Slashdot Mirror


Software Describes Surveillance Footage In AI-Generated Text

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."

24 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 IndustrialComplex · · 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
    4. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · · 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?
    5. Re:Expectation of privacy by Hognoxious · · 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."
    6. Re:Expectation of privacy by drsmithy · · 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.

    7. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · · 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?
    8. Re:Expectation of privacy by oldspewey · · 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?
    9. Re:Expectation of privacy by HeckRuler · · 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.

  2. Crowd-sourcing by cosm · · 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 cosm · · 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:Scary by adonoman · · 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 · · 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. Hilarious possibilities by e2d2 · · 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.

  6. Re:Scary by oldspewey · · 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?
  7. Re:Scary by mystik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's broken then?

    The Laws?

    Or the Enforcement?

    --
    Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
  8. Moral Statute Machine by rminsk · · 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.

  9. Re:Scary by royallthefourth · · 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. expect this then... by JustNiz · · 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.

  11. Re:Scary by IndustrialComplex · · 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
  12. Re:Scary by ElectricTurtle · · 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
  13. Source code by metamatic · · 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
  14. Re:Scary by mandelbr0t · · 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