[Pxtl]

This is why I have conspiracy theories about the conspiracy theories about digital IDs. I don't see any escape from a hellscape of AI-generated-sludge unless we have a real way to say "somebody has signed their real government-confirmed reputation on this". The paranoid disinfo peddlers are the ones who benefit most from the untraceability of the horsecrap they put online.

Otherwise it's all downhill until the singularity.

[nomat]

Free speech should only apply to verified humans. We could use the blockchain to assign keys to babies as they are born.

Only half kidding, about both statements. Corporations also have rights. How terrible it will be when we have "companies" that are just AI programs. All human weakness, eliminated.

South Korea requires you to register with your national id if you want to access the internet there, which sounds like the wrong direction but might be necessary if we want to maintain some semblance of sanity on the internet or whatever it is going to become in the future.

[kubanczyk]

> verified humans

Wouldn't it be elegant though if the new trust scheme applied the same to LLMs/bots as humans?

Assuming that LLMs are a polar opposite of humans seems short sighted. Or assuming that humans are sole heroes of the story. It will be a spectrum, soon. For example when you say "all human weakness, eliminated" it's a weird lens to use. Every relative weakness is a challenge, whether its origin is in human ancestral environment or not.

I'm curious whether the entirety of the system (I mean the current civilization) would morph itself into a pipeline disgorging specifically human "happiness". As of today, it's far from obvious!

[Pxtl]

Ultimately? Of course. But in the short term? The LLM's owner can vouch for the LLM, same as anything.

I honestly don't care if a human augments their output with an LLM. What I care is that they act in good faith. As long as new identities can be spun up automatically with negligible effort, human or otherwise it's too easy to flood the zone with shit.

I want to be able to say "This post was made by an ID that is tied to a human being that has a history of acting in good faith, and I can see that history". Even if "I" am the owner of a crowdsourced-content site and I'm keeping that ID private. If the person who uses that ID is leveraging an LLM to create what looks like good-faith content, that's fine. The problem this solves is one person using LLMs to create a sockpuppet army that looks like a hundred thousand humans, not one person using an LLM to generate a flotilla of good content. Or even a flotilla of bad content but we still konw who's doing it.

[JohnFen]

> but might be necessary if we want to maintain some semblance of sanity on the internet

A requirement like that would be the final death knell for the few remaining parts of the web that are actually good.

[worldsayshi]

There has to be some neat tricks you can use to allow verifying a human, using your id, without actually exposing your id though?

[eropple]

You can sign an intermediary certificate, but nothing stops you from then giving that to an LLM.

[Pxtl]

Well, if that cert can be traced back to its original creator, and that LLM is crapflooding, then that person can be blocked from user-contributed content systems.