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

Spellfucker

spellfucker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: Spellfucker

#111

Post by 13of40 »

drdaeman wrote: post #70
Vinkekatten wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Æss a nårvidsjæn itt vassent tu hard tu riid jur vraiting laik dis. Aj vånder håo diffikult itt iss får a slav tu ønderstænd nårvinglisj.... Edit: and now I feel like Petter Solberg. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/Kaeh8FRPANs?t=4s

Russian here. Was easy to read. Took a few seconds to figure out the sounds for the letters I didn't knew, and, of course, it looks odd so just glancing over the phrase doesn't work - but no issues otherwise. Don't know any Nordic languages.

룼키 야짘 나 한굴 볼체 틀룯나 폰얕.

Re: Spellfucker

#113

Post by nojvek »

Vinkekatten wrote: post #39
xixixao wrote: post #23

Ju kud tejk ej lengvich from ej diferent lengvich femili tu erajv et samfink similr. For furdr obfaskejshn ju kud juz diferent transliterejshn. Slavik pipl shud fajnd dis kvajt ridebl.

Æss a nårvidsjæn itt vassent tu hard tu riid jur vraiting laik dis. Aj vånder håo diffikult itt iss får a slav tu ønderstænd nårvinglisj.... Edit: and now I feel like Petter Solberg. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/Kaeh8FRPANs?t=4s

African here. Was readable in second pass. Pretty cool trick though.

Re: Spellfucker

#114

Post by kerbalspacepro »

saimiam wrote: post #99

At the face of it, this seems like a fool's errand. The upper bound for obfuscation is that the obfuscated text should still be readable by a human with minimal effort. To read, the average reader will looks for patterns like "replace j with the y sound." Once these patterns are determined, coding them into your NLP AI is trivial.

I think the idea is that if you have random obfuscation rules, a human can generalize almost immediately to read it. Like, you could string together paragraphs of different obfuscation rules and your brain would be able to switch between rules fairly quickly.

The ML goal would be to be able to do the same thing.

Re: Spellfucker

#115

Post by gkya »

Vinkekatten wrote: post #39
xixixao wrote: post #23

Ju kud tejk ej lengvich from ej diferent lengvich femili tu erajv et samfink similr. For furdr obfaskejshn ju kud juz diferent transliterejshn. Slavik pipl shud fajnd dis kvajt ridebl.

Æss a nårvidsjæn itt vassent tu hard tu riid jur vraiting laik dis. Aj vånder håo diffikult itt iss får a slav tu ønderstænd nårvinglisj.... Edit: and now I feel like Petter Solberg. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/Kaeh8FRPANs?t=4s

Ez e törk ay ken sey dat dis fred iz may feyvrıt on eyçen soğ fağ. Ay uandır if a fing layk dı OP'yz iz possibıl uif avır languicis dat hev regular and fonıtik spelling rûls?

Re: Spellfucker

#116

Post by emodendroket »

saimiam wrote: post #109
emodendroket wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be bulletproof to serve its purpose, as anybody who remembers downloading "Boon Joovi" MP3s from late Napster can attest. And if some transformations are ambiguous between multiple original spellings, so much the better.

Since the stated goal of the project is > The goal of the project is to make text hard to read for computers yet fairly easy to read for humans it has to be close to bulletproof. Humans should be able to decipher obfuscated text while computers should never be able to decipher the same obfuscated text. This is going to be impossible since AI is a fast follower to human ingenuity.

That's a pretty narrow reading of making it "hard for computers" to do something.

Think of it this way: the security measures on most homes are completely inadequate to stop a determined attacker. Nevertheless, they work because most attacks are opportunistic.

Re: Spellfucker

#117

Post by Taek »

greenhatman wrote: post #49

They should make a version of this that replaces words with homophones. This way spellcheckers would also not pick up that the document has been messed with.

Not sure if I've missed the point, but good forensic software can parse grammatical structure and use that. The English language has enough flexibility for every person to have a unique grammatical flavor. And that probably extends to each document as well.

If you want obfuscation you really need something that can do heavy simplification.

Re: Spellfucker

#119

Post by igorpavlov »

Disclaimer: I am the creator of the Spellfucker. Please note, this project was written in one night by a non-native English speaker. Tweaking a library of replacements would definitely give better results. The algorithm needs improvements in terms of complexity, but it is not the top priority I think. I am glad some people actually liked the project and I would be happy if there are any contributions, especially to the replacement library, so we can work on it together :) Love, Igor.

Re: Spellfucker

#120

Post by ryfm »

microcolonel wrote: post #31
syphilis2 wrote: post #16

"The goal of the project is to make text hard to read for computers yet fairly easy to read for humans" At first look it doesn't pass the search engine test. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=I%27ve+bien+aloune+whyth+jou+eensi...

Actually, it fails on Google. DuckDuckGo just apparently has an excellent spelling correction system.

i think it uses bing's spell correction.
Post reply on HN