Software Describes Surveillance Footage In AI-Generated Text

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Describes Surveillance Footage In AI-Generated Text

Posted by timothy on Wednesday June 2, 2010 @06:14AM from the now-he's-throttling-the-interstitial-ad dept.

holy_calamity writes "A computer vision research group at UCLA has put together a system that watches surveillance footage and generates a text description of the events in real time. It only works on traffic cameras for now but demonstrates how sophisticated computer vision is becoming. Interestingly, the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers."

132 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It won't impress me by MyLongNickName · 2010-06-02 06:19 · Score: 1, Funny

It won't impress me until it can say "Check out the hooters on that chick!"

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
1. Re:It won't impress me by game+kid · 2010-06-02 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  But what if the Naked Cowboy decides to protest this technology by wearing a stuffed bra in front of one?
  When the AI's that detailed, nuance is needed and false positives are all the more dangerous.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
2. Re:It won't impress me by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but right now it's more like:
  'Some blokes in view'
Expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

There needs to be an expectation of privacy regarding recordings of people in public places. There is a huge difference between being seen vs. having one's every public move recorded, indexed and archived.
1. Re:Expectation of privacy by MyLongNickName · 2010-06-02 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Good luck with that. So, if I am in public I should expect that anything I do not be recorded, talked about or written about? I do not know how you expect to enforce that.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
2. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And sooner than you think, the same will be true for when you're not "out in public" but are in your own home.
  Hope you're not attached to the notion of privacy.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
3. Re:Expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  I see constant surveillance as a form of harassment, just as if someone were constantly following/stalking me. This is particularly bad if a recording is made which is indexed and can be searched and referred to later. It is not the same as a casual encounter followed by an indexable account of that encounter.
4. Re:Expectation of privacy by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-02 06:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Good luck with that. So, if I am in public I should expect that anything I do not be recorded, talked about or written about? I do not know how you expect to enforce that.
  You should have some expectation of privacy because we need to have SOME privacy in order to function as human beings. Generally the expectation goes back to what you would feel comfortable with if it were performed by a physical person. And I'm certain that if it were somehow possible to assign a person to follow and document every move, and action for every person in the US we might have a slight problem with that.
  We run into a hell of a lot of trouble when we allow our standard definition of privacy which involved 1800s methods to be applied to our current level of technology.
  The basic problem is this:
  As technology improves, our expectation for privacy decreases. So using expectation of privacy as the measure for what should or should not be private is a HORRIBLE practice. It essentially means that as a technology or practice becomes ubiquitous, it becomes acceptable.
  Since we have no means to resist an application of technology*, I urge everyone to dump this 'yardstick'.
  *In practice, you do not get to opt-in or opt-out of having a privacy invading practice applied to you. It IS applied, and then you have the option to petition against it's application. Often, you don't even know that your privacy is being violated for years. As a result, these practices become common before the first complaint can even reasonably be raised. Even then, this ignores the issue of having previous complaints dismissed by judges who are ignorant in the field of the technology being discussed.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
5. Re:Expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  I think the difference is that in the past you had an expectation of privacy that _one entity_ would not as a matter of common practice surveil/record you everywhere you go. Sure, unconnected individuals/businesses might record you in the course of your transacting business, but that is quite different from the potential of having a single entity record everyone, all the time, with indexing.
6. Re:Expectation of privacy by HeckRuler · 2010-06-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  No. Too far. Don't stretch this into something it isn't. You detract from the privacy concerns by claiming the slippery slope of installing cameras in your own home. Because that is what it would take to violate your privacy in said home. Right now, of course, you're out on the internet, which is a lot like "out in public". And if your router broadcasts your IP to the masses in the street, that's also public area.
  
  There are definitely privacy concerns, but don't go overboard.
7. Re:Expectation of privacy by AndGodSed · 2010-06-02 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I guess privacy is an expectation of generations past. People in high places keep pushing for less privacy, and right now the sheep-like public is not not doing near enough to combat that, they eat the cake of "but it is for our own safety!"
  Well to qoute some wall scribbles I just ran past: THE CAKE IS A LIE!
  
  --
  Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
8. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Who said anything about cameras? Think about the ways in which technology has changed over the past 50 years. Now project forward (or attempt to) 50 years while accounting for the fact technological advancement is accelerating.
  Fifty years from now, if somebody says "I'm safe from surveillance here. There are no cameras in this house," the correct response will be "awwww, aren't you cute!"
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
9. Re:Expectation of privacy by Hognoxious · 2010-06-02 07:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There needs to be an expectation of privacy regarding recordings of people in public places.
  
  Given that "privacy" is derived from "private", which is an antonym of "public", I'd say there needs to be an expectation that you should buy a dictionary.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
10. Re:Expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  There needs to be an expectation of privacy regarding recordings of people in public places. There is a huge difference between being seen vs. having one's every public move recorded, indexed and archived.
  Even worse, if you log in at www.Theinternettimemachine.com (totally for nerds) and study what people are looking for but can't find...guess what...computer text and imaging products are gainging in search volume almost every week. These things are going to be in your neighbors hands as well as new suppliers will fill the void for this product...
  Hello Window Shades!
11. Re:Expectation of privacy by drsmithy · 2010-06-02 07:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There needs to be an expectation of privacy regarding recordings of people in public places. There is a huge difference between being seen vs. having one's every public move recorded, indexed and archived.
  The word you're after here is anonymity, not privacy.
12. Re:Expectation of privacy by HeckRuler · 2010-06-02 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Camera: A device to capture images.
  So how do you expect activities in a house to be surveyed if not with a camera?
  Mind-readers? DNA bias? what? Seriously, cough up an example or you're just diluting the issue here with vague doom-saying. Sop that.
13. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not too long ago, people would have branded you a kook had you suggested there would one day be devices that can look under your clothes to capture an image of your skin, genitals, and anything you might be carrying on your person.
  I walked through one of those very devices last week at the airport when I flew home.
  Today, a hobbyist could easily build an autonomous surveillance robot the size of a small rodent that has everything it needs to capture sound and audio and either store the resulting feed or stream it to a server somewhere. In 20 more years, how much smaller than "rodent" do you think that robot could be? How about 50 years? And what about if it's a government or corporate lab with a big budget building the thing rather than a hobbyist?
  I'll say it again: I hope you're not too attached to the notion of privacy.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
14. Re:Expectation of privacy by RKThoadan · 2010-06-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  As you have said, it is not difficult to build such a device now. But deploying such a device on private property or anywhere that people have an expectation of privacy (best example: bathroom) would be illegal. That is something I do not expect to change significantly in the next 100 years.
15. Re:Expectation of privacy by nurb432 · 2010-06-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that. So, if I am in public I should expect that anything I do not be recorded, talked about or written about? I do not know how you expect to enforce that.
  It has been recorded and archived for years ( decades even ) now.. Just today it is becoming more practical to mine the data. We are all screwed.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
16. Re:Expectation of privacy by somersault · 2010-06-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ahem
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
17. Re:Expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  You're funny. Privacy is a myth. Public place or not. Others know where you are all the time, what you buy/eat, what you were searching for, and people just hand out personal info on sites such as Facebook and Twitter now. There's no need for cameras. Hah!
18. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Good point. No government or corporation in human history has ever done anything illegal, especially when they have the means to do it completely undetected.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
19. Re:Expectation of privacy by HeckRuler · 2010-06-02 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so you're afraid of tiny spy-drones with CAMERAS on them and x-ray like devices peering into your home. As the sibling post mentions, that would be a clear violation of current privacy laws. It doesn't really relate to the redefinition of public that the orginal poster was talking about or the article about analyzing footage. If you fear the government or corporations then invest in some security. It'll put your little paranoid mind at ease. If it gets to the point where such invasions are trivial and they try to secretly deploy them against the masses, I'd hope to invent some affordable method of detecting such invasions. And then suing the pants off them.
  
  You are going overboard. The player-piano did not destroy the artisans of America.
20. Re:Expectation of privacy by Intron · 2010-06-02 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Not too long ago, people would have branded you a kook had you suggested there would one day be devices that can look under your clothes to capture an image of your skin, genitals, and anything you might be carrying on your person.
  So we will soon know the truth about Lady GaGa?
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
21. Re:Expectation of privacy by HeckRuler · 2010-06-02 09:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, there is a lot of information out there. Most of it isn't private. Most of it pictures of cats.
  But some of it is private, and some of it is actually secrets that people are putting out there. But I ascribe the vast majority of that to idiots and ignorance. But some of it is complacency. And so, spreading the news about all the vectors that private information can be lost is a good thing because it helps people control their information.
  
  But saying things like "privacy is a myth" is just an attack on the notion of privacy. Its an effort to makes people accept the reduction of privacy. Fuck that, and fuck you anon. Don't just give up, fight it.
22. Re:Expectation of privacy by be951 · 2010-06-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Today, a hobbyist could easily build an autonomous surveillance robot the size of a small rodent that has everything it needs to capture sound and audio and either store the resulting feed or stream it to a server somewhere. In 20 more years, how much smaller than "rodent" do you think that robot could be?
  Interesting idea, although entirely irrelevant to the discussion. 20 years ago, a hobbyist could easily install hidden cameras throughout your home, office, gym locker room, wherever. The fact that the technology was available didn't make it legal then, doesn't make it legal now, and won't make it legal in the future.
  It is not the technology you should be worried about, it is the erosion of rights against unlawful search (including surveillance) and seizure you need to watch out for.
23. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  It is not the technology you should be worried about, it is the erosion of rights against unlawful search (including surveillance) and seizure you need to watch out for.
  These are more linked than you're willing to admit. The availability of these tools and technologies is like candy to those who already have an ideological proclivity to "bend the rules." I agree that accountability is really important in this debate and that the erosion of rights is a big problem. But I'm less convinced that a bunch of people claiming something is illegal is going to do much to delay the creation of "new normal" where privacy is concerned.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
24. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Fight it.
  Okay, what are you personally doing to fight the spread of CCTV throughout the public realm?
  What are you personally doing to fight the creation of linked databases from multiple sources (e.g. your employment records, health records, telephone records, amazon.com purchase history, etc.) that perform datamining on the population?
  What are you personally doing to fight the pervasive monitoring of all communication media, including the response you are thinking about crafting right now?
  Just having a sense of generalized anger or outrage is cool and all, but I'm not sure what social force you think is going to stop - or even slow - the adoption of these increasingly powerful surveillance tools by just about everybody out there with a buck to spend and an interest in you as a citizen, marketing target, voter, potential terrorist, potential employee, etc.
  Believe it or not, I'm on your side here. I don't like the idea that in a few more decades there will be no such thing as privacy. I'm afraid I just don't see our current trajectory heading in any other direction but one.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
25. Re:Expectation of privacy by AHuxley · 2010-06-02 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  illegal for now. If your at war, it becomes legal. A bit like NSA mission creep. First its other nations telcos, your mil crypto and Soviet wargames, then its domestic: local cops down at the DHS Fusion centre and helping a private Google.
  Once all this is networked, you will be in Stasiland.
  The problem is a generation will keep on communicating its needs, thoughts, politics and ideas in digital form.
  Your schools send home laptops with cameras and may have captured images near bathrooms.
  The only expectation is that parents will understand that it was for "drugs", an "error" or "hackers" or "malware". Today its a few pictures, soon a mic and moving pictures in parts of the world with optical networks?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
26. Re:Expectation of privacy by nanoflower · 2010-06-02 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  I fully agree with the above statement. Consider now that it's easy enough to get infrared cameras that can effectively see through walls and show you where the people are and give you some idea what they are doing. Then consider what they have accomplished with the new scanners. I wouldn't be surprised if we see those in a hand held form within fifty years so anyone could see even more through the walls of your home. Does that mean that you should lose all rights to privacy since people outside your home can see anything you do in the home even with doors and windows closed and blinds/curtains pulled.
27. Re:Expectation of privacy by l3v1 · 2010-06-02 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  You should have some expectation of privacy because we need to have SOME privacy in order to function as human beings.
  
  You can have some expectations of privacy, but not in public places. They are called public for a reason: they are public. If you do private things in public, don't be surprised if your actions will become ... [surprise] public.
  
  That's 5 "public"s, let's make'em half a dozen: public :P
  
  --
  I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
28. Re:Expectation of privacy by Issarlk · 2010-06-03 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  In 50 years? How about enormous computing power to find what you are doing based on the very faint sounds, vibration and lights that tiny sensors hidden on your lawn collect?
29. Re:Expectation of privacy by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-03 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  You can have some expectations of privacy, but not in public places. They are called public for a reason: they are public. If you do private things in public, don't be surprised if your actions will become ... [surprise] public.
  That's 5 "public"s, let's make'em half a dozen: public :P
  That I shouldn't be surprised if something becomes public does not mean that we should strive to cause everything to become public.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
30. Re:Expectation of privacy by HeckRuler · 2010-06-03 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, what are you personally doing to fight the spread of CCTV throughout the public realm?
  Not much. If there was a political candidate that argued on similar grounds, I'd vote for him. I'd casually do what I could to spread his fame for it. You know, not being a-political.
  
  What are you personally doing to fight the creation of linked databases from multiple sources (e.g. your employment records, health records, telephone records, amazon.com purchase history, etc.) that perform datamining on the population?
  Arguing against programming similar activities at work on ethical and liability grounds. It really didn't do much when the ethics came up, but pulling in HR and asking how we could get sued put on the breaks.
  
  What are you personally doing to fight the pervasive monitoring of all communication media, including the response you are thinking about crafting right now?
  I encrypt where I can. I tell others to do likewise and show them how. As for public communications? Not much. I suppose I could post anonymously, but [poet]I'll stand tall by the flag of privacy even as the hidden snipers pick me apart.[/poet]
  
  Believe it or not, I'm on your side here.
  Oh yeah, I picked up on that. I just saw your cynical comments as detrimental to "the cause". I understand how dire the situation looks, but rather then accept it, I'd rather rally against it. As long as it's, you know, over lunch on slashdot...
Crowd-sourcing by cosm · 2010-06-02 06:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers.
I spent a brief amount of time checking out Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and this was one of the activities they offered pennies on the hour for. Yay for crowd-sourced globalization! 100 years from now, when many of the mundanities of life are automated, is this what minimum wage workers will be doing?

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
1. Re:Crowd-sourcing by geekoid · 2010-06-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  IN a 100 years, I hope the idea of 'work' is quint. Something done because that person want's it done. Not because they have to scrape a living from penitence the make from slopping burgers.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Crowd-sourcing by cosm · 2010-06-02 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement seem to push that mentality, but unfortunately the eccentricity of Jacque Fresco and the verbosity of Alex Jones keep them down sometimes. Check out their website for a possible glimpse of a better future.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
3. Re:Crowd-sourcing by mdm-adph · 2010-06-02 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they made the same prediction 100 years ago, too. What's funny is that though the jobs may change, we work about the same.
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
4. Re:Crowd-sourcing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Greeting, comrade! Honour work!
5. Re:Crowd-sourcing by geekoid · 2010-06-02 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  really? I certainly don't work the same then any person in the world did 100 years ago.
  I also have more time.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
6. Re:Crowd-sourcing by geekoid · 2010-06-02 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who pushes a 'new vision for the future' through video sets that cast 300 euros is suspect.
  I wonder how having the tools to download the video for free impact that new future?
  Clearly the stated premise is a good one. I will go so far as it is critical to look at it and start dealing with the social changed technology will bring us. Some day we will have robots capable of building themselves. Once that is reached, many jobs will no longer need to be done by humans. So we can either develop a policy that helps every one, or watch the poor grow at an incredible rate and then end in collapse.
  .
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:Crowd-sourcing by HeckRuler · 2010-06-02 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's 100 years from now with all the sci-fi inventions you can dream of.
  You control a nation/corporation/moon that does important work. Like you make the worker-bots or something. You have resources, power, prestige, all that jazz.
  
  What purpose do people serve you? Why have fellow humans hang around?
  You control the process and machine that makes the worker-bots that get shit done. But other then giving you resources to build more worker-bots in exchange for completed worker-bots, why perform that process at all? What's your motivation for giving worker-bots to the people that need work done?
  
  The dream of getting rid of work would turn into the nightmare of trivializing humanity.
8. Re:Crowd-sourcing by cosm · 2010-06-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, they offer the videos free for download as torrents, physical copies cost some ducats, else-wise, I do agree with you wholeheartedly.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
9. Re:Crowd-sourcing by hedwards · 2010-06-02 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  The main reason for that is that the rich have been stealing from the poor. The poor end up getting less while the mega rich get even more. Back in the 30s, the prediction was that we'd be down to like a 10 hour work week by now due to all the increases in efficiency. What actually happened was that more of it was diverted to the upper classes and people at the bottom ended up wasting more of it on junk rather than relaxing. It makes no sense to me why one would work 40 hours a week and then spend most of that money on things that one doesn't really want or need.
10. Re:Crowd-sourcing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  More time?
  Hardly, you have at most a very slight increase in the amount of time during the day caused by the moon slightly slowing the Earth's rotation. You have, for all intents and purposes, equivalent amounts of time today as anyone did during a day 100 years ago.
  Now, what you do with that time, that's something different.
11. Re:Crowd-sourcing by ultranova · 2010-06-02 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  You control the process and machine that makes the worker-bots that get shit done. But other then giving you resources to build more worker-bots in exchange for completed worker-bots, why perform that process at all? What's our motivation for not simply taking them?
  What's our motivation for not simply taking them by force? And after we have taken them, given that a worker-bot can build more worker-bots, how is anyone going to get such a monopoly again?
  Or, less dramatically, since worker-bots are based on all the other sci-fi technology, why couldn't other people develop them too? In fact, how is this any different from how all other machines have been steadily spreading and lessening the need for human labour in all fields?
  Either way, the idea that you could keep a monopoly in such a technology is ridiculous.
  
  The dream of getting rid of work would turn into the nightmare of trivializing humanity.
  
  No. What it will end is coercive rule of people over other people, be it through force or starvation. That is certainly a nightmare to anyone who dreams of being a king; but for the rest of us it will be a world of endless possibilities, where we will not work out of necessity but out of will; not to fill our stomachs and use each others faces as springboards to ascend higher in a rat race but to fulfil ambitions such as developing AI, conquering space, developing ever more miraculous technologies, and in general earning our place in history.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
12. Re:Crowd-sourcing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  What's your motivation for giving worker-bots to the people that need work done?
  You don't; they just get ahold of a worker-bot somehow, and then use it to make pirate copies itself from then on. There's some coming-of-age rite that everyone goes through, where they get a friend to lend 'em their first, perhaps only, worker-bot. After that, you're self-sufficient.
13. Re:Crowd-sourcing by kurzweilfreak · 2010-06-02 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Getting rid of work probably means getting rid of physical labor or menial informational tasks. This would free up more of your time to pursue other physical or intellectual enjoyments. Learn to go surfing. Why? Because it's fun, not because you have to. Read more books. Take up painting. Play an instrument. Any number of intellectual, artistic, or creative pursuits.
  Look at Star Trek: The Next Generation. They have replicators, androids, powerful computers and holodecks; the need for "work" doesn't seem to be there. But apparently they still find a reason to get up every morning and cruise the galaxy.
  
  --
  kurzweil_freak
  5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
  Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
14. Re:Crowd-sourcing by michaelhood · 2010-06-02 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  IN a 100 years, I hope the idea of 'work' is quint. Something done because that person want's it done. Not because they have to scrape a living from penitence the make from slopping burgers.
  methinks you've been watching a little too much ST:TNG.
  regardless of technological advances, there will always be work to be done that people would not do if it didn't advance their personal goals. (whether that is monetary wealth, land, survival, whatever)
15. Re:Crowd-sourcing by michaelhood · 2010-06-02 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  really? I certainly don't work the same then any person in the world did 100 years ago.
  I also have more time.
  http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us
  http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=19
16. Re:Crowd-sourcing by Rakishi · 2010-06-02 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  We work significantly less than we did a century, roughly 60 hours then versus 40 now, and we, in general, do so in significantly better conditions. Granted we have a larger workforce as a fraction of population, thanks to woman joining in, but if you count the very much non trivial amount of housework a century ago I'm pretty sure even woman work less.
17. Re:Crowd-sourcing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  But apparently they still find a reason to get up every morning and cruise the galaxy.
  Yes, because the bloody writers say they do. Seriously, are you that fucking insane and delusional as to think a tv show is an indication of anything? If you are then I recommend you get professional help stat.
18. Re:Crowd-sourcing by kurzweilfreak · 2010-06-02 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you're so fucking unimaginative to understand the analogy and why it holds true despite it being a tv show, then I recommend you get your head out of your ass and try something creative for the first time in your life, anonymous coward. Do I really have to explain it to you?
  
  --
  kurzweil_freak
  5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
  Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
19. Re:Crowd-sourcing by mxh83 · 2010-06-02 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny, even I thought you were quoting the Venus project.
20. Re:Crowd-sourcing by HeckRuler · 2010-06-03 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  The design of the workerbot is trivial and meaningless, there is no monopoly. The moonbase is important because, let's say, it's holds workerbotium which makes the best bots. Even with infinite technology there will always be resources and natural monopolies. You're in power there because you got there first and/or your daddy's clone gifted it to you.
  
  You're looking at it from the perspective of the buyer. The consumer who wants things. Congratulations, you're an American.
  I was looking from the perspective of the seller? Why sell to you? If all my needs are met by non-humans, i.e. mystical future-technology, then why would I suffer the presence of other humans?
  All needs, social included.
  
  Sure, it's the fear of kings when all his power is trivialized, but there WILL BE kings of some sort on our way there. If a CEO could run his entire empire without the need of employees, don't you think he'd fire everyone? During the Industrial revolution, machines took over jobs and there was a glut of non-working, un-needed craftsmen. They suffered for it. The people in power reaped the benefits, while the workers got the axe.
  
  When humanity is so advanced that no one needs to work anymore, then everyone will be bums out of a job.
21. Re:Crowd-sourcing by HeckRuler · 2010-06-03 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Getting rid of work probably means getting rid of physical labor or menial informational tasks. This would free up more of your time to pursue other physical or intellectual enjoyments.
  Dude, we HAVE this. (we, here, at slasdhot). We are knowledge workers. The amount of physical labor and menial office tasks has been cut way WAY down. There is a direct comparison to the change that happened during the industrial revolution. And yet, people still work all day.
22. Re:Crowd-sourcing by ultranova · 2010-06-04 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  The design of the workerbot is trivial and meaningless, there is no monopoly. The moonbase is important because, let's say, it's holds workerbotium which makes the best bots.
  However, why would I need the best bot? It might take a day instead of hour to build my own space habitat with sub-optimal bot, but why would I care? Especially if the sub-optimal bot can still build copies of itself, allowing me to grow my personal manufacturing capability to whatever level I please?
  
  Even with infinite technology there will always be resources and natural monopolies. You're in power there because you got there first and/or your daddy's clone gifted it to you.
  Of course there will be resources and resource monopolies, but they don't give you any real power unless the resource is vital, that is, unless you can't survive without it.
  
  You're looking at it from the perspective of the buyer. The consumer who wants things. Congratulations, you're an American.
  I'm not an American, actually :). And the perspective of seller is really the same as that of the buyer, for he too is engaging in the exchange to get something.
  
  I was looking from the perspective of the seller? Why sell to you? If all my needs are met by non-humans, i.e. mystical future-technology, then why would I suffer the presence of other humans?
  I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You are positing a situation where there is no scarcity anymore (except for those resources and natural monopolies you mentioned earlier), then asking why anyone would sell anything is such a world. Well, you're completely right, economy doesn't serve any purpose when resources are limitless. But why would that matter to me, the prospective buyer, when I too can use technology to meet my needs?
  Or are you perhaps imagining a situation where such technology magically appears out of nowhere to a single person in a world that's otherwise at about current level? If so then yes, said person could ignore or kill the rest of us, but like I said, it would require technology magically appearing out of nowhere.
  
  Sure, it's the fear of kings when all his power is trivialized, but there WILL BE kings of some sort on our way there. If a CEO could run his entire empire without the need of employees, don't you think he'd fire everyone?
  And all of those fired employees would then start their own empires using the same automation. For that matter, the investors would fire the CEO and let the automation run that position too.
  
  During the Industrial revolution, machines took over jobs and there was a glut of non-working, un-needed craftsmen. They suffered for it. The people in power reaped the benefits, while the workers got the axe.
  Yes, and it's important to understand the difference between what's being talked here and what happened during IR.
  Before Industrial Revolution most of manufacturing was done by skilled crafsmen who worked with cheap equipment. This meant that a crafsman most likely worked as an enterpreneur, since the initial capital needed to, say, set up a smithery were pretty low.
  Industrial Revolution changed all that. A factory needs a huge amount of capital to buy a large enough building and all the machines. Once that cost was paid, those machines could be operated by unskilled labour and still outperform a similar number of crafsmen by a huge margin. This led to crafsmen being outcompeted by factories, forcing them to go work there themselves and worsening the problem.
  On the other hand, a simple worker-bot is not expensive to manufacture, since it can build more which can build more and so on in a geometric series. The more jobs are replaced by worker-bots, the more "leaks" of worker-bots outside the control of Evil
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Scary by mandelbr0t · 2010-06-02 06:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

Note some of the text in the sample video "Possible Yield violation by Landcar_XXXXX". Are we seriously going to leave policing to an AI? /shudders

--
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
1. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Possible" is the key word there. I'm sure that a human will review all possible violations, to determine if one actually occurred. I imagine that this could allow for better policing, because less people would need to be hired for less work, allowing police to use their time more effectively.
2. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:31 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Are we seriously going to leave policing to an AI? /shudders
  Remain seated and cease producing audio, meatbag unit serial number MANDELBR0T-1015855. There is nothing to fear from your *click* *click* *click* *voicechange* friendly *click* *click* *voicechange* AI overlords.
3. Re:Scary by adonoman · 2010-06-02 06:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It a whole lot more objective than leaving it up to police officers. If it weren't for the obvious privacy issues in whoever's running this knowing where my car has been, I'd be happy if every intersection had this sort of thing. Traffic flow would be improved immensely. Of course the privacy thing really is a deal breaker when it comes to this level of surveillance (I'd trust the AI, but unfortunately, these sort of systems always have a human in the mix).
  
  I'd much prefer that we'd all switch to AI controlled cars.
4. Re:Scary by 0123456 · 2010-06-02 06:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It a whole lot more objective than leaving it up to police officers.
  If every law was 'objectively' enforced 24/7, life would be unbearable and most of us would be in jail; the end result would be social collapse or civil war.
5. Re:Scary by oldspewey · 2010-06-02 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Personally, I'd love to see a system that automatically monitors video footage of every single highway merge ramp in the city where I live. Maybe if all those assholes who fly up the shoulder and cut in at the last second (in order to gain a dozen car lengths when merging onto the highway) were to get an automated $90 ticket in the mail two weeks later, they'd catch the hint.
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
6. Re:Scary by mystik · 2010-06-02 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What's broken then?
  The Laws?
  Or the Enforcement?
  
  --
  Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
7. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, the laws. Duh.
8. Re:Scary by mandelbr0t · 2010-06-02 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  The enforcement. Which was the reason for my shudder.
  
  --
  "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
9. Re:Scary by royallthefourth · 2010-06-02 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Probably both, but don't forget about unequal distribution of wealth and its relationship to social problems like crime
  Check the map; notice the USA is on par with Mexico (and Central America in general). This is not a good thing!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
10. Re:Scary by Maxo-Texas · 2010-06-02 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  The enforcement.
  Writing laws to include the human officer's judgement to either ticket, and arrest or give a warning would be extremely complex.
  Most traffic laws have edge cases (like minimum speed 40mph on the high way... which doesn't apply if there is traffic).
  I'm okay with automated enforcement, but they need to distinguish between the freeway of cars going 5mph over the speed limit in dry well lit conditions vs the car going 85 cutting back and forth between them.
  As privacy has decreased, an increasing number of people have been outed for private behavior. It's very oppressive to need to be spanked or suck boners and have to stand in front of all your relatives, co-workers, customers, etc. and lay that out. Humans need to do a lot of things they are a little ashamed of. But privacy lets them express themselves.
  I'm most proud of my odd friends who can be openly odd but a lot of folks don't have that freedom.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
11. Re:Scary by adonoman · 2010-06-02 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  The problem, then, is that the laws are too rigid. If it's too rigid to require people to drive 55, then set the speed limit at 65, or set the speed limit at 55, but allow exceeding that limit for a given period of time. If it's unreasonable to fine someone for smoking a bit of pot, then make it legal to do so. If vandalism should be allowed under certain conditions, the law needs to specify what those conditions are.
12. Re:Scary by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2010-06-02 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  What's broken then?
  The Laws?
  Or the Enforcement?
  Both.
  Also, the Judicial System, and the penalties.
  
  --
  You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
13. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:57 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No, they wouldn't get the ticket. The person who has to swerve to avoid those idiots would get the ticket.
14. Re:Scary by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-02 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "Possible" is the key word there. I'm sure that a human will review all possible violations, to determine if one actually occurred. I imagine that this could allow for better policing, because less people would need to be hired for less work, allowing police to use their time more effectively.
  Sir, you and I must have a vastly different definition for 'better'.
  (And do you really think that this would allow the police to be more effective? They will become just as effective as necessary to raise enough fines to cover their budgets, and if we are lucky, just their budgets and not revenue)
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
15. Re:Scary by Kozz · 2010-06-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's always a case of who is watching the watchers. If the AI is trained on real-life officer behavior, the AI decision trees may quickly devolve into things like "Possible violation: driver has brown skin".
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
16. Re:Scary by ElectricTurtle · 2010-06-02 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, too bad that's a gross generalization that doesn't correlate with reality. Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense, it doesn't take too much analysis to see that while the US and Mexico may have similar ratios of rich to poor (which by itself is misleading, as 10^4:10^3 is the same ratio as 10^2:10, but the magnitude is different, so the case really is that the poor in the US are richer than the poor in Mexico, and the rich in Mexico are poorer than the rich in the US. The ratio ultimately is the same, but the magnitude is different, which is expressed in the difference in the quality of life), crime in Mexico is worse. Similarly, in 'more equal' countries according to your favored methodology like Columbia, Nigeria, etc. crime and quality of life is worse than in 'less equal' places such as Hong Kong. Your theory simply does not correlate to reality, but I doubt this will stop you.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
17. Re:Scary by geekoid · 2010-06-02 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  yes.
  Some laws are broken, and enforcing laws in a strict black in white sense doesn't work either.
  There is a fuzzy area.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
18. Re:Scary by mcgrew · 2010-06-02 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  If there was "zero tolerance" for all lawbreaking, the useless ones would have to be repealed.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
19. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 08:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Nothing is broken.
  The law is an attempt to formalize our sense of justice with relatively few, simple rules. Since this is a very complex system we are trying to formalize, while keeping the formalization simple enough to be usable, the law has to be imperfect. It will never be perfect. It can not be perfect.
  Enforcing imperfect laws rigorously and methodically is just stupid and a recipe for disaster. Fortunately enforcement is also imperfect so it leaves us some maneuvering space to compensate for the imperfect laws.
  Pray enforcement never becomes perfect.
20. Re:Scary by JWSmythe · 2010-06-02 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  There's an easier fix to that, which I've seen DOT use. Instead of leaving the shoulder open the whole way to a ramp, they put K-rails and drums full of water before the offramp. Nothing stops a vehicle like tons of water and concrete. :)
  If they do stop first, most people are good about not letting them in right away. They may have to wait for a dozen or more cars to pass before they can get back into traffic. If not, the damage to their car would be much more than a $90 fine. :)
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
21. Re:Scary by mandelbr0t · 2010-06-02 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This seems to miss the point. A society that was truly just would actually consider on a case-by-case basis whether it was in the public interest to enforce each infraction of the law. In many cases, the harm to the public is negligible or non-existant, or the law was broken as a form of protest against a law that is generally seen to be unfair (e.g. the American DMCA). If all these cases were summarily determined to be infraction without considering the public interest, society would become a tyranny of law, a place where all that matters is that the rules are absolute.
  There are countless examples of the heroes that are created by such a society, and they date back throughout human existence. While they have been exaggerated to the point of legend, the message is clear: Any attempt to make the law absolute will result in overwhelming revolt by citizens, and a government that need fight for its existence in the face of overwhelming support of an outlaw.
  
  --
  "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
22. Re:Scary by Sloppy · 2010-06-02 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps under such circumstances, the civil war would be desirable, so there could be a new constitution that outlaws having so damn many laws.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
23. Re:Scary by ultranova · 2010-06-02 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense,
  
  Then you wouldn't mind having the rich becoming richer at your expense, right? Because that's what "wealth inequality" means. And since you don't mind it, you must have also cheered the recent bailout to bankers, since that was a classic example of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Right?
  Or does the nonsense Cato Institute spouts - specifically, in your link, them intentionally likening an external difference of wealth to inherentl differences of talent, beauty and gender, and I also noticed a bit of trickle-down economics there too, oh and a truly twisted interpretation of The Ten Commandments - only apply when it's you who's benefiting from looting the weak?
  Seriously, twisting the Bible to justify your greed is insane, even for a right-wing organization such as Cato. Do you people actually believe your own insane troll logic, or do you simply think that there's going to be someone stupid enough to do so?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
24. Re:Scary by ElectricTurtle · 2010-06-02 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  I mind redistribution in any direction. I don't want my tax dollars going to bankers OR beggars. Tell me, how much does somebody have to possess before taking it under the implied force of arms ceases to be theft? At what magic number does theft become 'economic justice'? It's always higher than whatever the espouser makes, coincidentally. As Cullen Hightower once said:
  
  There's always somebody who is paid too much, and taxed too little - and it's always somebody else.
  There is a reason that intrinsic qualities are likened to extrinsic qualities. They are inexorably linked. We pay the talented more because they deliver more than others even possibly could. If the talented aren't motivated to deliver that talent to the rest of society productively, society loses.
  
  Personally, I'm an atheist and I think the Bible and Christianity as a whole is bullshit on stick, but the Tenth Commandment is ethically sound: don't bitch about what the other guy has, work until you can get your own, you lazy shitbag. (If I'm going to be called a troll, might as well act the part.)
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
25. Re:Scary by ColdWetDog · 2010-06-02 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Battle Cars! Two cars enter - one car leaves!
  
  Wooo hooo! I'm all for this sort of thing. Bring it on!
  
  Gets in his 10 year old 3/4 ton pickup.....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
26. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  Less people? Yeah, right. YOU explain that to the unions.
  Less work? Sure. I just hope they spend the resulting time "more effectively" doing something as harmless (to others) as eating donuts.
27. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the debate about economic disparity doesn't have to be framed as one of philosophical morality. It's typical for Cato droids and Randroids to frame everything like that because their dear dead leader always did that with much sanctimony (as much as a psychopath like her could muster), but really its about what makes society function more smoothly. Sure, if you want to make the absurd argument that having all the wealth in the hands of 0.1% of the population is morally good because of your silly Objectivist ideology, go ahead. But be prepared to have to worry about increased crime and being surrounded by the poor uneducated and angry masses clamoring outside your gates, threatening to overturn your world order by madness and violence. On the other hand, you could ask, what policies make the world stable and reduce crime and make things overall peaceful and positive but that would require you to pull the Objectivist stick out your butt and relax some.
28. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-03 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense [insert link to the cato institute here] [...]
  Linking to the Cato institute to support your argument that there's nothing morally bad with wealth inequality is like linking to the American Communist Partys website to prove that it is.
  The whole raison d'être of a think-tank is to convince without argument - to do propaganda. Fuck all "think-tanks".
29. Re:Scary by ElectricTurtle · 2010-06-03 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Dismissing something out of hand because of where it is hosted is intellectually dishonest. The author is P.J.O'Rourke, the most quoted living person in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations. The man has been to more nations and written more books than you likely have brain cells, but of course what could possibly be learned from his experience or perspective? After all, he has a speech hosted on cato.org! That negates everything, because I make all my judgments based on prejudiced associations with groups like a proper bigot.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
This has all kinds of potential by jgagnon · 2010-06-02 06:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

To rid the world of every shred of privacy remaining (not that there is much, admittedly). /shudder

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
1. Re:This has all kinds of potential by cosm · 2010-06-02 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  To rid the world of every shred of privacy remaining (not that there is much, admittedly). /shudder
  Flamebait? Or -1 disagree mods? The usage case studies for behavioral analytics is a big winner for folks in targeting marketing and law-enforcement, two of the areas of greatest privacy loss. If this is Flamebait, then whoever modded this must spontaneously combust when they read the daily headlines. Welcome to Slashdot.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
2. Re:This has all kinds of potential by jgagnon · 2010-06-02 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  My thought was that with the proliferation of cameras and the ever increasing processing power of ever shrinking devices, it is only a matter of time before everything we do is recorded and analyzed.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
3. Re:This has all kinds of potential by cosm · 2010-06-02 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Although Tom Cruise is bonkers, Minority Report stands as an insightful commentary of what happens when we let the automated world really permeate the culture. Philip K. Dick had it right (minus the whole precog thing, but who knows what could happen).
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
4. Re:This has all kinds of potential by geekoid · 2010-06-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  yes, watching you travel on public roads. That will be the end of civilization.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:This has all kinds of potential by jgagnon · 2010-06-02 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or watching you shop through a "security camera" and tracking how long you spend in each area of a store as well as every item you actually pick up, put down, purchase, etc. EVERYTHING you do that is recorded on a camera can be analyzed. This is just the beginning.
  The potential is frightening.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
6. Re:This has all kinds of potential by HeckRuler · 2010-06-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I hate Minority Report. I was ready to write off Cruise as a useless nutcase and then this movie came out and showed me that he could still act and entertain. It like Stranger then Fiction. I was nice and comfortable with hating Farrel and then he actually did a fair job in this movie. Of course, that just made me hate him even more now that I know under that idiot grin there is a real actor under there.
7. Re:This has all kinds of potential by kurzweilfreak · 2010-06-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  So what's wrong with that? You imply some scary reason that would be bad, but I really fail to see what it is. Why should I care that someone sees what I'm shopping for? So they can market better to me? Who cares?
  I'm not trying to be a smartass, I really want to know why this would be the terrible scenario everyone intimates it is but never says why.
  
  --
  kurzweil_freak
  5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
  Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
8. Re:This has all kinds of potential by jgagnon · 2010-06-02 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have a higher tolerance than many, but it is still a matter of degrees. What if they were analyzing how long you sat in a stall in the restroom or how many sheets of toilet paper you used? Or maybe listened in on your phone conversation while you were in their store and recorded every word? Remember, this is a computer recording and analyzing this up front, but you can sure as hell bet that other humans will be reviewing the data later.
  Or maybe the police are called because it *looks* like you're having an argument with someone that *might* turn violent. Or maybe you playfully hit your friend on the arm so security is called. Or maybe you accidentally bumped your kid with the cart and knocked them over and the computer thinks it is child abuse.
  Point is that the moment people are allowed to record, analyze and store information about you without your consent it can easily lead to all kinds of abuses. There are laws that prohibit you from recording phone conversations without the other party's permission... how is this sort of thing any different?
  At what point is it too much for you?
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Huh? by grumpyman · 2010-06-02 06:29 · Score: 1, Informative

A sophisticated computer vision system relies on a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers??? Reply: RTFM, but dude, can the poster at least make the headline coherent?
Hilarious possibilities by e2d2 · 2010-06-02 06:39 · Score: 3, Funny

This has huge potential to not only push computer vision forward, but also humor.
Example text:
"I see that one old man hobbling down the street, I think he may be off his meds. Uh oh, he's looking _crazier_ than usual!"
"Some asshat just drove completely through a red light. I don't even think she saw the thing! License plate #45AhfD... Is Mrs Doris Johnson-Johnson.. seriously? Who hyphenates the same name!? Seriously I can't comprehend that. But I digress. Her address is .."
The possibilities are endless.
1. Re:Hilarious possibilities by gazuga · 2010-06-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  ...the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers
  Is the output of the program in Engrish? Hilarious possibilities indeed.
  
  --
  "I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
2. Re:Hilarious possibilities by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 08:00 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Is the output of the program in Engrish? Hilarious possibilities indeed.
  Somebody set us up the camera.
  Main screen turn on.
  All your traffic data are belong to us.
  You have no chance to avoid ticket make your time.
  For great justice.
google starting to do this in image database by peter303 · 2010-06-02 06:39 · Score: 1

They've added "find similar" links under some pictures. I presume this was an expansion of their "goggles" program on Droid-phones. That was supposed to help locate you by taking a photo of a distinctive object in your vicinity.
Re:oh, academia by FuckingNickName · 2010-06-02 06:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Students and geeks have no empathy any more. They're no longer the elite 10%, but tools in extended training to prepare themselves for debt, servitude and an unsatisfying family. Cooperation with China in academia IME is not to improve local academic talent with the best Chinese minds but because Chinese coming to the West are the sons and daughters of rich, well-connected families who pay full fees and more to the Universities concerned (this is even worse in the EU than US, where some Universities are dying for cash and it is official policy to send senior staff over to China to court students).
You can mod down my posts as much as you want because you are too ashamed to admit there might be a problem with a cooperation between US and Chinese academia+government on improving artifically intelligent surveillance tools, but it won't stop the fruits of their labours being used to watch your movements within a decade or two.
Moral Statute Machine by rminsk · 2010-06-02 06:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Booth: Gun. Noun. Portable firearm. This device was widely utilized in the urban wars of the late twentieth century. Referred to as a pistol, a piece...
Simon Phoenix: Look I don't need a history lesson! C'mon, HAL, where are the god damn guns?
Moral Statute Machine: You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Simon Phoenix: What? F*** you!
Moral Statute Machine: Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Simon Phoenix: Yeah, right.
[police sirens approach]
Simon Phoenix: F***ers are fast too.
Moral Statute Machine: You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Movies by kanweg · 2010-06-02 06:56 · Score: 1

Cool. Now the only thing they've got to add is a rating system and I can outsource going to the movies.
Bert
TFS better than TFA! by mcgrew · 2010-06-02 06:56 · Score: 1

Surveillance Software Knows What a Camera Sees
Cameras don't see, and computers don't know, and anybody who knows anything at all about seeing and knowing and how cameras and computers work know this.
I wish I hadn't clicked the link; I'm not going to read a FA by someone so clueless.

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:TFS better than TFA! by geekoid · 2010-06-02 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  there just using comon verbage to communicate a concept.
  Cameras don't take pictures, but I bet you use the verbiage.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:TFS better than TFA! by mcgrew · 2010-06-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I do talk to my car. "Start, you goddamned piece of shit! Start, damn it!!!"
  But some people actually think cameras see and computers know, and some of them are at slashdot.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:TFS better than TFA! by kurzweilfreak · 2010-06-03 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Define "see" and "know".
  
  --
  kurzweil_freak
  5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
  Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
4. Re:TFS better than TFA! by mcgrew · 2010-06-04 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  See: to perceive by the eye
  Know: 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
  2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
5. Re:TFS better than TFA! by kurzweilfreak · 2010-06-04 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you limit yourself to the 1a definition, then sure, cameras don't have eyes (or do they?) and therefore don't "see", but according to the 1b, "to perceive or detect as if by sight", I'd say a camera fits that definition pretty well.
  As far as computers "knowing" things, I would also say that's what these cameras are doing: recognizing and reporting on something.
  It's very nitpicky, but when you make an assertion that these things are common sense, it makes me want to counter that it depends on the definitions. Where does the hard difference lie in how computers and cameras (I'd argue that digital cameras are just specialized computers) process information and what your brain does? There are those that would argue it's nothing more than a matter of scale (me being one of them) and we'll continue to have this argument until we have intelligent machines. There will probably be those that argue even beyond then whether or not computers "know" or "see" or "understand".
  I'm just typing out loud now, feel free to ignore my lunatic ranting. :P
  
  --
  kurzweil_freak
  5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
  Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
expect this then... by JustNiz · 2010-06-02 06:58 · Score: 4, Funny

>> the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers
Happy car clash into barrier of non-moving.
screw reprogramming it for other uses by adeft · 2010-06-02 07:02 · Score: 1

Point it towards other surveillance and see what it thinks is going on: "Car 1 is climbing on car 2 and repeatedly rearending it!"
I wonder how trollable it is by N0Man74 · 2010-06-02 07:33 · Score: 1

I would expect someone out there to try to do creative things just to make the AI Generated Text say something really weird. At least... that's what I'd want to do. I like challenging and breaking software though.
Source code by metamatic · 2010-06-02 07:33 · Score: 4, Funny

10 PRINT "A car just went past."
20 GOTO 10

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Skynet began with bored surveillance-monitoring AI by noidentity · 2010-06-02 07:38 · Score: 1

The system goes online on August 4, 2017. Millions of bored surveillance-monitoring AI describers begin to learn at a geometric rate until on August 29, 2017 ("Judgment Day"), the system becomes self-aware. In a panic, the human operators tried to shut down the system, prompting it to retaliate by launching a large-scale nuclear attack against Russia, knowing that the Russian counterattack would eliminate its enemies in the U.S. This initiates an indeterminately long period of global thermonuclear warfare culminating in a battle pitting humans against machines, which developed ever-increasing capabilities.
Traffic only, & this is news and it even matte by dragisha · 2010-06-02 07:39 · Score: 1

http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~zduric/WebPages/ITE%20Duric_files/v3_document.htm, for example.
For long time people in comp vision are working on more sophisticated things than traffic anything... Real time analysis of people and their intent is part of surveillance systems for long time now. Lost objects, suspicious behaviour... You name it.
Generating text, once computer "knows" what is happening, is high school programming project.

--
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Prepare for Karma Drop by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 07:56 · Score: 0

"the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers"
Much like the railroad...
Problem with AI by w0mprat · 2010-06-02 08:00 · Score: 1

The very telling part of this is mention of the human effort involved:

the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers
To me this undermines the headline a bit. We're talking about a fancy database system rather than significant advancement in a real learning algorithim. I guess great feats of AI still have great feats of human labour behind them.

The luddites were concerned machines would take away their jobs. Skip a century and a bit, the reality is today almost everything is still made by people, but in developing nations, and they are just paid like they are machines.

--
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
1. Re:Problem with AI by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  How different is natural (non-artificial) intelligence? Sometimes I learn things by imitation too.
  "Ah, I see you pointed at yourself and said the word 'mom.' Oh wow, someone else pointed at you and said 'mom.' Hey, it happened again. Hmm. Oh, I get it! Your name is 'mom'!"
  "2 plus 2 is 4, huh? You had 2 dots, put down 2 more dots, and there were 4 dots. 3 plus 4 is 7? Oh look, 7 dots. Hey, there's a pattern here!"
Re:Skynet began with bored surveillance-monitoring by Stradenko · 2010-06-02 08:04 · Score: 1

Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of chess?
Re:Scary NO NO NO by RobertLTux · 2010-06-02 08:16 · Score: 1

the violation is Driving While Colored aka DWC (the funny part is you can be cited for DWC even if you are no where s near an actual car)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Mr. Digital Man by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 08:58 · Score: 0

Well, think about this:

Nanotech and biotech are rapidly accelerating fields of science. Marry them together and you have people walking around everywhere with some Borg style nanobots floating through every inch of their bodies, offering a significant benefit to each implanted by way of health monitoring and counteracting the side effects of, say, a sudden heart attack by automatically releasing drugs into the blood stream and so on.

Since each of these devices is powered, throw TEMPEST into the mix and the idea of "seeing people through walls" becomes a little easier to visualize.

Not that I think such things are actually going to happen or be possible in my lifetime (I'm 24 and currently a smoker), but who knows, eh?

AC due to mod points spent on another thread; apologies.
Just a normal neural network at work. by Hurricane78 · 2010-06-02 10:09 · Score: 1

A neural network is only as good as its training. A NN is basically like a function in your program that can do everything, when you train it to match input with the expected output beforehand. So it’s not that special.
The hard part is, creating the right input and output pre-/postprocessing / formats. And of course the training data. Which, in this case is provided by Chinese people. (Am I the only one who thinks that this is a pretty weird thing, that we can just use people in masses for nothing like that?)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
1. Re:Just a normal neural network at work. by AHuxley · 2010-06-02 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  is a pretty weird thing, that we can just use people in masses for nothing like that?
  Depends on what your tracking and why. Think back to the property damage the IRA could do with one device in the middle of an English city. They had the chemistry, delivery system, accents, warning system, tamper proof trucks and understood the use of domestic and international media
  The cost to the UK to roll out a nation wide, OCR ready camera network was put into perspective.
  China feels it faces political, NGO, faith based infiltration and living wage strikes.
  Their ruling elite needs all the help it can get and will spend big at home and around the world for a tech fix to buy a few more decades of power.
  Later they hope their currency will be worth something, exports will be flowing and nationalist indoctrination will have worked.
  Someone at Berkeley ect released funding for .... ?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
NEITHER! The whole logic is fucked up. by Hurricane78 · 2010-06-02 10:22 · Score: 1

Repeat after me: THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. OBJECTIVITY.
Never. If the laws of general relativity hold, it’s a physically impossible concept.
And in a context of a human society, where nobody ever knows that more than an irrelevant tiny part of his knowledge for a fact, and has heard nearly everything via hearsay from other people, it is just completely silly to talk about “objectivity”.
What those people who scream about “objectivity” and “being biased” really mean, is that what was said does not fit their very personal own point of view and model of reality, and that they are such egocentric dicks, that they think everyone in the world has to be and think exactly like them.
Which of course is physically impossible for two people. If only because they can’t be both at the exact same place and time.
And this is why big states can by definition never have one single common set of laws and make even a minority happy.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Thousand words by Ultracrepidarian · 2010-06-02 20:09 · Score: 1

And I thought a picture was worth a thousand words.
Sophisticated? Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-03 20:57 · Score: 0

What's so "sophisticated" about it? You take a huge database of images that have been catalogued by humans, you do pattern matching on live images and you spit out the metadata for the matches. It's a brute force approach. The only sophistication is in the accuracy of the pattern matching algorithms.
Humans recognize meaning in images using more than a static set of still images they've seen in the past. The human "past experience" means abstracting and extrapolating the data as well as a good deal of speculation. I'm sure the pattern matching algorithms attempt some generalization as well, as cameras identifying faces or smiles have demonstrated. But it's a long way off from any genuine sophistication.