5 ms·

scamming to get refunds has always been a thing.

by websiteapi 9mo ago

avereveard 9mo ago
and that say nothing whether this is actually happening or not, what's your point?
- ACCount37 9mo ago
  That "whether this is actually happening or not" is not even a question worth asking. No shit it's happening. Now, on what scale, and should we care?
  - avereveard 9mo ago
    is it happening literally is the most important question. people are clamoring for regulations and voiding consumer protections, over something nobody seem to find a independently verifiable source.
    - ACCount37 9mo ago
      Lmao no. "The estimated amount of refund fraud" + "off the shelf AI can generate and edit photorealistic images" adds up to "refund fraud with AI generated images" by default. There are enough fraudsters out there that someone will try it, and they're dumb enough that someone will get caught doing it in a hilariously obvious way. It would take a literal divine intervention to prevent that. Now, is there enough AI-generated fraud for anyone to give a flying fuck about it? That's a better question to ask.
      - avereveard 9mo ago
        Well then you'll have no trouble to find a verifiable source of it happening and prove your point. something beyond "this person said" or "here a potential example to showcase it's possible"
        ACCount37 9mo ago
        No. The prior is so strong that it's up to you to prove that no AI fraud is happening. Good luck.
        avereveard 9mo ago
        The "some say" prior? well then here's my refutation: some say this isn't happening at the scale this article claim someone say it's happening. that should convince you by your own admission. beside it's the article responsibility to provide evidence for their points. circular links leading to the same handful of stories is not "preponderant"
        ACCount37 9mo ago
        The "humans are stupid in all the usual ways" prior. You might as well be asking for proof that humans use AI to generate porn.
- estearum 9mo ago
  It's funny how every few months there's a new malicious usecase that AI proponents cast unreasonable amounts of doubt onto, then the problem becomes widely recognized, and AI proponents just move onto the next bastion of "ya but is this obvious malicious use case of my favored technology REALLY happening?" Gigantic bot farms taking over social media Non-consensual sexual imagery generation (including of children) LLM-induced psychosis and violence Job and college application plagiarism/fraud (??) News publications churning out slop Scams of the elderly So don't worry: in a few months we can come back to this thread and return fraud will be recognized to have been supercharged by generative AI. But then we can have the same conversation about like insurance fraud or some other malicious use case that there's obvious latent demand for, and new capability for AI models to satisfy that latent demand at far lower complexity and cost than ever before. Then we can question whether basic mechanics of supply and demand don't apply to malicious use cases of favored technology for some reason.
  - avereveard 9mo ago
    well yes that's how should we navigate societal change, out of actual threats and not what ifs. what ifs gave us some nice piece of work legislation before like DMCA, so yeah I'm going to be overly cautious about anything that is emotionally charged instead of data driven.
    - estearum 9mo ago
      Who is talking about legislation? Are you adjusting your perception of the problem based on fear of a possible solution? Anyway, our society has fuck tons of protections against "what ifs" that are extremely good, actually. We haven't needed a real large scale anthrax attack to understand that we should regulate anthrax as if it's capable of producing a large scale attack, correct? You'll need a better model than just asserting your prior conclusions by classifying problems into "actual threats" and "what ifs."
    - pixl97 9mo ago
      I mean digital privacy was not a what-if when the DCMA was written, it and its problems existed long before then. You're conflating business written legislation which is a totally different problem. Also I guess you're perfectly fine with me developing self replicating gray nanogoo, I mean I've not actually created it and ate the earth so we can't make laws about self replicating nanogoo I guess.
pixiemaster 9mo ago
I was consulting for an insurance company once. they even had examples of some of their employees to get insurance money for broken things, using their internal example pictures….

scamming to get refunds has always been a thing.

avereveard 9mo ago

and that say nothing whether this is actually happening or not, what's your point?

ACCount37 9mo ago
That "whether this is actually happening or not" is not even a question worth asking. No shit it's happening. Now, on what scale, and should we care?
- avereveard 9mo ago
  is it happening literally is the most important question. people are clamoring for regulations and voiding consumer protections, over something nobody seem to find a independently verifiable source.
  - ACCount37 9mo ago
    Lmao no. "The estimated amount of refund fraud" + "off the shelf AI can generate and edit photorealistic images" adds up to "refund fraud with AI generated images" by default. There are enough fraudsters out there that someone will try it, and they're dumb enough that someone will get caught doing it in a hilariously obvious way. It would take a literal divine intervention to prevent that. Now, is there enough AI-generated fraud for anyone to give a flying fuck about it? That's a better question to ask.
    - avereveard 9mo ago
      Well then you'll have no trouble to find a verifiable source of it happening and prove your point. something beyond "this person said" or "here a potential example to showcase it's possible"
      - ACCount37 9mo ago
        No. The prior is so strong that it's up to you to prove that no AI fraud is happening. Good luck.
        avereveard 9mo ago
        The "some say" prior? well then here's my refutation: some say this isn't happening at the scale this article claim someone say it's happening. that should convince you by your own admission. beside it's the article responsibility to provide evidence for their points. circular links leading to the same handful of stories is not "preponderant"
        ACCount37 9mo ago
        The "humans are stupid in all the usual ways" prior. You might as well be asking for proof that humans use AI to generate porn.
estearum 9mo ago
It's funny how every few months there's a new malicious usecase that AI proponents cast unreasonable amounts of doubt onto, then the problem becomes widely recognized, and AI proponents just move onto the next bastion of "ya but is this obvious malicious use case of my favored technology REALLY happening?" Gigantic bot farms taking over social media Non-consensual sexual imagery generation (including of children) LLM-induced psychosis and violence Job and college application plagiarism/fraud (??) News publications churning out slop Scams of the elderly So don't worry: in a few months we can come back to this thread and return fraud will be recognized to have been supercharged by generative AI. But then we can have the same conversation about like insurance fraud or some other malicious use case that there's obvious latent demand for, and new capability for AI models to satisfy that latent demand at far lower complexity and cost than ever before. Then we can question whether basic mechanics of supply and demand don't apply to malicious use cases of favored technology for some reason.
- avereveard 9mo ago
  well yes that's how should we navigate societal change, out of actual threats and not what ifs. what ifs gave us some nice piece of work legislation before like DMCA, so yeah I'm going to be overly cautious about anything that is emotionally charged instead of data driven.
  - estearum 9mo ago
    Who is talking about legislation? Are you adjusting your perception of the problem based on fear of a possible solution? Anyway, our society has fuck tons of protections against "what ifs" that are extremely good, actually. We haven't needed a real large scale anthrax attack to understand that we should regulate anthrax as if it's capable of producing a large scale attack, correct? You'll need a better model than just asserting your prior conclusions by classifying problems into "actual threats" and "what ifs."
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    I mean digital privacy was not a what-if when the DCMA was written, it and its problems existed long before then. You're conflating business written legislation which is a totally different problem. Also I guess you're perfectly fine with me developing self replicating gray nanogoo, I mean I've not actually created it and ate the earth so we can't make laws about self replicating nanogoo I guess.

pixiemaster 9mo ago

I was consulting for an insurance company once. they even had examples of some of their employees to get insurance money for broken things, using their internal example pictures….