Federal workers say they increasingly distrust platforms like Facebook
Federal workers say they increasingly distrust platforms like Facebook
Chaos in Washington, DC, is forcing some to move to new platforms.
Summary
Federal workers are increasingly wary of mainstream communication platforms like Facebook Messenger, fearing surveillance under Trump and Musk’s influence.
Many have shifted to encrypted apps like Signal, avoiding even casual discussions on traditional platforms.
Concerns stem from tech companies' past cooperation with authorities and potential misuse of data. Privacy advocates warn of legal loopholes that allow government access to user information.
Workers have also become more cautious in workplace conversations, reflecting broader distrust of both government leadership and major tech firms.
You're viewing a single thread.
What about, and hear me out here, an internet for the people?
If we have a messily $300 million USD, or even dollary-doos I think we could do this. We already have most of the design at TheConsensusEngine.com just need either a big company with a ton of people or like 4 CS students and we can make this.
I'm %100 serious by the way, if you have the wherewithal to read that fucking page then you'll agree with me too. But I think if you don't know what a logic gate is that it may not be the paper for you. Anyone have bill gates phone number?
Why would you need to know about logic gates to build a new internet?
We have the technology, we just need to airgap the network from the real internet.
Maybe it's because I couldn't get through reading all of this, but my initial skimming leads me to believe this would be hard to fully protect against abuse. It also feels like that at least in the beginning there would be a lot of centralized power and that doesn't feel great to me.
There are also a lot of grammar mistakes that made it hard for me to read, I'm admittedly not a great writer, but it was causing me to stumble while reading and made me question if this paper had even been edited or proofread by anyone.
All that said, it's definitely an interesting thought experiment.
oh for sure, it's not written by a writer, it says it was only given one cursory proofread and that it is filled with typos and bad grammer, way down at the end.
but I like to think of it as the first jigsaw puzzle pieces towards the goal of stopping capitalism as it is, making humans a long term functioning society, and removing misinformation from the internet.
They should probably move that information to the top so it at least primes readers ahead of time. Either way, I still feel like this system they are defining has to have some sort of centralized verification agency/group and I don't really know how you can do that and not potentially be open for abuse or corruption. Alternatively, I also don't know how you can verifiy an individual is who they say they are and aren't creating fake/bot accounts in a decentralized manner either, these are very hard problems to solve and I don't know if this paper touches on any ideas as to how to solve them, but it would be interesting to hear from the author on those topics.
Again, interesting read and thanks for sharing it, I think it's important for people to be thinking about how to approach problems like this in a digital age sooner rather than later.
They want to repeatedly retrain a megalithic AI to consistently and repeatedly remodel the entire internet to to pull out some half-assed speculations.
Whoever wrote that page has a base knowledge of the concepts they're talking about It doesn't have any understanding whatsoever about problems of scale. I'm out of napkins for math at the moment, But my gut feeling on this is that even a small portion of that request list would exceed the total resources available for the planet.
The reason it doesn't exist isn't because people aren't clamoring for it or nobody's ever had the idea. Every AI vendor out there is chasing small parts of the things on that page with trillions of dollars, but because the actual work/energy in both AI training and production is absolutely unreasonable.
Not to mention if you did magically find some way to create it keep it updated and power it, It would essentially crash all stock markets because any futures in anything would be easily predetermined
It's essentially an impossible pipe dream.
the idea does not use AI in almost any way, so I don't know how to respond to this comment. It's almost wholly terrible to scale, that is for sure.
removing the 'stock market' as it currently exists from relevance is actually a goal of this system, because the current SM is totally broken for normal people.
I don't disagree that it's a likely impossible pipe dream, but it may also be the only way humans have of ever getting out of the mess we are in
I was trying to skim it for context, it's a difficult read that just goes all over the place. Whatever section I happened upon made me think you were trying to injest.
Few to none would be willing to participate in something like that, it's a big ask for people who aren't generally going to personally care. People spend time arguing over topics on here and reddit to help someone with a problem, not for the betterment of humanity.