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.
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’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?