CAPTCHAs have become an indispensable part of our daily online lives, providing a basic security barrier for websites and applications. From the initial simple numerical CAPTCHAs to various complex ones today, their complexity has been gradually increasing to resist attacks from automated tools and bots.

The following image shows some common CAPTCHAs:

The sole purpose of these CAPTCHAs is to distinguish between humans and machines. However, with the rise of large models like ChatGPT, especially the advent of GPT4-Vision’s multimodal capabilities, can CAPTCHAs still intercept machines?

On September 25th, OpenAI announced new capabilities for ChatGPT: ChatGPT can now see, hear, and speak. ChatGPT finally got “eyes” and can understand images.

In the article Investigating the Mysterious Field Loss Problem When Using Protobuf in C++, we analyzed how two identical proto files led to linking the wrong pb, ultimately causing some fields to be lost during deserialization. At that time, we also mentioned the process of symbol resolution, where whether it’s dynamic linking or static linking, the symbol definition from the library listed earlier is actually used. I thought I had a deep understanding of this, until I recently encountered another strange “symbol redefinition“ problem.