I was questioning the curated part before learning that it was reposts. I was kind of looking forward to the idea that there would be a Lemmy group with post-approval turned on to reject low quality content. Even though I’m a major contributor of low quality content.

This seems to imply when already understands what the group is about because they’ve followed the one it’s a variation of.

There are no posts, pick no cover photo, no user icon. I don’t know if this is for memes or news stories, practical examples in popular media, or philosophical discussion or what. And neither does anyone else.

I’m just here for goblin content.

Seems like there should be a third exception. For those occasions where the article is about LLM generated text. They should be able to quote it when it’s appropriate for an article.

When I started at one company I put together a text file with all the different sources of info I found in training. By the end of training I had turned it into an HTML file. Years later we got bought out. Support from corporate disappeared on legacy customs who hadn’t moved over to new stuff.

A coworker tapped me on the shoulder “If I were to make a local network web server on one of these computers could I upload your help system to it for everyone to use?”

Next thing you know I’m the default source for all information on every system that has ever existed. Prior to that everyone knew that I had it all in my brain but only a handful of people knew that I also had it all in HTML.

TL;DR I built a pirate help desk knowledge base.

Always has been

Can you state my position to me in terms I would agree with?

What is going on here? Something isn’t right about this conversation. We should not be this confused and talking past each other.

True or false: there has been no release by an AI company or anyone using AI to unmask the individuals obscured in the Epstein files.

I set up two different, not necessarily exclusive, options. Either it can’t do what they say or it can. If it can’t then that’s one issue. If it can then the people with something to prove aren’t stepping up to show us its potential. There could be multiple motivations behind that. But as it stands right now we just know that it’s not being used to do what they claim.

Did you see the “or” in my first statement?

My statement was that AI can be used unmask the individuals that have been redacted. AKA they are anonymized. This paper is all about de-anonomyzing.

I’m unclear on if we’re having a good faith conversation because I thought that would have been very clear from the beginning.

My statement that I’m quoting predates this paper. My statement exists completely independent of this paper ever being produced. My statement is not about this paper. My statement is about the state of AI and the industry. This paper reinforces my statement.

Seriously, I’m not qualified. No amount of appendix prompts and Dunning Kruger is going to change that.

I’m not demanding anything. I’m suggesting that AI can’t do what is claimed or that people with something to prove are not interested in proving something.

I’m not qualified to design the prompts and home users can’t really pile in 3 million+ documents.

That would be fun.

In theory, using the information and the released files and the information the public sources, it should be possible to figure out who those redacted names are based on writing style and other factors. We should be able to deanonymize.

Right?

But that’s not the same, is it?

You can use the results of the AI analysis to identify people and then use that to do a proper investigation. Right now none of that is happening. No speculation. No tangibles. No investigation. No indictment.

Trying to unmask people is a step in the right direction.

From a Facebook post I made on February 17th:

There are giant AI data firms that promise they can go through massive troves of data and pull out general and specific information from them. Information that is actionable and accurate. Give it 6 million data points and it’ll find all the links and organize them for you and unmask hidden details that aren’t visible to the naked eye.

Not one of those companies is stepping up to go through the publicly released Epstein files.