It is referring to https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02943 What you are referring to is possible, but is not "copying" per se, just trying to infer what the system is doing (inverse RL), and then exploit that/make it do mistakes. If you are not HFT it is very difficult to distinguish bots from humans, so you'd have a hard time even finding a target.
Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIs
Florian Tramèr, Fan Zhang, Ari Juels, Michael K. Reiter, Thomas Ristenpart
2016 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 3
- Readers
- 3
- Months
- 3
From the abstract
Machine learning (ML) models may be deemed confidential due to their sensitive training data, commercial value, or use in security applications. Increasingly often, confidential ML models are being deployed with publicly accessible query interfaces. ML-as-a-service ("predictive analytics") systems are an example: Some allow users to train models on potentially sensitive data and charge others for access on a pay-per-query basis. The tension between model confidentiality and public access motivates our investigation of model extraction attacks. In such attacks, an adversary with black-box access, but no prior knowledge of an ML model's parameters or training data, aims to duplicate the functionality of (i.e., "steal") the model. Unlike in classical learning theory settings, ML-as-a-service offerings may accept partial feature vectors as inputs and include confidence values with predictions. Given these practices, we show simple, efficient attacks that extract target ML models with near-perfect fidelity for popular model classes including logistic regression, neural networks, and decision trees. We demonstrate these attacks against the online services of BigML and Amazon Machine Learning. We further show that the natural countermeasure of omitting confidence values from model outputs still admits potentially harmful model extraction attacks. Our results highlight the need for careful ML model deployment and new model extraction countermeasures.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions
The author of this story clearly does not know what "reverse engineer" means. This is reverse engineering AI companies: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02943
I'm not sure if open sourcing the data is absolutely necessary to reproduce the results given access to the prediction API. "Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIs" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02943) examines techniques in this space. The API might also be used in adversarial training. The underlying data would be useful for advancing research, but not necessarily a prerequisite for reproducing the API. AWS wins not because they have created an impenetrable black box, but because the economics of reverse engineering (and maintaining) are not cost effective for the majority of users.
Keep following the thread.
More in Security & cryptographyMore from the same topics.
The Case for Learned Index Structures
Tim Kraska, Alex Beutel, Ed H. Chi +2
Indexes are models: a B-Tree-Index can be seen as a model to map a key to the position of a record within a sorted array, a Hash-Index as a model to map a key to a position of a record within an unsorted array, and a BitMap-Index as a model to indicate if a data record exists or not.
A Critique of the CAP Theorem
Martin Kleppmann
The CAP Theorem is a frequently cited impossibility result in distributed systems, especially among NoSQL distributed databases.
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder +28
Recent work has demonstrated substantial gains on many NLP tasks and benchmarks by pre-training on a large corpus of text followed by fine-tuning on a specific task.
Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization
Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt +2
Despite their massive size, successful deep artificial neural networks can exhibit a remarkably small difference between training and test performance.