Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake girlfriend, revisited

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#71

Post by Retric »

physicality wrote: post #64
geon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't spotting an AI algorithmically about as hard as building it?

Well, based on inspection of content, maybe. But we're not talking about mere words as an expression thought. The simple fact is that within U.S. borders alone, there are maybe 300 million animals, each weighing in at probably 150 lbs (75kg) or more. They drive cars visible from space. They flip light switches on and off wherever they go. They clock in at work. They clock out. They walk in front of cameras, and there…

Your assuming competence. The surveillance state is built by the lowest bidder and is far far less useful than generally assumed.

Just look into false positives on the no fly list. Sure, it's slightly better than random chance, but odds are if you pick an name from that list they are a non threat. (It's far worse than that you can probably pick several names before finding a real issue.)

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#72

Post by Rylinks »

Retric wrote: post #71
physicality wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, based on inspection of content, maybe. But we're not talking about mere words as an expression thought. The simple fact is that within U.S. borders alone, there are maybe 300 million animals, each weighing in at probably 150 lbs (75kg) or more. They drive cars visible from space. They flip light switches on and off wherever they go. They clock in at work. They clock out. They walk in front of cameras, and there…

Your assuming competence. The surveillance state is built by the lowest bidder and is far far less useful than generally assumed. Just look into false positives on the no fly list. Sure, it's slightly better than random chance, but odds are if you pick an name from that list they are a non threat. (It's far worse than that you can probably pick several names before finding a real issue.)

The no-fly list can have three nines of accuracy and still have more false positives than actual hits.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#73

Post by ska »

saalweachter wrote: post #70
keithpeter wrote: post #5

OA quote: ""lower league English football" wasn't available" Possibly explains the recurring need for a fake one. Serious contribution: bots faking it with other bots generating large numbers of apparently real social profiles. Not just gf/bf whatever but other forms of relationship (fake boss asking for more work this weekend as a cover for...). Ideal chaff for the surveillance society.

I think if you're going to undertake large-scale chaffing of the internet, it'd be way more fun to target the future rather than the present. Don't just create a hundred million fake profiles with their own social networks: try to create alternate timelines. Profiles on social networks, emails, instant messages, dating profiles, recontextualized and faked photographs, websites and DNS entries and forums, all supporti…

I believe (some?) reputation management companies already do similar things.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#74

Post by ska »

lmm wrote: post #45
MasterScrat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're allowing users to message each other you need human moderators Sooo Tinder reviews every message? or did I misunderstand your point

Tinder doesn't operate over SMS and so isn't subject to that particular regulator. I have no idea how Tinder deals with harassment/death threats/etc.

   I have no idea how Tinder deals with harassment/death threats/etc.
I have no idea either, but suspect part of the answer is "frequently"

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#75

Post by Retric »

Rylinks wrote: post #72
Retric wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assuming competence. The surveillance state is built by the lowest bidder and is far far less useful than generally assumed. Just look into false positives on the no fly list. Sure, it's slightly better than random chance, but odds are if you pick an name from that list they are a non threat. (It's far worse than that you can probably pick several names before finding a real issue.)

The no-fly list can have three nines of accuracy and still have more false positives than actual hits.

Depends on how you define accuracy. Your thinking in terms of the test for the no fly list is X accurate, but that does not mean the no fly list it's self has X accuracy. List A, contains every person on the planet so it's comprehensive, but nobody would call that an accurate no fly list. List B contains one name of an terrorist who has made specific credible and recent threats, it is very accurate.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#76

Post by knughit »

_0ffh wrote: post #42
noir_lord wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what a chaperone was in thethe past, many cultures still have that set of rules thing until a certain point.

I think a chaperone is primarily a safeguard against indiscretions. Their raison d'etre is to make sure nobody damages the goods before you have decided on a suitable match for your daughter. Which I find rather archaic.

Chaperon protects social values. Values can and often should change, but the chaperon is a tool that isn't as good or bad as the value it protects.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#78

Post by AI_Overlord »

DanBC wrote: post #48
mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But the thing is that they're going after everything. Add some hot key words. Back in the day, we used sigs for our Usenet posts that were loaded with hot keywords. Anyway, this would cost real money, for sure. But the labor supply for fake friends is huge, especially if you don't care about proficiency in English. Edit: For example, one could generate numerous fake Russian acquaintances of Edward Snowden, and…

When someone suggests rolling their own crypto a bunch of people pop up to point out the considerable risks. We need the same for these "wheat / chaff" steganographic noise generation schemes. Steganography is probably secure, but people tend to vastly underestimate the amount of cover material needed. Considerable money and time has been devoted to "finding the real signal". The Usenet keyword triggers were triviall…

Doesn't that mean that the real bad guy would just put that list in his messages?

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#79

Post by volker48 »

physicality wrote: post #64
geon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't spotting an AI algorithmically about as hard as building it?

Well, based on inspection of content, maybe. But we're not talking about mere words as an expression thought. The simple fact is that within U.S. borders alone, there are maybe 300 million animals, each weighing in at probably 150 lbs (75kg) or more. They drive cars visible from space. They flip light switches on and off wherever they go. They clock in at work. They clock out. They walk in front of cameras, and there…

75kg is 165 lbs. 150 lbs is 68.2kg
Post reply on HN