Tangential: I've found that having an LLM recreate the full file, with changes appllied, is less mistake-prone, than producing a patch. I wonder if anyone else came to this conclusion too.

> flooding the zone

I've often struggled to find a concise way to say "control public narrative by crowding out other headlines". Thank you for sharing the popular term for this [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone

Some counter-arguments:

- We already trust computers to run our markets, banks, cars, energy infrastructure, etc. Is a computer popularly untrustworthy?

- Do low-tech physical ballot systems offer good guarantees? See 2024 Russian elections [0], for an extreme counter-example.

I'd say cryptography or smart algorithms can go a long way in upholding certain invariants, but you need some infrastructure for that: e.g. key pairs per voter and a trustless counting system. If you can't get that, then you're relying on the good will of others: in some cases it's the volunteer counters, in others it's whoever deploys and operates the trust-based black box e-voting system. I think that cryptocurrencies alone should be proof to anyone observant that a trustless voting system is doable, though I'm honestly surprised by this thread, because it alludes to the opposite.

[0] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/20/t...

Why?

You should care how much maths and encryption you use [0][1], because this is not only possible, but there are multiple approaches.

[0] https://satoss.uni.lu/members/jun/papers/CSR13.pdf

[1] https://fc16.ifca.ai/voting/papers/ABBT16.pdf