"Trapping AI" – New Update! 🌀
Web crawlers play a central role in the escalating race to develop ever-more powerful AI models: they tirelessly scour the web, harvesting vast quantities of content to feed large language models. Babble (git.jsbarretto.com/zesterer/ba…), originally developed by @jsbarretto, is a tool that lures these crawlers into an endless labyrinth—feeding their insatiable hunger for data with masses of pointless content.
To deliberately drain the resources of exploitative crawlers—and push AI models further toward collapse—we’ve deployed Babble, initially enhancing it through subtle, targeted modifications that align its functionality tightly with our strategic and operational priorities.
Babble dynamically generates an unending stream of deterministic bollocks, trapping crawlers on a single site where they endlessly navigate an ever-growing sea of pages 🌊—each filled with vast amounts of useless text and dozens of links that draw them ever deeper into the tarpit 🔁.
In the coming period, we’ll continue to develop and escalate this tactic—adding new layers of complexity and increasing both the intensity and offensiveness of the approach. At the next stage, we’ll openly share our code—allowing others to deploy, adapt, and build upon it.
See it in action: content.asrg.site/
P.S. If you're looking for similar tools and frameworks to deploy or explore further, check out our list titled "Sabot in the Age of AI"—a record of strategically offensive methods and purposefully orchestrated tactics for facilitating (algorithmic) sabotage, framework disruption, and intentional poisoning.
Explore it here: algorithmic-sabotage.github.io…
Keineanung
in reply to TheTwelveYearOld • • •utopiah
in reply to Keineanung • • •tabular
in reply to utopiah • • •utopiah
in reply to tabular • • •I don't necessarily have to wait, it's more a generic advice.
Can you please expand though, as I'm curious, why you won't wait and you plan to use it?
Can you also comment on my follow up question, namely what are the limitations at the moment, both technically and legally? Basically does not living in Switzerland make a difference anyway for users?
tabular
in reply to utopiah • • •I watched technical talks on GNU Taler ages ago so this might be out of date but the most difficult part to me would be the banks being interested in supplying the service necessary. You get money to your browser wallet by transferring it from your bank account.
I don't live in Switzerland and can't imagine banks or government supporting anything but their own version that gives them control.
GNU Taler (SHA2017)
YouTubeutopiah
in reply to tabular • • •Thanks again, if the wallet is "filled" by a bank transfer then I imagine anything able to do so, e.g. my random European bank that allow IBAN transfer, would suffice as long as my wallet itself has an IBAN or that the service provider hosting that wallet has one and then "store" the then "money" for it and allow me to spend it with other GNU Taler wallets.
Anyway I'll explore through a recent technical talk indeed, good suggestion.q
utopiah
in reply to utopiah • • •3.1.1. Conceptual overview — GNU Taler
tutorials.taler.nettabular
in reply to utopiah • • •It was mostly a playful comment on my part (indicated by the emoji) - I've waited this long so they might as well do it properly.
I would like to buy products/services online privately, "using cash" as it were. I also value software freedom and the Taler client is GPL. The API is LGPL but hopefully I can avoid using proprietary software for transactions.
I looked into setting up a method of donations on itch.io when I was focused on that hobby and the options of PayPal or Stripe just felt icky. I don't want to use them, or encourage others to do so.
gnuhaut
in reply to TheTwelveYearOld • • •I looked at this a looong time ago, but the basic idea is that the tokens (equivalent to cash coins/banknotes) are generated on the end user's device, through some public-key cryptographic back-and-forth protocol. The issuer (bank/central bank/payment provider) does not see these tokens (they're only on the end users device), but can verify that they're legit (i.e. issued by them) somehow.
You can take one of these tokens to them, and deposit it in an account. They won't know who it's from but they know it was legitimately issued by them. Depositing a token is also supposed to be the only way of figuring out if it is a legit token, the bank will not tell you if a token is legit unless you deposit it.
When someone pays with these tokens in a shop, the shop will want to immediately (during checkout) deposit them, to make sure they're legit, and also to make sure the token hasn't been double spent. A shop that doesn't do that makes itself vulnerable to fraud. This means shops will have a hard time hiding their revenue (to dodge taxes) compared to cash.
If someone you trust gives you a token (birthday money from your grandma, say), you don't have to immediately deposit said token, since presumably you trust your grandma to not give you fake or double-spent tokens. Since you trust you grandma, there is no need to deposit the token and involve the bank, and that transfer would be untraceable (it's literally just copying a number from her phone to yours).
The idea is that shop owners would have a hard time dodging taxes without opening themselves up to fraudsters using fake tokens, while the customer cannot be identified. You'd also be able to exchange tokens with family and friends in a way that isn't traceable, as long as you trust them to not screw you.
jagged_circle
in reply to gnuhaut • • •Strawberry
in reply to jagged_circle • • •Ferk
in reply to jagged_circle • • •I'm expecting that if she has been scammed (and you can find out by depositing the token), you can report this token to the police and they might be able to ask the banking system in which account was this token deposited, to hopefully trace the scammer back.
If so, this looks much safer than the scams that ask grandmas to give them giftcard codes.
jagged_circle
in reply to gnuhaut • • •Strawberry
in reply to jagged_circle • • •communism
in reply to Strawberry • • •Depends on threat model, eg police will seize phones/computers/devices all the time but will only seize money if they think it's related to a crime. As long as you're not being arrested for a money-related charge then your cash would most likely be untouched but your devices will be lost.
jagged_circle
in reply to communism • • •If the cops steal my USB drive with my encrypted bitcoin wallet, I just restore it from the backup and they've stolen nothing.
In the US, cops steal cash all the time. Sometimes tbeh steal it personally, but they have an incentive to "legitimately" steal it to add it to their budget. Its fucked.
deafboy
in reply to TheTwelveYearOld • • •demunted
in reply to TheTwelveYearOld • • •This is why I think it might actually work. It's not based on some kind of Rube Goldberg experiment to run the world power into nothingness.
ImmersiveMatthew
in reply to demunted • • •Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to ImmersiveMatthew • • •The digital exchange seems to be centralised.
ImmersiveMatthew
in reply to Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In • • •Ferk
in reply to ImmersiveMatthew • • •jagged_circle
Unknown parent • • •demunted
Unknown parent • • •Ulrich
in reply to TheTwelveYearOld • • •Norah (pup/it/she)
in reply to Ulrich • • •Not really. Zelle seems to just be US banks implementing the payment and bank-to-bank transfer systems that other countries already have. Except, at least for Australia with our 'Osko' system it has the involvement of our Reserve Bank and is mandated to be supported universally, whereas Zelle is completely private. The traditional lack of that bank-to-bank transfer ability is why apps like Venmo and Cash App have been popular in the US, which I think explains why Zelle has had an app until last month, as consumers expect that, even though it's owned by the major US banks.
Taler on the other hand seems to be "What if crypto but with fiat currency and also the recipients aren't anonymous".
jagged_circle
in reply to Norah (pup/it/she) • • •Norah (pup/it/she)
in reply to jagged_circle • • •jagged_circle
in reply to Norah (pup/it/she) • • •LeninOnAPrayer
in reply to demunted • • •That's like saying a HDD is bad because someone can put CP on it.
Edit: CP rhymes with "Mild Corn".
LeninOnAPrayer
Unknown parent • • •Decentralized currencies will only actually make sense when the material incentives of our economic system would benefit from them. Capitalism is literally all about concentrating the control of capital and the means by which we produce things. Sadly, decentralized currencies will never be allowed to decouple themselves from these economic systems. There is too much material power to prevent that. And by material power I mean literally the enforcement of these concentrations of wealth through the use of violence.
The tech is cool. But it doesn't magically solve the problem by simply being invented. It's why no one is actually paying with these cryptocurrencies on anything but an extremely small scale.
A currency that cannot be manipulated by capitalist for their benefit has no place in our world. So, it will never reach any meaningful real use until those structures are dismantled. It will just continue to be a speculative asset that rich people dump their access wealth into and poor people play as the lottery.
infinitesunrise
Unknown parent • • •HenryBenry
Unknown parent • • •And we are still waiting for a problem that blockchain can fix.
3abas
in reply to demunted • • •Just because it's built on a block chain doesn't mean they relinquished control and decentralized it. But it's a platform that allows you to decentralize.
Is this worth it as an upgrade to our existing centrally controlled currency? That's a different discussion.
Does it solve the problem blockchain provides a solution for? Does it allow for decentralization? It appears the answer is no.
HenryBenry
Unknown parent • • •And you think blockchain fixes that? Lol.
Bitcoin is pretty fucking centralized right now.
3abas
in reply to HenryBenry • • •jagged_circle
in reply to HenryBenry • • •It already did fix it. See OWS and wikileaks and the hong Kong protests.
All were able to get instant international donations from allies while the big banks shut down their donations (eg PayPal, swift, wechat, etc)
HenryBenry
in reply to LeninOnAPrayer • • •To your point, bitcoin is already centralized around 1% of wallets.
It’s not really decentralized when 1% of people control the value at will.
infinitesunrise
in reply to HenryBenry • • •infinitesunrise
in reply to TheTwelveYearOld • • •explodicle
in reply to infinitesunrise • • •infinitesunrise
in reply to explodicle • • •explodicle
in reply to infinitesunrise • • •infinitesunrise
in reply to explodicle • • •The first claim is the most incorrect, as bitcoin is a single permanent public ledger where all transactions are verifiable by anyone, and on/off ramps are almost 100% regulated. I would argue that it's actually the hardest currency with which to evade taxes, though in the early days where onramps didn't do KYC and government wasn't as aware of it, that would have been more true. Physical fiat or Monero (A crypto that anonymizes sender and receiver) are probably the easiest currencies with which to avoid taxes.
The third claim is conditionally incorrect. Bitcoin transactions all have a clear sender and receiver party. Though I figure maybe you refer to some kind of regulatory tax assignment, in which case that would happen outside of the protocol and is up to the local government to decide.
The second claim is just kind of ... Hard to parse? I'm not sure what you mean by centralized exchanges. Exchanges of any type are almost always private entities that are themselves a centralized organization, and most currency exchanges process both fiat and crypto. Guessing I just need more context for this one.
Anyway, hopefully that had some new knowledge.
explodicle
in reply to infinitesunrise • • •The ledger being public doesn't prevent illicit use, like darknet markets. They use mixers or onion routed payments.
In the context of this thread, the centralized exchange is Taler Operations AG.
Taler offers anonymity for consumers but not for merchants. Every transaction everywhere - including Taler - has a sender and receiver.
Sorry if this is rude, but you are spreading misinformation, not knowledge.
infinitesunrise
in reply to explodicle • • •Excuse me but what did I write that's misinformation? I wasn't describing Taler, I was describing bitcoin / crypto. Nothing I said was incorrect, and I was correcting your own misinformation (Mind you it's not your fault that you were misinformed and I don't think you were doing so intentionally, it's easy to pick up misinformation about unpopular subjects because people are more likely to take facts at face value).
Regarding mixers, I have a friend in US gov that says they're not immune to targeted investigation. You can hide in them only until you catch institutional attention, wherein they have a big enough database of inputs and outputs to simply know who you are. However apparently Monero is truly a pain in their ass.
And saying "a ledger is public doesn't protect it from illicit use" is kind of silly seeing as you can use any currency for illicit use if you want. What matters is if you can be caught, and its extremely easy to be caught doing something illicit if you do it with bitcoin as the transaction history is right there in front of the world.
malank
Unknown parent • • •Very interesting thanks for the explanation.
I think that makes some sense to me. I’m moderately familiar with signatures and encryption. I’m going to do some more research into blind signatures now since that’s one thing I have never had to implement.
Without doing that research, I still feel that the bank or whatever could store the signature info at the time of signing with the account that requested it, but perhaps the blind signing even protects against that if the verification process is done in some way that the original signing request info isn’t present in the same form.
Anyway, thanks for the response!
ETA:
Oh the other hole in the ATMs I was talking about assuming a malicious ATM. Since the coin can only be verified by depositing it, (without doing more research on this) I still don’t see a way to verify that the ATM actually gave you a valid signature. Maybe it’s possible to validate the signature before unwrapping the coin, then impossible to validate the unwrapped coin that is given to the merchant. I could see that.
Also presumably these could be bank ATMs and not sketchy Bitcoin ATMs so maybe the malicious case isn’t as much to worry about.
malank
Unknown parent • • •How would one acquire tokens anonymously but in a way that you can verify that you acquired genuine tokens, and what keeps those tokens from being given to multiple people? This is really where the privacy aspects fall down. It’s a hard problem to solve in Bitcoin, but at least you can have Bitcoin ATMs that you can verify that you received the funds.
A Taler ATM it seems could issue invalid tokens or issue the same tokens to every client and there would be no way to know until you tried to spend it or deposit it in your account (thus defeating the anonymity).