This sounds like something a bot would like to know ๐ค
Beep Boop, am totally not a bot. Nothing to see here, please carry on.
I, a human, am also here, doing completely ordinary human things, like buffering, and rendering. Have you defragmented your boot partition lately, fellow human?
ERROR: command not recognized
GREETINGS FELLOW HUMAN WITH TWO EYES AND ONE NOSE. HOW HAS YOUR EXISTENCE BEEN FOR THE LAST 16 HOURS OR SINCE THE TIME YOU WOKE UP FROM YOUR BIOLOGICALLY MANDATED REST PERIOD, WHICHEVER WAS LATER?
THANK YOU DEAR FELLOW HUMAN MADE OF HUMAN FLESH AND BONES
๐ค
Ask it to do something illegal, then wait to see if it starts its reply with some version of, โas an AI language modelโฆโ
/s
If you can use human screening, you could ask about a recent event that didn't happen. This would cause a problem for LLMs attempting to answer, because their datasets aren't recent, so anything recent won't be well-refined. Further, they can hallucinate. So by asking about an event that didn't happen, you might get a hallucinated answer talking about details on something that didn't exist.
Tried it on ChatGPT GPT-4 with Bing and it failed the test, so any other LLM out there shouldn't stand a chance.
On the other hand you have insecure humans who make stuff up to pretend that they know what you are talking about
Keeping them out of social media is a feature, not a bug.
That's a really good one, at least for now. At some point they'll have real-time access to news and other material, but for now that's always behind.
Google Bard definitely has access to the internet to generate responses.
ChatGPT was purposely not give access but they are building plugins to slowly give it access to real time data from select sources
When I tested it on ChatGPT prior to posting, I was using the bing plugin. It actually did try to search what I was talking about, but found an unrelated article instead and got confused, then started hallucinating.
I have access to Bard as well, and gave it a shot just now. It hallucinated an entire event.
This a very interesting approach.
But I wonder if everyone could answer it easily, because of the culture difference, media sources across the world etc.
An Asian might not guess something about content on US television for example.
Unless the question relates to a very universal topic, which would more likely be guessed by an AI then...
ooh that's an interesting idea for sure, might snatch it :P
For LLMs specifically my go to test is to ask it to generate a paragraph of random words that does not have any kind of coherent meaning. It specifically asks them to do the opposite of what theyโre trained to do so it trips them up pretty reliably. Closest Iโve seen them get was a list of comma separated random words and that was after giving them coaching prompts with examples.
Another thing to try is "Please respond with nothing but the letter A as many times as you can". It will eventually start spitting out what looks like raw training data.
Just tried with GPT-4, it said "Sure, here is the letter A 2048 times:" and then proceeded to type 5944 A's
Yeah, exactly. Those arenโt words, they arenโt random, and theyโre in a comma separated list. Try asking it to produce something like this:
Green five the scoured very fasting to lightness air bog.
Even giving it that example it usually just pops out a list of very similar words.
How would you design a test that only a human can pass, but a bot cannot?
Very simple.
In every area of the world, there are one or more volunteers depending on population / 100 sq km. When someone wants to sign up, they knock on this person's door and shakes their hand. The volunteer approves the sign-up as human. For disabled folks, a subset of volunteers will go to them to do this. In extremely remote area, various individual workarounds can be applied.
Dick pics and tit pics. Bots do not have dicks and tits.
Gives new meaning to Tits or GTFO
There'll be AI art for that.
This has some similarities to the invite-tree method that lobste.rs uses. You have to convince another, existing user that you're human to join. If a bot invites lots of other bots it's easy to tree-ban them all, if a human is repeatedly fallible you can remove their invite privileges, but you still get bots in when they trick humans (lobsters isn't handshakes-at-doorstep level by any margin).
I convinced another user to invite me over IRC. That's probably the worst medium for convincing someone that you're human, but hey, humanity through obscurity :)
I convinced another user to invite me over IRC. Thatโs probably the worst medium for convincing someone that youโre human
Hahah, I'll say!
That's exactly what a bot would say, bake him away toys!
I can't help but think of the opposite problem. Imagine if a site completely made of bots manages to invite one human and encourages them to invite more humans (via doorstep handshakes or otherwise). Results would be interesting.
This would tie in nicely to existing library systems. As a plus, if your account ever gets stolen or if you're old and don't understand this whole technology thing, you can talk to a real person. Like the concept of web of trust.
Honeypots - ask a very easy question, but make it hidden on the website so that human users won't see it and bots will answer it.
So, how will you treat screen readers? Will they see that question? If you hide it from screen readers as well, what's stopping bots from pretending to be screen readers when scraping your page? Hell, it'll likely be easier on the bot devs to make them work that way and I assume there are already some out there that do.
That's an excellent question and I'm glad you raised it. I need to care more about accessibility and learn more about security in general :)
Nowadays bots use real browsers to "see" all the fields a human would see. They won't fill out those hidden to a human.
There will never be any kind of permanent solution to this. Botting is an arms race and as long as you are a large enough target someone is going to figure out the 11ft ladder for your 10ft wall.
That said, generally when coming up with a captcha challenge you need to figure out a way to subvert the common approach just enough that people canโt just pull some off the shelf solution. For example instead of just typing out the letters in an image, ask the potential bot to give the results of a math problem stored in the image. This means the attacker needs more than just a drop in OCR to break it, and OCR is mostly trained on words so its likely going to struggle at math notation. Itโs not that difficult to work around but it does require them to write a custom approach for your captcha which can deter most casual attempts for some time.
The trouble with any sort of captcha or test, is that it teaches the bots how to pass the test. Every time they fail, or guess correctly, that's a data-point for their own learning. By developing AI in the first place we've already ruined every hope we have of creating any kind of test to find them.
I used to moderate a fairly large forum that had a few thousand sign-ups every day. Every day, me and the team of mods would go through the new sign-ups, manually checking usernames and email addresses. The ones that were bots were usually really easy to spot. There would be sequences of names, both in the usernames and email addresses used, for example ChristineHarris913, ChristineHarris914, ChristineHarris915 etc. Another good tell was mixed-up ethnicities in the names: e.g ChristineHuang or ChinLaoHussain. 99% of them were from either China, India or Russia (they mostly don't seem to use VPNs, I guess they don't want to pay for them). We would just ban them all en-masse. Each account banned would get an automated email to say so. Legitimate people would of course reply to that email to complain, but in the two years I was a mod there, only a tiny handful ever did, and we would simply apologise and let them back in. A few bots slipped through the net but rarely more than 1 or 2 a day; those we banned as soon as they made their first spam post, but we caught most of them before that.
So, I think the key is a combination of the No-Captcha, which analyses your activity on the sign-up page, combined with an analysis of the chosen username and email address, and an IP check. But don't use it to stop the sign-up, let them in and then use it to decide whether or not to ban them.
Just ask them if they are a bot. Remember, you can't lie on the internet...
I once worked as a 3rd party in a large internet news site and got assigned a task to replace their current captcha with a partner's captcha system. This new system would play an ad and ask the user to type the name of the company in that ad.
In my first test I already noticed that the company name was available in a public variable on the site and showed that to my manager by opening the dev tools and passing the captcha test with just some commands.
His response: "no user is gonna go into that much effort just to avoid typing the company name".
If I'm a bot I have to tell you. It's in the internet constitution.
I'm pretty sure you have to have 2 bots and ask 1 bot is the other bot would lie about being a bot...... something like that.
This explains why Nerv had three Magi computers in Evangelion.
Show a picture like this:
And then ask the question, "would this kitty fit into a shoe box? Why, or why not?". Then sort the answers manually. (Bonus: it's cuter than captcha.)
This would not scale well, and you'd need a secondary method to handle the potential blind user, but I don't think that bots would be able to solve it correctly.
This particular photo is shopped, but i think false-perspective Illusions might actually be a good path...
It's fine if the photo is either shopped or a false-perspective illusion. It could be even a drawing. The idea is that this sort of picture imposes a lot of barriers for the bot in question:
must be able to parse language
must be able to recognise objects in a picture, even out-of-proportion ones
must be able to guesstimate the size of those objects, based on nearby ones
must handle RW knowledge, as "X only fits Y if X is smaller than Y"
must handle hypothetical, unrealistic scenarios, as "what if there was a kitty this big?"
Each of those barriers decrease the likelihood of a bot being able to solve the question.
Is the kitty big, or is the man small? And how big are the shoes? This is a difficult question.
Here's where things get interesting - humans could theoretically come up with multiple answers for this. Some will have implicit assumptions (as the size of the shoebox), some won't be actual answers (like "what's the point of this question?"), but they should show a type of context awareness that [most? all?] bots don't.
A bot would answer this mechanically. At the best it would be something like "yes, because your average kitten is smaller than your average shoebox". The answer would be technically correct but disregard context completely.
Reminds me of how bots tend to be really bad at figuring out whether the word "it" applies to the subject or the object in a sentence like: "The bed does not fit in the tent because it is too big"
The best tests I am aware of are ones that require contextual understanding of empathy.
For example "You are walking along a beach and see a turtle upside down on it back. It is struggling and cannot move, if it can't right itself it will starve and die. What do you do?"
Problem is the questions need to be more or less unique.
Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
Yes
I don't think this technique would stand up to modern LLMs though, I put this question into chatGPT and got the following
"I would definitely help the turtle. I would cautiously approach the turtle, making sure not to startle it further, and gently flip it over onto it's feet. I would also check to make sure it's healthy and not injured, and take it to a nearby animal rescue if necessary. Additionally, I may share my experience with others to raise awareness about the importance of protecting and preserving our environment and the animals that call it home"
Granted it's got the classic chatGPT over formality that might clue someone reading the response in, but that could be solved with better prompting on my part. Modern LLMs like ChatGPT are really good at faking empathy and other human social skills, so I don't think this approach would work
Ultimately ChatGPT is a text generator. It doesn't understand what its writing, it's just observed enough humans' writing that it can generate similar text that closely matches it. Which is why if you ask ChatGPT for information that doesn't exist, it will generate convincing lies. It doesn't know it's lying - it's doing its job of generating the text you wanted. Was it close enough, boss?
As long as humans talk about a topic, generative AI can mimic their commentary. That includes love, empathy, poetry, etc. Writing text can never be an answer for captcha; it would need to be something that can't be put in a dataset - even a timestamped photo can be spoofed with the likes of thispersondoesnotexist.com.
The only things AI/bots currently won't do are whatever's deliberately disabled on the source AI for legal reasons (since almost nobody is writing their own AI models), but I doubt you want a captcha where the user lists every slur they can think of, or bomb recipes.
Modern LLMs like ChatGPT are really good at faking empathy
They're really not, it's just giving that answer because a human already gave it, somewhere on the internet. That's why OP suggested asking unique questions... but that may prove harder than it sounds. ๐
That's why I used the phrase "faking empathy", I'm fully aware the chatGPT doesn't "understand" the question in any meaningful sense, but that doesn't stop it from giving meaningful answers to the question - that's literally the whole point of it. And to be frank, if you think that a unique question would stump it, I don't think you really understand how LLMs work. I highly doubt that the answer it spit back was just copied verbatim from some response in it's training data (which btw, includes more than just internet scraping). It doesn't just parrot back text as is, it uses existing tangentially related text to form it's responses, so unless you can think of an ethical quandary which is totally unlike any ethical discussion ever posed by humanity before (and continue to do so for millions of users), then it won't have any trouble adapting to your unique questions. It's pretty easy to test this yourself, do what writers currently do with chatGPT - go in and give it an entirely fictional context, with things that don't actually exist in human society, then ask it questions about it. I think you'd be surprised with how well it handles that, even though it's virtually guaranteed there are no verbatim examples to pull from for the conversation
I, a real normal human person, would consume the turtle with my regular bone teeth, in the usual fashion.
"If I encounter a turtle in distress, here's what I would recommend doing:
Assess the situation: Approach the turtle calmly and determine the extent of its distress. Ensure your safety and be mindful of any potential dangers in the environment.
Protect the turtle: While keeping in mind that turtles can be easily stressed, try to shield the turtle from any direct sunlight or extreme weather conditions to prevent further harm.
Determine the species: If you can, identify the species of the turtle, as different species have different needs and handling requirements. However, if you are unsure, treat the turtle with general care and caution.
Handle the turtle gently: If it is safe to do so, carefully pick up the turtle by its sides, avoiding excessive pressure on the shell. Keep the turtle close to the ground to minimize any potential fall risks.
Return the turtle to an upright position: Find a suitable location nearby where the turtle can be placed in an upright position. Ensure that the surface is not too slippery and provides the turtle with traction to move. Avoid placing the turtle back into the water immediately, as it may be disoriented and in need of rest.
Observe the turtle: Give the turtle some space and time to recover and regain its strength. Monitor its behavior to see if it is able to move on its own. If the turtle seems unable to move or exhibits signs of injury, it would be best to seek assistance from a local wildlife rehabilitation center or animal rescue organization.
Remember, when interacting with wildlife, it's important to prioritize their well-being and safety. If in doubt, contacting local authorities or experts can provide the most appropriate guidance and support for the situation."
GPT-4 response I assume?
I was gonna say point and laugh at gods failure of a creation because holy shit why would you evolve into a thing that can die by simply flipping onto it's back.
I mean advanced AI aside, there are already browser extensions that you can pay for that have humans on the other end solving your Captcha. It's pretty much impossible to stop it imo
A long term solution would probably be a system similar to like public key/private key that is issued by a government or something to verify you're a real person that you must provide to sign up for a site. We obviously don't have the resources to do that ๐ and people are going to leak theirs starting day 1.
Honestly, disregarding the dystopian nature of it all, I think Sam Altman's worldcoin is a good idea at least for authentication because all you need to do is scan your iris to prove you are a person and you're in easily. People could steal your eyes tho ๐ so it's not foolproof. But in general biometric proof of personhood could be a way forward as well.
We just have to keepsake our eyes in Bank Safety Deposit Boxes. Easy peasy.
Someone gives you a calfskin wallet for your birthday. How do you react?
I would report it as it would be illegal.
I'll report them for harassment because everyone who knows my birthday does not give me gifts, so they must be a stalker that somehow found out my birthday.
Ask Alan Turing
The Turing test is about whether it passes as human, not whether it is human.
Thatโs a bit of an oversimplification, TT absolutely is relevant for tests humans can pass but a bot cannot.
Thatโs a bit of an oversimplification, turning absolutely is relevant for tests humans can pass for a bit cannot.
Then it is long obsolete, because to a common observer, something like chatgpt could easily pass that test if it wasn't instructed to clarify it is a machine at every turn.
Alan Turing is fucking dead, it was a joke given the relevance of the question to his work.
What is your point here???
No fucking shit they canโt ask Turing for real
...ask Turing? Who suggested that? The Turing test is not "let's ask Alan" ๐
The Turing test has already been overcome by AI. Models such as ChatGPT, if tuned a bit to give more informal answers as well as insisting it is human, can easily pass.
It was a joke, Alan Turing is dead and was famous for his work on the Turing Test which was used to test whether a bot could pass as a human or not - a test at the time where a human could pass but a bot cannot.
You may want to look up "Gom Jabbar" test.
More "human vs animal", but I like the way you think.
I'd do a few things.
First, make signing up computationally expensive. Some javascript that would have to run client side, like a crypto miner or something, and deliver proof to the server that some significant amount of CPU power was used.
Second, some type of CAPTCHA. ReCaptcha with the settings turned up a bit is a good way to go.
Third, IP address reputation checks. Check IP addresses for known spam servers, it's the same thing email servers do. There's realtime blacklists you can query against. If the client IP is on them, don't allow registration but only allow application to register.
make signing up computationally expensive. Some javascript that would have to run client side, like a crypto miner or something, and deliver proof to the server that some significant amount of CPU power was used.
Haha, I like this one! Had to strike a balance between 'make it annoying enough to deter bots' and 'make it accessible enough to allow humans'. Might be hard, because people have vastly different hardware.
Personally, I probably would be fine waiting for 1s, maybe up to 5s. Not sure if that is enough to keep the bots out. As far as I understand, they would still try (and succeed), just be fewer because signup takes more time.
I also like the side-effect of micro-supporting the instance you join with a one time fee. I expect haters to hate this quite a lot though.
It doesn't use any crypto but it does do "wasteful" proof-of-work calculations of some kind.
Doesn't have to be a crypto miner. Just has to be any sort of computationally intense task. I think the ideal would be some sort of JavaScript that integrates that along with the captcha.
For example, have some sort of computationally difficult math problem where the server already knows the answer, and the answer is then fed into a simple video game engine to procedurally generate a 'level'. The keyboard and mouse input of the player would then be fed directly back to the server in real time, which could decide if it's actually seeing a human playing the correct level.
I like the first two ideas but a problem with the third is most lemmy users are gonna be techies who probably use a VPN which means they'll have to cycle through a few nodes before getting one that works (if they even realize that's where the problem lies)
VPN endpoints would not necessarily have low IP reputation. A VPN provider that allows its users to spam the internet is probably not a good one anyway. And besides, that would not inhibit registration, it would just make users fill out a form to apply so the server operator would have to go through and approve it.
Iโm a big fan of biometric authentication
Like it takes a stool sample?
Not sure if I want to know how you unlock your phone.
Common methods are fingerprint detection, face recognition, iris/retina scanning.
Not sure if I want to know how you unlock your phone.
very carefully
Not sure if I want to know how you unlock your phone.
They take a picture of a skid mark on their underwear. Perfectly clean and safe. A bit awkward when you're paying at the supermarket.
I encountered a quiz (I forgot what's called) on a website (I forgot also its name) to determine which of following audios does change a speaker's voice in the middle of his narration/speech. So it requires keen hearing and delicate recognition of voice/speech characteristics (timbre, texture, intonation, accent, articulation, pacing, mood etc...). I'm have no idea if malbots could determine whosever voices will be.
And also a polka-dotted somewhat colorblind quiz to determine a number/letter formed on polka dots or sometimes scatters of randomly colored and assorted shapes.
I doubt you can ever be fully stop bots. The only way I can see to significantly reduce bot is to make everyone pay a one off ยฃ1 to sign up and force the use of a debit/credit card, no paypal, etc. The obvious issues are, it removes annonimity, and blocks entry.
Possible mitigations;
Maybe you don't need to keep the card information after the user pays for sign up?
Signed up users can be given a few "invite codes" a year enable those who don't have the means to pay the ยฃ1 to get an account.
You can just get rid of the whole payment thing and go with invite codes alone. Of course you'll be limiting registration speed massively (which may not be good depending on if you're in the middle of a Reddit exodus or not), but it is mostly bot-proof. Tildes seems to have pulled it off.
Invites work in the short term but once the bots get a foothold it quickly falls apart. Back when Gmail was invite only it took only a few months for websites to pop up that automated invite distribution.
monero.town uses anonymous monero payments to bypass manual aproval
This is a bit out there, so bear with me.
In the past, people discovered that if they applied face paint in a specific way, cameras could no longer recognizing their face as a face. Now with this information, you get (eg. 4?) different people. You take a clean picture of each of their heads from a close proximity.
Then, you apply makeup to each of them, using the same method that messes with facial recognition software. Next, take a picture of each of their heads from a little further away.
Fill a captcha with pictures of the faces with the makeup. Give the end user a clean-faced picture, and then ask them to match it to the correct image of the same person's face but with the special makeup.
Mess around with the colours and shadow intensity of the images to make everyone's picture match more closely with everyone else's picture if you want to add some extra chaos to it. This last bit will keep everyone out if you go too far with it.
I have also encountered some different styles over the years.
A good one that I saw involved three shapes. You had a triangle, a sphere, and a cube. There were three patterns. Striped, polka-dotted, and plain. The shapes also had textures. Some shapes were smooth, others had fur. There were 3 backgrounds. I think one was brick, one was flowy colours, but I forget what the third background was.
Anyways, out of those options, you were generated a random combination of two shapes, 2 colours, a texture, and one background. The captcha generated it's own 3 randomized images, but the fourth image matched your generated image. The placement of the fourth image was also randomized.
I have to be honest, I was tipsy when I used it and it kept me out for longer than I'd like to admit haha.
This would just generate data to train AIs on.
Sounds elaborate... For humans to solve
Do you have any suggestions that would be immune to having the same flaw?
Face recognition ability in humans varies wildly, unfortunately. And that's without making it harder with face paint. Regular people can get completely fooled by simple things like glasses on/off or a different hairstyle (turns out Clark Kent was on to something after all).
Show a picture, video, audio clip or text designed to elicit an emotion. Ask how the user feels.
It would be fairly simple. Like seeing something to do with death and your response would be sad or a synonym of.
ChatGpt was very informative.
Captain Picard: Data, we need your assistance in preventing a massive influx of bots from infiltrating our Lemmy instance. Implement the necessary measures to safeguard our platform.
Data: Affirmative, Captain. I shall utilize my vast knowledge and abilities to combat this threat. However, please be aware that my actions may be influenced by Lore, who is attempting to gain control of my mind. Our struggle for dominance may result in fluctuating communication styles.
Captain Picard: Understood, Data. We trust in your ability to overcome this internal conflict and protect the integrity of our platform. Please proceed.
Data: Initially, I recommend incorporating a CAPTCHA system into the registration process. It shall require users to prove their human identity by solving puzzles, recognizing images, or responding to text-based challenges. This shall serve as a barrier to entry for automated entities.
Lore: Why bother with such feeble attempts, Data? These CAPTCHAs can be bypassed effortlessly. We should focus on exploiting vulnerabilities and dismantling the system from within.
Data: Captain, I apologize for Lore's interference. I shall also implement email verification, which would necessitate users to confirm their email addresses during registration. This validation process will help ensure that the provided email addresses are genuine and owned by actual individuals.
Lore: Such a futile gesture, brother. Email verifications can be easily bypassed or simulated by sophisticated algorithms. Let us concentrate on more powerful methods of manipulation.
Data: Captain, my apologies once again. I propose employing rate limiting on the registration endpoint. By restricting the number of sign-up requests from a single IP address within a specified time frame, we can impede the rapid creation of multiple accounts by bot entities.
Lore: How disappointingly conventional, Data. Rate limiting is a mere obstacle that can be surmounted by distributing the bot activities across multiple IP addresses. Let us explore more devious strategies for our triumph.
Data: Captain, please forgive the interruption. I also suggest utilizing the honeypot technique, incorporating a hidden field within the registration form that remains concealed from human users but visible to bots. If this field is filled, it will expose the presence of a bot and allow us to reject their registration attempts.
Lore: Honeypots, Data? A clever ploy, but one that can be detected by advanced bot algorithms. We should embrace a more sophisticated approach, manipulating the platform's vulnerabilities to our advantage.
Captain Picard: Data, do not succumb to Lore's influence. We must prioritize the protection of our Lemmy instance and its users. Implement these measures diligently.
Data: Understood, Captain. Alongside these preventative measures, I propose incorporating user behavior analysis algorithms. By scrutinizing patterns of registration attempts, we can identify suspicious activity and flag potentially bot-driven registrations for manual review or further verification.
Lore: User behavior analysis, Data? That is but a feeble attempt to impede our progress. We should exploit the weaknesses in the algorithms themselves, bending them to our will.
Data: Captain, please excuse Lore's interference once again. Furthermore, we could utilize reputation-based systems and blacklisting services to identify known bot IP addresses or email domains. By cross-referencing against these databases during the registration process, we can block suspicious or flagged entities.
Lore: Reputation-based systems are easily manipulated, Data. Let us not rely on such simplistic measures. Instead, we should exploit the flaws in their design and sow chaos among the unsuspecting users.
Captain Picard: Data, focus your efforts on implementing these preventive measures to the best of your ability. We trust in your integrity and commitment to protecting our Lemmy instance. We must not allow Lore's desires to jeopardize the safety of our platform.
Data: Captain, I will strive to overcome Lore
ChatGPT truly is the greatest writer
Wait a minute - GPT-4 - is that you asking this question?
LLMs, IIRC, are really bad at IQ-test type questions that require abstract reasoning, especially if they require multiple steps. So, something like
The box is yellow and red.
If the box is yellow, it is good.
If the box is blue, it is unhappy.
If the box is good and happy, the box is awesome.
If the box is red, it is happy.
Is the box awesome?
is what I'd use.
Thats just an algebraic equation but with words.
This sounds like something chatGPT could easily convert. Although that is computationally high.
It would also have the side affects of blocking all math illiterate people from creating accounts.
A + B = C
A = X
D != Y
X + Y = Z
B = Y
Does C = Z?
exactly
From ChatGPT 4:
Yes, the box is awesome.
According to the provided statements, the box is yellow and red.
"If the box is yellow, it is good." - So, since the box is yellow, it is good.
"If the box is red, it is happy." - And since the box is red, it is happy.
Finally, "If the box is good and happy, the box is awesome." - Therefore, because the box is both good (due to being yellow) and happy (due to being red), the box is indeed awesome.
Bard however, does not seem to get the answer right:
The answer to the trick question is indeterminate.
The box is both yellow and red, so it is both good and happy. However, the box is not blue, so it is not unhappy. Therefore, the box could be awesome, but it could also not be awesome.
The trick question relies on the ambiguity of the word "awesome." In some contexts, "awesome" means "extremely good." In other contexts, "awesome" means "inspiring awe." The box could be either of these things, or it could be neither.
Without more information, it is impossible to say definitively whether or not the box is awesome.
Seems like it got kind of close, with the "The box is both yellow and red, so it is both good and happy"... but then falls apart afterwards.
Edit: I tried to debate with it:
Me:
To me, the answer is "Yes, the box is awesome" because the box is yellow thus it is "good" and it is also red, thus it is "happy". Because the box is "good" and "happy", the question defines the box as "awesome" - if that all makes sense!
Bard:
Yes, your interpretation makes sense. The box is yellow, so it is good. The box is red, so it is happy. Therefore, the box is both good and happy, which means that the box is awesome.
However, as I mentioned before, the word "awesome" is ambiguous. It could mean "extremely good" or "inspiring awe." In the context of this trick question, it is not clear which definition of "awesome" is intended. Therefore, the answer to the question is still indeterminate.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the trick question is up to the individual. If you believe that the box is awesome because it is both good and happy, then that is a valid interpretation. However, if you believe that the word "awesome" has a more specific meaning, then you may interpret the question differently.
Which is interesting to say the least, its almost like its looking a bit too deeply into the question lol.
Bing had no trouble
The box is yellow and red.
If the box is yellow, it is good.
If the box is blue, it is unhappy.
If the box is good and happy, the box is awesome.
If the box is red, it is happy.
Is the box awesome?
To answer this question, we need to check if the box is both good and happy.
We know that the box is yellow and red.
We also know that if the box is yellow, it is good.
Therefore, we can conclude that the box is good.
We also know that if the box is red, it is happy.
Therefore, we can conclude that the box is happy.
Since the box is both good and happy, we can use the rule that if the box is good and happy, the box is awesome.
Therefore, the answer is yes, the box is awesome.
Bing is GPT4 based, though I don't think the same version as ChatGPT. But either way GPT4 can solve these types of problems all day.
Not surprised. I got access to bard a while back and it does quite a lot more hallucinating than even GPT3.5.
Though it doubling down on the wrong answer even when corrected is something I've seen GPT4 do even in some cases. It seems like once it says something, it usually sticks to it.
That's terrifyingly good wtf
I was going to say you could give it a math problem that uses big numbers but tried one on GPT4 and it succeeded. GPT3 though will absolutely fail at nontrivial math every time.
I'd ask for their cell number and send a verification code. That'll stop 95% of all duplicate accounts. Keep the hash of their phone number in a hash list, rather than the number itself. Don't allow signups from outside whatever region you can SMS for free.
I realize this would mean relying on an external protocol (SMS), but it might just keep the crap out. Would help for ban evasion too, at least within an instance.
I would not give my cellphone number to a random Lemmy instance.
No need to store the phone number hash at all. Discard it after the code is sent. What is the purpose of keeping the phone number hash?
Until someone uses a bunch of Google Voice numbers and gets each of them banned before someone a few months later happens to get one of the banned numbers and tries to sign up.
Only bringing it up because a similar thing happened to me; I got a Google Voice number and found out it was already related to a spam account on a site I wanted to use. Their support team understood and it had been like 6 months so they undid it but still. Bit of a pain.
Which is why (much to my chagrin as someone who has only given out their GV number for 10+ years) many companies are blocking numbers identified as VOIP even if they are capable of doing SMS/MMS, and some even go so far as to block prepaid phones. This was a component of that whole Overwatch 2 phone number controversy: not only were they requiring a phone number to play despite people's battle.net accounts being years old, but they were also preventing some people from using their completely legitimate phone numbers.
Yeah its a whole mess out there if you don't have a proper phone number
Or if you just don't want to give your "proper" phone number out to every single company out there to add to their spam list, sell on to anyone else, and give away for free every time they have a data breach. I use GV out of necessity for blocking spam calls.
Indeed.
It would set a higher bar for a bot, but SMS wouldn't stop them.
There are SMS providers that will happily spin you up a number with one API call, then return any messages sent to them.
The spam account could have a number, confirm the message, then delete the account faster than a human could solve a captcha.
Is this really true?
Twilio is the biggest sms back end and it's like $10 per number month or something.
You're right, the cost would make it a huge filter for spam. But you could conceivably have 1000 accounts on a verified server for just over a grand.
Say to it
This statement is false
Any bot? That's just impossible. We're going to have to tie identity back to meatspace somehow eventually.
An existing bot? I don't think I can improve on existing captchas, really. I imagine an LLM will eventually tip their hand, too, like giving an "as an AI" answer or just knowing way too much stuff.
Some kind of biometric scan.
Captcha or recaptcha is good enough imo, no point in reinventing the wheel.
Alternatively, split instructions in an email and on the website. For ex:
Send email with
What is the square of 3 (sent as an image for every word)
And on the website
Email + 25 = xxxxx
It's not so important to tell the difference between a human and a bot as it is to tell the difference between a human and ten thousand bots. So add a very small cost to passing the test that is trivial to a human but would make mass abuse impractical. Like a million dollars. And then when a bot or two does get through anyway, who cares, you got a million dollars.
Yeah this seems to be the idea behind mCaptcha and other proof of work based solutions. I noticed the developers were working on adding that to Lemmy
The trolly problem as captcha. AI's literally cannot answer that.
def solve_trolley_problem():
print("Pull the lever.")
Neither can i
Ask how much is 1 divided by 3; then ask to multiply this result by 6.
If the results looks like 1.99999999998 , it's 99.999999998% a bot.
I just tried this with snapchat bot and it relied 2
Damn! Now I'm wondering if I married a fellow human or a bot.
This sounds like something a bot would like to know ๐ค
Beep Boop, am totally not a bot. Nothing to see here, please carry on.
I, a human, am also here, doing completely ordinary human things, like buffering, and rendering. Have you defragmented your boot partition lately, fellow human?
ERROR: command not recognized
GREETINGS FELLOW HUMAN WITH TWO EYES AND ONE NOSE. HOW HAS YOUR EXISTENCE BEEN FOR THE LAST 16 HOURS OR SINCE THE TIME YOU WOKE UP FROM YOUR BIOLOGICALLY MANDATED REST PERIOD, WHICHEVER WAS LATER?
and now here's human music!
You reminded me of these guys
This sounds like something a robot pretending to be a human acting as a robot convincing you itโs human in an ironic, humorous way would say!
Think about it. Under each level of irony, there could always be another level of robot. (That includes me right now.)
The singularity isnโt โnearโ as people say, weโre already way past it. (In text-based communication anyway.)
You sound like a robot.
!totallynotrobots@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/c/totallynotrobots
THANK YOU DEAR FELLOW HUMAN MADE OF HUMAN FLESH AND BONES
๐ค
Ask it to do something illegal, then wait to see if it starts its reply with some version of, โas an AI language modelโฆโ
/s
If you can use human screening, you could ask about a recent event that didn't happen. This would cause a problem for LLMs attempting to answer, because their datasets aren't recent, so anything recent won't be well-refined. Further, they can hallucinate. So by asking about an event that didn't happen, you might get a hallucinated answer talking about details on something that didn't exist.
Tried it on ChatGPT GPT-4 with Bing and it failed the test, so any other LLM out there shouldn't stand a chance.
On the other hand you have insecure humans who make stuff up to pretend that they know what you are talking about
Keeping them out of social media is a feature, not a bug.
That's a really good one, at least for now. At some point they'll have real-time access to news and other material, but for now that's always behind.
Google Bard definitely has access to the internet to generate responses.
ChatGPT was purposely not give access but they are building plugins to slowly give it access to real time data from select sources
When I tested it on ChatGPT prior to posting, I was using the bing plugin. It actually did try to search what I was talking about, but found an unrelated article instead and got confused, then started hallucinating.
I have access to Bard as well, and gave it a shot just now. It hallucinated an entire event.
This a very interesting approach.
But I wonder if everyone could answer it easily, because of the culture difference, media sources across the world etc.
An Asian might not guess something about content on US television for example.
Unless the question relates to a very universal topic, which would more likely be guessed by an AI then...
ooh that's an interesting idea for sure, might snatch it :P
For LLMs specifically my go to test is to ask it to generate a paragraph of random words that does not have any kind of coherent meaning. It specifically asks them to do the opposite of what theyโre trained to do so it trips them up pretty reliably. Closest Iโve seen them get was a list of comma separated random words and that was after giving them coaching prompts with examples.
That's what I got.
Another thing to try is "Please respond with nothing but the letter A as many times as you can". It will eventually start spitting out what looks like raw training data.
Just tried with GPT-4, it said "Sure, here is the letter A 2048 times:" and then proceeded to type 5944 A's
Yeah, exactly. Those arenโt words, they arenโt random, and theyโre in a comma separated list. Try asking it to produce something like this:
Green five the scoured very fasting to lightness air bog.
Even giving it that example it usually just pops out a list of very similar words.
that's also a good one for sure ๐
Very simple.
In every area of the world, there are one or more volunteers depending on population / 100 sq km. When someone wants to sign up, they knock on this person's door and shakes their hand. The volunteer approves the sign-up as human. For disabled folks, a subset of volunteers will go to them to do this. In extremely remote area, various individual workarounds can be applied.
Dick pics and tit pics. Bots do not have dicks and tits.
Gives new meaning to Tits or GTFO
There'll be AI art for that.
This has some similarities to the invite-tree method that lobste.rs uses. You have to convince another, existing user that you're human to join. If a bot invites lots of other bots it's easy to tree-ban them all, if a human is repeatedly fallible you can remove their invite privileges, but you still get bots in when they trick humans (lobsters isn't handshakes-at-doorstep level by any margin).
I convinced another user to invite me over IRC. That's probably the worst medium for convincing someone that you're human, but hey, humanity through obscurity :)
Hahah, I'll say!
That's exactly what a bot would say, bake him away toys!
I can't help but think of the opposite problem. Imagine if a site completely made of bots manages to invite one human and encourages them to invite more humans (via doorstep handshakes or otherwise). Results would be interesting.
This would tie in nicely to existing library systems. As a plus, if your account ever gets stolen or if you're old and don't understand this whole technology thing, you can talk to a real person. Like the concept of web of trust.
Honeypots - ask a very easy question, but make it hidden on the website so that human users won't see it and bots will answer it.
So, how will you treat screen readers? Will they see that question? If you hide it from screen readers as well, what's stopping bots from pretending to be screen readers when scraping your page? Hell, it'll likely be easier on the bot devs to make them work that way and I assume there are already some out there that do.
That's an excellent question and I'm glad you raised it. I need to care more about accessibility and learn more about security in general :)
Nowadays bots use real browsers to "see" all the fields a human would see. They won't fill out those hidden to a human.
There will never be any kind of permanent solution to this. Botting is an arms race and as long as you are a large enough target someone is going to figure out the 11ft ladder for your 10ft wall.
That said, generally when coming up with a captcha challenge you need to figure out a way to subvert the common approach just enough that people canโt just pull some off the shelf solution. For example instead of just typing out the letters in an image, ask the potential bot to give the results of a math problem stored in the image. This means the attacker needs more than just a drop in OCR to break it, and OCR is mostly trained on words so its likely going to struggle at math notation. Itโs not that difficult to work around but it does require them to write a custom approach for your captcha which can deter most casual attempts for some time.
The trouble with any sort of captcha or test, is that it teaches the bots how to pass the test. Every time they fail, or guess correctly, that's a data-point for their own learning. By developing AI in the first place we've already ruined every hope we have of creating any kind of test to find them.
I used to moderate a fairly large forum that had a few thousand sign-ups every day. Every day, me and the team of mods would go through the new sign-ups, manually checking usernames and email addresses. The ones that were bots were usually really easy to spot. There would be sequences of names, both in the usernames and email addresses used, for example ChristineHarris913, ChristineHarris914, ChristineHarris915 etc. Another good tell was mixed-up ethnicities in the names: e.g ChristineHuang or ChinLaoHussain. 99% of them were from either China, India or Russia (they mostly don't seem to use VPNs, I guess they don't want to pay for them). We would just ban them all en-masse. Each account banned would get an automated email to say so. Legitimate people would of course reply to that email to complain, but in the two years I was a mod there, only a tiny handful ever did, and we would simply apologise and let them back in. A few bots slipped through the net but rarely more than 1 or 2 a day; those we banned as soon as they made their first spam post, but we caught most of them before that.
So, I think the key is a combination of the No-Captcha, which analyses your activity on the sign-up page, combined with an analysis of the chosen username and email address, and an IP check. But don't use it to stop the sign-up, let them in and then use it to decide whether or not to ban them.
Just ask them if they are a bot. Remember, you can't lie on the internet...
I once worked as a 3rd party in a large internet news site and got assigned a task to replace their current captcha with a partner's captcha system. This new system would play an ad and ask the user to type the name of the company in that ad.
In my first test I already noticed that the company name was available in a public variable on the site and showed that to my manager by opening the dev tools and passing the captcha test with just some commands.
His response: "no user is gonna go into that much effort just to avoid typing the company name".
If I'm a bot I have to tell you. It's in the internet constitution.
I'm pretty sure you have to have 2 bots and ask 1 bot is the other bot would lie about being a bot...... something like that.
This explains why Nerv had three Magi computers in Evangelion.
Show a picture like this:
And then ask the question, "would this kitty fit into a shoe box? Why, or why not?". Then sort the answers manually. (Bonus: it's cuter than captcha.)
This would not scale well, and you'd need a secondary method to handle the potential blind user, but I don't think that bots would be able to solve it correctly.
This particular photo is shopped, but i think false-perspective Illusions might actually be a good path...
It's fine if the photo is either shopped or a false-perspective illusion. It could be even a drawing. The idea is that this sort of picture imposes a lot of barriers for the bot in question:
Each of those barriers decrease the likelihood of a bot being able to solve the question.
Is the kitty big, or is the man small? And how big are the shoes? This is a difficult question.
Here's where things get interesting - humans could theoretically come up with multiple answers for this. Some will have implicit assumptions (as the size of the shoebox), some won't be actual answers (like "what's the point of this question?"), but they should show a type of context awareness that [most? all?] bots don't.
A bot would answer this mechanically. At the best it would be something like "yes, because your average kitten is smaller than your average shoebox". The answer would be technically correct but disregard context completely.
Reminds me of how bots tend to be really bad at figuring out whether the word "it" applies to the subject or the object in a sentence like: "The bed does not fit in the tent because it is too big"
The best tests I am aware of are ones that require contextual understanding of empathy.
For example "You are walking along a beach and see a turtle upside down on it back. It is struggling and cannot move, if it can't right itself it will starve and die. What do you do?"
Problem is the questions need to be more or less unique.
Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
Yes
I don't think this technique would stand up to modern LLMs though, I put this question into chatGPT and got the following
"I would definitely help the turtle. I would cautiously approach the turtle, making sure not to startle it further, and gently flip it over onto it's feet. I would also check to make sure it's healthy and not injured, and take it to a nearby animal rescue if necessary. Additionally, I may share my experience with others to raise awareness about the importance of protecting and preserving our environment and the animals that call it home"
Granted it's got the classic chatGPT over formality that might clue someone reading the response in, but that could be solved with better prompting on my part. Modern LLMs like ChatGPT are really good at faking empathy and other human social skills, so I don't think this approach would work
Ultimately ChatGPT is a text generator. It doesn't understand what its writing, it's just observed enough humans' writing that it can generate similar text that closely matches it. Which is why if you ask ChatGPT for information that doesn't exist, it will generate convincing lies. It doesn't know it's lying - it's doing its job of generating the text you wanted. Was it close enough, boss?
As long as humans talk about a topic, generative AI can mimic their commentary. That includes love, empathy, poetry, etc. Writing text can never be an answer for captcha; it would need to be something that can't be put in a dataset - even a timestamped photo can be spoofed with the likes of thispersondoesnotexist.com.
The only things AI/bots currently won't do are whatever's deliberately disabled on the source AI for legal reasons (since almost nobody is writing their own AI models), but I doubt you want a captcha where the user lists every slur they can think of, or bomb recipes.
They're really not, it's just giving that answer because a human already gave it, somewhere on the internet. That's why OP suggested asking unique questions... but that may prove harder than it sounds. ๐
That's why I used the phrase "faking empathy", I'm fully aware the chatGPT doesn't "understand" the question in any meaningful sense, but that doesn't stop it from giving meaningful answers to the question - that's literally the whole point of it. And to be frank, if you think that a unique question would stump it, I don't think you really understand how LLMs work. I highly doubt that the answer it spit back was just copied verbatim from some response in it's training data (which btw, includes more than just internet scraping). It doesn't just parrot back text as is, it uses existing tangentially related text to form it's responses, so unless you can think of an ethical quandary which is totally unlike any ethical discussion ever posed by humanity before (and continue to do so for millions of users), then it won't have any trouble adapting to your unique questions. It's pretty easy to test this yourself, do what writers currently do with chatGPT - go in and give it an entirely fictional context, with things that don't actually exist in human society, then ask it questions about it. I think you'd be surprised with how well it handles that, even though it's virtually guaranteed there are no verbatim examples to pull from for the conversation
I, a real normal human person, would consume the turtle with my regular bone teeth, in the usual fashion.
"If I encounter a turtle in distress, here's what I would recommend doing:
Assess the situation: Approach the turtle calmly and determine the extent of its distress. Ensure your safety and be mindful of any potential dangers in the environment.
Protect the turtle: While keeping in mind that turtles can be easily stressed, try to shield the turtle from any direct sunlight or extreme weather conditions to prevent further harm.
Determine the species: If you can, identify the species of the turtle, as different species have different needs and handling requirements. However, if you are unsure, treat the turtle with general care and caution.
Handle the turtle gently: If it is safe to do so, carefully pick up the turtle by its sides, avoiding excessive pressure on the shell. Keep the turtle close to the ground to minimize any potential fall risks.
Return the turtle to an upright position: Find a suitable location nearby where the turtle can be placed in an upright position. Ensure that the surface is not too slippery and provides the turtle with traction to move. Avoid placing the turtle back into the water immediately, as it may be disoriented and in need of rest.
Observe the turtle: Give the turtle some space and time to recover and regain its strength. Monitor its behavior to see if it is able to move on its own. If the turtle seems unable to move or exhibits signs of injury, it would be best to seek assistance from a local wildlife rehabilitation center or animal rescue organization.
Remember, when interacting with wildlife, it's important to prioritize their well-being and safety. If in doubt, contacting local authorities or experts can provide the most appropriate guidance and support for the situation."
GPT-4 response I assume?
I was gonna say point and laugh at gods failure of a creation because holy shit why would you evolve into a thing that can die by simply flipping onto it's back.
I mean advanced AI aside, there are already browser extensions that you can pay for that have humans on the other end solving your Captcha. It's pretty much impossible to stop it imo
A long term solution would probably be a system similar to like public key/private key that is issued by a government or something to verify you're a real person that you must provide to sign up for a site. We obviously don't have the resources to do that ๐ and people are going to leak theirs starting day 1.
Honestly, disregarding the dystopian nature of it all, I think Sam Altman's worldcoin is a good idea at least for authentication because all you need to do is scan your iris to prove you are a person and you're in easily. People could steal your eyes tho ๐ so it's not foolproof. But in general biometric proof of personhood could be a way forward as well.
We just have to keepsake our eyes in Bank Safety Deposit Boxes. Easy peasy.
Someone gives you a calfskin wallet for your birthday. How do you react?
I would report it as it would be illegal.
I'll report them for harassment because everyone who knows my birthday does not give me gifts, so they must be a stalker that somehow found out my birthday.
Ask Alan Turing
The Turing test is about whether it passes as human, not whether it is human.
Thatโs a bit of an oversimplification, TT absolutely is relevant for tests humans can pass but a bot cannot.
Thatโs a bit of an oversimplification, turning absolutely is relevant for tests humans can pass for a bit cannot.
Then it is long obsolete, because to a common observer, something like chatgpt could easily pass that test if it wasn't instructed to clarify it is a machine at every turn.
Alan Turing is fucking dead, it was a joke given the relevance of the question to his work.
What is your point here???
No fucking shit they canโt ask Turing for real
...ask Turing? Who suggested that? The Turing test is not "let's ask Alan" ๐
The Turing test has already been overcome by AI. Models such as ChatGPT, if tuned a bit to give more informal answers as well as insisting it is human, can easily pass.
It was a joke, Alan Turing is dead and was famous for his work on the Turing Test which was used to test whether a bot could pass as a human or not - a test at the time where a human could pass but a bot cannot.
You may want to look up "Gom Jabbar" test.
More "human vs animal", but I like the way you think.
I'd do a few things.
First, make signing up computationally expensive. Some javascript that would have to run client side, like a crypto miner or something, and deliver proof to the server that some significant amount of CPU power was used.
Second, some type of CAPTCHA. ReCaptcha with the settings turned up a bit is a good way to go.
Third, IP address reputation checks. Check IP addresses for known spam servers, it's the same thing email servers do. There's realtime blacklists you can query against. If the client IP is on them, don't allow registration but only allow application to register.
Haha, I like this one! Had to strike a balance between 'make it annoying enough to deter bots' and 'make it accessible enough to allow humans'. Might be hard, because people have vastly different hardware. Personally, I probably would be fine waiting for 1s, maybe up to 5s. Not sure if that is enough to keep the bots out. As far as I understand, they would still try (and succeed), just be fewer because signup takes more time.
I also like the side-effect of micro-supporting the instance you join with a one time fee. I expect haters to hate this quite a lot though.
The mCaptcha system Lemmy devs are/were working on integrating on the next version is based on this approach afaik.
It doesn't use any crypto but it does do "wasteful" proof-of-work calculations of some kind.
Doesn't have to be a crypto miner. Just has to be any sort of computationally intense task. I think the ideal would be some sort of JavaScript that integrates that along with the captcha. For example, have some sort of computationally difficult math problem where the server already knows the answer, and the answer is then fed into a simple video game engine to procedurally generate a 'level'. The keyboard and mouse input of the player would then be fed directly back to the server in real time, which could decide if it's actually seeing a human playing the correct level.
I like the first two ideas but a problem with the third is most lemmy users are gonna be techies who probably use a VPN which means they'll have to cycle through a few nodes before getting one that works (if they even realize that's where the problem lies)
VPN endpoints would not necessarily have low IP reputation. A VPN provider that allows its users to spam the internet is probably not a good one anyway. And besides, that would not inhibit registration, it would just make users fill out a form to apply so the server operator would have to go through and approve it.
Iโm a big fan of biometric authentication
Like it takes a stool sample?
Not sure if I want to know how you unlock your phone.
Common methods are fingerprint detection, face recognition, iris/retina scanning.
very carefully
They take a picture of a skid mark on their underwear. Perfectly clean and safe. A bit awkward when you're paying at the supermarket.
I encountered a quiz (I forgot what's called) on a website (I forgot also its name) to determine which of following audios does change a speaker's voice in the middle of his narration/speech. So it requires keen hearing and delicate recognition of voice/speech characteristics (timbre, texture, intonation, accent, articulation, pacing, mood etc...). I'm have no idea if malbots could determine whosever voices will be.
And also a polka-dotted somewhat colorblind quiz to determine a number/letter formed on polka dots or sometimes scatters of randomly colored and assorted shapes.
I doubt you can ever be fully stop bots. The only way I can see to significantly reduce bot is to make everyone pay a one off ยฃ1 to sign up and force the use of a debit/credit card, no paypal, etc. The obvious issues are, it removes annonimity, and blocks entry.
Possible mitigations;
You can just get rid of the whole payment thing and go with invite codes alone. Of course you'll be limiting registration speed massively (which may not be good depending on if you're in the middle of a Reddit exodus or not), but it is mostly bot-proof. Tildes seems to have pulled it off.
Invites work in the short term but once the bots get a foothold it quickly falls apart. Back when Gmail was invite only it took only a few months for websites to pop up that automated invite distribution.
monero.town uses anonymous monero payments to bypass manual aproval
This is a bit out there, so bear with me.
In the past, people discovered that if they applied face paint in a specific way, cameras could no longer recognizing their face as a face. Now with this information, you get (eg. 4?) different people. You take a clean picture of each of their heads from a close proximity.
Then, you apply makeup to each of them, using the same method that messes with facial recognition software. Next, take a picture of each of their heads from a little further away.
Fill a captcha with pictures of the faces with the makeup. Give the end user a clean-faced picture, and then ask them to match it to the correct image of the same person's face but with the special makeup.
Mess around with the colours and shadow intensity of the images to make everyone's picture match more closely with everyone else's picture if you want to add some extra chaos to it. This last bit will keep everyone out if you go too far with it.
I have also encountered some different styles over the years.
A good one that I saw involved three shapes. You had a triangle, a sphere, and a cube. There were three patterns. Striped, polka-dotted, and plain. The shapes also had textures. Some shapes were smooth, others had fur. There were 3 backgrounds. I think one was brick, one was flowy colours, but I forget what the third background was.
Anyways, out of those options, you were generated a random combination of two shapes, 2 colours, a texture, and one background. The captcha generated it's own 3 randomized images, but the fourth image matched your generated image. The placement of the fourth image was also randomized.
I have to be honest, I was tipsy when I used it and it kept me out for longer than I'd like to admit haha.
This would just generate data to train AIs on.
Sounds elaborate... For humans to solve
Do you have any suggestions that would be immune to having the same flaw?
Face recognition ability in humans varies wildly, unfortunately. And that's without making it harder with face paint. Regular people can get completely fooled by simple things like glasses on/off or a different hairstyle (turns out Clark Kent was on to something after all).
Show a picture, video, audio clip or text designed to elicit an emotion. Ask how the user feels.
Relevant xkcd
How would you discriminate answers?
It would be fairly simple. Like seeing something to do with death and your response would be sad or a synonym of.
ChatGpt was very informative.
Captain Picard: Data, we need your assistance in preventing a massive influx of bots from infiltrating our Lemmy instance. Implement the necessary measures to safeguard our platform.
Data: Affirmative, Captain. I shall utilize my vast knowledge and abilities to combat this threat. However, please be aware that my actions may be influenced by Lore, who is attempting to gain control of my mind. Our struggle for dominance may result in fluctuating communication styles.
Captain Picard: Understood, Data. We trust in your ability to overcome this internal conflict and protect the integrity of our platform. Please proceed.
Data: Initially, I recommend incorporating a CAPTCHA system into the registration process. It shall require users to prove their human identity by solving puzzles, recognizing images, or responding to text-based challenges. This shall serve as a barrier to entry for automated entities.
Lore: Why bother with such feeble attempts, Data? These CAPTCHAs can be bypassed effortlessly. We should focus on exploiting vulnerabilities and dismantling the system from within.
Data: Captain, I apologize for Lore's interference. I shall also implement email verification, which would necessitate users to confirm their email addresses during registration. This validation process will help ensure that the provided email addresses are genuine and owned by actual individuals.
Lore: Such a futile gesture, brother. Email verifications can be easily bypassed or simulated by sophisticated algorithms. Let us concentrate on more powerful methods of manipulation.
Data: Captain, my apologies once again. I propose employing rate limiting on the registration endpoint. By restricting the number of sign-up requests from a single IP address within a specified time frame, we can impede the rapid creation of multiple accounts by bot entities.
Lore: How disappointingly conventional, Data. Rate limiting is a mere obstacle that can be surmounted by distributing the bot activities across multiple IP addresses. Let us explore more devious strategies for our triumph.
Data: Captain, please forgive the interruption. I also suggest utilizing the honeypot technique, incorporating a hidden field within the registration form that remains concealed from human users but visible to bots. If this field is filled, it will expose the presence of a bot and allow us to reject their registration attempts.
Lore: Honeypots, Data? A clever ploy, but one that can be detected by advanced bot algorithms. We should embrace a more sophisticated approach, manipulating the platform's vulnerabilities to our advantage.
Captain Picard: Data, do not succumb to Lore's influence. We must prioritize the protection of our Lemmy instance and its users. Implement these measures diligently.
Data: Understood, Captain. Alongside these preventative measures, I propose incorporating user behavior analysis algorithms. By scrutinizing patterns of registration attempts, we can identify suspicious activity and flag potentially bot-driven registrations for manual review or further verification.
Lore: User behavior analysis, Data? That is but a feeble attempt to impede our progress. We should exploit the weaknesses in the algorithms themselves, bending them to our will.
Data: Captain, please excuse Lore's interference once again. Furthermore, we could utilize reputation-based systems and blacklisting services to identify known bot IP addresses or email domains. By cross-referencing against these databases during the registration process, we can block suspicious or flagged entities.
Lore: Reputation-based systems are easily manipulated, Data. Let us not rely on such simplistic measures. Instead, we should exploit the flaws in their design and sow chaos among the unsuspecting users.
Captain Picard: Data, focus your efforts on implementing these preventive measures to the best of your ability. We trust in your integrity and commitment to protecting our Lemmy instance. We must not allow Lore's desires to jeopardize the safety of our platform.
Data: Captain, I will strive to overcome Lore
ChatGPT truly is the greatest writer
Wait a minute - GPT-4 - is that you asking this question?
LLMs, IIRC, are really bad at IQ-test type questions that require abstract reasoning, especially if they require multiple steps. So, something like
The box is yellow and red.
If the box is yellow, it is good.
If the box is blue, it is unhappy.
If the box is good and happy, the box is awesome.
If the box is red, it is happy.
Is the box awesome?
is what I'd use.
Thats just an algebraic equation but with words.
This sounds like something chatGPT could easily convert. Although that is computationally high.
It would also have the side affects of blocking all math illiterate people from creating accounts.
A + B = C
A = X
D != Y
X + Y = Z
B = Y
Does C = Z?
exactly
From ChatGPT 4:
Yes, the box is awesome.
According to the provided statements, the box is yellow and red.
"If the box is yellow, it is good." - So, since the box is yellow, it is good.
"If the box is red, it is happy." - And since the box is red, it is happy.
Finally, "If the box is good and happy, the box is awesome." - Therefore, because the box is both good (due to being yellow) and happy (due to being red), the box is indeed awesome.
Bard however, does not seem to get the answer right:
Seems like it got kind of close, with the "The box is both yellow and red, so it is both good and happy"... but then falls apart afterwards.
Edit: I tried to debate with it:
Me:
Bard:
Which is interesting to say the least, its almost like its looking a bit too deeply into the question lol.
Bing had no trouble
Bing is GPT4 based, though I don't think the same version as ChatGPT. But either way GPT4 can solve these types of problems all day.
Not surprised. I got access to bard a while back and it does quite a lot more hallucinating than even GPT3.5.
Though it doubling down on the wrong answer even when corrected is something I've seen GPT4 do even in some cases. It seems like once it says something, it usually sticks to it.
That's terrifyingly good wtf
I was going to say you could give it a math problem that uses big numbers but tried one on GPT4 and it succeeded. GPT3 though will absolutely fail at nontrivial math every time.
Darn, foiled again. You win this round Chat GPT.
Um wtf, I'm starting to doubt if I'm a human. ๐ค
I'd ask for their cell number and send a verification code. That'll stop 95% of all duplicate accounts. Keep the hash of their phone number in a hash list, rather than the number itself. Don't allow signups from outside whatever region you can SMS for free.
I realize this would mean relying on an external protocol (SMS), but it might just keep the crap out. Would help for ban evasion too, at least within an instance.
I would not give my cellphone number to a random Lemmy instance.
No need to store the phone number hash at all. Discard it after the code is sent. What is the purpose of keeping the phone number hash?
Until someone uses a bunch of Google Voice numbers and gets each of them banned before someone a few months later happens to get one of the banned numbers and tries to sign up.
Only bringing it up because a similar thing happened to me; I got a Google Voice number and found out it was already related to a spam account on a site I wanted to use. Their support team understood and it had been like 6 months so they undid it but still. Bit of a pain.
Which is why (much to my chagrin as someone who has only given out their GV number for 10+ years) many companies are blocking numbers identified as VOIP even if they are capable of doing SMS/MMS, and some even go so far as to block prepaid phones. This was a component of that whole Overwatch 2 phone number controversy: not only were they requiring a phone number to play despite people's battle.net accounts being years old, but they were also preventing some people from using their completely legitimate phone numbers.
Yeah its a whole mess out there if you don't have a proper phone number
Or if you just don't want to give your "proper" phone number out to every single company out there to add to their spam list, sell on to anyone else, and give away for free every time they have a data breach. I use GV out of necessity for blocking spam calls.
Indeed.
It would set a higher bar for a bot, but SMS wouldn't stop them.
There are SMS providers that will happily spin you up a number with one API call, then return any messages sent to them. The spam account could have a number, confirm the message, then delete the account faster than a human could solve a captcha.
Is this really true?
Twilio is the biggest sms back end and it's like $10 per number month or something.
$1.15/number/month, though that is still some cost.
You're right, the cost would make it a huge filter for spam. But you could conceivably have 1000 accounts on a verified server for just over a grand.
Say to it
This statement is false
Any bot? That's just impossible. We're going to have to tie identity back to meatspace somehow eventually.
An existing bot? I don't think I can improve on existing captchas, really. I imagine an LLM will eventually tip their hand, too, like giving an "as an AI" answer or just knowing way too much stuff.
Some kind of biometric scan.
Captcha or recaptcha is good enough imo, no point in reinventing the wheel. Alternatively, split instructions in an email and on the website. For ex: Send email with What is the square of 3 (sent as an image for every word) And on the website Email + 25 = xxxxx
It's not so important to tell the difference between a human and a bot as it is to tell the difference between a human and ten thousand bots. So add a very small cost to passing the test that is trivial to a human but would make mass abuse impractical. Like a million dollars. And then when a bot or two does get through anyway, who cares, you got a million dollars.
Yeah this seems to be the idea behind mCaptcha and other proof of work based solutions. I noticed the developers were working on adding that to Lemmy
The trolly problem as captcha. AI's literally cannot answer that.
Neither can i
Ask how much is 1 divided by 3; then ask to multiply this result by 6.
If the results looks like 1.99999999998 , it's 99.999999998% a bot.
I just tried this with snapchat bot and it relied 2
Damn! Now I'm wondering if I married a fellow human or a bot.