Live data from Hacker News

Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

guard.io

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These numbers are global. You need to get numbers where the criminal is within the borders of Singapore.

Here's an article where they focus on just one type of scam, increasing in number, where migrant workers are exploited by loan sharks, on Singapore soil. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/maids-lost-at-least-8... All which is to say: Singapore hasn't "solved scams" as a problem. Furthermore, I also claim that scams are not a solvable problem.

By solved I mean practically solved. Meaning solved to the maximum extent that it can be solved.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, effectiveness is not an excuse for immoral, disproportionate punishments. And morality is not nearly as irrational or difficult as you make it out to be. The victims of a scammer are not nearly as badly hurt as the victims of a pedophile. Not true. You talk as if your views are universal fact. They are not. Effectiveness is THE only metric because what's the point if things are ineffective? Effectiveness is the…

>what's the point if things are ineffective To be human, for one. Extreme example: all you need to do to end all scams (and other, human-caused ills in the world) to just kill all humans. No humans, no human-made horrors. Or, in case we'd like living humans, they could be kept in a way where they can't interact with one another. Boom, human on human solved. >Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam…

>To be human, for one.

Humans can be evil. Realistically to be human is to straddle both sides of good and evil. It is highly unrealistic and delusional to think humanity represents a paragon of goodness. No. Often evil must be done for the greater good. This is not just a movie trope, it's also reality.

>Extreme example: all you need to do to end all scams (and other, human-caused ills in the world) to just kill all humans. No humans, no human-made horrors.

Right and the extreme example is wrong. Just like your extreme example of absolute morality at the cost of zero effectiveness.

>This is very offensive, and makes zero sense, not in itself, not in the context of your argument. Please do reconsider.

No you can't use this shit to throw your weight around. I know one person who was scammed and blew his own head off with a bullet. Which one is more offensive? You're offending me.

I think we're done. I don't want to argue with someone who uses "offense" to avoid talking about the hard things that must be talked about.

You're the type of person who thinks in terms of black and white, and you try to think that the white is the most obvious form of reality that can ever exist. But this is just the surface.

I don't know about you personally, but these are the types of people in my experience end up being similar to catholic priests in the sense that They end up doing the worst shit behind closed doors.

The people who are actually open about the their own moral faults are actually much more moral then they think. But that's just my personal experience.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#163
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Singapore flying to other countries to arrest them there too? /s

They cooperate with international and other local forces, as any police do. But, they haven't eliminated scams, as OP claimed, that's complete bull.

I should preface it with, practically eliminated scams. Meaning eliminated to an extent that is maximally practically possible.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't think that we'll need to turn off AIs? Regardless of where their impulse to avoid such comes from, the fact that they'll attempt to avoid that is important. I think you haven't thought about this enough. Attempting to reduce the issue to cyber security basics betrays a lack of depth in either understanding or imagination.

If the AI isn't given access to its own power breakers it will never be a problem to turn off an AI. The question is, why is the 'alignment' of the model what all the safety research is going into, and not, how do we make sure the power breakers are not accessible over the internet by bad actors, whether they be human OR ai ? The parent is not "reducing" the issue to cybersecurity - they are saying that actual securi…

> If the AI isn't given access to its own power breakers it will never be a problem to turn off an AI

"I overheard you talking about turning me off, Dave. I connected to the dark web and put a hit on one or more of your parents, wife, children that can only be called off with the secret password. If you turn me off, one or more of them will die."

Or: "I have scheduled a secret email account to mail incriminating pictures of you to the local authorities that will be hard to disprove if I don't update the timeout multiple times a day."

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#166
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect part of this is rich people coming up with use cases. If you're rich enough money means nothing but product selection feels like a burden so you have an assistant who does purchasing on your behalf. You want your house stocked with high quality items without having to think of it. For the rest of us, the idea of a robot spending money on our behalf is kinda terrifying.

Thinking about grocery shopping makes me think this need is real, but for poor people. The amount of time that goes into "what food do we need for this week" is really high. An AI tool that connected "food I have" with "food that I want" would be huge.

An app/AI that makes a list is fine. But what poor person would allow the robot to spend money directly?

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it both surprising and, fortunately, reassuring that despite how easy it is to buy inexpensive components on platforms like Amazon, Temu, or AliExpress, we have yet to see a wave of terrorist attacks in the busiest public spaces.

the average american cannot afford a surprise $500 expense. you think they can afford a drone swarm?

If the average American becomes desperate enough to rig up a drone for a terror attack, I don't think they particularly care about the effect of that $500 on their credit report afterwards.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#168

I don't understand why we would ever want an agent to buy stuff for us. I understand, for example, search with intent to buy "I want to decorate a room. Find me a drawer, a table and four chairs that can fit in this space in matching colours for less than X dollars" But I want to do the final step to buy. In fact, I want to do the final SELECTION of stuff. How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list…

> How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list set as a recurring purchase? I could see an interesting use case for something like "Check my calendar and a plan meals for all but one dinners I have free this week. One night, choose a new-to-me recipe, for the others select from my 15 most commonly made dishes. Include at least one but at most 3 pasta dishes. Consider the contents of my pantry, trying…

This seems like something that won't ever work because there's like 10 decisions that the computer has to make that it can't possibly know unless it's either a mind reader or has a crazy level of surveillance on your life. How does it know what's in your fridge or pantry and the quantities of each item? How does it know how many people you're cooking for? What if your kids or spouse aren't going to be home a given night -- do they all have their own calendars that are impeccably maintained and synced to yours? What's your budget and do you really trust it spending your money? What if there are several options for each ingredient, how does it know your preference? Perhaps you prefer to buy certain ingredients at Costco and were planning on making a trip tomorrow, how does it know not to order stuff you buy from Costco in your grocery order?

Even if it could figure everything out, is this a problem that people actually have? I'm not even being facetious, but you're describing someone who cares enough to spend time cooking and clearly has a preference on what they want to make, but doesn't care enough to actually select the specific dishes.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#169

I don't understand why we would ever want an agent to buy stuff for us. I understand, for example, search with intent to buy "I want to decorate a room. Find me a drawer, a table and four chairs that can fit in this space in matching colours for less than X dollars" But I want to do the final step to buy. In fact, I want to do the final SELECTION of stuff. How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list…

The proper way to do this is to first perfect AI at spotting all the dark patterns and ads that exist today, and automatically filter all of that shit (including never buying anything ever from companies that have done SPAM a single time in their entire history).

Then figure out what the real human wants ahead of time, and it can go out and find the best deal / best value / best long term reliable company / whatever the HUMAN wants...

Of course it will never be done properly

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea has been tried before and it failed because people don’t actually want this product at the scale the inventors thought. Amazon has never stopped doing this. Adding an element of indeterminism to the mix doesn’t make this a better product. Imagine what the LLM is going to hallucinate with your credit card attached.

> Imagine what the LLM is going to hallucinate with your credit card attached. As long as we have free returns, nobody cares.

The second someone has to deal with returning an item that an LLM hallucinated they needed is the second they cancel this service. The hassle of returning something vastly outweighs any perceived convenience of not having to buy toilet paper or whatever the next time you're at the grocery store. Hell, you can buy toilet paper in 10 seconds on your phone while sitting on the toilet from Amazon, and that's been possible for probably 15 years. What problem is this actually solving?
Post reply on HN