there are updates coming that will make it much more tied to your google account. i fear that it will mean anybody not currently logged in is assumed to be a robot. (even more so than now, i mean.)

ReCAPTCHAv3. It will differ from ReCAPTCHAv2 in one important respect: it will no longer ask you any questions, meaning it will no longer give you the opportunity to appeal it's snap judgement of you.

https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/v3

> "reCAPTCHA v3 will never interrupt your users, so you can run it whenever you like without affecting conversion. reCAPTCHA works best when it has the most context about interactions with your site, which comes from seeing both legitimate and abusive behavior. For this reason, we recommend including reCAPTCHA verification on forms or actions as well as in the background of pages for analytics."

Just what the world needs, another tracking script...

According to the recent Planet Money podcast on Captcha, the upcoming changes will only use the signal of whether or not you have an account, and not any account-based data, since it will be domain based on the website or something.

Also, they're doing away with the questionnaire. It works by using a scoring system or something similar since it loads on the pages leading up to form fills.

Edit: Source for you disbelievers - https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/v3

>reCAPTCHA v3 returns a score for each request without user friction. The score is based on interactions with your site and enables you to take an appropriate action for your site.

> It just "works" by default.

right. until it doesn't, like it wouldn't for someone who actively avoids feeding their personal information to the goog. and it is sounding an awful lot like the fail case is full denial of service, without any option for the user to prove themselves.

>the upcoming changes will only use the signal of whether or not you have an account, and not any account-based data

Recaptcha doesn't care. But totally unrelated, it just accidentally worked out to be awfully convenient for Google's other surveillance products embedded on the same sites, which do care quite a bit about how long and how often they can follow me with a single unique identifier.

You still believe PR fairytales?

And the alternative is believing something else with no evidence. Is that better?

I use https://github.com/dessant/buster to avoid captchas and swear by it. It uses google's speech to text to transcribe the captcha audio element, and posts it back as an answer so you don't have to do the annoying images.

Because you're not providing advertising revenue as a non-chrome user ;)

To provide compensation for the websites use of their free, and effective, service designed to combat bots?

What's funny is that the AI needs to be trained...yet it already knows which choices are correct and incorrect. So, is it really necessary?

Edit: This is a joke, I am joking.

I don't know how the image captchas work but the old-fashioned type-the-words captchas asked you one it knew the answer to and one it didn't. By giving unknown words to multiple users and finding a consensus they could move words from the unknown to known set.

If they do it the way that the OCR recaptcha works, it allows some new ones to go through and uses consensus to classify them.

So most of them will have already been classified and those are used to test your integrity (and verify you) but an occasional new one will be presented that won't count towards your verification and if enough people agree on it it'll be classified.

I suspect it knows the correct choices for some of the little pictures it shows you, but for others you are training it.

This is the natural question to ask. I finally decided that they probably compare your answers to several other humans to validate training data.

> Edit: This is a joke, I am joking.

The voters seem to have formed a consensus that it was not a joke, unfortunately, so your humor has failed the test.

(This was a meta-joke, and I too am joking.)