We prepared ourselves for years. Fearlessness is a key trait of curiosity. And we all know about the cat curiosity and lethality correlation index.

We found him in a crate at the shelter. We found out later that “free barn cats” is friendly speak for “we are a capacity and if this cat doesn’t leave one way they’re going to get euthanized.” He got five extra years to adventure. He had a good life.

Currently at 11 personal, 1 forever foster, 1 feral beastie that is making good progress and will go on the kitten railroad to be adopted once she is a loving purr machine.

That was a joke. Her mom and her siblings all have bobtails so that makes her the odd one.

Can you state my position to me in terms I would agree with?

What is going on here? Something isn’t right about this conversation. We should not be this confused and talking past each other.

True or false: there has been no release by an AI company or anyone using AI to unmask the individuals obscured in the Epstein files.

66618055 I kept putting off getting on. I was online on the CompuServe days before Prodigy or AOL. I had three different places to access the internet back in 1992. My catchphrase is “I am from the internet. I’m here to help.” I deeply miss Usenet.

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.

Did you see the “or” in my first statement?

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.

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.

Seriously, I’m not qualified. No amount of appendix prompts and Dunning Kruger is going to change that.

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

I’m not qualified to design the prompts and home users can’t really pile in 3 million+ documents.

That would be fun.

In theory, using the information and the released files and the information the public sources, it should be possible to figure out who those redacted names are based on writing style and other factors. We should be able to deanonymize.

Right?

But that’s not the same, is it?

You can use the results of the AI analysis to identify people and then use that to do a proper investigation. Right now none of that is happening. No speculation. No tangibles. No investigation. No indictment.

Trying to unmask people is a step in the right direction.

From a Facebook post I made on February 17th:

There are giant AI data firms that promise they can go through massive troves of data and pull out general and specific information from them. Information that is actionable and accurate. Give it 6 million data points and it’ll find all the links and organize them for you and unmask hidden details that aren’t visible to the naked eye.

Not one of those companies is stepping up to go through the publicly released Epstein files.

That’s basically it right there