1
point
ljosifov
Joined 624 karma
Now - systematic trading, research & development. Prior - speech recognition in noise, speech synthesis, statistical learning. In Harpenden UK, from Skopje MK.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will - the world owes you nothing, it was here first.
- ljosifovSo far so good - and I say this as one voting remain. The only gripe I have is that our domestic doomers were even more stupid than the EU ones. Ours were the progenitors of many of EU dumb ideas. So even outside EU, we in the UK not only did not repeal the utterly imbecilic laws we inherited. No - we added even more stupid laws. Consequence being people are put in jail for writing stuff on the Internet. I hope someone puts in jail the lawmakers that voted for these laws. To the cheering of and with public support, it must be said. It was not without consent, it was not only bi-party, but omni-party consent.
- Yeah - IDK why it never makes it to these lists. R too. Matlab being 2D matrix first/default gets it right for me there. IK matrices trivially translate to arrays, still: find 2D to be extra expressive on human level, for zero price paid. I get it it's all the same to the cpu. 2D rows-columns rectangle of data being the simplest data structure both necessary and sufficient covering a 1) matrix 2) spreadsheet 3) SQL table 4) directed graph of nodes and edges. (in the past I've read someplace that lists are for pie eaters, but wouldn't know myself
- Yes - so telling hard truths is not for the benefit of the listener, it's for the benefit of the speaker mostly. That's a major point: if I see, but I don't tell, if I have private truths and public lies, it's one small victory for untruths. However much I think I'm not - I'm co-opted in the big lie machine. There is quite a lot of experience with this acquired during the totalitarian communist regimes that existed in eastern Europe <1990s. And a minor point is: the listener may switch off, but a minuscule part of the message may make it's way. May implant a tiny seed of doubt, admittedly very very unlikely. But it's not totally futile. Even if the speaker may decide the price to be paid is too high, for too little gain. (lots of the time)
- Iceland - sorry for the confusion. (poor spelling)
- Eh - for the world's audiences: EU is not Europe. I geddit how/why why people equate eu == europe - it would simplify things for all, one niggle less to consider. But - it ain't so, for better or worse. There are countries in Europe, that can't be members of the European Union, or could be, but don't want to be members. (e.g. UK, probably Island, Switzerland, some of the Nordics) There are no countries in the European Union, that are not part of Europe. So EU <= Europe. (unsurprisingly)
- I think you are correct there - the majority of the public don't care. They just try to get about doing their daily business and act the best they can under circumstances. So we just click "Accept" to any popup banner make it go away, accept "All cookies" 100 times every day, use Google mail/map/photos/drive and that all involves giving away data, even if in words we say we don't want to give data. So yes obviously the public by necessity act in a rational way, doing cost-benefit analysis. While a cadre of privacy obsessives have made my life worse by lobbying and having their bad ideas codified in the UL laws. Wrote about my experience in the UK medical systems here https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=45066321
- I am a little bit worried, for sure. But I think that's small extra risk on my side, for small extra gain for me personally, but large extra gain for the wider group I belong to (ultimately - all of humanity) in the sense of working towards ameliorating the "tragedy of the commons".
On the personal side. Given the LLM-s have not got the ground truth, everything is controlled hallucination, then - if the LLM tells you an imperfect version of my email or chat, you can never be sure if what the LLM told you is true, or not. So maybe you don't gain that much extra knowledge about me. For example, you can reasonably guess I'm typing this on the computer, and having coffee too. So if you ask the LLM "tell me a trivial story", and LLM comes back with "one morning, LJ was typing HN replies on the computer while having his morning coffee" - did you learn that much new about me, that you didn't know or could guess before?
On the "tragedy of the commons" side. We all benefit immensely from other people sharing their data, even very personal data. Any drug discovery, testing, approval - relies on many people allowing their data to be shared. Wider context - living in a group of people, involves radiating data outwards, and using data other people emit towards myself (and others), to have a functioning society. The more advanced the society, the more coordination it needs to achieve the right cooperation-competition balance in the interactions between ever greater numbers of people.
I think it's bad for me personally, and for everyone, that the "data privacy maximalists" had their desires codified in UK laws. My personal experience in the UK medical systems has been that the laws made my life worse, not better. Wrote here https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=45066321
- Yes - I meant 'impossible to difficult' to define to all people, at all times. Agree it's easy for me to define how that looks. It doesn't mean that the same is true to you. That's why I went from a very general, to very specific.
I'm saying we ended up in situation where people are lying when they say "I don't trust Google", b/c they have Gmail, use Google services - so their trust can't be zero. It's more than zero. Obviously it's a trade-off, people are pragmatic they do their cost-benefit analysis, and act accordingly. They just lie when they talk about the subject. I think it'd be better for all, if the public discussion moved from "I trust Google zero" (which is obviously untrue), to "There is cost-benefit to this, and I personally chose xyz".
- You know little about me, so it's better to assume less, no? My personal experience with medical data specifically is, that I would have been harmed by obstacles to data sharing that the UK medical system has in place, having not been familiar with computers and tech enough to anticipate the ways lack of data sharing will lead to outcomes undesirable to me. I wrote about that in a comment here https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=45067219
- It's not a satire, you can check mu comments on this topic easily.
I dispute 'most people'. Revealed preferences of most people are that they value their data privacy very cheaply, almost zero. Even one click extra to share their data less, is one click too many, an effort too high - for most people. This is their real, observed behaviour. I think our current predicament is the case of "public lies, private truths." A small cadre of vocal proponents of a particular view, established "the ground truth to what is desirable". (in this case - maximum privacy, ideally zero information sharing) The public goes with it in words, pays lip service - but in reality behaves different, even opposite to what they say they desire.
And even if 'most people' wanted what you say they do, I still think the companies could and should accommodate a minority group like myself that want otherwise to what 'most people' want. I don't think the will of the majority is the highest ideal, so high as to trump what I personally want.
- My experience in the UK medical systems has been the opposite - wrote here
https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=45066321
Google knows what "Home" is for me only in Gmaps, because I went out of my way (put a Label etc) to tell it. I want to be able to tell Google "My home is XYZ", and for Google to use that information about me in all of Google ecosystem. When I talk to Gemini it should know what/where "LJ home" is, when I write in Gdoc it should know my home address (so to insert it if I want it), ditto for Gmail, when I search in Google photos "photos taken at home" it should also know what "home" is for me.
I have the impression that we ended up in the worst case scenario. People I don't want to have my data, have access to it. People I do want to have my data, are afraid to touch it, and use it - yes! - for theirs, but also for my benefit too.
- That's a consideration, for sure. But given the LLM-s have not got the ground truth, everything is controlled hallucination, then - if the LLM tells you an imperfect version of my email or chat, you can never be sure if what the LLM told you is true, or not. So maybe you don't gain that much extra knowledge about me. For example, you can reasonably guess I'm typing this on the computer, and having coffee too. So if you ask the LLM "tell me a trivial story", and LLM comes back with "one morning, LJ was typing HN replies on the computer while having his morning coffee" - did you learn that much new about me, that you didn't know or could guess before?
- I'm worried, it's not like I don't care. For example, I'm worried that Google is such a huge ginormous target, that at some point their Gmail will be broken. At the same time, there are benefits to sharing data. There are benefits to me, in Google using the information it has on my, to make my life easier. In this case, I judge that Gemini using my data to train, is a low extra risk for me. Compared to all other risks I take, for doing things in public. Including writing this on public forums, as you do too.
In general, I find the ongoing public scare about sharing data, to be anti-thesis to the original spirit of the Net, that was all about sharing data. Originally, we were delighted to connect to perfect strangers on the other side of the world. That we would never have gotten to communicate with otherwise. I accept there might have been an element of self-selection there, that aided that view: people one'd communicate with, although maybe from a different culture, would be from similar niche sub-culture of people messing with computers and looking forward to communication, having a favourable view of that.
- I'm not 'screwing' anyone. I'm saying - the same way people don't want to have their data used, I DO want my data used. I'm not saying they use YOUR data. I'm saying they use MY data.
Likewise, I'm not telling you what you publish. In the same manner, I dislike it you telling me that I publish. So on
> name, home address, work, government-issued ID, financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home, all for free.
It's up to me, not you, what I decided to publish or not. Fwiw, I already publish
> name, home address, work,
willingly. My name is public (how can it be otherwise?) and home address is in the electoral register that is public. My work info is in the UK companies register, available for reading to all, on the web
I publish to selected parties
> government-issued ID
even if I don't want it. (we don't have specific 'government-issued ID' for ID purposes like in the Continent; my driving licence is used for that) I did it yesterday, because UK gov requires companies to collect that information. Yesterday I had to give two photos of myself to an online pharmacy shop because UK gov mandates that they collect that info - and I disliked that very much. The online pharmacy is not the one pushing for that data, its the UK gov forcing that one them via regulation of how that particular medication is to be sold online.
I don't want to publish and don't publish
> financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home
...and don't understand where this gale to tell perfect strangers what they should do with their lives comes from?? I don't tell you what you should or should not publish? Ditto for the pricing
> all for free.
Up to me to decide. I don't tell you what you do - so you don't tell me what I do, pretty please.
I am not waiting on "privacy maximalists." I try to share my data for some purpose I need. I loathe 'privacy maximalist' in the UK for having influenced the current laws of the land in a way to cater for their obsessions and ignore my desires. I think I'm in majority, not minority. Our current predicament seems to me the case of "public lies, private truths." A small cadre of vocal proponents of a particular view, established "the ground truth to what is desirable". (in this case - maximum privacy, ideally zero information sharing) The public goes with it in words, pays lip service, while in deeds, the revealed preferences show that we value our data privacy very little - almost zero. Even one click extra to share our data less, is one click too many, an effort too high for most people. Again - these are revealed preferences, for people keep lying when asked. It's not even the case of "you are lying to me" - no, it's more like "you are lying to yourself."
- I already share lots of my data with Google. I have Gmail where a lot of my online life is reflected. I have Photos, Gmaps, Gdrive. Also Google knows about my YouTube viewing, my Android phone use. So no matter what I say - with my actions, my revealed preference is - that I trust Google. So far - Google have not betrayed my trust, afaics. So I actually want for Google to adapt Gemini to me, either via the context, or even with a thin layer of LoRA. If Google treats me like a complete stranger it knows nothing about, then Google, and plenty of other people, make use of my data, but I, the creator (and nominal owner) of my data - don't benefit from their knowledge of me?? That sounds the worst of the possible options to me.
- Yes - my data, not your data. You stay away from my data. I stay away from your data. I don't care about your data. But I do want them to train on my data. And to serve me better. Was disappointed that they didn't do that already.
But now you gave me ideas. ;-) Yeah - I think ideally we should go further, much further. Internet was not built by po-faced, lemon-sucking prudes, tut-tut-ing about everything and anything. It was built by happy-go-lucky, live-and-let live, altruistic mildly autistic nerds. It was permission-less, one didn't need to ask anyone in order to do anything, and that's why it lived. Whereas many other networks and protocols, technically more sophisticated, but with a fatal flaw that a gatekeeper with the power to say "NO" was built into them - just died off. Wish people went back to the original permission-less Net. That people tore down all manner of laws making moving bits around illegal, used to jail humans for crimes of reading, copying and writing data.
- I know indoctrination well. Reading what you write - I get the impression that you don't know much about indoctrination. But I don't know you, so I allow it that I maybe wrong. You asked "in what universe". I showed you concrete examples in one universe. For my claim to be true, one example suffices. None of your claims (latest "demolish customer protection") about my alleged intentions, character, thoughts, etc - have any basis in reality. You are wrong in almost everything that you wrote about me. It's all in your head, in your imagination. How do I know? B/c I know me, and you don't know me. That easy.
- Whether Google is interested in serving me or not, is not only untestable (i.e. what counts as 'Google', 'interested', and 'serving' there - one could argue to end of time) - but besides the point. I want to be able to tell Google "My home is XYZ", and for Google to use that information about me in all of Google ecosystem. When I talk to Gemini it should know what/where "LJ home" is, when I write in Gdoc it should know my home address (so to insert it if I want it), ditto for Gmail, when I search in Google photos "photos taken at home" it should also know what "home" is for me.
Atm Google vaguely knows, and uses that for Ads targeting, sometimes. Most of the time - the targeting is bad, very low quality slop. To the level of "he bought a mattress yesterday, will keep buying mattresses in the next 30-60 days". I have the impression that we ended up in the worst case scenario. People I don't want to have my data, have access to it. People I do want to have my data, are afraid to touch it, and use it - yes! - for theirs, but also for my benefit too. The current predicament seems to me the case of "public lies, private truths."
A small cadre of vocal proponents of a particular view, established "the ground truth to what is desirable". (in this case - maximum privacy, ideally zero information sharing) The public goes with it in words, pays lip service, while in deeds, the revealed preferences show, they value their data privacy very cheaply, almost zero. Even one click extra, to share their data less, is one click too many, effort too high, for most people. Again - these are revealed preferences, for people keep lying when asked. It's not even the case of "you are lying to me" - no, it's more like "you are lying to yourself."
The conventional opinion is that the power imbalance coming from the information imbalance (state/business know a lot about me; I know little about them) is that us citizens and consumers should reduce our "information surface" towards them. And address the imbalance that way. But. There exists another, often unmentioned option. And that option is for state/business to open up, to increase their "information surface" towards us, their citizens/consumers. That will also achieve information (and one hopes power) rebalance. Yes there is extra work on part of state/business to open their data to us. But it's worth it. The more advanced the society, the more coordination it needs to achieve the right cooperation-competition balance in the interactions between ever greater numbers of people. There is an old book "Data For the People" by an early AI pioneer and Amazon CTO Andreas Weigend. Afaics it well describes the world we live in, and also are likely to live even more in the future.
- I see reading comprehension is not something you enjoy to indulge with.
These -
> utter fantasies like "'no one wants to share their data' is just assumed" or "the defaults are always 'deny everything'" true?
...far from being fantasies, are my personal experiences in the UK medical systems. This -