What's new
  • Donate and support Agora Road's Macintosh Cafe to keep the forum alive and make any necessary upgrades to have a more pleasant experience! In addition, you will be able to have "moods" enabled on your profile and have donation only awards! Update: I configured the site with Brave Browser, so you can send tips to the site with BAT.

    You can now donate directly to the forum without signing up for patreon. You will still have all of the same perks in patreon but its now one less sign up method. It will be under Account Upgrades

AI/Machine Learning as a way of "declassifying" documents?

Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
600
Reaction score
2,211
Awards
160
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
There's been a comment that has stuck with me for a few months now, I saw it as means of speculating the nature of a raid conducted on an Area 51 website admin. It was something to the effect of how there exists enough partial information out there in documents and on the net to piece together the bigger picture of classified Intel. It was speculation that the site admin may have been getting too thorough in his research, and that this raid was conducted as a warning of sorts. I'm unsure of just how true it is, but it got me thinking.

Given how far the AI/machine learning field has come, where we have technology like ChatGTP that can write essays with accurately cited sources, would it be theoretically possible to create and feed such a program enough primary source material for it to connect the dots and fill in censored/partially blacked out documents? There's plenty of primary documents out there related to shady happenings, but a shortage of man power to thoroughly comb through it all.

So what if the human element was removed? Instead the AI is tasked with the research of all available material, and then does it's best to fill in the redacted info and provide sources elaborating on it's speculation.

Is this at all feasible? Could it yield accurate information in place of redactions and usher in a new era of information transparency?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

LostintheCycle

Formerly His Holeliness
Joined
Apr 4, 2022
Messages
378
Reaction score
1,332
Awards
113
Maybe you could try something like that, but a couple problems popped into my head.
1. What if people use cherry-picked primary sources or even falsified sources to nudge the 'truth' into what they believe? People with particular bias would certainly do this, and you're left with the task of having to pick through all sources yourself, so the problem of having to comb through all sources manually is not solved.
2. Ultimately, how would you verify whether it is true or not? After declassification you'll still not be able to reach a definite answer, there's still some amount of uncertainty even with the above problem put aside, but it is so much worse because you have to trust where this 'declassified document' comes from.
My opinion is that this will only serve to make waters more muddy.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Outer Heaven

Stranger in a strange land
Bronze
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
662
Reaction score
4,365
Awards
183
Damn this is an interesting as hell idea. There are 2 immediate flaws I can see with this though. The first is that governments will quickly catch on and find a way to ban you from doing it if it's effective. Kinda like how every page you ever print has a way to track you, the government can find a way to tag documents so they're not declassified. The second issue is that this might work for some words being filled in but will not work for things like names of people or certain places, which is what primarily composes redactions. The ai will have no way of guessing which general authorized the human testing or where it is if the document refers to the location in code words.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

eve

Professional Loser
Bronze
Joined
Feb 16, 2022
Messages
118
Reaction score
321
Awards
46
Website
y22a.ev22.plus
cool idea, but i think itzz important 2 remember that ai cant rlly "fill in the blanks" and it wouldnt be any more reliable than any humans guess. that and (at least 4 now) ai like chatgpt is only as intelligent as the models and source material it haz been trained on :p
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
600
Reaction score
2,211
Awards
160
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
1. What if people use cherry-picked primary sources or even falsified sources to nudge the 'truth' into what they believe? People with particular bias would certainly do this, and you're left with the task of having to pick through all sources yourself, so the problem of having to comb through all sources manually is not solved.
Most research has this as a potential issue, even if one looks at all documents they will inevitably be swayed one way or the other and stick with a conviction. I trust the AI to remain a bit more impartial if it were to be fed everything.


2. Ultimately, how would you verify whether it is true or not? After declassification you'll still not be able to reach a definite answer, there's still some amount of uncertainty even with the above problem put aside, but it is so much worse because you have to trust where this 'declassified document' comes from.
Valid point, it does indeed boil down to educated guesses. Even if it can't 100% nail declassifying it could at least piece together public information to give detailed, supported answers. Personally I've never fully trusted official government releases information but it's the best one has for this sort of thing, they're not perfect, the truth is in there, somewhere.

The first is that governments will quickly catch on and find a way to ban you from doing it if it's effective.
There's nothing illegal about this, but glowies can plant cheese pizza and send you away to be merc'd in jail anytime they want. A possibility, but one could operate in relative secrecy if they know what they're doing.

The ai will have no way of guessing which general authorized the human testing or where it is if the document refers to the location in code words.
Theoretically could be possible to get a good background on individuals, for instance with this human testing one you provide it could narrow down generals with experience in biology/medicine.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Regal

Traveler
Joined
Nov 20, 2022
Messages
28
Reaction score
56
Awards
10
Technically possible, maybe, but no way to confirm accuracy. The training dataset required to do this right is more than the documents. You would probably need to give it a very complete dataset of world events and history for it to make some articulate guesses. Probably some additional datasets I'm not thinking about too. It takes a lot of data to make an educated guess.

The better AI/ML usecase would be to provide summaries of declassified documents. One of the hurdles of the conspiracy community (or whatever) is manpower. Being able to get the valuable data out of a 300 page document in minutes instead of a week is the biggest immediate value of AI/ML in this scenario.
 

Sinthôme

Golem Aglow
Joined
Apr 8, 2022
Messages
31
Reaction score
59
Awards
12
Like others said, it's totally contingent on the sensitivity of the field at hand and the lacunae being patched over in the intelligence, as well as how it would be tested for confirmation as accurate or not. Depends on the stakes of getting it right and what it's applied to, in other words, to say whether a data set training like this would "work".
 

Taleisin

Thinks a lot
Bronze
Joined
Nov 8, 2021
Messages
448
Reaction score
1,641
Awards
141
The CIA reading room has enough documents to train something like this, especially if you also fed in some wikileaks type stuff
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Containment Chat
Rules Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • LOB:
    I'm trying to think of a british drama but I'm struggling, they're all on BBC one and I don't watch live tv
  • zalaz alaza:
    bongs masters of comedy
  • LOB:
    White Gold is good especially if you like the guy ritchie style
  • Red:
    Punp said:
    Mighty Boosh is king of that surreal humour, but it was ruined for me when it was pointed out just how random it is
    Danger 5 is a great absurd comedy, though it's Australian
  • zalaz alaza:
    you guys all uk?
  • Red:
    I am
  • LOB:
    Yep
  • zalaz alaza:
    i know punp is. heh
  • LOB:
    looking forward to not being uk
  • Red:
    there's no escape
  • LOB:
    Who's going to stop me
  • Red:
    I'll be there, waiting
  • LOB:
    What if I stay in the common wealth and kiss a picture of charles every morning
  • Red:
    we'll allow it
  • Punp:
    God save the king
  • Punp:
    Can't think of any dramas? Ummm how about Coronations Street or Eastenders
  • Punp:
    >2023 >not streaming a full season of Coronation Street a week
  • LOB:
    Idk drama infers some sort of talent and credibility went into it
  • zalaz alaza:
    have a cold
  • zalaz alaza:
    also have a meeting w and old lady tmrw donno if i will reschedule
  • LOB:
    Why are you meeting old ladies
  • Red:
    why aren't you?
  • LOB:
    I never said I wasn't, it was a "why are you meeting old ladies"
  • zalaz alaza:
    potential new client
    +1
  • zalaz alaza:
    take care of her gardens. itll be out doors so i think will be fine
    zalaz alaza: take care of her gardens. itll be out doors so i think will be fine