111
Beyond CAPTCHAs: How do we keep human‑pretending bots out of the fediverse? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

CAPTCHAs and sign‑up quizzes annoy real people and barely slow down determined bots. As the fediverse grows, we need smarter, more humane defences, ones that don’t push away genuine newcomers. What creative, non‑intrusive ideas do you have? Trust‑based vouching, proof‑of‑humanity protocols, behavioural signals... what feels both effective and aligned with the open social web? I’m building a social media platform and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

Survivorship bias. How do you guarantee that you don't have a few dozen accounts that were set up by a human who then collected the credentials and setup an automated OpenClaw-like thing system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children)

    I didn't and can't guarantee that, I merely said that most bots reveal themselves with the technique I described.

    I suspect that using human applications to get an AI through the door will be somewhat uncommon, as hiring people to do that for profit seeking reasons is likely not terribly viable, as a human can only write so many applications per day, and that labor isn't free, I just don't see the economics working out. Bot spam is likely only profitable when it is entirely automated.

    But if a human specifically targeted an instance in that way, that certainly could happen. I suspect that at least for now, other users may be able to suss-out a bot that gets through, as they still have some tell-tale signs they give off in their writing style, but it's plausible that at some point they will be able to blend in seamlessly. At that point, we'll need to devise new ways to weed them out if they begin to take over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    I already answered the first part your question at the end of my previous comment. As to the idea that they become more useful/beneficial than actual human members, I personally find actually interacting with other humans more fulfilling than interacting with a machine in a social context, regardless of how 'useful' they are.

    If AI gets to the point where it's all pervasive, indistinguishable from real people, and we somehow cannot devise a way of weeding them out of online communities, I'd honestly probably just stop participating socially in public internet spaces, and instead restrict myself to private invite-only communities that do more intense vetting to ensure only humans are in that space, or participate in and help build up local mesh-networks, where people can actually meet up with who they talk to online.

    That would probably mean a lot less time spent online overall, and instead going outside and finding connection with people in real life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    f AI gets to the point where it’s all pervasive (...) I’d honestly probably just stop participating socially in public internet spaces

    I think you are missing what I am trying to say: there is a significant probability we already are at this point, and I don't think we can beat this cat-and-mouse game. If you are serious about you mean, then the only reasonable course of action is to get out of the race entirely. If more people think like you, then the scale will tip even further in favor of the bots.

    All of this to say, if we are so AI averse that the mere possibility of having AI around should be enough for all of us to drop this whole thing here and go back to connection only in the physical world. In a way, I wouldn't be against the idea (maybe because I look at the internet as a source of utility and not to fulfill any emotional/social need) but on the other hand it would suck precisely because the internet can be quite useful as a tool, but its utility depends on having people around participating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    there is a significant probability we already are at this point,

    I personally don't believe that we are, not here, anyway. If I browse reddit for a while, I get the feeling that it is overran with bots at this point (like, 45 to 50% bots, based on my own subjective intuitions), as I'm not sure reddit itself is actually fighting it all that hard (on the surface, it would seem like AI traffic that isn't 'discovered' to be AI traffic would still be useful to them to artificially boost user numbers for investors as well as for ad revenue. In other words, I'm not sure they have a strong incentive to weed out AI users, at least in respect to short-term profits? Though I could be wrong).

    Lemmy/Piefed on the other hand still don't appear to be very bot-ridden yet, maybe 5 to 10% at most.

    I think it is a rising threat, and we're already sort've at a point like it's depicted in Cyberpunk 2077. In the future it may indeed make the internet an unfun place to be socially, but at least for now, the fediverse appears to holding it back so far. As I say, if it ever becomes overwhelmingly bots, I'm definitely going to be scaling back my participation, and if others do the same, then yes, the internet will suffer for it and be a far less useful resource, but at the same time, the bot resistant alternatives I mentioned in my other comment will benefit from that exodus, and we'll likely just adapt to that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent