This is a perfect use case for the current state of "AI" messengers. Auto-reply to spam emails and drag out conversations.
Free app idea for those wanting to start a small machine-learning project.
Free app idea for those wanting to start a small machine-learning project.
> Spam the Spammers
> Investigate the use of language models to remove the profit from spamming.
> Spammers generate a huge amount of undesirable traffic and attention. Their emails are merely annoying for most people, but a small fraction of users fall into their trap. Spammers receive responses from users extremely infrequently. Therefore, they manually reply to each email.
> The task is to build a bot that automatically replies to spam emails. Such a bot shouldn't be easy to detect, which could be achieved by use of a powerful language model.
https://openai.com/requests-for-research/#spam-spammers
Could be an extension from Graham's A Plan for Spam, which basically called for a DDoS on spam servers:
> As I mentioned in Will Filters Kill Spam?, following all the urls in a spam would have an amusing side-effect. If popular email clients did this in order to filter spam, the spammer's servers would take a serious pounding. The more I think about this, the better an idea it seems. This isn't just amusing; it would be hard to imagine a more perfectly targeted counterattack on spammers.
> So I'd like to suggest an additional feature to those working on spam filters: a "punish" mode which, if turned on, would spider every url in a suspected spam n times, where n could be set by the user.
> So I'd like to suggest an additional feature to those working on spam filters: a "punish" mode which, if turned on, would spider every url in a suspected spam n times, where n could be set by the user.
EDIT: But note that the problem is the same if you reply to the e-mails. If this is automated and enough people do it, then sending spam with fake from addresses becomes an effective way of attacking peoples mail accounts. I've seen this happen first hand by a spammer that used incendiary content to trigger manual responses by sending out what claimed to be an ad for child porn sent in the name of an anti-spam activist. It was scarily effective, even though in this case it required getting people to take manual action (in this case bad enough that he needed police protection as a result of a range of credible threats)
Anyone that thinks scammers won't generate their own version of the Voight-Kampff test and it won't quickly spread is likely to be disappointed.
I assume it's their catch-all term for things that they don't expect to be profitable as a business.
An interesting area of linguistics and natural language research: creating an AI that makes the same mistakes as a human.
"My favorite commentary on it was Joseph Weizenbaum’s; in a letter to the Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery (Weizenbaum, 1974, p. 543), he said that, inspired by Colby, he has designed an even better program, which passed the same test. His also had the virtue of being a very inexpensive program, in these times of tight money. In fact you didn’t even need a computer for it. All you needed was an electric typewriter. His program modeled infant autism. And the transcripts--you type in your questions, and the thing just sits there and hums--cannot be distinguished by experts from transcripts of real conversations with infantile autistic patients."
It's well worth a read!
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/mindsandmachines/...
Thanks for the reference.
Edit: It's very interesting and Dennett anticipates a number of Christian's observations, even in the part of the paper written before Dennett was associated with the Loebner contest.