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.
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 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.
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.
Wait. How do we know this? Besides, these researchers show that it is possible, not that it is established practice.