> The client transmits those truncated hashes to the service. The service does a lookup from a set of hashed registered users. The service returns the intersection of registered users. The obvious problem with this method is that the hash of a user identifier can almost always be inverted. Regardless of whether the identifier is a phone number, a user name, or an email address, the “keyspace” of all possible identifiers is too small.

Also: Signal messages are currently never P2P. They always pass through Signal servers, which see (but apparently not retain) your IP and timing metadata. The Signal WebRTC calls are partially peer-to-peer, that is what the relaying in the Signal settings panel is about.

> In order to turn the address book on a device into a social graph for Signal, the Signal client needs to be able to determine which of the device’s contacts are Signal users. [...] The obvious problem with this method is that the hash of a user identifier can almost always be inverted. [...] This method of contact discovery isn’t ideal because of these shortcomings, but at the very least the Signal service’s design does not depend on knowledge of a user’s social graph in order to function.

Src.: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

edit: Also, Signal is not peer-to-peer. It is a centralized, client-server architecture.

FWIW I wouldn't know why to message someone if I didn't know who they were. The same goes for them not knowing who I am. What would we even talk about?

Even in the extreme, theoretical case of full defederation you could just browse your communities by having a sperate account on every relevant server using a multi-account client.

It also reduces the impact if you lose an account: Since they are all single-purpose, you can easily create a new one replacing the one you lost.

I once had to take four phones with me for a short while and ended up looking like an absolute clown, stacking them on the restaurant table.

Not having to do that is a privilege.

As for the actual argument: There are no ideology-free actors. Therefore, the best way for an organization to become more independent is to reduce its reliance on a single source (or cluster) of funding by diversifying its financial backing.

The more backers who are not closely aligned between each other, the more independent the organization is. Conversely, the more the backers share the same alignment, the more they tend to act similarly, reducing the benefit of the split.

This is a fruitful and well studied concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_dependence_theory

...and yes: Accountability should not be stripped just because the actor did wiggle their deeds through an LLM.

If Anthropic attacks a company again, I think this should be prosecuted.

... However, you often don't receive anything in return for taking that risk, so you end up producing standard corporate PR content.

Just think this through: Since its beginning, the Tor Project has heavily relied on US government funds.

The U.S. government trivially favors one set of publicly presented ideas and strongly condemns another. That is not a bad thing. Just ask them about Al-Qaeda.

It would be an unlikely luxury if all of one's donors were ideologically aligned with one's project. Now, some people want every important employee of every donor organization (or just Mullvad?) to be ideologically aligned as well.

This becomes more complex the further down the relationship tree you go.

The whole current PR campaign (it at least feels like a campaign) against Mullvad rests on absurd double standards as a method.

Problematic opinions at the top of Apple, Google, Microsoft? That's all fine. Problematic opinions at the top of some dissident tool? Sin! If they are not heaven they are hell! We must never stop pushing.

She lists many valid AI risks, discounts the doomsday PR and instead talks about the accountability gap that current AI frontier companies profit from.

I'm sure her Twitter timeline is awful, as you noted. But do you have thoughts on the arguments she presents in the linked video?

edit: I think she is absolutely right about the percentage risk numbers. Apparently, those numbers are not particularly meaningful beyond their functional use of communicating a sense of urgency. I think p(doom) is very similar to the Cold War doomsday clock. An instrument of irresponsible, fearbased PR.

And yes, whoever invented cash was a genius. It's an amazing technology that, in some ways, is far ahead of almost all digital payment systems.

OTOH, I did the cash envelope thing only once, out of curiosity. It was fun but now, for convenience, I just buy regular vouchers online.

The initial comment instead questioned how someone could be accused of making a threat if they did not realize anyone would read their private content. You probably also can not insult someone with a statement you never expected anyone but you will ever read.

Presumably, Anthropic did the spying and the reporting.

You argued that it is not spying, since the spying may have been made sufficiently explicit in the ToS/EULA.

This raises the question: Does announcing a spying operation mean that it is no longer spying? I've never heard that perspective before.

The German Melderegisters, for example, are now far more interested in the stated reason for your data request than they were ten years ago. (Which is a good thing!)

Many things that are trivial in theory, given the right conditions, etc. are anything but trivial once you actually try to do it.

Imagine a foreign state-sponsored agent waiting at the door of a public or private decision-maker, convincing them to cooperate. Home addresses are no joke. Especially if you can grep through the whole family tree.

That is generally true: prior to any professional communication you have a goal, assumptions, messaging, etc. Why would you produce communication at all, if you had not?

Marketing people often think there is a cookie-cutter rulebook you should follow, but there is not.

We are living in the "the bird is freed" and "nice genes" era of corporate communication.

..or maybe the commenter did look at superhuman persuasion long enough to believe it would be best to channel those ever the same fear fantasies from the LLM through their account to the reader.

On a more serious note, just look at the doom premises here: "Large parts of US society suddenly going criminal" is from the movie "The Purge", I think. It is fiction.

The idea that generative AI takes away our ability to find out reality. ... I don't know. People write about that a lot, but it still seems very far fetched.

Maybe through some terminally online overconsumption, like with social media? I wouldn't know.

With new AI capabilities we will have to adjust, I am sure. Media, science, education and law are changing very visibly right now. Those p(doom) narrations just seem to be pre-IPO hype though.

It is just so so dangerous. That is why they want to go public and only want to care about optimizing for the next quarter ...right before breaking into AGI. /s

As you wrote yourself, this is not the majority. Quite the understatement.

However, this is only a tangential notion in my comment. What do you think of my (probably not unique or novel) observation that calls for ethical purity seem to be very selective in a way that (in effect!) benefits big tech?

For example: The other person in this very thread who pointed out that Mullvad is not perfectly pure recommended iCloud in their previous HN comment three days ago. Did their attitude change in this three days? Unlikely.

iCloud is a service from a company that deplatforms ICE transparency apps, among many other things. Its then CEO, Tim Cook, personally gifted one million USD to Donald Trump for his inauguration. (The very thing they criticized: "... their CEO is directly funding a far-right ...")

Humans are rarely pure or heavenly. Double standards help incumbents.