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

Feed the bots

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 216 posts

Re: Feed the bots

#141

Post by nurettin »

kelnos wrote: post #121
maurycyz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry about that, stupid mistake on my side. I've fix the version on the server, an you can just edit the line to "pthread_detach(thread);" The snprintf() is only part of a status page, so you can remove it if you want. As for the threads, that could be an issue if directly exposed to the internet: All it would take for an attacker to open a whole a whole bunch of connections and never send anything to OOM the proces…

Not sure if I agree with you on the thread exhaustion issue. The client can still send a flood of correctly-formed requests; the reverse proxy will pass them all through. As I said above, yes, the fact that babble processes requests so quickly would make this harder, but you could still end up with (tens of?) thousands of concurrent requests if someone is really determined to mess with you. A solution could be to lim…

I continuously encourage others to do exactly this. It is a great learning opportunity. If they are not aware that they will get DoS'd now they will know. It's not like they will get PTSD from having to wait for OOM killer or losing their vps. You learned it that way, I learned it that wat, why not others? At least this way they will have real experience under their belt, not some online diatribe.

Re: Feed the bots

#142

Post by XenophileJKO »

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level.

To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning.

I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework.

Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I create the possiblity of transient harm.

Re: Feed the bots

#143

Post by XenophileJKO »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #142

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level. To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning. I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework. Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I cre…

I would even go so far as to say, increasing information entropy in today's society is ethically akin to dumping chemicals in a river.

Re: Feed the bots

#144

Post by hekkle »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #143
XenophileJKO wrote: post #142

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level. To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning. I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework. Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I cre…

I would even go so far as to say, increasing information entropy in today's society is ethically akin to dumping chemicals in a river.

[dead]

Re: Feed the bots

#145

Post by _vertigo »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #143
XenophileJKO wrote: post #142

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level. To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning. I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework. Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I cre…

I would even go so far as to say, increasing information entropy in today's society is ethically akin to dumping chemicals in a river.

Please. Are you implying we need AI to the same degree we need clean water?

Your chemicals in river analogy only works if there were also a giant company straight out of “The Lorax” siphoning off all of the water in the river.. and further, the chemicals would have to be harmless to humans but would cause the company’s machines to break down so they couldn’t make any more thneeds.

Re: Feed the bots

#146

Post by trenchpilgrim »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #142

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level. To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning. I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework. Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I cre…

"I'm going to hammer your site with requests, and if I use the information I receive to cause harm to a third party, it's YOUR FAULT" is an absolutely ludicrous take.

Re: Feed the bots

#147

Post by XenophileJKO »

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #146
XenophileJKO wrote: post #142

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level. To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning. I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework. Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I cre…

"I'm going to hammer your site with requests, and if I use the information I receive to cause harm to a third party, it's YOUR FAULT" is an absolutely ludicrous take.

The scrappers by violating your wishes are doing something they shouldn't. My comment is not commenting about that. What I said doesn't mean the scrapper is any less wrong.

I'm basically saying 2 wrongs don't make a right here.

Trying to harm their system which might transitively harm someone using their system is unethical from my viewpoint.

Re: Feed the bots

#148

Post by chrsw »

Remember when AI was supposed to give us all this great stuff?

Most of the real use seems to be surveillance, spam, ads, tracking, slop, crawlers, hype, dubious financial deals and sucking energy.

Oh yeah, and your kid can cheat on their book report or whatever. Great.

Re: Feed the bots

#149

Post by NotATest22 »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #142

I think this approach bothers me on the ethical level. To flood bots with gibberish that you "think" will harm their ability to function means you are in some ways complicit if those bots unintentionally cause harm in any small part due to your data poisoning. I just don't see a scenario where doing what author is doing is permissible in my personal ethical framework. Unauthorized access doesn't absolve me when I cre…

If LLM producers choose not to verify information, how is that the website owners fault? It's not like the website owner is being paid for their time and effort of producing and hosting the information.

Re: Feed the bots

#150

Post by XenophileJKO »

_vertigo wrote: post #145
XenophileJKO wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would even go so far as to say, increasing information entropy in today's society is ethically akin to dumping chemicals in a river.

Please. Are you implying we need AI to the same degree we need clean water? Your chemicals in river analogy only works if there were also a giant company straight out of “The Lorax” siphoning off all of the water in the river.. and further, the chemicals would have to be harmless to humans but would cause the company’s machines to break down so they couldn’t make any more thneeds.

The problem is:

1. The machines won't "break", at best you slightly increase when they answer something with incorrect information.

2. People are starting to rely on that information, so when 'transformed" your harmless chemical are now potentially poison.

Knowing this is possible, it (again "to me") becomes highly un-ethical.

Post reply on HN