One thing that I find useful is to look at the about page, as well as terms of service or privacy policy, of any website.
If there's no entity named, or you can't verify that a named entity actually exists, it's a red flag.
In this case, there's no individual or company named anywhere that I can see. Not on the About page, and not in any of the legal agreements. And the phone number looks like it's a VoIP number from Onvoy, a major wholesaler, which is a yellow flag.
I think this will become ever more common as AI improves. We used to joke, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog," but now that is clearly true for AI agents. They can automate every part of the process, from domain and hosting registration, to web content creation, to responses to emails and even phone calls. Entire personas are trivial to create and maintain. This is what many companies are openly trying to do as cost cutting measures, but taken to its extreme you end up with entire companies generating income that are entirely agent driven. So long as the tokens cost less than the revenues they can generate, people will deploy these to passively make money for them, just like the early 2000s when there were entire webpages just present to show ads to unsuspecting visitors.
It's interesting to notice which fields try to garner positive publicity by emphasizing that they DON'T use AI. There is increasing negativity about AI generally but it is quite revealing for an organization to try to make their refusal to use it a big part of their identity. Maybe I can start offering artisanal software development services to go after that sweet hipster dollar - code done 100% by hand, cruelty-free.
1. Most of the negativity about AI seems to relate to the economic effects, not the technology itself.
2. From what I've seen, the average person is still unable to identify AI created content, websites, etc. The website this post is about is clearly vibe coded (looks like everything including the copy is from Claude) but I'd guess that only a small fraction of the people who see it will recognize that.
Even the website looks AI generated. Lots of cards with hover effects, icons in square boxes, the button shapes and behaviours, and just the general look and feel has Claude written all over it.
Not long ago companies claiming “100% AI-powered” services were secretly relying on humans because the tech wasn’t good enough.
Now, the opposite is true - AI has gotten so good, people are trying to pass AI work off as “100% human-powered.”
To me this remarkable inversion in a short period of time demonstrates how powerful these models can be; even if AI is overhyped and the financing/economics seem like a stack of cards, this example is driving home the point to me of just how far these models have come.
Surely the FTC would be all over this for truth in advertising, even if the FDA wasn't. The "services for medical researchers" reads like "tell us the result you want and the level of journal prestige and we'll price an outcome for you"
Yes, I would agree that privacy is important, that anonymity is valuable to the freedom of speech, and that OP is also right about the health of the web.
OP may be right about the health of the web, but for the wrong reasons. Anonymous website ownership has absolutely nothing to do with anything causing the biggest problems on the internet.
Anonymity is the ability to interact with other human beings while maintaining your privacy. In other words, it is the ability to use privacy. Privacy alone only gives you the ability to keep a journal of your political opinions without someone reading it. Anonymity gives you the ability to publish those political opinions in public without being persecuted for it by the current or any future group in power.
There is no misconception. I would suggest the inverse, that it seems deliberate to try to draw a line between the two and suggest that it makes any sense to have one without the other.
One thing that I find useful is to look at the about page, as well as terms of service or privacy policy, of any website.
If there's no entity named, or you can't verify that a named entity actually exists, it's a red flag.
In this case, there's no individual or company named anywhere that I can see. Not on the About page, and not in any of the legal agreements. And the phone number looks like it's a VoIP number from Onvoy, a major wholesaler, which is a yellow flag.
Agreed. Also the address listed on the about page is looks to be to the Texas Sculpture Garden in Frisco Texas. Sounds like a park, not an office.
I think this will become ever more common as AI improves. We used to joke, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog," but now that is clearly true for AI agents. They can automate every part of the process, from domain and hosting registration, to web content creation, to responses to emails and even phone calls. Entire personas are trivial to create and maintain. This is what many companies are openly trying to do as cost cutting measures, but taken to its extreme you end up with entire companies generating income that are entirely agent driven. So long as the tokens cost less than the revenues they can generate, people will deploy these to passively make money for them, just like the early 2000s when there were entire webpages just present to show ads to unsuspecting visitors.
My favourite from that era was the million pixel page where you paid $1 for a pixel which would link back to your own website.
It's interesting to notice which fields try to garner positive publicity by emphasizing that they DON'T use AI. There is increasing negativity about AI generally but it is quite revealing for an organization to try to make their refusal to use it a big part of their identity. Maybe I can start offering artisanal software development services to go after that sweet hipster dollar - code done 100% by hand, cruelty-free.
I think there are two problems:
1. Most of the negativity about AI seems to relate to the economic effects, not the technology itself.
2. From what I've seen, the average person is still unable to identify AI created content, websites, etc. The website this post is about is clearly vibe coded (looks like everything including the copy is from Claude) but I'd guess that only a small fraction of the people who see it will recognize that.
Even the website looks AI generated. Lots of cards with hover effects, icons in square boxes, the button shapes and behaviours, and just the general look and feel has Claude written all over it.
Not long ago companies claiming “100% AI-powered” services were secretly relying on humans because the tech wasn’t good enough.
Now, the opposite is true - AI has gotten so good, people are trying to pass AI work off as “100% human-powered.”
To me this remarkable inversion in a short period of time demonstrates how powerful these models can be; even if AI is overhyped and the financing/economics seem like a stack of cards, this example is driving home the point to me of just how far these models have come.
Surely the FTC would be all over this for truth in advertising, even if the FDA wasn't. The "services for medical researchers" reads like "tell us the result you want and the level of journal prestige and we'll price an outcome for you"
So the government is going to track down everyone involved with running Research Gold and prosecute them for fraud, right?
It's got "Gold" in the name, it may very well be a Trump operation.
I got downvoted the other day for saying that anonymous website ownership and perverse financial incentives are bad for the health of the internet.
Most consider privacy important.
Yes, I would agree that privacy is important, that anonymity is valuable to the freedom of speech, and that OP is also right about the health of the web.
Which means we have a big problem.
OP may be right about the health of the web, but for the wrong reasons. Anonymous website ownership has absolutely nothing to do with anything causing the biggest problems on the internet.
Anonymity == Privacy is such a huge misconception in our industry it borders on deliberate.
I'd argue anonymity is a component of privacy.
Anonymity is the ability to interact with other human beings while maintaining your privacy. In other words, it is the ability to use privacy. Privacy alone only gives you the ability to keep a journal of your political opinions without someone reading it. Anonymity gives you the ability to publish those political opinions in public without being persecuted for it by the current or any future group in power.
There is no misconception. I would suggest the inverse, that it seems deliberate to try to draw a line between the two and suggest that it makes any sense to have one without the other.
For individuals, yes. For service providers, no.
Why not? Nobody forces anybody to hire an anonymous provider. If they still do, they are probably fine with it?
If that were actually true the tech industry would not have minted trillions building a global digital panopticon.
Much of it in the ultimate service of selling very targeted advertising.