- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“Only human intelligence can solve” gives answer
Is this real lol?
online study
not peer reviewed
“published” on arxiv (which is a public document server, not a journal)
study and authors not named or linked in the articletl/dr: “Someone uploaded a pdf and we’re writing about it.”
I mean its pretty obvious that nowadays AI is absolutely capable of doing that and some people are just blind or fat finger the keyboard.
I suppose it’s this paper. Most prolific author seems to be Gene Tsudik, h-index of 103. Yeah that’s not “someone”. Also the paper is accepted for USENIX Security 2023, which is actually ongoing right now.
Also CS doesn’t really do academia like other sciences, being somewhere on the intersection of maths, engineering, and tinkering. Shit’s definitely not invalid just because it hasn’t been submitted to a journal this could’ve been a blog post but there’s academics involved so publish or perish applies.
Or, differently put: If you want to review it, bloody hell do it it’s open access. A quick skim tells me “way more thorough than I care to read for the quite less than extraordinary claim”.
You are overrating peer review. It’s basically a tool to help editors to understand if a paper “sells”, to improve readability and to discard clear garbage.
It almost never impact quality of the results, as reviewers do not redo the work. From the “trustworthy” point of view, peer reviewing is comparable to a biased rng. Google for actual reproducibility of published experiments and peer review biases for more details
Peer reviewing is how you know the methodology is not flawed…
Unfortunately not. https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a
Most peer reviewed papers are non reproducible. Peer review has the primary purpose of telling the editor how sellable is a paper in a small community he only superficially knows, and to make it more attractive to that community by suggesting rephrasing of paragraphs, additional references, additional supporting experiment to clarify unclear point.
But it doesn’t guarantees methodology is not flawed. Editor chooses reviewer very superficially, and reviews are mainly driven by biases, and reviewers cannot judge the quality of a research because they do not reproduce it
There is considerable overlap between the smartest AI and the dumbest humans. The concerns over bears and trash cans in US National Parks was ahead of its time.
Everyone knows that the real purpose of CAPTCHA tests are to train computers to replace us.
This but unironically… The purpose literally is to train computers to get better at recognising things
Specifically to help train AI for Google’s self driving car division.
Specifically to force all of us to do unpaid labor for Google.
Where’s my fucking paycheck‽
Your paycheck comes in the form of personalized ads.
Curious how this study suggesting we need a new way to prevent bots came out just a fews days after Google started taking shit for proposing something that among other things would do just that.
So just keep the existing tests and change the passing ones to not get access. Checkmate robots.
Just kidding, I welcome our robot overlords…I’ll act as your captcha gateway.
We all knew this day would come, now it’s just a matter of making different captcha tests to evade these bots
They were never a test to evade bots to begim with, most capchas were used to train machine learning algorithms to train the bots on ! Just because it was manual labour google got it done for free , using this bullshit captcha thingy ! We sort of trained bots to read obsucre texts , and kinda did the labour for corps for free !
deleted by creator
So is it time to get rid of them then? Usually when I encounter one of those “click the motorcycles” I just go read something else.
It’s a double-edged sword. Just because it doesn’t work perfectly doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
To a spammer, building something with the ability to break a captcha is more expensive than something that cannot, whether in terms of development time, or resource demands.
We saw with a few Lemmy instances that they’re still good at protecting instances from bots and bot signups. Removing captchas entirely means erasing that barrier of entry that keeps a lot of bots out, and might cause more problems than it fixes.
Bots picking the questions, bots answering them. They clearly understand whatever the fuck the captcha bot thinks a bus is better than I do.
Ez. Only allow access when they score 70 to 80.
“Please complete the next 200 captchas so we can have a reasonably accurate estimate of your success rate”
So that’s OK - you ‘passed’? You’re a bot!
I’ve had to do 15 different captcha tests one after the other and they still wouldn’t validate me today.
