I feel like I woke up in the stupidest timeline where climate change is about to kill us, we decide stupidly to 10x our power needs by shoving LLMs down everyone’s throats, and the only solution to stay private is to 10x our personal LLM usage by generating tons of noise about us just to stay private. So now we’re 100x ing everyone’s power usage and we’re going to die even sooner.

I think your idea is interesting – I was also thinking that same thing awhile back – but how tf did we get here.

It’s an interesting concept, but I’m not sure the payoff justifies the effort.

Even with AI-generated noise, you’re still being tracked through logins, device fingerprints, and other signals. And in the process, you would probably end up degrading your own experience; getting irrelevant ads, broken recommendations, or tripping security systems.

There’s also the environmental cost to consider. If enough people ran decoy traffic 24/7, the energy use could become significant. All for a strategy that platforms would likely adapt to pretty quickly.

I get the appeal, but I wonder if the practical downsides outweigh the potential privacy gains.

Obscuration is what you're thinking and it works with things like adnauseun (firefox add on that will click all ads in the background to obscure preference data). It's a nice way to smear the data and probably better to do sooner (while the data collection is in infancy) rather than later (where the companies may be able to filter obscuration attempts).

I like it. I am really not a fan of being profiled, collected, and categorized. I agree with others, I hate this time line. It's so uncanny.

This is like chaff, and I think it would work. But you would have to deal with the fact that whatever patterns it was showing you were doing "you would be doing".

I think there are other ways that AI can be used for privacy.

For example, did you know that you can be identified by how you type/speak online? what if you filtered everything you said through an LLM first, normalizing it. Takes away a fingerprinting option. Could use a pretty small local LLM model that could run on a modest local desktop...

First, Naomi and her team are doing a fantastic work in security for masses, easily top 5 worldwide!

AI is capable but we are still failing at program it properly, gosh, even well funded companies are still doing a poor job at it... (just look at the misplaced ads and ineffective we still get.)

What I want, and it is easy to do TODAY, is AI checking our FOSS... so many we use and just a tiny, tiny minority of it goes with some scrutiny. We need AI to go through the FOSS code looking for maliciousness now.

So, she is talking about an AI-war? Where those who don't want us to be private, controls the weapons? Anyone else see a problem with that logic?

Thousands of "you" browsing different sites, will use an obscene amount of power and bandwidth. Imagine a million people doing that, not a billion... That's just stupid in all kinds of ways.

This isn’t a very smart idea.

People trying to obfuscate their actions would suddenly have massive associated datasets of actions to sift through and it would be trivial to distinguish between the browsing behaviors of a person and a bot.

Someone else said this is like chaff or flare anti missile defense and that’s a good analog. Anti missile defenses like that are deployed when the target recognizes a danger and sees an opportunity to confuse that danger temporarily. They’re used in conjunction with maneuvering and other flight techniques to maximize the potential of avoiding certain death, not constantly once the operator comes in contact with an opponent.

On a more philosophical tip, the masters tools cannot be turned against him.

Ok, got another one for ya based on some comments below. You have all the usual addons to block ads and such, but you create a sock-puppet identify, and use AI to "click" ads in the background (stolen from a comment) that align with that identity. You dont see the ads, but the traffic pattern supports the identity you are wearing.

So rather than random, its aligned with a fake identity.

Americans: "Tragedy of the Commons proves that people are incapable of working together for mutual benefit, because personal greed will always lead to the devastation of the collective common good."

Chinese: "Why do you not simply arrest and punish the bad actors in your society when they overstep and impede on the general welfare?"

Americans: "Because that's fascism. Also, we're arresting and deporting you for asking."

I think it's a refutation of unregulated production & resource distribution in general.

In socialism, distribution would be handled by the state or locality, by the producers themselves, by a work coupon system, with money (a la market socialism), or theoretically in a sort of free-for-all all where people just request what they need. Only the last one is really implicated in a tragedy of the commons type scenario, with the money and work coupon systems potentially causing a smaller degree of that sort of an issue (as there would be less inequality, so less possibility of overproduction due to demand). Producers would, in that case, be encouraged to produce more to fill the increased demand, but there wouldn't be a profit motive for doing so, and so a consumer-side tragedy of the commons is less likely. Also, producers' access to resources would theoretically be more tightly regulated than in capitalism, but that isn't necessarily the case.

In capitalism, distribution is dictated by the money system obviously and due the massive inequality there is a big disparity among people's buying power - but more importantly companies consume the vast majority of resources and are encouraged to grow infinitely in a world of finite resources - creating demand where it doesn't naturally exist to squeeze more profit out of folks' savings, make them take on debt, or cause them to deprioritize other purchases.

In capitalism, people are not encouraged to consume infinitely more because it is not possible. You only have so many needs and so much income as an individual. The market invents new needs with advertising and such (you need makeup, you need the newest smartphone with ten cameras, you need glasses that let facebook spy on you), but consumers' buying power is limited. People can't really cause a market-wide tragedy of the commons, only companies can because they have the vast majority of the access to resources and the ability and motive (profit motive) to acquire them.

Tragedy of the commons, or some iteration of it, seems inevitable under capitalism, but is mitigated or eliminated under socialism

Should be noted that Europe had commons for hundreds and hundreds of years before they all got enclosured and they managed them just fine with local-level spontaneous democracy.

Also the "tragedy of the commons" as we know it today was invented by a malthusian in the 1960s and everybody who invokes it as an argument against socialism ignores the part of the essay where the author advocates for central planning

Does anyone actually think it's pro-capitalism? Though the social psych equivalent to this is just the concept of the harvesting dilemma and the main lesson is generally pro government regulation (regardless of economics). Social dilemmas like this apply to any common good everyone benefits from, be it air quality, military defense, public parks, public safety, etc. (when explaining, I use a few right wing examples too, even if I am a bit ACAB myself lol).

Basically, they simply don't exist without some form of social agreement not to be a shitty greedy asshole. Government being the most obvious way to control that.

It's about understanding the difference between the dictionary definitions of "communism" and "capitalism" and how they are actually practiced in the real life.

One of them is a system where the super rich hoard all the wealth and use the news media they own to keep the poor and middle classes fighting with each other while they, the rich, run off with all the f*cking money.

And the other one is a system where the super rich hoard all the wealth and use the news media they own to keep the poor and middle classes fighting with each other while they, the rich, run off with all the f*cking money.

"But wait a minute," you ask. "Aren't those the same thing"
Yeah. Congratulations. You GOT it.

Elinor Claire "Lin" Ostrom (née Awan; August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political scientist and political economist[1][2][3] whose work was associated with New Institutional Economicsand the resurgence of political economy.[4]In 2009, she was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her "analysis of economic governance, especially the commons", which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson; she was the first woman to win the prize.[5]

While the original work on the tragedy of the commons concept suggested that all commons were doomed to failure, they remain important in the modern world. Work by later economists has found many examples of successful commons, and Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for analysing situations where they operate successfully.[17][14] For example, Ostrom found that grazing commons in the Swiss Alps have been run successfully for many hundreds of years by the farmers there.[18]

Ostrom's law

Ostrom's law is an adage that represents how Elinor Ostrom's works in economicschallenge previous theoretical frameworks and assumptions about property, especially the commons. Ostrom's detailed analyses of functional examples of the commons create an alternative view of the arrangement of resources that are both practically and theoretically possible. This eponymous law is stated succinctly by Lee Anne Fennell as:

A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory.[42]

American political economist (1933-2012)

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}

The Tragedy of the Commons was popularized by a man who was anti-immigrant and pro-eugenics, and it's not good science. The good science on it was done by Elinor Ostrom who won a Nobel-ish prize for fieldwork showing that various societies around the world had solved the issues of the governance of commons.

The thing is, Ostrom didn't disprove it as a concept. She just proved that with the right norms and rules in place it doesn't inevitably lead to collapse. IMO it's not about capitalism or communism, it's about population. A small number of people who all know each-other can negotiate an arrangement that everyone can agree to. But, once you have thousands or millions of people, and each user of the commons knows almost none of the other users, it's different. At that point you need a government to set rules, and law enforcement to enforce those rules. That, of course, fails when the commons is something like the world's atmosphere and there's no worldwide government that can set and enforce rules.

American political economist (1933-2012)

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}