No, there’s far more depth to that. The goal isn’t for you to prove yourself human, the goal is to teach an AI how to “think more human”.
1, 2 and 7 are obviously cold. They’re oustide, with no “warm” colour lighting.
3 and 6 are both green houses, the green house could be considered “warm”, but 3 has light on the inside. This is perhaps a test against AI readers. To a human, they both seem warm inside, but an AI might differentiate based on the lighting.
9 is a dark brown house, but 8 is a light brown house that is illuminated by external lighting. This contrasts with 3 and 6, because 6 has external lighting but it does not illuminate much.
4 and 5 are both internal shots. 4 is light and airy, meanwhile 5 is a bit more grey - but then, grey is the fashion these days.
All in all this is a bullshit test made up by bullshit people looking to get a bullshit result, with which they hope to make money off of.
You’re working to help them make more money, meanwhile they don’t pay you for your labor. They also collect data from your connection to their servers - as well as the website you’re trying to access, you will almost certainly be connecting to at least 2 other servers to deliver this hcaptcha, and thanks to cooperation with the website host hcaptcha will triangulate the internet routing and fingerprinting information to attain a significantly accurate identification of you as an indvidual (which they will then consolidate with whatever other information they have).
Much like a disgruntled worker might “phone it in”, or work within the requirements of their paid employment, or “quiet quit”; you should limit and perhaps even poison the output you give in proportion to what you’re being paid for your labor.
The goal isn’t to satisfy captcha, the goal is to get passed it while giving as little commercial value as they compensate you for.
Your data has value. If it didn’t, then Facebook and Google wouldn’t be amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. You own the value they establish themselves with, they just claim a license.
The service is free to use. My access to it is not conditional to my authentic participation in unpaid labor, and nor is it equivalent.
Personal data has value. Thought has value. Commercial enterprises like this attempt to suppress that value, while simultaneously using it to position themselves amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. They should pay us for our data.
What they do is akin to a car manufacturer saying they shouldn’t pay the person who makes nuts and bolts, because nuts and bolts have far less value than a car, and the people who make nuts and bolts do not know how to build a car. This is would be a ridiculous scenario; it is also ridiculous that users aren’t paid fairly for their data.
If people were paid fairly for their data, then these businesses would have no scope to raise the price of their product in line with this new (fair) material cost. This is because the cost of their product is already an exaggeration of the value they provide. They sell their product for more than it’s worth, meanwhile they pay their data suppliers (every single human being) nothing. Of course they don’t want you to realise the value they’re taking, doing so could only reduce their profits.
No, there’s far more depth to that. The goal isn’t for you to prove yourself human, the goal is to teach an AI how to “think more human”.
1, 2 and 7 are obviously cold. They’re oustide, with no “warm” colour lighting.
3 and 6 are both green houses, the green house could be considered “warm”, but 3 has light on the inside. This is perhaps a test against AI readers. To a human, they both seem warm inside, but an AI might differentiate based on the lighting.
9 is a dark brown house, but 8 is a light brown house that is illuminated by external lighting. This contrasts with 3 and 6, because 6 has external lighting but it does not illuminate much.
4 and 5 are both internal shots. 4 is light and airy, meanwhile 5 is a bit more grey - but then, grey is the fashion these days.
All in all this is a bullshit test made up by bullshit people looking to get a bullshit result, with which they hope to make money off of.
You’re working to help them make more money, meanwhile they don’t pay you for your labor. They also collect data from your connection to their servers - as well as the website you’re trying to access, you will almost certainly be connecting to at least 2 other servers to deliver this hcaptcha, and thanks to cooperation with the website host hcaptcha will triangulate the internet routing and fingerprinting information to attain a significantly accurate identification of you as an indvidual (which they will then consolidate with whatever other information they have).
Much like a disgruntled worker might “phone it in”, or work within the requirements of their paid employment, or “quiet quit”; you should limit and perhaps even poison the output you give in proportion to what you’re being paid for your labor.
The goal isn’t to satisfy captcha, the goal is to get passed it while giving as little commercial value as they compensate you for.
Your data has value. If it didn’t, then Facebook and Google wouldn’t be amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. You own the value they establish themselves with, they just claim a license.
Way to throw a shit fit over paying 5 seconds of labor to use a service
The service is free to use. My access to it is not conditional to my authentic participation in unpaid labor, and nor is it equivalent.
Personal data has value. Thought has value. Commercial enterprises like this attempt to suppress that value, while simultaneously using it to position themselves amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. They should pay us for our data.
What they do is akin to a car manufacturer saying they shouldn’t pay the person who makes nuts and bolts, because nuts and bolts have far less value than a car, and the people who make nuts and bolts do not know how to build a car. This is would be a ridiculous scenario; it is also ridiculous that users aren’t paid fairly for their data.
If people were paid fairly for their data, then these businesses would have no scope to raise the price of their product in line with this new (fair) material cost. This is because the cost of their product is already an exaggeration of the value they provide. They sell their product for more than it’s worth, meanwhile they pay their data suppliers (every single human being) nothing. Of course they don’t want you to realise the value they’re taking, doing so could only reduce their profits.