Asklemmy

51140 readers

381 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Are we at risk of losing classical editions of texts to AI? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 2 months ago by tallricefarmer@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How will we know that we are reading something authentic written by the original author vs something that has been altered and rewritten? This may have been a problem in the pre-AI world as well, but with the ease one can generate text now I wonder if there is a much greater risk.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s a pity that blockchain technology is so intertwined with crypto—it would make a great anti-AI check. As in, a way for a decentralized community to maintain an expanding collection of information while efficiently verifying that no existing works have been altered.

Sure, you can sign individual documents—but then for each document you need a separate channel to verify the original signature.

[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 29 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Friend, PGP signed messages were around in the 90s. Key signing parties. Web of trust.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Blockchain = keysigning + timestamping

Which version is earliest is relevant in this use-case.

[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago

Ohhh I get you then. Instead of checking against an author’s key, and building a distributed web of trust between trusted authors, you build a system that requires everyone collaborate on one shared chain of signatures.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

Would be fun to see the "web of trust" develop into 2 non-connected subnets. Choose your own truth to live in.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Sure—the point I was trying to make is that it still needs to be done piecemeal, while a blockchain can verify a collection of works as a collection (that is, it not only verifies that each work is unaltered, it verifies it in the context of other related works).