We really need proof of soul systems to exist, extended to also have a proof of citizenship. While the proof of soul systems can plausible be done in a decentralized manner, proof of citizenship is much harder, and in my opinion this is one of (the few) things the government should really do.
> What ZKPs don’t do is mitigate verifier abuse or limit their requests, such as over-asking for information they don’t need or limiting the number of times they request your age over time. They don’t prevent websites or applications from collecting other kinds of observable personally identifiable information like your IP address or other device information while interacting with them.
Interesting. While that is true I don't see how it's an argument against. Over-asking + ZKP certainly seems superior to over-asking + without ZKP. Without ZKP in a world where you constantly need to identify yourself you have absolutely no privacy.
And going forward I think that any communication without establishing some kind of trust boundary will just be noise.
Yeah one reason I think the government has to offer this is usability. While you can imagine a purely p2p protocol between cypherpunks, for everyone else there needs to be a way to social workers, DMV staff, etc can deal with edge cases (such as your id being stolen and needing a reset). Furthermore it helps if it's super illegal to tamper with this network (consider how rare check fraud is, despite being easy).
Sorry the term of art is really soulbound identity right now, I use POS but it's less common. Definitions vary but I say a useful system must allow people to endorse statements with evidence they are a) alive b) not able to be represented by more than one identity (id is linked to your entire soul, not a persona or facet of your being) c) a kind of socially recognized person (human in the expected case)
and then layer on citizenship on top if you want to use this for polling, voting, etc.
All you have to do is flip the tortoise back over.
> You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
It's funny to think of how the US government is effectively a decentralized web of trust system. Building one that works, that has sufficient network effects, auditability, accountability, enforcability, so that when things are maliciously exploited, or people make mistakes, your system is robust and resilient - these are profound technically difficult challenges.
The US government effectively has to operate IDs under a web of trust, with 50 units sitting at the top, and a around 3,000 county sub-units, each of which are handling anywhere from 0 to 88 sub-units of towns, cities, other community structures.
Each community then deals with one or more hospitals, one or more doctors in each hospital, and every time a baby is born, they get some paperwork filled out, filed upward through the hierarchy of institutions, shared at the top level between the massive distributed database of social security numbers, and there are laws and regulations and officials in charge of making sure each link in the chain is where it needs to be and operates according to a standard protocol.
At any rate - ID is hard. You've gotta have rules and enforcement, accountability and due process, transparency and auditing, and you end up with something that looks a bit like a ledger or a blockchain. Getting a working blockchain running is almost trivial at this point, or building on any of the myriad existing blockchains. The hard part is the network incentives. It can't be centralized - no signing up for an account on some website. Federated or domain based ID can be good, but they're too technical and dependent on other nations and states. The incentives have to line up, too; if it's too low friction and easy, it'll constantly get exploited and scammed at a low level. If it's too high friction and difficult, nobody will want to bother with it.
Absent a compelling reason to participate, people need to be compelled into these ID schemes, and if they're used for important things, they need a corresponding level of enforcement, and force, backing them up, with due process. You can't run it like a gmail account, because then it's not reliable as a source of truth, and so on.
I don't know if there's a singular, technological fix, short of incorruptible AGI that we can trust to run things for us following an explicit set of rules, with protocols that allow any arbitrary independent number of networks and nodes and individuals to participate.
Some friends just made this: https://www.congressionalrag.com/ - they need help from anyone interested, especially around pulling in more data sources.
This is not obvious to me! For example, if you locked me in a room with no information inputs, over time I may still become more intelligent by your measures. Through play and reflection I can prune, reconcile and generate. I need compute to do this, but not necessarily more knowledge.
Again, this isn't how distillation work. Your task as the distillation model is to copy mistakes, and you will be penalized by pruning reconciling and generating.
"Play and reflection" is something else, which isn't distillation.
The initial claim was that distillation can never be used to create a model B that's smarter than model A, because B only has access to A's knowledge. The argument you're responding to was that play and reflection can result in improvements without any additional knowledge, so it is possible for distillation to work as a starting point to create a model B that is smarter than model A, with no new data except model A's outputs and then model B's outputs. This refutes the initial claim. It is not important for distillation alone to be enough, if it can be made to be enough with a few extra steps afterward.
You’ve subtly confused “less accurate” and “smarter” in your argument. In other words you’ve replaced the benchmark of representing the base data with the benchmark of reasoning score.
Then, you’ve asserted that was the original claim.
Sneaky! But that’s how “arguments” on HN are “won”.
No, I didn't confuse the two. There is not a formal definition of "smart", but if you're claiming that factual accuracy is unrelated to it, I can't imagine that that's in good faith.
Exactly. I think people want to be treated like owners more than they want an obtuse legal status of being an owner. In other words, a seat at the table when strategic objectives are being defined is what will make them act like owners, not a RSPA document.
It all depends on the people. I know lots of people who prefer working for startups not because they're looking to get rich, but because the startup is doing something new that particularly excites them.
And in my statups, I want that group of people, and actively don't want the ones who are just looking for a big payday.
I assume you are either already rich or want to become rich because of your startups. Why wouldn't you expect people to want to also be rich?
I will say every time I hear someone claim that their employees should want to join them for non-monetary reasons, I assume its to try to keep more of the rewards for themselves.
> I assume you are either already rich or want to become rich because of your startups
You assume incorrectly. I am not rich by the standards of rich people (although I am rich by the standards of many others, but I think it's safe to say that most of the people reading my comment right now are wealthier than me), and I don't form startups because of a desire to gain wealth. I have no actual interest in amassing wealth as such.
I form startups because they give me the opportunity and freedom to engage in projects that deeply interest me.
"Not rich by the standards of rich people" is a moving target as your social class improves and you rub elbows with the more wealth as you make more money. There are people making $500k a year in the Bay Area or NYC who don't think they are rich. But the simplest dividing line I can think of is "has fuck you money". That is, could you (financially, not socially or being bored) retire tomorrow if you felt like it.
I never said anything was wrong with it. I only claimed that's not the motivation for everyone, and in my own startups, I prefer people who are motivated by passion for the work over those who are motivated just by income potential.
That's not a value judgement, that's just being interested in finding people who are more on the same page as me.
This analysis has been done several times. To the best of my knowledge, even the covid policy contrarians don't see a a problem with its obvious conclusions. Here, let me google that for you: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
The results on the "Weekly Number of Deaths by Age" dashboard are pretty clear - Covid had little impact on the death rates in the under-44 group. This is not surprising, as every country that records this data shows the same result.
I'm not sure of the situation in the US, but here in the UK all of the data dashboards and death stats indicate "deaths with Covid". This is simply how they were recorded, nothing more nothing less - if you tested positive for Covid within 30 days of dying, you were a "death with Covid".
The results on the "Weekly Number of Deaths by Age" dashboard are pretty clear - Covid had little impact on the death rates in the under-44 group. This is not surprising, as every country that records this data shows the same result.
(Separate replies, as I included both statements in a reply that then got flagged. Curious which one is offensive!)
I'd use it for basic process automation, airtable data IO, triggering marketing campaigns or slack bots, etc.
It's a heavy weight feature request but if I could lean on it in the way I lean on Prefect.io now for spinning up cloud workers on demand I'd use it for a lot more.
We're working on something similar - several scene layers packed and transmitted over h265 streams and unpacked into a 3D client for 6DoF playback. Captures from something as simple as a GoPro and then our CV compares perspectives of the scene across time to reconstruct it in 3D for the encoding/transmission steps.
Targeting exercise market (where we got our start) but it could go beyond it in time.
This is where we were looking to go with our "metaverse for sports" app https://ayvri.com - Blending of 3D world geometries with video and photos captured from ground view, built into 3D models. I believe this is the future of video, I was calling it "spatial media" at the time.
We still operate Ayvri, but have mostly moved on to other projects.
Sometimes someone links me to Ayvri (due to our overlap here) and it's always super impressive. As the capture tools get better, and something as sturdy as a GoPro can capture stable video suitable to watch on VR, the concept might pick up.
Thanks for the support, we still operate Ayvri, but we've moved on to a space that is perhaps better suited to or abilities and market timing in the sleep space https://soundmind.co
I don't comment here on HN often, but this is impressive! It could be a game changer for someone like me who finds exercising indoors boring but could stroll outside for hours on end. I could see myself using this.
How does platform support look?
We are building a VR exercise game/app [1] and those environments look awesome, but we are using GodotEngine not the usual Unity/Unreal ecosystem (same question goes for the OP)
We're doing everything in Unity. The hard part is really in the encoding, so there is no reason we couldn't have the client be in Godot or even simply webGL, but that isn't our focus just yet.
reply