Chainlink and AI

[Anonymous No.56419880]

I just watched Eric Schmidt's Smartcon talk and it was very interesting how focused the topic of discussion was this time. He seemed really excited about the prospect of Chainlink creating verifiable truth in a world where anyone can create a believable lie. He talked a lot about proving identity which I understand how Chainlink will do with DECO, but he also talked about debunking conspiracy theories. How exactly does that work?

Say a video gets uploaded to Youtube of a Palestinian shooting an Israeli kid. How exactly does Chainlink verify whether the video is real or not? The nodes would have to grab an answer from news websites, but if the news websites report the video as real, the nodes would then say the video is real, and the verified truth would be that the video is real even if it isn't. If there aren't enough news sites reporting that it's real in order for the nodes to say it's real, the news sites could game the system to prevent the nodes from pushing certain truths onto chain. If it never gets proved real or fake then the nodes are incapable of forming consensus. Would this simply be a situation where Chainlink could not be used?

[Anonymous No.56419967]

Yeah I don't understand in that situation either how you'd verify that it's not AI. Maybe instead of pulling consensus from news sites, you're instead pulling consensus from nodes running AI analysis software that reviews videos for evidence of manipulation. In general AI really does represent a significant threat to the trust we all put in the information we consume. But so does just about everything in a post-modern world. Think about the inevitability of globalism, as regional traditions break down and cultures are homogenized for the sake of consumerism, we trust each other much less than we did in previous decades. When the racial makeup of your community is a totally mixed bag, and your job requires you to interact with strangers all over the world, of course you have less trust in every aspect of your life. This is why smart contracts are so powerful and necessary. Globalism and capitalism are inevitable, but they do run into the problem of generating low-trust societies. The answer is to shift agreements to ones based on mathematics rather than trust in your fellow man. AI is just another leap forward in the machine that began long ago. For me this is why smart contracts obviously have a future. And by extension of that, chainlink is required to allow these trustless contracts to power our agreements. Trust is a thing of the past. But yeah AI is fucked man and I don't know the future of that stuff.

[Anonymous No.56420025]

>>56419880
The cryptographic attestation happens art the point of creation, in the hardware.
Like EXIF data but encoded into a cryptographic proof from which you can extract date/time/location and even, in the future, identity credentials, like “Associated Press Gaza news camera #3”

[Anonymous No.56420121]

>>56420025
So basically exif but without doxxing yourself in the process? That's a really clever idea.

But how do you verify that the exif data isn't fabricated?

[Anonymous No.56420131]

>>56419880
>Say a video gets uploaded to Youtube of a Palestinian shooting an Israeli kid.
Chainlink not required.

[Anonymous No.56420138]

>>56419880
he'll be talking about consensus in determining if a video is AI generated and sourced rather than verifying it's content context is truthful (subjective)
it'll just be chain of custody verification and trust sharing in a network.
still. token not needed.

what's the point of a talk, if no-one understands the content presented. Feynman method works or the topic is garbage.

[Anonymous No.56420141]

based LPL chads how you doing kiddo?

[Anonymous No.56420142]

>>56420121
encrypt the data with an embedded pkey (on the device) and trust that the manufacturer doesn't have a backdoor. lel.

[Anonymous No.56420157]

>>56420138
Anything that uses chainlink requires the token because that's how the node operators are paid ya fucking dingus. The smart contracts pay the operators to use the blockchain.

Meaning literally anything that uses a chainlink smart contract requires the token.

Why would anyone run a node otherwise?

[Anonymous No.56420182]

>>56420157
all you said.
>token not needed.
so you are correct.
nothing uses chainlink except as a niche testing cases for interoperation. thats it.
nothing utilises it.

[Anonymous No.56420204]

>>56419880
(((They))) will tell you what’s verifiably true and you will be happy

[Anonymous No.56420216]

>>56420142
Something like that might work if it has to communicate with nearby devices or satellites as well. But it would require adoption on a level that is speculative at best.

>>56420182
You're moving the goalposts.

The other guy was saying that the token isn't needed in this case where it would obviously be needed. Now you're saying "but it's not going to happen anyway". Maybe not, but that's not what was said in the first place. It's a retarded argument to say that the token isn't needed to not use chainlink anyway. No shit.

[Anonymous No.56420226]

>>56419880
all chainlink can do is aggregate answers from various news sites, which i guess is better than nothing, but like you said, if the news sites are all wrong, chainlink's answer will be wrong too. the idea is that you will get a diverse array of answers, and thus will be able to judge for yourself if it's real or not based on if all the sources agree or if 50% agree and 50% have another idea, etc.

[Anonymous No.56420230]

>>56420025
ah that's true
i didn't think about putting meta data into the hardware level and verifying that via the chainlink network

[Anonymous No.56420233]

>>56420216
im the same guy.
my IP is glowing today.
im saying it's not needed because even in it's highest form of "implementation" (DTCC) it's only used to show that they can handle the mutants.

[Anonymous No.56420403]

>>56419880
If you figure out proof of identity, everything else follows. The current problem is that identity proof is either not available or is not easily connected to anything else. A universal identity model means whoever recorded the video can prove it was them by having their ID attached to their phone, which tags the video as them in a private way. Later on if the video is contested, a link query will make it back to them, and they can be paid to release more information. Traits like their employer, job title, nationality, stated political views, or even down to exactly who they are. All itemized, all integrated, and nothing revealed by default. Information revealed goes to everyone in an open market.
Chainlink changes the world in it's final form.

[Anonymous No.56420574]

>>56419880
>>56419967
In the forthcoming technological landscape, we can anticipate an intricate mesh of terabytes, likely exabytes, of sensory data nodes interfacing with the Chainlink protocol. Given this paradigm, consider a hypothetical video pertaining to the Palestine/Israel conflict containing potential misinformation. Leveraging Chainlink's dominance over the TLS of the internet infrastructure, it becomes feasible to algorithmically ascertain the veracity of such content. Specifically, Chainlink's capabilities would enable a systematic audit of AI-generated data, cross-referencing it against a vast repository of sensory data. This would facilitate the validation or refutation of the spatial and temporal claims associated with the incident depicted in video.

[Anonymous No.56420881]

>>56420025
this + oeuvre, there would be an easily accessible record of all the photos produced by that camera, you can use historical performance when gauging trustworthiness

[Anonymous No.56421216]

>>56420216
>But it would require adoption on a level that is speculative at best
This is the only problem really. These usecases are very far away still but hopefully we might have the banking system in line first