• KluEvo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      huh

      That… Actually seems like not that bad of an idea (at least for forum/reddit/lemmy bots)

      Well, if you ignore the infeasibility aspect of getting the humans to cooperate and stuff

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is it really such a bad thing when the humans that are unable to cooperate do not get access?

        • Baketime@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The title text on the comic

          And what about all the people who won’t be able to join the community because they’re terrible at making helpful and constructive co- … oh.

        • KluEvo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sometimes you might need an urgent answer (eg, overflowing sink or a weird smell coming from an appliance problem) and don’t have time to fill out a serious form

      • new_guy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But what if someone else makes a bot not to answer things but to rate randomly if an answer is constructive or not?

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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”.

    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You are overrating peer reviewing. It’s basically a tool to help editors to understand if a paper “sells”, to improve readability and to discard clear garbage.

      If methodologies are not extremely flawed, peer reviewing 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-reviewing biases for more details

      Preprints are fine, just less polished

        • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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 points.

          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.

          Honesty of researchers is what guarantees quality of a paper

  • Overzeetop@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • tacosplease@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just encountered a captcha yesterday that I had to refresh several times and then listen to the audio playback. The letters were so obscured by a black grid that it was impossible to read them.

  • casualhippo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We all knew this day would come, now it’s just a matter of making different captcha tests to evade these bots

    • panCatQ@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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 !

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve found that a lot of sites use captchas or captcha-like systems as a means of frustrating users as a way of keeping away certain people that they don’t want to access the site (intellectual property owners), though it’s not the only tactic that they use. I mean it works, pretty much all of those sites are still up today, despite serving data that’s copyrighted by Nintendo, Sony, and other parties.

    • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      New Captcha question: Does pressing a controller’s button harder make the character’s action more impactful?

      if answer = yes : human

      if answer = no : bot

  • Rhaedas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • sprl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve had to do 15 different captcha tests one after the other and they still wouldn’t validate me today.

  • Kichae@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bots picking the questions, bots answering them. They clearly understand whatever the fuck the captcha bot thinks a bus is better than I do.