11–20 of 159 posts
> Turns out that this new algorithm can also be used to read CAPTCHA puzzles—we found that it can decipher the hardest distorted text puzzles from reCAPTCHA with over 99% accuracy.
Am I missing something or could we improve CAPTCHAs by mimicking street numbers?
In effect, Google computer vision got so good that they made their own system obsolete. This is a good thing. I still think the only reliable way to confirm identity (or humanity) online is an email or SMS verification. Recently, receiving a 2-factor SMS code took less time than the page refresh prompting me to enter it.
That confirms identity, but it doesn't confirm humanity. Robots just need to have a SIM card! I think it would annoy many human users as well.
Yes, it will annoy some real users, so it's not a no-brainer. But it will put a major brake on many kinds of abuse.
Interestingly I activated a new gmail account today and during the signup process I experienced the obligatory captcha. It was in two parts, the first looked strikingly like a street view picture of a house number, while the second looked like a traditional captcha. I suspect that google has been using techniques like this to validate their computer vision conclusions. Which makes their 99% assertion even more intere…
Interestingly I activated a new gmail account today and during the signup process I experienced the obligatory captcha. It was in two parts, the first looked strikingly like a street view picture of a house number, while the second looked like a traditional captcha. I suspect that google has been using techniques like this to validate their computer vision conclusions. Which makes their 99% assertion even more intere…
- the actual captcha and a word from a book (Google Books)
- the actual captcha and a house number from Street View (Google Maps)
Interestingly I activated a new gmail account today and during the signup process I experienced the obligatory captcha. It was in two parts, the first looked strikingly like a street view picture of a house number, while the second looked like a traditional captcha. I suspect that google has been using techniques like this to validate their computer vision conclusions. Which makes their 99% assertion even more intere…
That's been going on for two years: http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-...
99% is probably better than my success rate with reCAPTCHA...
>In this paper, we show that this system is able to accurately detect and read difficult numbers in Street View with 90% accuracy. > Turns out that this new algorithm can also be used to read CAPTCHA puzzles—we found that it can decipher the hardest distorted text puzzles from reCAPTCHA with over 99% accuracy. Am I missing something or could we improve CAPTCHAs by mimicking street numbers?
http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-...
>In this paper, we show that this system is able to accurately detect and read difficult numbers in Street View with 90% accuracy. > Turns out that this new algorithm can also be used to read CAPTCHA puzzles—we found that it can decipher the hardest distorted text puzzles from reCAPTCHA with over 99% accuracy. Am I missing something or could we improve CAPTCHAs by mimicking street numbers?
Do the street numbers also have a lowered solve rate for humans?
>In this paper, we show that this system is able to accurately detect and read difficult numbers in Street View with 90% accuracy. > Turns out that this new algorithm can also be used to read CAPTCHA puzzles—we found that it can decipher the hardest distorted text puzzles from reCAPTCHA with over 99% accuracy. Am I missing something or could we improve CAPTCHAs by mimicking street numbers?