Control. You have to have a good inventory to apply and audit controls.
grumbel 1y ago
In the AI driven future we are heading into, telling the difference between AI-bot and human might become a valuable good.
- nradov 1y ago
  Why? And how would that even work? Just because an online account is tied to a verified real human doesn't guarantee that the content isn't coming from an AI-bot.
  - financetechbro 1y ago
    The “person” could just be copying and pasting AI output. Eye scanning can’t stop that at all
  - creata 1y ago
    Maybe it would allow you to rate-limit and/or ban by the human, which is probably more effective than banning by IP address. (Obviously Worldcoin is shady as shit, I'm not defending it.)
  - grumbel 1y ago
    It's a blockchain, so you can keep permanent record of what a person is doing and when and where they got caught violating the rules. It won't stop the infractions from happening at first, but it will make it very easy to avoid them happening again. And if this gets widespread, people might think twice before risking their blockchain personhood certificate.
    - nradov 1y ago
      You're missing the point. How would they get caught violating the rules in the first place? You (and the HN admins) have no way of knowing whether I typed this comment in myself or an AI bot used my account to do it.
      - _Algernon_ 1y ago
        It will be trivial however to hold you liable for the content no matter its source, when it is tied to your irl identity instead of a pseudonym.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  So they're going to get rich from introducing both the problem and its nightmare of a solution.
- wil421 1y ago
  Or they just want to sell us minority report style ads.
Analemma_ 1y ago
Because they have to be able to sell you the cure to the disease they created: pretty soon nearly all content online will be AI-generated, and the only way you'll be able to tell if you're talking to a human is with cryptographically-sealed boot chains, verified with remote attestation, and with this eyeball device at the end to make sure there's a human there.
- RandomBacon 1y ago
  In the future: Easy Remote Job Opportunity! Pay is $1/hr. Perfect for retirees, disabled, and even kids! Requirements: have an eye ball. Duties: whatever you want, except when this device beeps, look into the camera. Is Amazon's Mechanical Turk or whatever paying people to solve captchas still a thing?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    I didn't even think of this workaround. Genius in its simplicity.
  - __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
    It's about time my dog got a job.
- creata 1y ago
  > the only way you'll be able to tell if you're talking to a human is with... Or the tried-and-true method of trusting only friends, friends of friends, recommendations from friends, etc.
  - __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
    Yes but the point is not to ensure that you know that you're interacting with a human. The point is for whoever paid for the ad to know that a real human is seeing it (and not, for instance, and AI in a docker container).
    - 1y ago
smj-edison 1y ago
It makes me think of the idea of legibility[1]: it's hard to understand incredibly large and complicated systems, so the solution is to simplify, and then enforce that simplification. From a high-level perspective, it seems reasonable to surveil everyone, to help them. I think someone really can delude themselves into thinking that it's necessary, utilitarian-style. Now, if we designed technology for humans, we'd realize that most humans have local networks of trust. E.g. I talk to my friend in person, she tells me her discord handle, now we've established trust. In addition, trust is something that's gradually built, not given all at once in a EULA[2]. [1]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... [2]: https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2024/10/15/trust-takes-time/ https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2024/10/15/trust-takes-time/
_Algernon_ 1y ago
Information is a prerequisite for manipulating the masses. The writing has been on the wall on that front since at least Cambridge Analytica.

batch12 1y ago

Control. You have to have a good inventory to apply and audit controls.

grumbel 1y ago

In the AI driven future we are heading into, telling the difference between AI-bot and human might become a valuable good.

nradov 1y ago
Why? And how would that even work? Just because an online account is tied to a verified real human doesn't guarantee that the content isn't coming from an AI-bot.
- financetechbro 1y ago
  The “person” could just be copying and pasting AI output. Eye scanning can’t stop that at all
- creata 1y ago
  Maybe it would allow you to rate-limit and/or ban by the human, which is probably more effective than banning by IP address. (Obviously Worldcoin is shady as shit, I'm not defending it.)
- grumbel 1y ago
  It's a blockchain, so you can keep permanent record of what a person is doing and when and where they got caught violating the rules. It won't stop the infractions from happening at first, but it will make it very easy to avoid them happening again. And if this gets widespread, people might think twice before risking their blockchain personhood certificate.
  - nradov 1y ago
    You're missing the point. How would they get caught violating the rules in the first place? You (and the HN admins) have no way of knowing whether I typed this comment in myself or an AI bot used my account to do it.
    - _Algernon_ 1y ago
      It will be trivial however to hold you liable for the content no matter its source, when it is tied to your irl identity instead of a pseudonym.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
So they're going to get rich from introducing both the problem and its nightmare of a solution.
wil421 1y ago
Or they just want to sell us minority report style ads.

Analemma_ 1y ago

Because they have to be able to sell you the cure to the disease they created: pretty soon nearly all content online will be AI-generated, and the only way you'll be able to tell if you're talking to a human is with cryptographically-sealed boot chains, verified with remote attestation, and with this eyeball device at the end to make sure there's a human there.

RandomBacon 1y ago
In the future: Easy Remote Job Opportunity! Pay is $1/hr. Perfect for retirees, disabled, and even kids! Requirements: have an eye ball. Duties: whatever you want, except when this device beeps, look into the camera. Is Amazon's Mechanical Turk or whatever paying people to solve captchas still a thing?
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  I didn't even think of this workaround. Genius in its simplicity.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  It's about time my dog got a job.
creata 1y ago
> the only way you'll be able to tell if you're talking to a human is with... Or the tried-and-true method of trusting only friends, friends of friends, recommendations from friends, etc.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  Yes but the point is not to ensure that you know that you're interacting with a human. The point is for whoever paid for the ad to know that a real human is seeing it (and not, for instance, and AI in a docker container).
  - 1y ago

smj-edison 1y ago

It makes me think of the idea of legibility[1]: it's hard to understand incredibly large and complicated systems, so the solution is to simplify, and then enforce that simplification. From a high-level perspective, it seems reasonable to surveil everyone, to help them. I think someone really can delude themselves into thinking that it's necessary, utilitarian-style. Now, if we designed technology for humans, we'd realize that most humans have local networks of trust. E.g. I talk to my friend in person, she tells me her discord handle, now we've established trust. In addition, trust is something that's gradually built, not given all at once in a EULA[2]. [1]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... [2]: https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2024/10/15/trust-takes-time/ https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2024/10/15/trust-takes-time/

_Algernon_ 1y ago

Information is a prerequisite for manipulating the masses. The writing has been on the wall on that front since at least Cambridge Analytica.