If I tell you that I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate that is a lie. If I write the same in fiction I receive accolades.
If I tell you on the street “watch out there is a T-rex about to eat you!” That is a lie. If i say the same thing sitting at a table with too many dice that is just acceptable DMing and everyone rolls initiative.
Humans are weird this way.
What’s you point, here? That you should be lied to when you ask, or that it should refuse to tell you any kind of fiction?
I agree with your larger point that there will be ways to circumvent these systems, my only argument is that the lie/fictional story divide is a bad example because the line between them can be made clear with a single statement.
Hardly the AI uprising, though definitely a good tool for anyone, good or evil.
So it's not an example of "going rogue", but it's not like a researcher told GPT-4 "oh, and make sure to lie to an online gig worker to get him to solve catchas for you". GPT-4 generated the "hire a gig worker" and "claim to be a human with impaired vision" strategies from the basic instructions above.
I don’t think it should be OpenAI deciding what is allowed or not though.
Avoiding lawsuits is what they are trying to do. They don't actually care about what you use their products for.
You're kinda saying if you hire Bob's Handyman Service you should be able to tell him to break down the neighbors door and cart out the contents of their house.
You're in a desert, walking along when you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it over on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Might do that unobtrusively for the average person, by using projects like mCaptcha [0] for instance.
Yes, the only differences are that mCaptcha is 100% FOSS and uses variable difficulty factor, which makes it easy to solve Proof-of-Work under normal traffic level but becomes harder as an attack is detected.
mCaptcha uses PoW and that is energy inefficient, but it not as bad as the PoWs used in blockchains. The PoW difficulty factor in mCaptcha is significantly lower than blockchains, where several miners will have to pool their resources to solve a single challenge. In mCaptcha, it takes anywhere between 200ms to 5s to solve a challenge. Which is probably comparable to the energy used to train AI models used in reCAPTCHA.
The protection mechanisms used to guard access to the internet must be privacy-respecting and idempotent. mCaptcha isn't perfect, and I'm constantly on the lookout for finding better and cleaner ways to solve this problem.
Are you comparing the energy it takes to train a model which is bounded and defined with unbounded inference which can (in principle) go multiple order of magnitude depending on the usage? Or maybe I misunderstood what you are trying to say? then I apologize in advance.
From what I understand of reCAPTCHA, the model isn't static and is continuously learning from every interaction[0]:
> reCAPTCHA’s risk-based bot algorithms apply continuous machine learning that factors in every customer and bot interaction to overcome the binary heuristic logic of traditional challenge-based bot detection technologies.
I don't know the energy demands of such a system.
mCaptcha, under attack situations, will at most take 5s of CPU time on a busy (regular multitasking with multiple background process) smartphone.
I had not considered that. Naturally, we're just speculating here, but yeah that does sound plausible.
I was also no aware of the "hard" 5s bound (which you seem to have tested on a normal smartphone setup); sounds neat.
Two versions that I experimented with. One is where the incoming POW hashes contribute to hashing power for some blockchain mining. An alternative "pay as you use the API" system.
The other using hashcash. Just a way to slow down abuse.
Both, however, suffer from the downside that many/all "ASIC resisting crypto mining" suffer from as well: the cheapest CPU power is CPU power from machines/power you don't own. Botnets, viruses, trojans etc.
So such a mechanism to throtthe or protect APIs won't hold back spammers and abusers for long.
You might correctly claim clean energy is often cheaper, but you must also consider the regions in which they'll get away with nefarious activity, and whether those areas have made the investments into making clean energy cheap.
Hmm, I don't get this, surely all actors will want the cheapest energy, no? The problem being the underlying one, that the dirty energy doesn't pay its externalities and is thus cheaper than renewables.
You could already see the writing on the wall with image identification years ago, when the obscuration techniques became more elaborate. It was an arms race. I was having trouble with them. I can see less technically inclined being able to use them. I imagined how much worse it was for people with color blindness, disabilities, or people forced to use them at public library computers because that is all they have.
Open source capcha projects have either not been clued in, or don’t have the resources to pull this off. Google didn’t just switch out which signals they tested, they also wrote an obfuscating virtual machine executing within the browser environment (if I remember that article taking about this correctly). That was years ago and who knows what they do now — for all we know, the “byte code” running the test is now a neural net of some kind.
I mean, I’ve sometimes had to try three or four times with certain captures and I have perfect eyesight (with my glasses). I feel so badly for those with vision or hearing issues with an empathy I never had when I was younger. They are so often simply forgotten.
I'm kinda surprised that ADA doesn't allow them to sue site owners about this.
I contacted several attorneys, none of whom would consider taking the case, or even bother to discuss the details with me. One of them told me that, at least in North Carolina, an employer would effectively have to get on the stand and explicitly confess taking adverse actions against me specifically because I had been diagnosed with MS. Any other remotely plausible excuse would provide them with all the cover necessary.
It was only much later that I learned that I would have had to have filed a complaint with the EEOC and NLRB within 180-days, and allow them to investigate my claims fully before authorizing such a lawsuit to begin with, as without such a determination I could not file the suit anyway. None of the attorneys I consulted even mentioned this absolutely critical first step, which suggests that they had even less faith in a successful outcome.
Maybe it’s different for facilities and regulatory enforcement, but in my experience, at least for labor, the protections are incredibly weak.