Wear Your Way Out Of AI Surveilance

For decades now many of us have lived in surveillance societies where it’s difficult not to be within the view of a camera. When being noticed depended on the attention span of a minimum wage security guard perhaps this mattered less, but in an age of AI, the vigilance has become always-on. To address this problem the German designer [Simon Weckert] has created a fabric designed to confuse an AI scanning an image, and cause it to not recognize the wearer as a person.

The result is perhaps best described as “loud”, a pattern of saturated colors that targets the algorithms used in recognition. The tests he shows appear to work, but perhaps the most obvious thing from them is that he sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb to the eye wearing such a… vibrant garment. Also we wonder for how long it will remain effective, as algorithmic improvements seek to mitigate its attack.

This is no doubt only one salvo in what is likely to be an ongoing battle of wits. It’s certainly not the first time we’ve seen things designed to confound an AI.

Cheap AI Token Resellers: The Secret Ingredient Is Fraud

[Matt Lenhard] has an interesting writeup explaining exactly how fraudsters offer access to cutting-edge AI models at a tenth of the price. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the secret is to get tokens for free from anywhere they can and by any means necessary. Then wrap them in a pretty relay API, and sell access to it.

Relaying tokens is not by itself a shady practice. That distinction belongs to services that obtain tokens fraudulently, opening the door to selling them at rates far below market value. This practice is widespread and profitable, in part because the abuse is so hard to pin down and stop.

One source of tokens is free credits on new accounts. New accounts are spooled up as fast as possible, hammered until they’re empty, then it’s done all over again. Another method is to sign up as pay-after, possibly with a stolen card, and simply ensure the account has no valid payment method once the bill comes due. Or set up a temporary card, pay some minimum up front and consume as much as possible, then initiate a chargeback. It doesn’t matter if individually each of these doesn’t amount to much before they get flagged, because it’s being leveraged relentlessly on a massive scale by automated systems.

There are the shadier methods, too. Fraudsters don’t just target providers directly. Consumer software products with AI features get reverse-engineered, then the back ends hammered for all they are worth. Poorly-coded support chatbots can be highjacked into serving fraudsters’ traffic instead of just their own. It doesn’t actually matter where the tokens come from, after all. As long as the fraudsters are obtaining them for free (or at least below their costs) then it’s profit.

That last point is one [Matt] zeroes in on with advice on how to mitigate this abuse. He goes into detail in his writeup but what it comes down to is recognizing that it’s a numbers game. Fraudsters depend entirely on obtaining tokens for free, or nearly free. So just like using an AI to keep phone scammers tied up, anything that raises friction increases the fraudster’s costs, in turn encouraging them to find an easier target.

AI Book Scanning: Just What Is A Rare Book?

One of the stories of the last few weeks has been that AI companies have been scanning books in very large numbers in order to train their models with content guaranteed to have been written before 2002, and thus AI free. It’s caused some outrage, because of the size of the operation, and because the scanning process is destructive. In particular the phrase being bandied around is that these are rare books, and it’s this phraseology I find problematic. I think it’s time to unpack why that is the case.

It’s Not Book Burning, Folks

Before I worked for Hackaday I had a long career in and around the publishing industry, mostly on the electronic side, but from time to time crossing paths with my colleagues in the world of paper-based publishing. I understand the appeal of a good book, I’ve spend a lot of my life among bibliophiles, and let’s just say I own a few books myself. In particular I understand the symbolism of destroying books, bringing to mind as it does the actions of repressive regimes. I have stood in Bebelplatz in Berlin where the photo of Nazi student organisation members burning the library of Magnus Hirschfeld’s institute was taken in 1933, and if you know me, you’ll have an idea why that’s close to home. But for all that, what the AI companies are doing is not the same thing.

In this case they’re destroying the books for two reasons. Firstly, as I remember from a previous employer in the publishing world, it’s much easier to digitise a stack of papers than it is a bound book. Thus I’m pretty sure that’s one reason they remove the binding before digitising the pages. Then secondly, as I understand it it’s a copyright issue. If they buy a book, digitise it, and destroy the physical copy, they can legitimately claim that only one copy of it exists, and they hope, sidestep copyright claims from publishers. Continue reading “AI Book Scanning: Just What Is A Rare Book?”

Artificial Intelligence As It Once Was

One day, people will look back at what we call Artificial Intelligence and laugh. We do the same thing today, as chat bots totally outstrip what the computer industry called AI up until pretty recently. This didn’t escape curators at the Internet Archive, apparently, and [Jason Scott] tells us about a recent collection, “Vintage Artificial Intelligence.”

These are old software titles that will run for you in emulated machines right in your browser, ranging from somewhere in the 1970s to the 1990s. There’s Eliza, of course. Actually, there are several copies of Eliza. Given how simple it was to write Eliza, it did a pretty good job. Then there are adventure games that are pretty conversational, Lisp, Prolog, which was going to spawn expert systems to replace us all, and Racter, which tried to write fiction.

There was even Alter Ego that was supposed to help you explore life decisions, maybe? There are a couple different versions of even a few versions of Conway’s Game of Life. We aren’t sure that’s ever really been AI, but perhaps it depends on your definition. We’re happy to see Sargon, the chess program, represented.

We didn’t see Hexapawn, which is a shame. We also didn’t see Parry (the paranoid counterpart to Eliza) or that elusive software we remember but can never find that built word chains from text called George.

We’ve written about Eliza before. If you want to experiment with Prolog and you like Pokémon, you’ll appreciate this tutorial.

Machine Learning COFFIES “Hears” Sunspots Before We Can See Them

In this age of neural net “AI”, even the most skeptical of Butlerians have to agree that these machine learning models can be very, very good at pattern recognition if nothing else. NASA is on the same page, and to take advantage of that pattern recognition, they’ve built a machine learning module called COFFIES, which stands for Consequence Of Fields and Flows in the Interior and Exterior of the Sun, because at NASA everything is an acronym, or at least a backronym. Like most such names, this one is at least vaguely descriptive: the model is trying to predict what’s going on in the material flows and magnetic fields deep within our local star, and using those inferences is able to predict active regions– that’s sunspots to us chickens — up to 12 hours before they visibly form.

Continue reading “Machine Learning COFFIES “Hears” Sunspots Before We Can See Them”

This Week In Security: BugTraq, AI Hacks, And Being Dumb On Planes

After a multi-year hiatus, the venerable BugTraq mailing list is back!

For decades, BugTraq was the place where vulnerabilities were disclosed, from the early days when nearly all vendors viewed all security research as a hostile force, through to the modern era of working with vendors to coordinate disclosing bugs. With the rise of bug bounty programs and other social changes, the mailing list slowly died: what started in 1993 ended in 2021 is returning. The new maintainer, Jonathan Brossard, says in his announcement “The mission is unchanged: full disclosure, researcher-first, no corporate filter.”

Don’t Be Dumb on Planes

In the unlikely event anyone here needs to be told: Don’t do dumb things on planes.

It seems that someone coming home from from the DEF CON hacker conference in Las Vegas decided to mess with the in-plane WiFi, and is likely now in the “find out” phase of doing something dumb. There hasn’t been any public followup beyond the original reports: a passenger on a Delta flight leaving Las Vegas brought up a fake WiFi hotspot named “Delta WiFi FAST” to trick other passengers into connecting, and attempted to disable the in-flight WiFi using a denial of service attack.

Continue reading “This Week In Security: BugTraq, AI Hacks, And Being Dumb On Planes”

Musing On AI From 1964

[Irving John Good] was at Trinity College, Oxford back in 1964. His paper, “Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine” could have been a topic for today, as we deal with machines that aren’t really ultraintelligent, but appear smart and think they are even smarter. He starts off with a bold thesis: “The survival of man depends on the early construction of an ultraintelligent machine.”

He also admits that we’ll need to understand more about the human brain and human thought to make a breakthrough. This is still true today. However, we still don’t fully understand how our brains work, but it seems unlikely that we are just super-large LLMs. Not that [Good] anticipated the modern chatbot. Perhaps his comments will apply more to a future AI software that actually thinks like a human, if there will ever be such a thing.

Then again, there are many parallels. One theme in the paper is that a smart machine will design a smarter machine. Unless, of course, it is afraid of being replaced. If a machine were actually sentient, what are the ethics of turning it off and tearing it apart?

Continue reading “Musing On AI From 1964”