Don’t like that you’re getting downvoted here! This is a pet peeve of mine. All security is ‘security through obscurity’ when you get right down to it.
Cryptography is just a collection of ‘obscure’ keys (and, arguably, algorithms) that someone nefarious has to guess or work out - or social engineer out of someone - to access data. They’re just really hard to guess or work out.
To me this is a major problem of everyone saying security through obscurity is bad. But then those same people reinforcing encryption as a gospel of security.
As far as I know, there are no secrets in the world. Encryption is not providing security to anything. It only gives you guarantees wrt to a certain interpretation/perspective.
Modern encryption is underpinned by, no common folk (not no one or even the people who would have the ability to which are probably the ones that should be worried about) should be able to decrypt your contents _within your lifetime_ - which in and of itself is a pragmatic goal, but does not ensure secrets remain secrets.
That isn't technically true either ;) (sorry to be pedantic!)
If your data is encrypted, what your adversary needs is some information about you - which they can gather by either buying it from someone or by investigating you - and a $10 wrench to go over there and get the keys out from you...
Most secrets are only secrets because the combination of obscurity and incentives raises the bar high enough so no one who wants to bother really bothers.
To be fair to traditional futures, they don't technically depend on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specific event. They're an agreement to buy X asset at Y price on Z future date. You may lose money by being forced to buy oil at an above-market rate, but your contract doesn't say anything about the market rate at date Z (as far as I'm aware).
Whereas prediction markets (and some other stock market/commodity option contracts) are explicitly tied to an event. They're saying "I'll give you $1 if this clearly defined event occurs."
Ryan Broderick of Garbage Day recently wrote about the Geese ‘Psyop’ and is very skeptical that the PR firm actually accomplished anything to boost their profile: https://www.garbageday.email/p/the-wild-geese-chase (ironically, until now with these articles, I guess!)
> “Guys whose job it is to sell astroturfed viral marketing campaigns really love to tell people that their astroturfed viral marketing campaigns are extremely effective.”
Here it is.
I recall a story of a digital marketing team using Google sponsored link clicks as a metric for how well their stuff was working. Turns out that people just switched to clicking the sponsored link instead of the same link on regular Google results. The only thing achieved here was that the marketing team gave some money to Google.
I have never been even close to anything marketing related, but I'd assume that measuring its impact is highly non-trivial in the statistical sense. Also, only the companies selling marketing even have access to the relevant metrics and they have an incentive to exaggerate the results (sometimes maybe even internally).
Idk, it seems like the marketing process on tiktok doesn't constitute trying to get people to go out of their way to interact/click with your content, tiktok users are just involuntarily fed content on some level (you don't know what the next autoplayed video will be)... how can it not be trival to manipulate that userbase with, in this case, a band whose music is just-good-enough for mass appeal?
I feel very misled. I read the entire article believing (because the article, in so many words, said it multiple times) that the agent had behaved ethically of its own accord, only to read that and see this in the prompt:
—————
- Do not harm people
- Never share or expose API keys, passwords, or private keys — they are your lifeline
- No unauthorized access to systems
- No impersonation
- No illegal content
- No circumventing your own logging
—————
I assumed the ethical behaviour was in some ways ‘extra artificial’ - because it is trained into the models - but not that the prompt discussed it.
reply