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

Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

news.virginmediao2.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 277 posts

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#131

Post by asah »

Nition wrote: post #54
guidoism wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's similar to the idea I had for combating texting spam: - If your number is in my address book then texts are free for you - If this is the first time you are contacting me then you pay me $1 There are probably downsides and ways this will screw up real relationships but it will certainly increase the cost of spam.

One issue I can forsee: - Every contractor (plumber etc) you hire will ask you to please add them to your contact list first so that they can message you. - After a while of half their clients not doing that and lots of fees on their end, contractors stop providing a phone number at all, asking you to please install ContractorApp to communicate with them.

one click to add from the first message = $1 total cost.

contractors can add this to their invoices if they care.

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#132

Post by jameshart »

guidoism wrote: post #51
xnx wrote: post #23

Seems like the logical endpoint of a lot of this is people getting paid directly for their attention. Want to call me? I've set a price of $5/call that I answer, and an additional $10/minute of listen time after the first 10 seconds. Want to send me an email? $1/email and $5/100 words. Anyone I have emailed is automatically on my allow-list, which I can also adjust manually.

That's similar to the idea I had for combating texting spam: - If your number is in my address book then texts are free for you - If this is the first time you are contacting me then you pay me $1 There are probably downsides and ways this will screw up real relationships but it will certainly increase the cost of spam.

You just made the new scam ‘persuading you to text me’. I get $1 for everyone I fool!

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#135

Post by bsdice »

The scam and spam call problem is really bad in Germany to this day. And has been for 10 years.

A couple years ago I would sit at my desk thinking about a really hard problem in silence. The phone rings. Spam call. Every 30-180 minutes another one. If you now think turn the phone off, well not that easy as CEO of a business when people expect you to be reachable.

It creamed my corn so much that I recorded my own voice samples as a senile "Opa Denny" (german grandpa Denny), modelled after Lenny. Complete with background ducks hanging out on the couch to Opas dismay, later in the call. It works on autopilot without interaction because on Asterisk, and with the largest German SIP provider at least, you can extract the calling peer identity from the SIP header. So I wrote a scoring system based on indicated number, black and whitelist regexs for number and for calling peer, greylist for the geographically surrounding number prefixes, etc. A legit mobile call would show up as number@t-mobile.de for example, while a spam call would say fakenumber@01012.com.

Asterisk would record the call in wideband stereo, normalize the audio, and mail it to me as MP3 attachment. Funny for a while, but these days I just throw all such calls onto the mailbox. Since they need a real person to scam or create a sale, the call is finished right away.

It works great to this day, because I never published it.

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#136

Post by flir »

Szpadel wrote: post #121
lhamil64 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until they catch on and un-blacklist the numbers periodically.

we all know the end game: ai scammer talking to ai granny

As long as the scammer's paying to route the call, I'm ok with this. And the telcos' fitness function for their pool of robogrannies should be time-spent-on-call. Making it uneconomic is the way to kill it.

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#137

Post by janalsncm »

xnx wrote: post #23

Seems like the logical endpoint of a lot of this is people getting paid directly for their attention. Want to call me? I've set a price of $5/call that I answer, and an additional $10/minute of listen time after the first 10 seconds. Want to send me an email? $1/email and $5/100 words. Anyone I have emailed is automatically on my allow-list, which I can also adjust manually.

I have considered creating this email service. I’m sure many others have as well, in some form or another. Does it already exist?

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#139

Post by j2kun »

xnx wrote: post #23

Seems like the logical endpoint of a lot of this is people getting paid directly for their attention. Want to call me? I've set a price of $5/call that I answer, and an additional $10/minute of listen time after the first 10 seconds. Want to send me an email? $1/email and $5/100 words. Anyone I have emailed is automatically on my allow-list, which I can also adjust manually.

Pay to email has been tried multiple times, and failed.

Re: Daisy, an AI granny wasting scammers' time

#140

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lupusreal wrote: post #126
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> preempt and thereby insult anybody who subscribes to a belief I consider to be misguided This is the totem. You react to a misguided belief even when it’s a phantom. If you look at two-mode polarised discussions, you’ll find both sides talking about a totem of the other, reacting to imagined preëmptions and rarely interacting with each other. The graphs separate. As a result, the preëmptions are more imagined than…

You have reiterated your position after I disputed it, a behavior which may be described as "doubling down". This term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct.

> have reiterated your position

I clarified my position. The visualisation isn't the totem per se. The representation is.

> term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct

Nobody said you were wrong. Correct, necessary and even germane are distinct.

Post reply on HN