this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
325 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

82331 readers
3290 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
325
LLMs can unmask pseudonymous users at scale with surprising accuracy (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You think the paper is fraud?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

My statement that I'm quoting predates this paper. My statement exists completely independent of this paper ever being produced. My statement is not about this paper. My statement is about the state of AI and the industry. This paper reinforces my statement.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

How so?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

My statement was that AI can be used unmask the individuals that have been redacted. AKA they are anonymized. This paper is all about de-anonomyzing.

I'm unclear on if we're having a good faith conversation because I thought that would have been very clear from the beginning.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You said: I’m suggesting that AI can’t do what is claimed or that people with something to prove are not interested in proving something.

You're also saying: My statement was that AI can be used unmask the individuals that have been redacted. AKA they are anonymized. This paper is all about de-anonomyzing.

I can't make sense of what you are trying to say.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Did you see the "or" in my first statement?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I still can't make sense of what you are trying to say.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I set up two different, not necessarily exclusive, options. Either it can't do what they say or it can. If it can't then that's one issue. If it can then the people with something to prove aren't stepping up to show us its potential. There could be multiple motivations behind that. But as it stands right now we just know that it's not being used to do what they claim.