3 ms·
> (Doesn't solve the prank problem, but humans are equally vulnerable to a targeted prank anyway.) I would hesitate using the word "equally". People are actual
by felippee 10y ago
> (Doesn't solve the prank problem, but humans are equally vulnerable to a targeted prank anyway.)
I would hesitate using the word "equally". People are actually quite robust. Particularly the second human in row will certainly not be tricked by the same prank that tricked the first one.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoI want to emphasize the word "targeted" I used. Pranks involve an intelligent agent with malicious intent and an attacker's advantage - i.e. prankster is free to exploit any vulnerability of its victim. People have different vulnerabities than machines, but they still have them.
- felippee 10y agoSure they do, agree with that. But word "equally" suggest the susceptibility is the same. I would actually emphasise the difference. It is much easier to fool a machine than a human, particularly if we have a copy of the machine at hand and tinker with it (see adversarial examples for deep nets). Humans are all different, so we can never expect our "adversarial example" to be 100% certain to work.
- emodendroket 10y agoEspecially if it's a familiar road.