a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00

Naaah. They're not understanding machine intelligence.

Take a look at this abstract real quick. What it says, basically, is that machine intelligence has determined that certain colors predominate in child pornography. This means that the machine can use color skew in identifying child porn.

That's like the "shredder" discussion - show a computer a million pictures of paper shredders and it will come up with some statistical truisms about pictures of shredders. They tend to be gray and have buttons on the right, for example. Or "often located next to waste paper bins."

Machine intelligence is awesome for statistical discoveries like the above - "if the background is red, it's 50% more likely to be child porn than if the background is blue." It sucks for things like "generate me an image of child porn" or "show me child porn images with yellow backgrounds."

Apply this to the shredder. If you want machine intelligence to not find your shredder, put a Mr. Yuck sticker on it. Attach a feather. Put it under your desk backwards. Machine intelligence excels at projecting trends and sucks at classifying outliers as anything other than "outliers." All the machine can do is go "I think this isn't a shredder because it has a feather on it human please check." And, since most people don't put feathers on their shredders, that's plenty good enough.

There's no cognition in machine intelligence: "someone is trying to hide their shredder." The Skynet reference in the article is actually already in use by the CIA: IF "walking around in the dark" AND "skulking" AND "in Pakistan" AND "opening car trunks" THEN "send a Reaper by to take a look-see. " This beastie surveils an area roughly the size of Ohio every time they put it up - and if you think they aren't running its every visual through machine intelligence you're delusional.

The downside is in order to foil stuff like this, you have to not act like an insurgent. High-level targets are never taken out by routine sweeps, they're always cooked off by interdisciplinary ops that start with HUMINT. Machine intelligence is really good for going "I think you should look at this" and terrible at "I've learned something new." Guaranteed - as soon as the "child porn is blue" paper came out, everyone you want busted started shooting in red rooms.





thenewgreen  ·  3979 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think "Outwit" is certainly the wrong word to use in this article. Perhaps, "Humans haven't yet figured out the statistical truisms their computers are using to determine...."

Outwitting does imply a level of cognition that isn't at play here. I followed the link to the abstract provided and I better not be on some govt list with Pete Townsend now :)

Shitty_Physics  ·  3979 days ago  ·  link  ·  

What part of the article contradicts any of this? Or makes you say they do not understand machine intelligence?

kleinbl00  ·  3979 days ago  ·  link  ·  

1) There's nothing terrifying about it.

2) The computers aren't "outwitting" anything - they're finding statistical correlations that humans have not found.

3) "Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos" is not the same as "Google researchers can no longer explain exactly how the system has learned to spot certain objects."

Considering those are the underpinnings of the article...

Shitty_Physics  ·  3979 days ago  ·  link  ·  

>There's nothing terrifying about it.

That's pretty subjective, and that was obviously used to add some flavor to the article. Just like the SKYNET bits.

>they're finding statistical correlations that humans have not found.

That sounds like outwitting to me.

>"Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos" is not the same as "Google researchers can no longer explain exactly how the system has learned to spot certain objects."

How are those different other than one being a bit more precise?

>Considering those are the underpinnings of the article...

Unquestionably the most pretentious person I've ever seen on the internet. I don't get it either. Your post would have been cool otherwise, but you had to play up this "they're wrong; I'm right; here's why" bullshit.

kleinbl00  ·  3979 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Way to go ad-hominem. Later.