4 ms·

The lack of empathy of the responses here saddens me. I sincerely hope none of your parents or grandparents are scammed. And I hope you are all educating your l

The lack of empathy of the responses here saddens me. I sincerely hope none of your parents or grandparents are scammed. And I hope you are all educating your loved ones on the threat of scams in this new era when AI fakes are so easy and realistic.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
They lack empathy because doing something about this would likely harm their salary or create regulation.
f1shy 2y ago
Mmm more your ex wife… she was 53, which is pretty much in the age range of HN
- daveguy 2y ago
  Yeah, she's not the best poster-girl for the problem, apparently getting a divorce for her scammer, and having a daughter who warned her after she was duped (much more difficult to accept due to sunk cost and embarrassment). But her relative age just highlights how you don't have to be 95 to fall for these scams when fakes are getting so good. I should have said, I hope you are warning and educating your parents, grandparents, spouses, children. Please inform your loved ones why it's important to never trust unsolicited communication.
ttoinou 2y ago
Criticising, being realistic, seeing through lies and being empathic are not exclusive. We can do all of those things at the same time. The fakes were not realistic here, it didnt need any AI and most people who are mocking her here read more about the topic than you apparently
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Agree2468 2y ago
I've thought about this and probably should, especially since my parents got divorced recently. But I haven't really thought of a way to bring it up tactfully without being patronizing. Any ideas?
- daveguy 2y ago
  My parents responded well starting from a discussion of "Have you seen how good AI imitations are these days? Voice, images, even video..." I don't think safety rules themselves are patronizing, especially considering how good the tech is: "Never trust a conversation you didn't initiate no matter who the other party claims to be or how good, bad, or urgent it sounds." Generally this doesn't count known communications with friends and family through known channels. It would take a lot more security failures to mistrust known good channels (but it can still happen! eg spoofed caller ID). Another rule of thumb is to ask yourself, "How would I go about addressing this directly if I hadn't been contacted about it." E.g. the website, app, support line from the main site, etc. Always best to go to known channels, especially for anything financial. Even better not to even answer/respond to unknown contacts if you can avoid it. (Not always possible with work / kids school / etc.) I agree, I wouldn't use this article as an example, because it does include a lot of poor judgement along the way. But there are plenty of examples of how good AI imitation has become lately.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

They lack empathy because doing something about this would likely harm their salary or create regulation.

f1shy 2y ago

Mmm more your ex wife… she was 53, which is pretty much in the age range of HN

daveguy 2y ago
Yeah, she's not the best poster-girl for the problem, apparently getting a divorce for her scammer, and having a daughter who warned her after she was duped (much more difficult to accept due to sunk cost and embarrassment). But her relative age just highlights how you don't have to be 95 to fall for these scams when fakes are getting so good. I should have said, I hope you are warning and educating your parents, grandparents, spouses, children. Please inform your loved ones why it's important to never trust unsolicited communication.

ttoinou 2y ago

Criticising, being realistic, seeing through lies and being empathic are not exclusive. We can do all of those things at the same time. The fakes were not realistic here, it didnt need any AI and most people who are mocking her here read more about the topic than you apparently

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Agree2468 2y ago

I've thought about this and probably should, especially since my parents got divorced recently. But I haven't really thought of a way to bring it up tactfully without being patronizing. Any ideas?

daveguy 2y ago
My parents responded well starting from a discussion of "Have you seen how good AI imitations are these days? Voice, images, even video..." I don't think safety rules themselves are patronizing, especially considering how good the tech is: "Never trust a conversation you didn't initiate no matter who the other party claims to be or how good, bad, or urgent it sounds." Generally this doesn't count known communications with friends and family through known channels. It would take a lot more security failures to mistrust known good channels (but it can still happen! eg spoofed caller ID). Another rule of thumb is to ask yourself, "How would I go about addressing this directly if I hadn't been contacted about it." E.g. the website, app, support line from the main site, etc. Always best to go to known channels, especially for anything financial. Even better not to even answer/respond to unknown contacts if you can avoid it. (Not always possible with work / kids school / etc.) I agree, I wouldn't use this article as an example, because it does include a lot of poor judgement along the way. But there are plenty of examples of how good AI imitation has become lately.