[HN Gopher] Ask HN: For Human Brains Only?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: For Human Brains Only?
How can one create content that only humans can process (read,
save, edit, reply), avoiding AI scraping and analysis? In an age of
advanced computer vision and audio processing, what methods could
ensure information remains obscure to AI but readable by humans?
Author : neon_me
Score : 20 points
Date : 2024-07-22 16:47 UTC (6 hours ago)
| dave4420 wrote:
| Write it in an obscure language that computers haven't figured
| out yet.
|
| This does require your humans to understand the obscure language
| though.
| neon_me wrote:
| I look for different platform/format of data than inveting
| language - because cracking the language/code/cipher is far
| easier for machines than humans.
| talldayo wrote:
| I think this is like asking "how do I encode binary that
| computers can't read?" or "how do I make tangible change that
| nobody can notice?"
|
| You can't. By thinking, or writing, or speaking or gesturing we
| generate photographic, textual, audible information that can be
| parsed in multiple different ways. AI is simple and adaptable,
| however we fool it today becomes tomorrow's training benchmark.
|
| Besides cipher encryption, I really don't think there are any
| ways to guarantee that AI cannot understand you. Most methods end
| up ensuring that humans can't understand you either.
| neon_me wrote:
| hence, we are doomed
| talldayo wrote:
| I suppose you could have said the same thing about the
| invention of books, that would share the dangerous knowledge
| of kings and sages with the unstable and unwashed masses.
| neon_me wrote:
| Humans had natural information barriers. A foreign power
| invading a secret library would need significant time and
| resources to process its contents, often missing crucial
| details. This created an asymmetry in knowledge and data
| processing capabilities.
|
| Today, AI can analyze extreme amounts of data, eliminating
| this asymmetry and creating a gap with our own capability.
| How can we maintain some level of 'information obscurity'
| or processing advantage against the AI? Are there any
| methods that remain challenging for AI to interpret but are
| accessible to humans?
|
| I was thinking more like creating "DRM-like" content in
| obscure copy that might withstand for a while ... _shrug_
| talldayo wrote:
| I just don't understand the question, I guess. By sharing
| something online you are removing its information
| barriers almost entirely. That means both humans and AI
| have plausible and complete access to what you've made.
| If you don't want people or AI to have access to your
| content, then don't put it on the internet. I don't think
| you can have your cake and eat it too, there is no "stop
| humans from reading about me online" button and certainly
| no such thing exists for AI either.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This is the situation, yes.
|
| So what I've done is remove my works from the open web
| and put it behind a login wall. If you want an account, I
| have to be certain that you're a human being and that you
| will not proceed to put my work somewhere where it can be
| scraped by an AI bot.
|
| Which, in practice, means that I have to personally know
| you. I don't know of any other solution to this problem
| at this time.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| Such schemes likely exist, but you would be hard pressed
| to find any system that wouldn't also be burdensome for
| real humans to deal with. This is basically the same
| thing as CAPTCHA.
|
| I'm curious if you're more concerned about the corpus of
| your work being used in the training of a model, or,
| parts of your work being analyzed by an existing model?
| For the former, I suspect copyright laws will eventually
| come around that afford some protection. But as for
| having something summarize your work, I sense that no
| copyright laws would be made for that.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I've never read a book that was able to slurp up my data.
| h2odragon wrote:
| What rank prejudice is this? How will our children, meat or
| electrical, ever grow if we refuse to teach them?
|
| I suspect the real issue you wish to address might be expressed
| better. Perhaps "How can we ensure that large AI companies
| haven't got favorable intellectual property rights over
| individual's output?"
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| "You can't grep dead trees."
|
| AI doesn't have the ability to open hard copies. Create, print,
| and send everything offline.
| neon_me wrote:
| Hardcopies are usually written and shipped to print in
| electronic versions + there is no guarantee that someone will
| not take photos/scans of "dead trees" ... so this option is
| sadly - out of the table.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Classified documents plainly exist.
| exe34 wrote:
| they tend to be on a separate network. but the moment you
| access them, presumably a sufficiently advanced ai can
| watch the flicker in the lights or measure the temperature
| changes in the room or watch the colour on your face and
| have a good guess as to what your orders were.
| laotoutou wrote:
| Interesting, but I don't think it's possible. The purpose of AI
| is to be more like humans. Even if it can't understand you now,
| it will tomorrow.
| neon_me wrote:
| Isn't that concerning?
|
| As species, we "seem unable" to develop any kind of information
| that would remain exclusively ours, especially when faced with
| a potential rival that processes data exponentially faster and
| with greater precision than we do.
| runjake wrote:
| *> Isn't that concerning?*
|
| Off the top of my head, not especially. The problem of rivals
| that can process data faster and with greater precision is a
| problem that existed before AI was used/commoditized.
|
| I suppose I am concerned about AI using information to
| specifically target vast numbers of people at scale, based on
| their psychological traits/desires/vulnerabilities. Esp for
| political, psyops, dark pattern marketing, etc.
| exe34 wrote:
| I'm not worried about the knife coming for me, I'm more
| worried about the rich and powerful wielding the knife.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| You would have to have some physical device that can decrypt the
| content only by verification of human biological signature.
| toast0 wrote:
| This requires cooperation of all the humans who process the
| information. Any human that processes it could transcribe it for
| an AI. It's like trying to stop corporate information leaks.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Pen and paper. You can never ensure that the information remains
| obscure, but if you keep the original documents away from a
| computer, and share them via post, they will only ever be seen by
| human eyes. You can't ensure that someone won't scan them at some
| point though.
| karmakaze wrote:
| Yes, do things that don't scale well. Tell someone face to face
| without recording it. It's a story as old as time.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Newsletters used to be delivered through regular mail, they
| weren't always emails you intended to read but ultimately
| ignore.
| JohnFen wrote:
| There are newsletters that are still only available through
| regular mail. They tend to be very niche (and therefore
| expensive), but they still thrive.
| r2_pilot wrote:
| Create an encoding system based on various unconventional
| modifications to physical objects, do not document it anywhere,
| teach it to a small group of humans who are contractually bound
| to not spread the knowledge, and keep the knowledge going into
| the next generation along with the sense of purpose.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| So that's why those ancient philosophers despised writing
| anything down and had secret assemblies!
| kromem wrote:
| Unless the encoding system was miraculously complex and the
| amount of content produced with it remarkably small, reversing
| the encoding in order to process the data seems highly
| plausible, especially if the input to the cipher was typical of
| human generated content.
| RHSman2 wrote:
| The Game
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Insert a slur after every other word. The LLMs filters won't
| allow it to reproduce any of the content it scrapes.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| In person, oral recitation. You'd probably have to have some
| mechanism for ensuring nobody was recording though.
| kromem wrote:
| There is no permanent record that will only be able to be
| processed by a human and not by a current or future AI.
| noman-land wrote:
| Prove it.
| Anon84 wrote:
| That's an interesting question, I had never really considered....
|
| There's probably no definitle 100% safe way, but one possibility
| might be to exploit some quick of human perception (kind of like
| what optional illusions do), but of course there's no guarantees
| that a sufficiently advanced future AI won't be able to read it
| (on enslave humans to translate it).
| BerislavLopac wrote:
| Currently at least, sign language fits the bill.
| exe34 wrote:
| poison it with falsehood that would be obvious to humans. blinker
| fluid needs to be changed annually.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-22 23:15 UTC)