From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6063CB38 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 19:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-28cb1286e10so769900a91.0 for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2024 16:43:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704415384; x=1705020184; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bBrVoq3myv/MfvYolXrjmestE9OEhd57pEeXC9Ykw74=; b=Yx1aKokELZBCEE768fsz+cM+933NiYg1cN3hI21ynQKtX282jSY6FwzdnUY9xsKXeT IYMNy5KfNX12kNsLPQCm9eSWJu6iwxLJnRhLRSq3r3Ad/opiv54D+r/QHO7skPXaQwTI PX7JmQ54uBr1Wg8hthXHBxW0WHtuNby3/J/dWxC3X5u13xmzZQlGYKCn+X/lsZQgfdHv qXS8QBePYIYOP7NPH7XzS0dXOBkBZ+z3aZC/gMMxv6GaMWCsCHMRWD6U28VGqXap5gni IrMPodweNTnJ8eVMbp9FdMsLq5ml7xcblRqXBwHEfwkH2KxetT+D6P9xrUGidn0ccF7K PT3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704415384; x=1705020184; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bBrVoq3myv/MfvYolXrjmestE9OEhd57pEeXC9Ykw74=; b=oKPPhFanZISFtTcQmdJtqJBE8asIk/w/HucUiKF9kIEvJsx6y2bXI0X2poKWpo31pH zxt8ihA9/bdrxXOtVNxnZdF5MNlSbHFxx6xKj+wiEJoODOfgSLfjZVoyN+fNtl3TDInL CrxBnnondotpf2GMOvsZtYI/QfE9T5cxlTlalVkIo8PYdjNMtTNRxFEGiqQ5Uh/IfSA3 sivau5MMak484oslEHMFhimTPNnP60lMzWAZGTMvjlvzXe3rVk9KW09PZyFnrXKkAxZt 0jyVrZwrBNTXS1BBSZq1xkWHnYNkK/YxeB/TKSGtDOctgzaZLbsFp3y4plAhLaV8kPO+ h9qQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzXrlMcDRugu7PT7rTUZsnUD4YPtyWqRYWymMPBmhK+W9Ac/Xif ckRiN21kXrbZxcsx3gxqN0S1AANxJEs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFs4P77UqiAGgaejBsChPWsV7SUBTKDvxUgAQ9TnKVQ1rfk8CdO83wmodhgNMq74H90gv0WMA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f495:b0:28c:2b87:8493 with SMTP id bx21-20020a17090af49500b0028c2b878493mr1209830pjb.30.1704415383669; Thu, 04 Jan 2024 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:603:4d80:98a0:6ccc:f77a:8db5:cbb8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id sh7-20020a17090b524700b0028aecd6b29fsm4433362pjb.3.2024.01.04.16.43.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jan 2024 16:43:02 -0800 (PST) From: Spencer Sevilla Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4767C5AC-2B65-4B58-A47C-BE82C69F9F6E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.200.91.1.1\)) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:42:51 -0800 In-Reply-To: <720aeb8379a81c5467500b65277bcc82@rjmcmahon.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= References: <720aeb8379a81c5467500b65277bcc82@rjmcmahon.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.200.91.1.1) Subject: Re: [NNagain] The growing challenges of discerning authentic vs. inauthentic information and identity X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 00:43:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4767C5AC-2B65-4B58-A47C-BE82C69F9F6E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Yes I agree, the epistemological challenges here are=E2=80=A6 incredibly = non-trivial. When we start talking about arbiting truth vs = misinformation, and building systems around this, it immediately turns = to philosophical questions around what types of knowledge are subjective = vs objective, and what it even means to =E2=80=9Cknow" something. I = often worry that the builders of these types of systems aren=E2=80=99t = thinking about these types of things. Also, when it comes to chatgpt, it=E2=80=99s always best to keep in mind = the goal was to emulate a human conversation, with no guarantees (or = even explicit design goals towards) useful or truthful information. See = also one of my longtime favorite xkcds: https://xkcd.com/810/ > On Jan 4, 2024, at 16:18, rjmcmahon via Nnagain = wrote: >=20 > Hmm, this seems non trivial. The epistemology that I try to use is = based on the scientific method but I also use a lot of belief that = others follow this method too. >=20 > Also, with the current trends in AI, it seems to me we're mostly = creating ant mills vs knowledge and discovery. >=20 > https://youtu.be/LEKwQxO4EZU?feature=3Dshared >=20 > I asked ChatGPT if it behaved like an ant mill. It responded no. I = then asked it to compare itself with and ant mill and basically said it = behaved exactly like an ant mill. >=20 > Then I asked it some questions about Elon Musk and it always prefaced = everything with, "Elon is a God." >=20 > I stopped using it after that. No knowledge to be found. >=20 > Bob >> Dear NNAgain=E2=80=99ers, >> Today on a different listserv, I joined a discussion on what I sense >> will be a pressing issue across multiple sectors in 2024. I recognize >> this is not NN-related and so if it isn=E2=80=99t of interest, I = apologize >> in advance. However as most of us have technology background here, my >> sense is we generally have a better sense of the looming issue than >> non-technical folks at the moment. Below I outline some of the >> contours of the evolving problem space, and invite each of you to >> share your thoughts as I sense the diversity of perspectives here >> might help with brainstorming potential solutions necessary for civil >> societies to continue: >> Premise: We are at the precipice of an extended era where >> inauthenticity vs. authenticity will be difficult to discern, that >> that involves multiple forms of content including biometrics and = more. >> In isolated pockets, governments are becoming aware of this - however >> it=E2=80=99s going to be really difficult for pluralistic societies = like the >> U.S. where any of the Estates that traditionally would have a role to >> play in verifying the authentic vs. inauthentic nature of something >> have had public trust in them as arbiters eroding. And it doesn=E2=80=99= t >> help that both politics and advertisement rely on presenting things = as >> 100% authentic when they=E2=80=99re often only somewhat so (or, to be = more >> generous, mix facts with lots of beliefs). >> Not supporting autocracies, however they have a bit of a =E2=80=9Chome >> field=E2=80=9D advantage here because there is only one singular = narrative - >> and anyone who questions it can be fired/isolated, >> imprisoned/disappeared, or killed/executed. Tools of such regimes, to >> include filtering, censorship, and repression - will be used to = ensure >> only one narrative (authentic or not, mostly likely the latter) is >> seen by a majority of their population. Pluralistic societies will >> have it much harder, and the last ten years will pale in comparison = to >> the challenges of sensemaking in a world flooded by both media and >> mediums of questionable authenticity. >> Back in 2019-2020, I did my darnest to connect Pablo and an = additional >> People-Centered Internet expert with Salesforce that has a lot of CRM >> data with the proposal that SF could provide a feature where, as part >> of the CRM, =E2=80=9Cout of band=E2=80=9D questions could be included = to do some >> sort of additional level of trust that the entity on the other end = was >> who they claimed to be. Unfortunately that pitch was overshadowed by >> larger concerns that SF=E2=80=99s software, give some of its = features, could >> be misused in ways not intended by them (think about ways akin to >> Cambridge Analytica) and they were trying to figure out how they = could >> incorporate features to prevent actors from misusing/abusing their >> software in ways not intended by them as a company. >> 2024 is going to be hard. Manipulation of what people appear to see, >> hear, sense - and thus know - is becoming sadly easier. >> Meanwhile understanding of the importance of triangulation, >> triangulation, triangulation from different perspective to discern >> authenticity vs. inauthenticity remains time-consuming and hard. >> Perhaps we need to consider standing up private sector Dun & >> Bradstreet-like entities for identity and other important = adjudicatory >> functions - however that doesn=E2=80=99t immediately solve the issue = of how >> to help the public in a would experiencing a flood of questionable >> content, information, and identities? And who =E2=80=9Cwatches=E2=80=9D= the >> adjudicators? >> David Bray, PhD Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. [1] >> Loomis Innovation Council Co-Chair [2] & Distinguished Fellow >> Henry S. Stimson Center [3], Business Executives for National = Security >> [4] >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] https://www.leaddoadapt.com/ >> [2] https://napawash.org/fellow/305629 >> [3] https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/ >> [4] https://bens.org/people/dr-david-bray/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain --Apple-Mail=_4767C5AC-2B65-4B58-A47C-BE82C69F9F6E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Yes I agree, = the epistemological challenges here are=E2=80=A6 incredibly non-trivial. = When we start talking about arbiting truth vs misinformation, and = building systems around this, it immediately turns to philosophical = questions around what types of knowledge are subjective vs objective, = and what it even means to =E2=80=9Cknow" something. I often worry that = the builders of these types of systems aren=E2=80=99t thinking about = these types of things.

Also, when it comes to = chatgpt, it=E2=80=99s always best to keep in mind the goal was to = emulate a human conversation, with no guarantees (or even explicit = design goals towards) useful or truthful information. See also one of my = longtime favorite xkcds: https://xkcd.com/810/
On Jan 4, 2024, at 16:18, rjmcmahon via = Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

Hmm, this seems non trivial. The = epistemology that I try to use is based on the scientific method but I = also use a lot of belief that others follow this method too.

Also, with the current trends in AI, it = seems to me we're mostly creating ant mills vs knowledge and = discovery.

https://youtu.be/LEKwQxO4EZU?feature=3Dshared

I asked ChatGPT if it behaved like an ant = mill. It responded no. I then asked it to compare itself with and ant = mill and basically said it behaved exactly like an ant mill.

Then I asked it some questions about Elon = Musk and it always prefaced everything with, "Elon is a God."

I stopped using it after that. No knowledge = to be found.

Bob
Dear NNAgain=E2=80=99ers,
Today on a different listserv, I = joined a discussion on what I sense
will be a pressing issue across = multiple sectors in 2024. I recognize
this is not NN-related and so = if it isn=E2=80=99t of interest, I apologize
in advance. However as = most of us have technology background here, my
sense is we generally = have a better sense of the looming issue than
non-technical folks at = the moment. Below I outline some of the
contours of the evolving = problem space, and invite each of you to
share your thoughts as I = sense the diversity of perspectives here
might help with = brainstorming potential solutions necessary for civil
societies to = continue:
Premise: We are at the precipice of an extended era = where
inauthenticity vs. authenticity will be difficult to discern, = that
that involves multiple forms of content including biometrics and = more.
In isolated pockets, governments are becoming aware of this - = however
it=E2=80=99s going to be really difficult for pluralistic = societies like the
U.S. where any of the Estates that traditionally = would have a role to
play in verifying the authentic vs. inauthentic = nature of something
have had public trust in them as arbiters = eroding. And it doesn=E2=80=99t
help that both politics and = advertisement rely on presenting things as
100% authentic when = they=E2=80=99re often only somewhat so (or, to be more
generous, mix = facts with lots of beliefs).
Not supporting autocracies, however they = have a bit of a =E2=80=9Chome
field=E2=80=9D advantage here because = there is only one singular narrative -
and anyone who questions it = can be fired/isolated,
imprisoned/disappeared, or killed/executed. = Tools of such regimes, to
include filtering, censorship, and = repression - will be used to ensure
only one narrative (authentic or = not, mostly likely the latter) is
seen by a majority of their = population. Pluralistic societies will
have it much harder, and the = last ten years will pale in comparison to
the challenges of = sensemaking in a world flooded by both media and
mediums of = questionable authenticity.
Back in 2019-2020, I did my darnest to = connect Pablo and an additional
People-Centered Internet expert with = Salesforce that has a lot of CRM
data with the proposal that SF could = provide a feature where, as part
of the CRM, =E2=80=9Cout of band=E2=80= =9D questions could be included to do some
sort of additional level = of trust that the entity on the other end was
who they claimed to be. = Unfortunately that pitch was overshadowed by
larger concerns that = SF=E2=80=99s software, give some of its features, could
be misused in = ways not intended by them (think about ways akin to
Cambridge = Analytica) and they were trying to figure out how they = could
incorporate features to prevent actors from misusing/abusing = their
software in ways not intended by them as a company.
2024 is = going to be hard. Manipulation of what people appear to see,
hear, = sense - and thus know - is becoming sadly easier.
Meanwhile = understanding of the importance of triangulation,
triangulation, = triangulation from different perspective to discern
authenticity vs. = inauthenticity remains time-consuming and hard.
Perhaps we need to = consider standing up private sector Dun &
Bradstreet-like = entities for identity and other important adjudicatory
functions - = however that doesn=E2=80=99t immediately solve the issue of how
to = help the public in a would experiencing a flood of = questionable
content, information, and identities? And who = =E2=80=9Cwatches=E2=80=9D the
adjudicators?
David Bray, PhD = Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. [1]
Loomis Innovation Council = Co-Chair [2] & Distinguished Fellow
Henry S. Stimson Center [3], = Business Executives for National = Security
[4]
Links:
------
[1] https://www.leaddoadapt.com/
= [2] https://napawash.org/fellow/30= 5629
[3] https://www.stimson.org/p= pl/david-bray/
[4] https://bens.org/people/dr= -david-bray/
_______________________________________________
Nna= gain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.ne= t
https://lists.buff= erbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

= --Apple-Mail=_4767C5AC-2B65-4B58-A47C-BE82C69F9F6E--