But aren’t you outraged that they aren’t paying license fees to poor Kim Jong Un and JK Rowling?

Even if you only get your news from here, you can’t possibly have missed that AI companies are getting sued…

What is it about AI that these daylight robberies are celebrated when that’s involved? Maybe it’s just that a bigger cash grab can pay for more bots?

That pitch is not gonna work here. The local hive mind already believes that knowledge is a proprietary asset.

Probably not.

I don’t know what AI companies you mean here. From context, I’m guessing that you don’t mean the likes of Anthropic, but rather companies that do sleuthing on the net, like those firms that look for copyright or trademark violations. I’m not familiar with that industry and don’t know their marketing material. Maybe that’s the problem.

I don’t know what claims they make, or how it relates to the Epstein files, or OP.

I doubt a reputable company would do that, except in cooperation with the authorities. Some people have used AI in an attempt to do that, but I’m not familiar with the details.

I don’t really understand what you expect from who and why.

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.

What I’m getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution.

I still can’t make sense of what you are trying to say.

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.

I can tell, you don’t understand what’s going on and that’s scary. Unfortunately, it would still be scary if you did. But at least you would be able to have a positive effect on the world for the better.

How so?

I see. I have some doubts about the motivation of these people, too. But regulators are going after X.

Consider that the chatcontrol equivalent would be going after services that don’t spy enough on their users.

You think the paper is fraud?

Yeah. I understand what you mean. That is simply not true. Ok, teachable moment.

In Germany, that slogan is considered a Hamas slogan. Hamas has been classified as an extremist organization. That means that using its slogans and symbols is illegal under the same laws that make Nazi slogans and symbols illegal. That’s the hate speech and illegal content that online platforms are supposed to remove.

Failing to crack down on hate speech is one of the biggest complaints against X. If you demand that authorities to enforce EU platform laws harder, then what happens is that this slogan is suppressed harder. You understand?

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.

And how does that work legally?

I think you are just not making any sense.

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?

Uh. So… Prosecuting bad. Not prosecuting those who do not cooperate with the prosecutors also bad because hypocrisy.