9 ms·
Man scammed after AI told him fake Facebook customer support number was real
- noAnswer 2y agoAn older client got scammed by a fake Amazon-Hotline. They bought a XBox-gift-card while on his PC via Teamviewer, till he pulled the power cored. He then called me and I tried to find the official Amazon-Hotline on amazon.de. Since I was unable to find it I had to asked a search engine. The only results where third-party sites. It where from journalistic magazines I recognize (like chip.de) but still yet another gamble.
- jug 2y agoYes, AI in its current form is going to be a problem. I'm sure we haven't heard the worst yet. An AI may eventually kill a user. I believe the heart of the problem is that corporations are riding a hype wave as long as they can, and an AI chat looks like super convincing, next level stuff thanks to the simple interface that hides the fact that you cannot communicate with this one as you would with a human being. You use natural language and it responds with natural language, which makes it not only convenient, but also dangerous. There's money to gain on all this. While at the same time, hallucinations are an unsolved problem as well as making AI humble enough to realize and tell users that they just don't know. The combination of hallucinating, raising convincing arguments, being confidently incorrect, and not knowing the boundaries of your knowledge base, is a terrible one to let loose as officially sanctioned products.
- bitnasty 2y agoThis is the real danger of AI, forget the “singularity” or any of that sci-fi crap. AI is going to destroy the average human’s already suffering reasoning ability.
- e40 2y agoMy 89 yr old data called "AMEX" and was scammed. He googled the number for AMEX and took the top result (he says, I did not witness this). I'm across the country, so that zoom session was quite tedious (it took us an hour to get the permissions straightened out for zoom to be able to share his screen).
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago> (he says, I did not witness this) He's speaking the truth. Google has, for a long while now, let scammers just buy advertisements to get their fake scam page to the top of the results. And not just major banks, various open source software have been subject to this exact attack. It's imperative for security that you install adblockers on all their devices.
- e40 2y agoYep, I had. uBlock Origin, but he uses Safari sometimes. He doesn't really know the difference between Chrome and Safari. I'll check it this weekend when I zoom with him. Thanks.
- lupire 2y agoThe AI information was 99% correct. Only 1 word was wrong.
- noman-land 2y agoYeah it said "kill" instead of "save". Oops.
- jay-barronville 2y agoOne of the things about LLM-based AI that concerns me the most is realizing that the average person doesn’t understand that they hallucinate (or even what hallucination is). I was listening to a debate on a podcast a while ago and one of the debaters kept saying, “Well, according to ChatGPT, […]”—it was incredibly difficult listening to her repeatedly use ChatGPT as her source. It was obvious she genuinely believed ChatGPT was reliable, and frankly, I don’t blame her, because when LLM’s hallucinate, they do so confidently.
- jhawleypeters 2y agoIf it did that, it’s not intelligent, not “AI”. Let’s agree to stop abusing the term AI, for the sake of people like this.
- cmcconomy 2y agoif companies are held liable for LLM provided info, we will begin to see appropriate use
- nojvek 2y agoThis right here is where AI safety counts.
- davidjnr0987 2y ago[dead]
- Etherlord87 2y agoI'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know how it is in any English-speaking country, but when I ask my Polish friends about the word "epistemology", they just don't know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology According to Google: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion. Even though they wouldn't know the term, we all learn how to figure out what's true and what's not: we learn it when watching cartoons about lying, or when interpreting texts in school and so on. But imagine you go to a doctor, and have a small talk in which you say "I was always fascinated by medicine", to which the doc responds "What is medicine?" - you probably would run away from that doctor. And yet here we are, living in the "Information Era", and yet we're still missing the very basic techniques of figuring out the truth: if you look at the statistics of religion/atheism, no group holds over 50% of population - meaning THE MAJORITY IS WRONG - and not on a nuanced thing like the majority not being able to tell the average distance between the Earth and the Moon with 1 meter accuracy. No, on something as important and world-view defining as the existence and character of God, most of us are wrong. The percentage of flat-earthers in America is a 2-digit number... So the problem here isn't that Facebook doesn't have a support number. The problem is much deeper, and in a way, it's good that people suffer from their stupidity: it's like programmers suffering from errors - in the end of the day they end up with their logical thinking improved. Question is: how do we reshape the society to replace production errors with compilation errors, or how do we educate ourselves to minimize the frustrating error messages.
- chrisjj 2y agoThis does not add up. How did the Meta CS scammer get in to the PayPal account?
- hnuser0000 2y ago>The woman [from fake tech support] said she would clear the hackers out, but he had to give her access to his phone through an app she had him download.
- chrisjj 2y agoSure, but nothing in story says he did do that.
- mvdtnz 2y agoThat doesn't answer the question. No app on any Android or iPhone phone can reach out and take your PayPal credentials. These scam victims never own up to the most important fact - that they themselves give away the keys to the castle. There's always some hand-wavy techy explanation.
- asadotzler 2y agoEasy enough to drop a remote access app or a fake Paypal app and let the idiot user put their credential into it.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago> These scam victims never own up to the most important fact - that they themselves give away the keys to the castle. I bet they were wearing a real short skirt, too.
- mvdtnz 2y agoWhat?
- 2y ago
- simonw 2y agoThis one is pretty bad. This guy found a fake Facebook customer support phone number in a Google search, then asked the Meta AI chat in Facebook Messenger if the number he found was a real Facebook help line... and Meta AI said that it was. There's a screenshot of the chat in the article.
- naveen99 2y agoMeta ai is so bad. What did they really do with all those h100’s ?
- CoastalCoder 2y agoThis reminds me of that recent issue with a Canadian airline, where (IIRC) a court ruled that their chatbot made a wrong, but binding, commitment to a customer. I'm curious if a Canadian court would hold Meta liable for the man's losses in this case as well.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoThat was a very interesting case. The chatbot in question was not LLM based (the incident was pre-chatGPT in any case) and was simply parroting an out of date or incorrect policy that it had been explicitly programmed to do. It seemed to gain a lot more traction in the press because of LLMs. "Air Canada forced to honor terms and conditions on their website" is a whole lot less interesting. This FB thing is a case of an LLM simply hallucinating without direct human intervention. Very different cases from a computer science perspective. My hope is that legally, they don't get viewed differently. If you outsource functions of your business to a third party contractor you are still responsible for what they do and say. I don't think we should allow companies to weasel out of their obligations because they were dumb enough to let a sentence generator loose in a way that it could make commitments.
- jessriedel 2y agoYea, it’s certainly a reasonable argument if the wrong information comes from the company itself.
- DueDilligence 2y ago[dead]
- not_your_vase 2y agoAs a millenial, I'm more amazed that someone willingly uses a phone for non-mandatory and not-burningly-urgent phonecalls... why on earth would anyone do that is way beyond me.
- mrweasel 2y agoNot sure why throwing in the randomly assigned label of millennial, but fine, I also fall in the category and I've taken to just calling people and companies. First of all, understand that many especially smaller companies have people who has the job of answering phone calls. Rather than doing a multi day back and forth via email or chat where you're one out of five that "agent" is currently servicing, calling is really really efficient. Clarification and confirmations are instant, alternatives can be quickly discuses. I call because it's efficient. Also, have you ever noticed that most people SUCK at email? Try sending an email to company with two or more questions. What will happen is that you'll get an answer for the first question and then they forget about the rest. The larger the company the more likely this is to happen, because they can deal with three issues in one support ticket, at least that's my theory. So now you need three email. I used to hate calling people, but I found that I hated uncertainty more and I hate getting wrong half answers to my questions. Calling people fixes all of this. Always call, but get confirmation in writing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwaway22032 2y agoAI has kind of fucked this, but for me (also millenial) I prefer to speak to real people because they are intelligent beings with roughly the same motivations as me and usually want to help out their fellow man. For example, I can call a local store and ask "hi, do you have this item in stock, can you check on the shelf and set it aside for me please, I will be there in 25 mins". By contrast stuff like "click and collect" order flows online are super rigid.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago> I prefer to speak to real people Thanks to AI, you will speak to who you think is a "real person"... I remember, some time ago, some scammer tried to get my wife to address an "urgent bank issue." What tipped her off, was how incredibly good their "tech support" was.
- finack 2y agoI look forward to this never happening again and not becoming a massive problem for the next 10 years.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoNot to apologize for the irresponsible deployment of this chatbot but it should be noted that the guy got the number from a Google search (think about the results you'd get for "facebook support number"). It's been a massive problem for at least the last 10 years.
- nevermore24 2y agoIt's unfortunate that Google is unable to solve this intractable technical problem.
- _cs2017_ 2y agoSeems like this information came from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-1-844-457-1420-really-Facebook-support https://www.quora.com/Is-1-844-457-1420-really-Facebook-supp.... Screenshot: https://postimg.cc/gallery/2nFq5Cm https://postimg.cc/gallery/2nFq5Cm. I suspect the helpful SEO guy who posted this answer was trying to get more visibility on Quora so answered many questions automatically or semi-automatically without verifying anything. This is the beginning of the post: Ruhul Alom Social Media Marketer at Social MediaAuthor has 2.9K answers and 1M answer views6mo My dear ! Yes, 1-844-457-1420 is a valid Facebook support phone number. It is a toll-free number that is available 24/7. You can call this number to get help with a variety of Facebook issues, such as: Resetting your password Logging in to your account Recovering a hacked account [...]
- jfengel 2y agoI see a ton of this on Quora. Not just for Facebook, but for a lot of online banks and others. They have hundreds of accounts doing it. Quora doesn't even pretend to police this kind of thing. Automated moderation might remove it, only after it has been reported. There's far, far too much of it for users to report all of it. Nobody pays attention to it on Quora, but it's clear that it's out there to poison AI and search engines.
- guluarte 2y agoI doubt they even care https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aquora.com+valid+Facebook+1-800 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aquora.com+valid+Faceb...
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe "helpful SEO guy" likely is (or was hired by) the scammer. StackOverflow gets lots of fake posts like this promoting numbers. Around tax time there's a lot of Quicken ones.
- dylan604 2y agoSee, this is what confuses me to know end. Not once, ever, have I thought of asking an online forum for a phone number. Maybe I'm paranoid enough after all??? Also, I'm old, so I actually visit companies webpages. We've been through enough "don't fall for phishing" enough now, right? You don't trust links, phone numbers, whatever from anything that is not the official places for that information.
- maxbond 2y ago> What he didn't know at the time is there is no phone number for Facebook customer support. Part of the problem here is that Facebook (though in fairness, they are not unique here) has left this traditional path of escalation void, leaving only fake numbers. They don't even have a real number to play a recorded message affirming that there is no ability to call. ETA: For instance, I notice Facebook appears to own the typo squat `facrbook.com`. I feel like it's the same principle, though I assume toll free numbers are more expensive.
- Thadawan 2y ago“There is a phone number for Meta online. When CBC called it, an automated recording said, ‘Please note that we are unable to provide telephone support at this time,’ and directed callers to meta.com/help.”
- maxbond 2y agoMy mistake. Thanks for the correction.
- gravescale 2y ago> Please note that we are unable to provide telephone support at this time Mealy-mouthed corporate lying horeshit. They are able, just unwilling. If free-market libertarianism is as great as the tech bros want us to think, why do these companies lie so much and so often despite the need for participants in the market to be correctly and full informed so they can make rational decisions?
- worble 2y ago>Part of the problem here is that Facebook (though in fairness, they are not unique here) has left this traditional path of escalation void, leaving only fake numbers. Frankly it's absurd to me that it's legal to do so. Any public facing company that is sufficiently large should be required by law to operate a phone service where you can talk to a real human being. All of these huge mega corps are run with absolute impunity and there is often absolutely 0 avenue for regular everyday people to get in touch when they have issues. They direct you in these endless loops to FAQ's and "Community Resources"; even getting an email address is like getting blood from stone sometimes.
- croes 2y agoThis will get worse when scammers get good at data manipulation for AIs. After SEO we'll get AIO. Same with prompt injection by malware.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ItCouldBeWorse 2y agoThe tolerance of society for social experiments, entrepreneurial and ai is something we consider allmende, but we are currently building up a solid "anti" sentiment against all of it, liberalism, disruptive technology and i can imagine a "Luddite" party like MAGA shutting it all down hard and fast in the future. I can already imagine some future bureaucracy, evaluating any business idea suggested for scam and harm potential and ending most of them before they even start. And this stuff right here is, where it was born. The prison holding your future self, it was planted right here. _____________________________________________________ Everything ever worth reading was written in the Pre-Collapse internet. So why not become a software-archeologist - digging for the golden past? Exhume it, get it back running, bring it all back, perfectly fine, software, books, games, our decadent ancestors abandoned and threw away to write off as rust. You too can help, rediscovering a past that worked better, untainted by AI, not yet riddled with Add-HD-Adds, when developers still had to be competent and companies still competed. Meet hot dig-site-teams near you- now. Join Past-Querries-Quary Inc. Can we dig it, yes we can!
- 29athrowaway 2y agoThat's what you get by trusting a stochastic parrot.
- Bluestein 2y agoTwice scammed: Once by throwing away his life by having an F'book account. Then, the support scam.-
- Bluestein 2y agoI understand the downvotes and that it might be an unpopular position, but an empire built on stealing people's attention, through addiction, and one scientifically proven again and again to cause serious mental issues on vulnerable demographics (teens), deserves to be shamed.-
- fckgw 2y agodamn dude you got his ass good
- ffhhj 2y agoZuck must be proud.
- RecycledEle 2y agoThis reminds me of the time I reported a fake PayPal email saying my account had been suspended to PayPal. The woman who answered the phone for PayPal told me very emphatically that I HAD BETTER HURRY UP AND DO EVERYTHING THEY TOLD ME TO!
- CrazyStat 2y agoMy bank's phone reps have repeatedly asked for the 6-digit 2FA code that comes in a text saying WE WILL NEVER ASK FOR THIS CODE OVER THE PHONE.
- wasimanitoba 2y agoTheir answer to me is "but you called us", which is fair, but they could just rephrase the message to "WE WILL NEVER CONTACT YOU TO ASK FOR THIS CODE"
- CrazyStat 2y agoExactly!
- baobabKoodaa 2y agoWhen I worked on a customer facing chatbot at my previous employer, we specifically wrote in the prompt "our customer service is not reachable by phone", and we tested that the chatbot was able to use that information and respond appropriately. But I guess you can't expect a tiny startup like Facebook to invest money into having 1 employee part-time tweaking the prompt of the chatbot to respond appropriately to commonly recurring user questions.
- resoluteteeth 2y agoWas the chatbot you worked on using an LLM?
- baobabKoodaa 2y agoYes
- bilalq 2y agoAgain and again we see that LLMs are great for creative output and terrible for anything where correctness matters. You should only use it for the latter scenarios when generating answers is slow/hard/expensive, but verification of answers is quick/easy/cheap. Probabilistic and non-deterministic answers have their place, but these companies marketing them in products need to do a better job expressing the limitations.
- mrweasel 2y agoIt shows an amazing lack of understanding for what an LLM is, even from the people selling and implementing them. You're exactly right in that they are terrible if correctness matters, but that should be obvious. If they where 100% correct, the size of the models would be much larger, as they'd need to retain all the original training data. You can use the LLMs for language understand and interpreting questions, but the would need access to databases containing authoritative answers and not answer anything for which they don't have an answer.
- Magi604 2y agoI'm terrified of this happening to my elderly parents. It's why, even though it can be time consuming, I always have them run "tech support" issues (no matter how small) through me or my bro in law so some foreign scammer doesn't drain their accounts.