• fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Imagine an antivirus program that looks at a piece of code and outputs either “Yes, this is malware” or “No, this is not malware.” It is not perfect, but it is pretty good.

    If the malware authors have access to this program, they can test their malware with it. They can keep modifying their malware until it passes the antivirus program.

    Once the antivirus people publish a function AV(code)→boolean, the malware people can use that function to make malware that the function mistakes for non-malware.

    If you publish the exact metric that you promise to use to make a decision, then people who want to control your decision can use that metric to test their methods of manipulating you.

    • nodimetotie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s what’s happening with Google and Instagram search algorithms. People figure out how to manipulate them and start spamming. Then the search results deteriorate and you have to modify the algorithm.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Partly, yeah. But eventually the fake news people write a narrative that looks prosodically identical to real news; a bot can’t tell it isn’t because the bot doesn’t interact with the real world, only with text on the web.

        Ultimately, fact-checkers and anti-spam systems have to touch grass too.