this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
171 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

82250 readers
3950 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
171
LLMs can unmask pseudonymous users at scale with surprising accuracy (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 day ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There were reports of people trying to unredact the files almost immediately.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But that's not the same, is it?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think you can do literally the same thing on the Epstein files. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you have in mind.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

In theory, using the information and the released files and the information the public sources, it should be possible to figure out who those redacted names are based on writing style and other factors. We should be able to deanonymize.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Hmm. Maybe but it is not the same problem as those discussed in OP. I also have some doubts about the paper, but that's another story. You could try it out?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not qualified to design the prompts and home users can't really pile in 3 million+ documents.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Prompts are in the appendix: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16800

I don't know how far you get on the free tier but it should be at least enough for a proof of principle; to get other people to chip in. You didn't have qualms demanding other people should do this for free.

Mind that this is a serious GDPR violation in Europe. So there will be serious pressure on AI companies to prevent this kind of use.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Seriously, I'm not qualified. No amount of appendix prompts and Dunning Kruger is going to change that.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm suggesting that AI can't do what is claimed or that people with something to prove are not interested in proving something.