[kuboble]

I think via regulation.

Two hundred years ago it would be hard to imagine that everyone would be registered in a central database and will need an ID to do many things.

I think eventually the internet will have to give up on the idea of anonymity and places like HN will require it's users to be proven humans.

Hour do you handle with humans using gpt to post? The same way you would handle botters in online chess.

[feanaro]

I disagree vehemently with the idea of abandoning anonymity. I don't think it will fly.

I prefer closed communities with invite chains, where user have a limited number of invites.

[_heimdall]

Sure feels like we've made a wrong turn when we find ourselves in the middle of creating a problem and already have to reach for regulation as the cure.

I fully expect GPT and similar to ruin the internet in many of the ways mentioned in this thread. What's really confusing to me though is why we are going down this path at all when it is so clearly a bad idea. Where does the net positive come from that outweighs the massive risk of such massive AI systems?

Even the leaders at MS know this is a bad idea but fell into the trap of "we're the good guys, if we don't do this a bad actor will"

[jfk13]

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

[soco]

Of course there are drawbacks to that central registration - anonymity as we know it gets left behind. Yes the central registration could offer also "anonymous" handles for social media daily use, but to the police and any able hackers this would be nothing.

[alecco]

And how do you make sure the registered people don't use an assistant to write their comments and post?