4 ms·

I actually feed google false information (select rectangular objects when asked to select traffic signs, flat surfaces when asked for water surfaces, and so on)

I actually feed google false information (select rectangular objects when asked to select traffic signs, flat surfaces when asked for water surfaces, and so on). It'll probably be filtered out when aggregated with other users, but I like to think that I'm at least influencing it even if a little. I wouldn't have a problem if they'd open the data set, but I'm not exactly keen on being forced to work for free.

arjie 10y ago
So you'd do the work if it were not productive but not otherwise? Like, if they just threw away your input into the CAPTCHA after confirming you're human, you're okay with that? Or do you just hate CAPTCHAs on principle?
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  this comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd7fE9_7_7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd7fE9_7_7A
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  It's an ethical distinction for some. I am completely fine with a type of captcha that helps improve some public domain or free/libre licensed resource (e.g., proofreading words scanned from public domain works). I am not okay with helping some megacorporation sanitize their proprietary database or training their machine learning neural networks for free. As mentioned elsewhere in this topic; I'd much rather spend some of my free time to help improve OpenStreetMap (and I do).
  - arjie 10y ago
    But what if it's a generic captcha. It doesn't improve anything. Are you okay with that?
    - m_t 10y ago
      A generic captcha doesn't use the work done by the user. I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think I can guess what could be their answer.
      - arjie 10y ago
        What would it be? It's not clear to me. Going from throwing away the work to improving Google's image recognition is a Pareto improvement so I'm interested in the justification.
        yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
        Not everyone is using the same ethical model as you?
        arjie 10y ago
        Probably. If they were why would I ask them to justify their position? It would trivially correspond with mine.
        Freak_NL 10y ago
        But to me this is not a Pareto improvement (i.e., this is subjective). I consider the bolstering of the hold Google (and Apple, and Amazon, and Microsoft) has over a number of common domains (and in a broader sense our lives) to be undesirable and unethical. So when I correctly teach Google's proprietary image recognition software what a traffic sign, mountain, store front (ugh, these are the worst), or tree is, I am (even in the strict economic sense of a Pareto improvement) harming myself.
        arjie 10y ago
        Ah. All Right. Thanks.
- michaelt 10y ago
  Imagine you're at an airport and an inspector takes your batteries out of your luggage. All other things being equal, does it matter if he tosses them in the trash, or keeps them for his personal use? From one perspective it doesn't matter - your batteries are gone either way. But from another perspective, inspectors who keep what they find have completely different motivations - making the same outcome much more sinister and corrupt.
  - quickben 10y ago
    For a more accurate money analogy: Imagine he resells them.
  - arjie 10y ago
    It makes sense there because the actual consequences are undesirable. What are the undesirable consequences we're incentivising here? That Google will cover the entire web in captchas?
    - kuschku 10y ago
      That Google gets an unfair advantage compared to other companies, making it harder to start a new company able to compete with Google on Machine Learning? (Which is already impossible, because Google uses the knowledge from ReCaptcha, GMail, etc unfairly)
kasperni 10y ago
But you use their service for free, right?
- goodplay 10y ago
  Neither the host or google ask for money in exchange for their services. The profitability of their chosen business model is not my concern. If they want something in return, perhaps they should consider setting up a paywall.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    What's going to stop you from just stealing the content from behind the paywall because the profitability of their chosen business model is not your concern?
    - goodplay 10y ago
      Their competence in restricting access to the information and preventing its decimation, I suppose.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        And you really believe that to be ethical and normal? Do you apply those same beliefs to the physical world? Is it okay to just take goods and services with no payment as long as you are physically able to?
        goodplay 10y ago
        No, I do not believe it is okay to take physical goods or receive services with no payment. I do however believe that people should be free to send and receive any information they wish, regardless of the wishes of the "owner" of said information. Sharing information without the right holder's involvement will not make them loose access to it. If you, as a site owner, don't want people to share information your server sent to their computers, implement strong DRM or don't allow off-premise access altogether. You might loose many prospective users, but at least your information will remain "safe". Probably. If you want to share information on a website but can't think of a reasonable way to make money of it, that's your problem, not mine. Lastly, I fail to see how a discussion on copyright relates to recaptchas or even site-owners' failed business models. Unless you can get this thread back on topic, perhaps we should continue this (most likely frutless) discussion somewhere else.
kalleboo 10y ago
4chan used to have a campaign where they'd collectively replace the obviously-unknown word in the ReCaptcha text captchas with the n-word to poison the results...

arjie 10y ago

So you'd do the work if it were not productive but not otherwise? Like, if they just threw away your input into the CAPTCHA after confirming you're human, you're okay with that? Or do you just hate CAPTCHAs on principle?

gnarbarian 10y ago
this comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd7fE9_7_7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd7fE9_7_7A
Freak_NL 10y ago
It's an ethical distinction for some. I am completely fine with a type of captcha that helps improve some public domain or free/libre licensed resource (e.g., proofreading words scanned from public domain works). I am not okay with helping some megacorporation sanitize their proprietary database or training their machine learning neural networks for free. As mentioned elsewhere in this topic; I'd much rather spend some of my free time to help improve OpenStreetMap (and I do).
- arjie 10y ago
  But what if it's a generic captcha. It doesn't improve anything. Are you okay with that?
  - m_t 10y ago
    A generic captcha doesn't use the work done by the user. I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think I can guess what could be their answer.
    - arjie 10y ago
      What would it be? It's not clear to me. Going from throwing away the work to improving Google's image recognition is a Pareto improvement so I'm interested in the justification.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
        Not everyone is using the same ethical model as you?
        arjie 10y ago
        Probably. If they were why would I ask them to justify their position? It would trivially correspond with mine.
      - Freak_NL 10y ago
        But to me this is not a Pareto improvement (i.e., this is subjective). I consider the bolstering of the hold Google (and Apple, and Amazon, and Microsoft) has over a number of common domains (and in a broader sense our lives) to be undesirable and unethical. So when I correctly teach Google's proprietary image recognition software what a traffic sign, mountain, store front (ugh, these are the worst), or tree is, I am (even in the strict economic sense of a Pareto improvement) harming myself.
        arjie 10y ago
        Ah. All Right. Thanks.
michaelt 10y ago
Imagine you're at an airport and an inspector takes your batteries out of your luggage. All other things being equal, does it matter if he tosses them in the trash, or keeps them for his personal use? From one perspective it doesn't matter - your batteries are gone either way. But from another perspective, inspectors who keep what they find have completely different motivations - making the same outcome much more sinister and corrupt.
- quickben 10y ago
  For a more accurate money analogy: Imagine he resells them.
- arjie 10y ago
  It makes sense there because the actual consequences are undesirable. What are the undesirable consequences we're incentivising here? That Google will cover the entire web in captchas?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    That Google gets an unfair advantage compared to other companies, making it harder to start a new company able to compete with Google on Machine Learning? (Which is already impossible, because Google uses the knowledge from ReCaptcha, GMail, etc unfairly)

kasperni 10y ago

But you use their service for free, right?

goodplay 10y ago
Neither the host or google ask for money in exchange for their services. The profitability of their chosen business model is not my concern. If they want something in return, perhaps they should consider setting up a paywall.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  What's going to stop you from just stealing the content from behind the paywall because the profitability of their chosen business model is not your concern?
  - goodplay 10y ago
    Their competence in restricting access to the information and preventing its decimation, I suppose.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      And you really believe that to be ethical and normal? Do you apply those same beliefs to the physical world? Is it okay to just take goods and services with no payment as long as you are physically able to?
      - goodplay 10y ago
        No, I do not believe it is okay to take physical goods or receive services with no payment. I do however believe that people should be free to send and receive any information they wish, regardless of the wishes of the "owner" of said information. Sharing information without the right holder's involvement will not make them loose access to it. If you, as a site owner, don't want people to share information your server sent to their computers, implement strong DRM or don't allow off-premise access altogether. You might loose many prospective users, but at least your information will remain "safe". Probably. If you want to share information on a website but can't think of a reasonable way to make money of it, that's your problem, not mine. Lastly, I fail to see how a discussion on copyright relates to recaptchas or even site-owners' failed business models. Unless you can get this thread back on topic, perhaps we should continue this (most likely frutless) discussion somewhere else.

kalleboo 10y ago

4chan used to have a campaign where they'd collectively replace the obviously-unknown word in the ReCaptcha text captchas with the n-word to poison the results...