Deleted

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    Any bot? That’s just impossible. We’re going to have to tie identity back to meatspace somehow eventually.

    An existing bot? I don’t think I can improve on existing captchas, really. I imagine an LLM will eventually tip their hand, too, like giving an “as an AI” answer or just knowing way too much stuff.

    • darkrai9292@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yeah this seems to be the idea behind mCaptcha and other proof of work based solutions. I noticed the developers were working on adding that to Lemmy

  • Bruce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Ask how much is 1 divided by 3; then ask to multiply this result by 6.

    If the results looks like 1.99999999998 , it’s 99.999999998% a bot.

  • downtide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    The trouble with any sort of captcha or test, is that it teaches the bots how to pass the test. Every time they fail, or guess correctly, that’s a data-point for their own learning. By developing AI in the first place we’ve already ruined every hope we have of creating any kind of test to find them.

    I used to moderate a fairly large forum that had a few thousand sign-ups every day. Every day, me and the team of mods would go through the new sign-ups, manually checking usernames and email addresses. The ones that were bots were usually really easy to spot. There would be sequences of names, both in the usernames and email addresses used, for example ChristineHarris913, ChristineHarris914, ChristineHarris915 etc. Another good tell was mixed-up ethnicities in the names: e.g ChristineHuang or ChinLaoHussain. 99% of them were from either China, India or Russia (they mostly don’t seem to use VPNs, I guess they don’t want to pay for them). We would just ban them all en-masse. Each account banned would get an automated email to say so. Legitimate people would of course reply to that email to complain, but in the two years I was a mod there, only a tiny handful ever did, and we would simply apologise and let them back in. A few bots slipped through the net but rarely more than 1 or 2 a day; those we banned as soon as they made their first spam post, but we caught most of them before that.

    So, I think the key is a combination of the No-Captcha, which analyses your activity on the sign-up page, combined with an analysis of the chosen username and email address, and an IP check. But don’t use it to stop the sign-up, let them in and then use it to decide whether or not to ban them.

  • underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    There will never be any kind of permanent solution to this. Botting is an arms race and as long as you are a large enough target someone is going to figure out the 11ft ladder for your 10ft wall.

    That said, generally when coming up with a captcha challenge you need to figure out a way to subvert the common approach just enough that people can’t just pull some off the shelf solution. For example instead of just typing out the letters in an image, ask the potential bot to give the results of a math problem stored in the image. This means the attacker needs more than just a drop in OCR to break it, and OCR is mostly trained on words so its likely going to struggle at math notation. It’s not that difficult to work around but it does require them to write a custom approach for your captcha which can deter most casual attempts for some time.

  • Zamboniman@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    How would you design a test that only a human can pass, but a bot cannot?

    Very simple.

    In every area of the world, there are one or more volunteers depending on population / 100 sq km. When someone wants to sign up, they knock on this person’s door and shakes their hand. The volunteer approves the sign-up as human. For disabled folks, a subset of volunteers will go to them to do this. In extremely remote area, various individual workarounds can be applied.

    • 𝕙𝕖𝕝𝕡@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      This would tie in nicely to existing library systems. As a plus, if your account ever gets stolen or if you’re old and don’t understand this whole technology thing, you can talk to a real person. Like the concept of web of trust.

    • WaterWaiver@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      This has some similarities to the invite-tree method that lobste.rs uses. You have to convince another, existing user that you’re human to join. If a bot invites lots of other bots it’s easy to tree-ban them all, if a human is repeatedly fallible you can remove their invite privileges, but you still get bots in when they trick humans (lobsters isn’t handshakes-at-doorstep level by any margin).

      I convinced another user to invite me over IRC. That’s probably the worst medium for convincing someone that you’re human, but hey, humanity through obscurity :)

    • WaterWaiver@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I can’t help but think of the opposite problem. Imagine if a site completely made of bots manages to invite one human and encourages them to invite more humans (via doorstep handshakes or otherwise). Results would be interesting.

  • Jamie@jamie.moe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    If you can use human screening, you could ask about a recent event that didn’t happen. This would cause a problem for LLMs attempting to answer, because their datasets aren’t recent, so anything recent won’t be well-refined. Further, they can hallucinate. So by asking about an event that didn’t happen, you might get a hallucinated answer talking about details on something that didn’t exist.

    Tried it on ChatGPT GPT-4 with Bing and it failed the test, so any other LLM out there shouldn’t stand a chance.

    • pandarisu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      On the other hand you have insecure humans who make stuff up to pretend that they know what you are talking about

    • incompetentboob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Google Bard definitely has access to the internet to generate responses.

      ChatGPT was purposely not give access but they are building plugins to slowly give it access to real time data from select sources

        • dystop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          ERROR: command not recognized

          GREETINGS FELLOW HUMAN WITH TWO EYES AND ONE NOSE. HOW HAS YOUR EXISTENCE BEEN FOR THE LAST 16 HOURS OR SINCE THE TIME YOU WOKE UP FROM YOUR BIOLOGICALLY MANDATED REST PERIOD, WHICHEVER WAS LATER?

  • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Show a picture like this:

    And then ask the question, “would this kitty fit into a shoe box? Why, or why not?”. Then sort the answers manually. (Bonus: it’s cuter than captcha.)

    This would not scale well, and you’d need a secondary method to handle the potential blind user, but I don’t think that bots would be able to solve it correctly.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Reminds me of how bots tend to be really bad at figuring out whether the word “it” applies to the subject or the object in a sentence like: “The bed does not fit in the tent because it is too big”

    • vegivamp@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      This particular photo is shopped, but i think false-perspective Illusions might actually be a good path…

      • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        It’s fine if the photo is either shopped or a false-perspective illusion. It could be even a drawing. The idea is that this sort of picture imposes a lot of barriers for the bot in question:

        • must be able to parse language
        • must be able to recognise objects in a picture, even out-of-proportion ones
        • must be able to guesstimate the size of those objects, based on nearby ones
        • must handle RW knowledge, as “X only fits Y if X is smaller than Y”
        • must handle hypothetical, unrealistic scenarios, as “what if there was a kitty this big?”

        Each of those barriers decrease the likelihood of a bot being able to solve the question.

  • alex [they/them]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Honeypots - ask a very easy question, but make it hidden on the website so that human users won’t see it and bots will answer it.

    • Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      I once worked as a 3rd party in a large internet news site and got assigned a task to replace their current captcha with a partner’s captcha system. This new system would play an ad and ask the user to type the name of the company in that ad.

      In my first test I already noticed that the company name was available in a public variable on the site and showed that to my manager by opening the dev tools and passing the captcha test with just some commands.

      His response: “no user is gonna go into that much effort just to avoid typing the company name”.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’m pretty sure you have to have 2 bots and ask 1 bot is the other bot would lie about being a bot… something like that.