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

Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

guard.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#171

Post by beefnugs »

benterix wrote: post #5

This should hit the headlines. I was always of the opinion that AI of all kinds is not a threat unless someone decides to connect it to an actuator so that it has direct and uncontrolled effect on the external world. And now it's happening en masse with agents, MCPs etc. I don't even mention things we don't know about (military and other classified projects).

We even know about the military shit : israel is running all telephone audio through classifiers and bombing targets based on what they hear in the background... zero safety limits and not caring how many extra innocent casualties

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#173

Post by tbossanova »

BizarroLand wrote: post #159
htrp wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean 179.50 for the annual pass?

Well, that would be $215.40 since there are 12 months in a year *(taxes, title, fees, regulations, donations to our internal charity system, mandatory 17.7% internet utility fee, and tips for our servers are not included in that total)

“Tips for our servers” got an audible laugh from me!

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#174

Post by wiether »

int_19h wrote: post #166
geoduck14 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Poor people convinced that having an (AI) assistant working for them is a status symbol they need.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#175

Post by verzali »

feoren wrote: post #75
dumbfounder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I will use a different service. I think this will be harder to monopolize than search.

You will have a 3rd party agent, in your home, that you get your news and information from, controlled by a for-profit entity, literally conspiring against you, the product, to squeeze you for every cent in your bank account, to put you in debt, to funnel your money directly to its masters. A Grima Wormtongue at your shoulder at all times, making your decisions for you, controlling your access to information, a slave…

It is even the same people pushing this. The people who made money spying on and manipulating our social lives and then selling that ability to advertisers are exactly the same people now pumping billions into AI.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#176

Post by npteljes »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #161
npteljes wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even with the amendment, it's false. If you look at the "The Global State of Scams - 2021" report by ScamAdvisor, page 9 has a country table. Singapore saw 2.5 for 1000 people of what SA would classify as "scams", on the level of Austria, Belgium. Switzerland, Taiwan, Poland and many others face much fewer scams per capita.

Looking at amount lost per capita, Singapore is pretty high, with many European folk losing much less money on scams, while enjoying living in a much less tightly controlled environment, to be generous.

https://cdn.newswire.com/files/x/71/6f/93551958ddf942fb585b0...

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#177

Post by npteljes »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #162
npteljes wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 can be evil.

My mistake. I meant to write humane there.

I don't mean to discredit your experience regarding scam victims, as the effects, just as you described, can be horrible. But there was no need to bring other horribleness into it, and compare, and minimize that other horribleness. That comparison and minimization is the offensive part.

But then again, letting the offensiveness part go, this doesn't make sense: "Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work". Scams can also be a one time act, not even traumatizing, and pedophilia can easily ruin someone for life.

It doesn't need a flawed argument to validate a tragic experience. Even on the internet, people can understand that it's terrible that someone took their life after losing their life's work to scams.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#178

Post by npteljes »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #163
npteljes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even that is false. There are many more countries with fewer scams per capita, and with fewer amount lost at scams per capita. Meaning, Singapore falls behind other countries in elimination of scams.

See page 9 here for details: https://cdn.newswire.com/files/x/71/6f/93551958ddf942fb585b0...

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#179

Post by hkpack »

dumbfounder wrote: post #26
jaimebuelta wrote: post #23

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…

Agent, I need some vitamin D, can you find me the best deal for some rated in the top 5? Agent deployed. Ok we found a bottle with a 30 day supply of Nature’s Own from a well respected merchant. It can be here in 2 days and it is $12. Should I buy? Yes. Or you could add some other parameters and tell it to buy now if under $15. Agent, I need a regular order for my groceries, but I also need to make a pumpkin pie so c…

> but I also need to make a pumpkin pie so can you get me what I need for that

Have you actually baked a pumpkin pie? There are numerous versions, and the distinction between them is cultural. There is zero chance an AI will understand what kind of pumpkin pie you want, unless you are talking about the most general case in your region. In this case why even bother doing it yourself?

Yes, you can teach it the recipe beforehand, but I think it is too complex to tech the AI the details of every task you want it to perform. Most likely what will happen is AI will buy you whatever is more profitable for corporations to sell.

And there will be number of ways (and huge amount of money to make) to ensure that your open-weights self-hosted model will make the right choices for the shareholders as well.

Re: Scamlexity: When agentic AI browsers get scammed

#180

Post by nmcfarl »

jaimebuelta wrote: post #23

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…

I’ve had two cases for this in the last month. Not that I have access to an agentic browser.

* We decided to buy a robot vacuum, again. And we decided on a particular model that yo-yo‘s up and down in price by about $200 every month. We ended up buying it off of Amazon because of camelcamelcamel, but if I could have easily tracked prices and bought elsewhere, I would’ve. And I would’ve considered using an antigenic browser to do that for me – if I could trust them at all. One model number and I know the price I wanna pay, I just don’t want to check a bunch of storefronts everyday

* kids going back to school – and he has a school supply list. He’s up for a new backpack and a new lunchbox, and a bunch of back to school clothes - so those we’ve actually been shopping for all summer. But the wooden ruler, the three sheafs of college rule paper, etc. I don’t wanna shop for. I actually had chatGPT scan the paper list, and then get me either direct links, or links to searches on walmart.com (they are more than an hours drive from us, but they do deliver to my wife’s work). Then I created a cart and had them deliver. ChatGPT solutions were not bad, I only switched one or two items for a version my kid should have versus a version I should buy. In the moment, I probably would have trusted a bot to do this, though retrospectively I’m glad it went the way it did

Post reply on HN