4 ms·

I see this argument a lot and considered it the case to, but I have to wonder if that really is the case. Wouldn't google be empowering people to really mess up

I see this argument a lot and considered it the case to, but I have to wonder if that really is the case. Wouldn't google be empowering people to really mess up their training data? If I'm trying to automate a system to fool their captcha, I'm probably getting a lot of bad results. Or I could just be intentionally feeding them bad data, the fact that not being allowed through captcha keeps letting me make more and more inputs would enable someone to do that as long as they would like to. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

croon 9y ago
> I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. The thing you're missing is volume. Even if you assume the vast majority of people will attempt to mess up your data, when you have enough people doing it, you can look at them on aggregate and based on patterns disregard bad data. It might be "expensive", but still worth it.
kabes 9y ago
I believe they cross-check between different users. I believe it used to work something like this on the old recaptcha system (the one with the words or house numbers): They show you 2. 1 is known by recaptcha, the other one isn't. If you enter the known one correctly, you can enter. The unknown one is presented to other users and when there is enough consensus amonst users it is promoted to a known one. So it's hard to mess with the system as an individual.