111–120 of 128 posts
Did you beat recaptcha v3 also ?
I remember a Yahoo hackday from around 2009 where one of the teams created a captcha that required you to match photos to tags. Another team made a program that could look at a photo and assign tags. Mutually assured destruction.
Interesting. Two things that I found interesting: 1) ip addresses he uses have probably really good reputation, because even with rather bad image recognition ability it still lets him in. 2) surprisingly enough google's captcha apparently doesn't consider mouse movements at all - the bot selects images rapidly one immediately after another and always clicks in the same place of image.
> surprisingly enough google's captcha apparently doesn't consider mouse movements at all - the bot selects images rapidly one immediately after another and always clicks in the same place of image Yep, it's Google cookie based, not behavior on the page. You can only use the tab and enter key to successfully complete the captcha if you have enough Google cookies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> surprisingly enough google's captcha apparently doesn't consider mouse movements at all - the bot selects images rapidly one immediately after another and always clicks in the same place of image Yep, it's Google cookie based, not behavior on the page. You can only use the tab and enter key to successfully complete the captcha if you have enough Google cookies.
isnt it ultimately just a series of API calls to solve the captchas? whats to stop someone hooking the javascript, solving the images and then raising the right event ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd need a bunch of GPT-3+ stuff to corroborate the deepfake, exciting! Where do you determine the "troll-line" in a trust network? You can build it over time I suppose? Though that kind of leads to similar echo-chamber stuff, right? As an anecdote, I know real humans who do truly believe deepfaked political videos. They were genuinely surprised to know that Pelosi can talk like a normal human.
That’s a great point. Tons of people already don’t CARE about the facts, and consider fact-checkers to be just as biased as the statements they are checking. Just having 30%-90% of the population react to a deepfaked outrageous video will already be a huge damage even if 10% are stickler skeptics. “A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”
Aren't they? I can come up with examples off the top of my head, let alone with a search. This is my favourite[1]:
> The fact-checker for the New Yorker who mistook a Marine veteran’s tattoo for a Nazi symbol has resigned, saying the “small mistake” has ruined her life.
"mistook" is being kind. Take a look at her Twitter feed[2] and tell me if you think she's less biased than the stories that would've passed across her desk, because her feed is incredibly partisan. Do you think she managed to remain impartial while she was still employed as a fact checker? I wonder if she intended or wanted to be impartial, let alone managed it. I also wonder how that kind of person comes to be part of a team of fact checkers, which brings into question their impartiality. How was she able to make this “small mistake” and no one else on that team caught it? Perhaps they lack editorial oversight like Snopes[3], the Snopes that employs people who are obviously biased:
> Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”
I'd say it was unbelievable but it's really not[4].
> Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us.
Dropping one's scepticism because someone calls themselves an impartial fact checker strikes me as being in the same realm as following the orders of a complete stranger because they have a uniform and claim authority over you or a situation, i.e. unwise.
[1] https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-aft...
[2] https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
[4] https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re dealing with two different things. reCAPTCHA v2 and the badly named Invisible reCAPTCHA¹ assess the user and either let them in, or gate them on puzzle solving. So, it does pass or fail you, where fail means trap you in purgatory indefinitely (though some hold it’s actually hell rather than purgatory). reCAPTCHA v3 never presents a CAPTCHA for you to solve, but decides a score (in practice, I’ve only seen 0.1,…
your comment is reasonable, using rekognition for recaptcha v3 wouldn't seem to make sense. but the linked source code is pretty clearly interpreting scores and referencing recaptcha v3, so i'm not sure what images they're running rekognition on. (unless there's a bunch of stuff going on in this repo and this file is unrelated to the title) https://bitbucket.org/Pirates-of-Silicon-Hills/voightkampff/...
I remember a Yahoo hackday from around 2009 where one of the teams created a captcha that required you to match photos to tags. Another team made a program that could look at a photo and assign tags. Mutually assured destruction.
Lo and behold the wonder that is adversarial AI - 11 years later we can automate this. My guess is that Google is quite happy about open source Recaptcha solvers. Delicious fodder for improving the adversary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's needed is more cryptography. Build keys into sensors to sign media and use something like blockchain to broadcast the signature at time of capture / time when the device returns to the internet. Won't be perfect, but it would be a hurdle. Also, for things like audio and video if you know the location on the planet then there are certain artifacts that are hard to fake with mere AI. The way sound bounces off wa…
The problem with that is, the video can only be watched at it's true raw form. Any edits will need to be re-signed with "Edited by X". Now, X has to be trusted and not compromised (by money, bias or hacks). If X is CNN, then half the population will not believe it. If X is Fox, the other half won't believe. Bottomline, the world will be truly living in virtual alternative universes and it doesn't even matter what tru…