Privacy

5304 readers

56 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

Be civil and no prejudice
Don't promote big-tech software
No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
No reposting of news that was already posted
No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

otter@lemmy.ca

shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com

ChatGPT Basically Told Me "Privacy Is For Criminals." — Ludlow Institute (www.ludlowinstitute.org)

submitted 1 month ago by kivarada@programming.dev to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I asked AI to spell check my article. Instead it censored me.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] XLE@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I didn't think a single Naomi Brockwell article would make me stop respecting her, but this did it.

The AI-generated image is our first clue.

As part of my usual workflow, I ran the draft through an AI tool to check for typos, grammar, and phrasing. I often use AI for this

...don't use AI.

We must contribute to the knowledge base now... Not only to shift culture and spread the case for privacy now, but so that tomorrow’s AI models are trained on OUR perspective.

We do not need to feed AI.

By the way, I ran my final newsletter through Confer.to this time, a new [spurious claims removed] LLM created by Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of Signal.

So I might have just been reading AI slop?

We should not be using AI either.

Another way we can build a better future is to support those tools that are trying to protect us.

No. We do not need to support AI.

Not even the supposedly "good" AI system made by a guy who sold out his good name for a cryptocurrency grift.

[–] kivarada@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Regarding not feeding AI, I just want to mention that basically anything that is publicly accessible in the web is used to feed the AI. Crawlers are permanently screening.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, and? The status quo is bad, and Brockwell's suggestion is worse: she calls for intentionally feeding it, which is absurd and presumes its inevitability.

“There is no alternative” is a cheap rhetorical sleight. It’s a demand dressed up as an observation. “There is no alternative” means: “Stop trying to think of an alternative.”

[–] kivarada@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

My point is just that by publishing anything online, you feed the AI. Even with our conversation here, we feed the AI. It does not matter if you provide it in a prompt or not. Obviously, I did not mean that it is a good thing.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a difference between being passively exploited and actively cooperating

[–] kivarada@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Fair point

[–] bitteroldcoot@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

I've been testing the various ai for censorship. Chat is the worse by far, followed by Lumo, and google gemini. They are trying really hard to suck up to trump.