Semantics of how this works aside, take a moment to appreciate how easy it is to remap the variable “zombie” to “human” in a prompt without the model altering its behavior. It instantly makes you realize the immensity of the AI safety & alignment problem.
Yes, theres other ways to be tracked at the network level, sure. I don't see how that changes the discourse?
Beyond the straight technical implications, isn't it concerning that a single company can roll out its own protocol across the server and browser stacks, implicating 7% of web traffic? Would it be more concerning if the same company has certain interest in improving its tracking and data collection capabilities?
Also, I was expecting to find details around browsers implementing some form of network level partitioning at that link you posted, but failed. Care to spell it out for me?
They also state that IETF QUIC proposals don’t seem to cover all aspects like abuse of the source-address token.
To my understanding, the more various identifiers you can muster, the more effective you are at identity stitching across data sets, resulting higher fidelity profiles. Are we at that point already where we’re ok at just waving off at another way to track what we do online?
Meanwhile, it seems theres already an implementation out there that covers ~7% of web traffic and is subject to this behavior. It’s been implemented single handedly by a company thats saying standards are moving too slow for it, far too often these days. That company also conveniently has a lot of stakes in the tracking game.