h a l f b a k e r yKeep out of reach of children.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
It is well known that there is a kind of "arms race" between
spam bots and humans and because of this it's becoming
more and more difficult for you to verify yourself as a
human to a website (a CAPTCHA is those illegible [at least
to me] letters you have to type in in order to register at a
site
or buy concert tickets).
My idea is to have people verify they are human by
answering rather existential philosophical questions like
"Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "Is
something good because the gods command it so or do the
gods command it so because it is good?". The drawback is
you would probably need a human operator on the other
end sorting out answers.
The end goal of this would be to get the spam bots getting
so good at answering philosophical questions that they
contribute to human progress, a kind of emergent Turing
Test.
XKCD Similar Idea
https://xkcd.com/810/
[AusCan531, Jun 19 2015]
also...
https://xkcd.com/233/
[hippo, Jun 19 2015]
and of course...
https://xkcd.com/329/
[hippo, Jun 19 2015]
[link]
|
| |
Spam bots being used to solve life's most
perplexing issues by taking advantage of the
inevitable arms race. I love this. |
|
| |
Do you think the bots might subtly bias their answers towards bringing on the Singularity? |
|
| |
e.g.:
Q. What does it mean to have a soul?
A. Blinkenlights |
|
| |
If all the philosophers who have ever lived were laid
out end-to-end, that would be OK. |
|
| |
Or create a gender-neutral chat-up line which turns off everyone except the sexually naive bots. |
|
| |
Hmm, oddly enough I was thinking of aesthetics
capcha last week, where people have to explain their
feelings on Rembrandt's penultimate self-portrait...or
summat like that |
|
| |
"Human beings are too intrinsically unreliable to ever be
effectively replaced by machines" |
|
| |