• 3 Posts
  • 68 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 1st, 2025

help-circle



  • Humans: oh sure, let’s not change our insane agricultural system that is the major killer of biodiversity but instead create yet another technonfix by now in 2026™ fiddeling with the genes of another species.

    When will we finally learn: there are no technological solutions to ‘manage’ the living. The living is not ‘manageable’./We’ve tried this approach pretty much since 100 years and every one ‘solution’ created two new problems. Look where we are guys, our planet is FUCKED. 50 years ago it was DDT, now it’s Crispr-CAS9…

    1000 likes for this celebration of technical human dominance, we’re doing quite right, do we? Not our ‘dysfunctional’ ecosystem is the problem, but our approach to it that is based on control and (technoligical) dominance, instead of humility and respect.





  • The results, especially the high numbers stated in the news article (68% recall, 90% accuracy) are overestimated as their verification method (i.e., whether the LLM detected really the right account) come from matching veryfied accounts with a test set of anonymous accounts of which they knew the real name. They knew the real name bcs the persons had a public link to their LinkedIn in their “anonymous” profile (which was removed for the sake of testing wheter the LLm can match the two acfounts. That being said: a user who uses a pseudonym but links his/her account publically to a, say, LinkedIn account doesn’t really care about anonymity and might hand out many more ‘breadcrumbs’ to follow than a truly anonymous account.

    But I still think that also in the case of a fully anonymous account, people can be fingerprinted and matched with non-anonymous identities due to language, style etc. by a LLM.