this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
303 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
82329 readers
3739 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmm. Maybe but it is not the same problem as those discussed in OP. I also have some doubts about the paper, but that's another story. You could try it out?
I'm not qualified to design the prompts and home users can't really pile in 3 million+ documents.
Prompts are in the appendix: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16800
I don't know how far you get on the free tier but it should be at least enough for a proof of principle; to get other people to chip in. You didn't have qualms demanding other people should do this for free.
Mind that this is a serious GDPR violation in Europe. So there will be serious pressure on AI companies to prevent this kind of use.
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.
You think the paper is fraud?
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.
How so?
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.
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.
Did you see the "or" in my first statement?
I still can't make sense of what you are trying to say.
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.