Close to the joke I was looking for, but I was thinking more along the lines of "suitability to be a Bond movie villain".

Perhaps "How much do you like feeding sharks?"

That was Clarke, not Asimov?

NAK

Actually a real concern, though the analysis fell into The Shallows of Slashdot again. Yes, the GenAI is an easy choke point to monitor, but it's hard to lock it down in advance while maintaining relevance in the changing world. To encourage usage the Chinese government will have to leave it open to some degree so it can respond to reality, even when they don't like the reality and plan to change it. (In contrast to the YOB approach of reality manipulation via gibberish and lies?)

However what a GenAI does can be recorded and then used against the "loose thinkers" who are trying to do something an authoritarian dislikes. The Chinese are particularly good at playing this game. They don't go after everyone who steps on a toe. They pick and choose their targets to take out the bravest troublemakers and intimidate the wannabe troublemakers. Self-censorship works best and many of the victims wind up brainwashing themselves... (More like Putin's approach?)

But I bet the story doesn't generate any Funny. I don't see much potential for humor in this one.

Point should be that most "people believe what they want to believe", but I can't find any sign of that oldie in the discussion. (Nor Funny.) On the basis of that folk saying, of course most people don't like any science that conflicts with one of the things they prefer to believe. Take the Bible, for example. Bad history and worse literature, but a LOT of people want to believe it.

I think a "real" scientist is capable of believing whatever the evidence shows, but most scientists are rather like most people.

Interesting that the privacy-related topic induced no reaction on Slashdot... We're just too jaded now?

No, I think the funniest part is hearing from all the suckers who still can't admit they made any mistake supporting the YOB.

All of us tend to do (and say) a lot of stuff without thinking. When asked, most of us can say why, even if those me-side explanations sometimes include confabulations. But the YOB has always thought less than average and now his brain is so broken that his attempts at explanations are just strings of gibberish and lies--and yet the fools continue to believe. He is only creating new problems and not even solving any of the fake problems he's been screaming about for over 10 years now.

The story did get some Funny comments. But who's laughing?

s/Someone/Somehow/

Mod parent funny, though the stronger flavor of the joke I was hoping for would have included something about the endangered jobs list being written by a GenAI and the Microsoft researchers intervening to get themselves off of the list--but failing in their attempts to get themselves included on the list of safe jobs.

However, looking at the long term track record of Microsoft Research against the reported budgets, I suspect the whole thing might be an AI confabulation. "This is not the Microsoft Research you were looking for because it never existed." All of those researchers were just GenAI sock puppets?

I could reply in detail, but it appears I would mostly be repeating what I already wrote. I'm not saying you read poorly. If I wrote well then I would be able to write for various levels of readers, even at the same time. Nor am I accusing you of constructing a straw man, though that is a possibility. However, you have failed to motivate me to respond to any of your misperceptions. You can reread my comment if you wish, and perhaps ask for clarification.

(Ditto the other "reply".)

Someone I missed your constructive solution?

FTFM? Or for Confucius?

I'd mod a lot of Funny if I ever saw a mod point to give. Can't remember when the last one was, but certainly many years ago.

Share the sig?

Mod moderation censorious? But what part of that annoyed?

Better than the FP thread, but not that great. How about if you specifically consider better approaches to solutions?

On one hand I mostly agree with you, but in the other hand I have a giant can of worms...

But first a detour on the scenic route. I think your premise is broken. The Internet has never been anonymous. Just because the resources to nail people were out of your reach does not mean it was impossible to find you. Even if you were making deliberate technological efforts to hide, you can eventually be found, one way or another. Perhaps the best counterexample of your premise is the Unabomber. Yes, not on the Web--but I think that was half because of the timing and half because he understood the lack of real technology-based anonymity. But he tried quite hard to stay hidden. And died in prison.

I want to stay with solution-oriented thoughts. I have thought tracks on two aspects.

First, about age checks (nodding at the story). I think the best approach would involve probing childhood memories. The trick would be distinguishing between firsthand experiences as remembered from a child's perspective and various forms of secondhand information. But I do think that there are real differences in how children think and that it would be quite difficult to fake the massive body of "atmospheric" data. The attempts to create fake childhood memories would either link to known data (such as history books) or break down in contradictions as previous answers were explored. In essence I am arguing that the time of your childhood creates a unique signature on your personality. (Note that location is also crucial. Other factors include immediate family.)

Second track is about proving you are human. I think the best approach has to be based on your links to other real humans. Kind of like tracing security certificates. So how to prove each link in the chain? I imagine a system based on joint timelines. It would start with your memories of an event that you shared with another person. Your version would be used to build a kind of quiz that the other person would try to answer based on their memories of the same event. Of course I now imagine it as an AI application, where the AI is also tracking the flows of information (to detect reverse answer fishing) and trying hard to provide the best possible distractors for each question about the event (and considering likely mistakes in your own memories). Actually, the lack of perfect agreement would be evidence in favor of a real human being because our memories are flawed and each of us remembers things from a slightly different perspective and with a different context. I don't think the answers could be absolute, but each step in the chain could have a high probability, and as long as you stay within the infamous six degrees of Keven Bacon you could have a strong basis for believing an identity is a real human being.

So how do we get to Reykjavík with the real and verified human beings?

"First you go west about 10 clicks and turn left in front of a red barn, then... No, that won't work. Go north until you get to... No, that's no good. Sorry, folks. We can't get there from here."

What I really mean is that the google won't do it unless there's a profit. Ditto all the other evil corporate cancers. And the governments? Just minor subsidiaries now, but not even capable of solving any real problems. Then there's the ever-present time problem. In particular, I ain't gonna live long enough to laugh at the flop.