Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Technology

Looking To Spammers To Solve Hard AI Problems 271

An anonymous reader writes "With bots getting closer to beating text-based CAPTCHAs for good, New Scientist points out that when they do, OCR technology will at least have advanced. The article goes on to suggest that whatever kind of reverse Turing Test that comes next should be chosen to motivate spammers to solve other pressing AI problems, such as image recognition. Are there any other problems that criminal crowdsourcing could help with?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Looking To Spammers To Solve Hard AI Problems

Comments Filter:
  • a possible idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ecalkin ( 468811 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @10:50PM (#27632769)

    several years ago 'neural nets' were the big thing and they were thinking that they could make them 'learn' and do useful things.

    i always thought that traffic control would be an interesting application. if a computer could look at video of an intersection (and streets leading to the intersection) and figure out where cars were and weren't, you could make traffic lights a lot less annoying.

    so our CAPTCHA might be a picture/video of cars and a request to count them?

    eric

  • by dameepster ( 594651 ) * on Saturday April 18, 2009 @10:51PM (#27632783) Homepage

    Spammers are unlikely to share their results with the rest of the world. They're motivated by financial rewards, and there is absolutely no incentive to publicize their methodology in any format.

    Not only would the "good guys" learn from it -- and thus potentially defeat the spammers' discovery -- but other spammers would simply steal their work.

  • Not exactly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:15PM (#27632913)

    I'm not as optimistic as the New Scientist. Spammers need a really low success rate, as compared to OCR technology which needs a really high success rate.

  • by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:19PM (#27632947)

    Wherever there is greed, it can be harnessed to actually do some good. I love it!

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:27PM (#27632991)
    I would agree, if general-purpose captcha-beating software were available. But that isn't so. Each captcha system was beaten by custom code, individually written for that system. So in effect, it is not much different than adding a new font to existing OCR software.
  • timothy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:32PM (#27633021)
    you need to be slapped for using the term "crowdsourcing".
  • Re:True AI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KPU ( 118762 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:32PM (#27633027) Homepage

    This is a reasonably accurate description of the stock market.

  • Re:True AI (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zach297 ( 1426339 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:45PM (#27633121)
    That brings up a good point. When AI is good enough to get past CAPTCHA it will hopefully be good enough to filter out the spam.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Saturday April 18, 2009 @11:51PM (#27633163) Journal
    But has it?

    Unfortunately, CAPTCHA is radically easier than actual OCR. When cracking a CAPTCHA, achieving a success rate of 5-10% is absolutely fine. Plus, when you submit your answer, you are told whether or not you got it right. With OCR, anything short of high 90's is pretty much useless, and the only feedback available is through manual human intervention, which scales poorly.

    Arguably, the only significant OCR advance has been RECAPTCHA, which is just a clever way of making humans do the hard stuff in a way that actually helps, rather than just using makework problems.

    It is certainly true that CAPTCHA cracking has advanced considerably, that just doesn't apply too neatly to real OCR problems.
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @01:39AM (#27633851) Journal

    What about people for who $50 is a year salary? Congrats, you just split the internet into the rich and the poor. No more accessing the internet from africa from an old PC powered by a donated solar cell. Good job. You probably going to get a nobel price.

  • by adnonsense ( 826530 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @01:53AM (#27633905) Homepage Journal

    What about people like me who can't seem to get the hang of the darn things? (I personally wouldn't be surprised if they're some kind of elaborate hoax...)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19, 2009 @02:33AM (#27634037)

    Knowing that there *is* a solution is often all it takes for bright minds to figure out the same solution.

    So once the spammers have cracked it, the AI researchers will figure it out in a few months.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @03:16AM (#27634229)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19, 2009 @03:40AM (#27634315)

    I've noticed this with the last 3 years worth of professional PC repairs and family repairs.
    The latest I saw is some Thumbdrive spyware that got triggered on Autorun (NOT Conficker). Pretty damn resilient, to the point I had to reinstall because it caused some services to slow down to a crawl. Symtoms below are usually combined in several ways.

    • Safe Mode broken in a way that anything but normal boot mode would just bluescreen.
    • batch files with random filenames that watch each other and kick start one if you manage to kill the other.
    • Use of Windows Policy. MS allows XP Home to be locked down by *group* policy when that version doesn't support workgroups. I don't understand why I should have a disadvantage that is meant for a Pro version. The end result is you don't have any higher Admin account on a machine, while still being smacked with:
      • "The command prompt was disabled by your administrator"
      • "Task List was disabled by your administrator."
      • Regedit disabling
    • kill-window-by-name (effective against any installer or management window like SpybotSD, Adaware, Norton, Avast, free Firewall software, MS Antispyware...)
    • hostfile redirection (unless you were "smart" and locked your custom file as protection) and process monitoring.
    • Rootkits show in every 3+ hour spyware check I do for family and friends these days.
    • Startup folder is no longer used... your registry now houses obscure services and hooks to automatically launch exes per login session, or even in text-only Safe Mode.
    • Some even edit your firewall rules to allow traffic out, and
    • add proxies to FF, IE and even Opera.

    It's hopeless. I have been resorting to reinstalling XP in the last 3 or 4 family repairs These came from people who would visit different pornsites (teen, middle aged and 50+ years old.)

  • by dissy ( 172727 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @09:03AM (#27635817)

    What about people for who $50 is a year salary? Congrats, you just split the internet into the rich and the poor. No more accessing the internet from africa from an old PC powered by a donated solar cell. Good job. You probably going to get a nobel price.

    Worse than that. Spammers have plenty of cash.

    The two solutions also are for two totally separate unrelated problems.

    A capcha is only to test if the client is a human or a computer.
    It doesn't now, nor ever did, test if the client has money to spend.

    In fact, the solution to that persons problem sounds like a reverse-capcha! If the client passes the capcha, they are clearly a lowly human being and shouldn't be allowed to continue into his site. If the capcha is failed on first and second trys, it is probably a bot being run by a spammer, and spammers have lots of cash!

    So yes the parents point is 100% correct. You can only replace capchas with another test that actually tests for the same thing.

    If all someone wants is only paying customers on their site, a captcha isnt even needed to signup. A credit card where you can place a successful charge using a merchant account is all you need. After all, a human with cash and a spammer with cash both need to be allowed, and a capcha would only prevent bots run by spammers with cash from signing up.

    Yet again, stupid greedy website operators, who more than likely add no value to the internet hawking their overpriced crap that everyone else hawks, have just totally taken a new technology and ignored what it really does, then implemented it as wrong as humanly possible.

  • by ozydingo ( 922211 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @09:10AM (#27635845)
    The cocktail party problem [wikipedia.org] - our ability to hear out a target conversation amongst a barrage of others. There's still a lot of room for improvement here as a computational problem; meanwhile, it's relatively easy to get a correct human response to multiple-talker environments if you cue listeners for what to listen for.
  • by nemesisrocks ( 1464705 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @08:07PM (#27640605) Homepage

    You messed up. CAPCHA is not a test to tell if your viewers have any money. It is just a test if they are a human or computer.

    Actually, CAPTCHA is usually a test to see if the viewer can read English. The biggest problem with reCAPTCHA is that all of the words are English.

    I can't imagine it'd have anywhere near the success it's seen if it were trying to get you to do OCR for Japanese, or even Polish...

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Working...