Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Fooled a Google AI Into Thinking a Rifle Was a Helicopter (wired.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Wired report: Algorithms, unlike humans, are susceptible to a specific type of problem called an "adversarial example." These are specially designed optical illusions that fool computers into doing things like mistake a picture of a panda for one of a gibbon. They can be images, sounds, or paragraphs of text. Think of them as hallucinations for algorithms. While a panda-gibbon mix-up may seem low stakes, an adversarial example could thwart the AI system that controls a self-driving car, for instance, causing it to mistake a stop sign for a speed limit one. They've already been used to beat other kinds of algorithms, like spam filters. Those adversarial examples are also much easier to create than was previously understood, according to research released Wednesday from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. And not just under controlled conditions; the team reliably fooled Google's Cloud Vision API, a machine learning algorithm used in the real world today. For example, in November another team at MIT (with many of the same researchers) published a study demonstrating how Google's InceptionV3 image classifier could be duped into thinking that a 3-D-printed turtle was a rifle. In fact, researchers could manipulate the AI into thinking the turtle was any object they wanted.
Many humans are also easily fooled into thinking that this is just a plain brick wall:
http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/d2...
Vandalizing street signs has been possible for a long time, just remove one street sign, and replace it with another. I don't think this has ever been a wide scale problem.
No, vandalism should have the same punishment as it have today - cars have to be able to drive as good as human drivers and so the dangers should be the same anyway. If the cars are stupid they shouldn't drive themselves period.
The rest is just brain damage level reasoning mixed with prejudices.
While the visual street signs will remain once driverless technology is >/= human performance, traffic signs and intersections will begin being fitted out with remote transmitters that communicate with your vehicle's on-board system, which will communicate with other vehicles on-board systems.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Cars reading street signs is a temporary solution to road use data acquisition.
As with all new automation there is a tenancy to assume that removal of a human leaves a human-shaped hole which will then need to be filled with a human-shaped robot. In this case that would be a robot that reads street signs.
In the long run there will be no street signs and vehicles will determine things like appropriate speed from stored information on the road system, observation of the local environmental conditions and communication with the other vehicles. Speed may be decided based on the width of the road, the number of lanes and junctions, road curvature, the nature of the road surface, relative proximity to significant areas and structures, etc. In turn the roads will be constructed to give AI appropriate cues. The roads will change to suit AI rather than AI being made to suit human roads.
Why would a vandalized street sign be any worse with a self driving car vs a human?
Humans misread and miss street signs all of the time, self driving cars will need to be able to cope with the behavior already.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Artificial intelligence isn't like natural intelligence at all.
Natural STUPIDITY, yes.
Nobody with a brain believes that a bankrupt businessman or politician is capable of telling the truth, and certainly not when they're making promises that don't affect themselves one bit.
To be honest, my bugbear is taht AI was always a misnomer, because it's not intelligent at all, precisely because of things like this. There is no line of thinking that leads it to believe that a 3D turtle is a rifle - if you asked it to tell you WHY it was a rifle, and it could pick out features on the image that look like a rifle from a certain angle, yes, you could claim it was intelligent. But it can't do that. It's all just random junk and statistics, with heuristic (human-written) rules governing it. And the scariest bit - the attackers probably have more understanding how it interprets data than the people who created it.
It's not intelligence to act without being able to provide reasoning. Trump-supporters and AI both have that inability in common.
If and when self-driving cars really become a thing, vandalism of street signs will probably have to be elevated to a felony....
I think this will be a temporary issue, at best. First, this has never been a big issue. Second, I suspect that street signage is already on the endangered species list. There is already nothing significant stopping such signage from becoming part of vehicles' on-board systems -- whether integrated into new vehicles, or as add-ons to older ones.
Myth. US prisons are not full up with people for marijuana convictions, especially not for simple possession.
Of the 750K annual US marijuana arrests:
About 40,000 inmates of state and federal prison have a current conviction involving marijuana, and about half of them are in for marijuana offenses alone; most of these were involved in distribution. Less than one percent are in for possession alone.
There are 2.2 million US prisoners at the state and federal level, so less than 2%. It's such a small % that the keepers of the keys (do they use keys anymore?) can keep their prisons full by delaying parole releases.
But yes, ethnicity still plays too large a role in sentencing, so you're not completely wrong.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Donald Trump conned....
And that's different from any other President...how?
Many believe their imaginary friend is real. just because they where told by others that that imaginary friend is real. OTOH we won't believe a sign that said a bench has wet paint and we need to
Now that the system knows it was fooled. Will it be fooled again? Because "Fool me twice and I won't be fooled again."
I do not think the system was actually "fooled" It was taught the wrong thing. If anything, it was mislead. Just like you can tell a kid that the candy came out of its ear or you stole its nose.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
if you asked it to tell you WHY it was a rifle, and it could pick out features on the image that look like a rifle from a certain angle, yes
Is the dress white/gold or blue/black? Use reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, vandalism should have the same punishment as it have today - cars have to be able to drive as good as human drivers
OK...
But then:
and so the dangers should be the same anyway. If the cars are stupid they shouldn't drive themselves period. ...
You're setting a higher standard for cars than you do for humans.
Every time I drive, I find it hard to believe the beings driving some of the other cars are the same species that put members on the Moon and got them home safely.
They just about advertise their stupidity:
"Hey, let's go 15 below the speed limit in the passing lane! And ignore all the cars passing me on the wrong side!"
Either you're an obliviot because don't know what's going on (and shouldn't be driving), or you do know what's going on and you're an arrogant passive-aggressive complete asshat through-and-through.
Here we see Trump Derangement Syndrome in full effect. A story completely unrelated to Trump, and yet the poster manages to shoehorn a spittle-flecked rant into the thread. AND it got modded up. That's collective derangement. Remember folks, these people losing their shit are the same ones who told us they were qualified to rule us because they were so educated and erudite. Would actual educated people be throwing temper tantrums and acting out in public like this?
OK, I resent that. I was comparing Trump's success at fooling 62,979,879 separate instances of the same natural intelligence to what these scientists achieved. If anything Trump's achievement is greater since each one of the 62,979,879 instances of the NI Trump fooled with his garbage data is a functionally quite distinct variation of the base NI whereas these scientists only managed to bamboozle a single variant of a much more primitive AI with much less variation from instance to instance. How is that unrelated? ... plus I have done nothing but heap praise on Mr. Trump for his skills at generating highly plausible garbage data. I find it most interesting from a purely scientific point of view that NIs are every bit as easy to fool by feeding them complete garbage data as artificial AIs are even though NIs are supposed to be more sophisticated. In fact Mr. Trump, with his political career, may have significantly advanced our understanding of how NIs deal with adversarial examples.
Donald Trump conned....
And that's different from any other President...how?
Well DUH! .... the level, quantity and quality of the garbage data (or 'adversarial examples' if you wanna get technical), what else?
But yes, ethnicity still plays too large a role in sentencing, so you're not completely wrong.
Ethnicity plays too large a role in committing the crimes in the first place. Maybe people should work on that angle a bit more.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...
A stop sign will still look like a stop sign to you or me, but can be seen by the car's AI into seeing something totally different.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Easy.
Allow me to provide you an answer using intelligence including reasoning which any current AI would be impossible to answer in the same manner.
The dress is blue/black. Simple colour measurements on the original image determine this quite conclusively as does the purchaser and manufacturers of the dress.
However, depending on the individual perception of the detection devices in question, and their associated processing of nearby stripy colours, some people perceive it as one, other or both of the above depending on the time given and whether they've "heard" that it's a particular colour dress in advance.
Equally, some colour-blind people will see entirely different colour combinations in the same image, which is not perfectly representative of the original dress anyway given that it's effectively a false-colour reproduction made on a cheap smartphone CCD.
The day an AI can return "Answer A, Answer A&B, and Answer Z which you forgot to list in the possibilities", and reason their way through it, you can say we have AI.
I'm sorry to inform you than millions of americans with brains believed him.
Rationalization adjusts the weight of each fact to fit the desired conclusion. Even in the face of irrefutable evidence people will continue to rate it as not as important as other factors. In the face of refutable but true evidence, people just say it's not true.
Sure, it's happening with people who voted for trump, but it happens all the time in real life.
It's very hard to get people to agree something is true if they will lose money.
On the parent topic- humans have momentary visual glitches *all* *the* *time*.
And we design our signs, buildings, and roads to avoid creating those glitches.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Buh buh buh ... RuSSiansS... Pussy grabbing...rich orange guy ... etc.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yes but you have to keep in mind that the U.S. imprisons more of its population than Russia. And almost 8x the rate of most civilized countries.
Well, sure, if you're willing to go full on apples-to-oranges with that comparison to civilized countries.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The day an AI can return "Answer A, Answer A&B, and Answer Z which you forgot to list in the possibilities", and reason their way through it, you can say we have AI.
When I look at the dress, I only see white/gold, so I failed your test despite not being an AI.
Simple colour measurements on the original image determine this quite conclusively as does the purchaser and manufacturers of the dress.
Pixel values are light blue/yellowish-brown. And whatever the manufacturer says is irrelevant for my perception. I believe what they are saying, but that doesn't change what I see.
The key problem with AI, is its trust in in its sources. They havn't programmed in a silly algorithm yet. When kids are learning to process the world. Kids learn when things are in the wrong context then it is probably silly or just wrong. Even if it from a trusted source, a kid will laugh at their parent if they are saying something that is contradicting their view of the world. Such as when the parent is playing with the kid, they substitute a toy car for a doll, and play with the car like a doll. The child find this amusing because the context is all wrong. The AI algorithm seeing this, would just say this toy probably of usage has expanded to be used as a doll so it must be a doll. There is no questioning saying "no, that is not how you play with that toy". it will take the source as factual and just add it to its list.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Do stupid crimes, pay stupid prices.
If anyone wants my sympathy because they got busted for drugs, tough luck. Drugs are illegal, and many state/city/federal prosecutors punish harshly for them. If drug users are too stupid to figure that out, that's their fault.
And, yes, I know several drug users, any one of which could end up in jail for years if busted. And I have said that to them,
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
"it is turtles all the way down."
First, it's only _one_ turtle the Great A'Tuin.
Second, there's also 4 elephants in between.
All of these vision AIs are programmed backwards -- for convenience. This random object looks "more like" a speed limit sign and "less like" a stop sign. Great. No body cares about how much "like" something another something appears.
You can ask any 10-year old. A stop sign is a red octagon. Any 16-year old will say it also has a white border, and white lettering in the middle. Any experienced driver will add that it appears at some sort of intersection, obstruction, or event, alongside a narrow road.
Now, if you see a red octagon, and you stop, and it turns out to be a giant lollipop, then that's good. Because a giant lollipop on the road is absolutely acting as a stop sign.
If something isn't a red octagon, then it's definitely not a stop sign.
The problem here is that google's vision AI doesn't identify an sight according to what defines a stop sign -- a red octagon on the side of the road. That's because it's highly stupid.
And the question really comes down to something much simpler. If I put a big square sign on the side of the road, blue, with yellow lettering, that says "please pause, thank you", will google treat it as a stop sign? Good bet that any driver who sees it (and can certainly be forgiven for not noticing it) will stop.
Conversely, on a highway, at 120kph, if I put a real stop sign on the side of the road, will google treat it as a stop sign? No human driver is going to slam on the brakes.
Google's not thinking. Therefore, it ain't an AI. It surely "looks like" an AI, but it's not an AI. It uses collected intelligence to determine what the object is, but it doesn't use its own intelligence to make decisions. It doesn't make decisions at all.
Show me a vision system that can take any photograph of any road, and decide whether or not it should stop the car. Doesn't need to be right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it just needs to make a decision, reliably, that makes sense. See, if it can do that, "reliably", then we can change the signs for them. We chose the signs for us for a reason. Humans see red first, so stop signs are red. If machines have trouble with octagons, and love purple, then we can give them that instead. Dual signage is common in multi-lingual communities.
But these shitty AI systems are much worse. They don't even make their classifications reliably -- because the more data they collect, the most they distract themselves. So a guaranteed "this is a stop sign, 100%" can change a year later, as it "learns", such that the very same stop sign is now only 80%. There's no fortification. There's no stubbornness. That's a problem.
Doesn't matter what color I am, I don't use illegal drugs, because it's not worth the risk. Considering the risk is higher if I am black, it would make more sense for me to be black that white.
Selfish? Because I don't put myself in danger of being arrested? Because my mother doesn't worry that she'll have to spend her rent money to bail me out of jail? Because I think differently than you? Yeah, whatever.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
When I look at the dress, I only see white/gold, so I failed your test despite not being an AI.
He said an AI, not every AI. Right now, while not every person can do what is prescribed above, some people can but no AI can.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Tim S.
"it is turtles all the way down."
First, it's only _one_ turtle the Great A'Tuin. Second, there's also 4 elephants in between.
The AI that wrote the headline knew it was a story about another AI seeing one thing and thinking it was another. Since it, itself, saw the turtle as a rifle, it had to think of what another AI might mistake a rifle for and it came up with helicopter.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You really lack the self-awareness to see how you're above this kind of cringey acting out in public, in a story with absolutely zero Trump relevance whatsoever? You're not seeing it? This is the same thing that happened during Bu$hitler's reign (you called him Hitler too), people would just start shouting about the President in any thread, no matter the distance from politics. Thus Bush Derangement Syndrome, replaced today by Trump Derangement Syndrome. You're a sufferer. Seek help.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
There's bound to be humans fooled by adversarial examples too. Who wants to do those studies.
An AI image classification system already outputs multiple answers with probabilities.
But it doesn't output answers that aren't on its list... did you not follow the conversation?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That's not the worst part. The worst part is that this article demonstrates that they may be smart one day and doing completely stupid things the next. In millions of cars.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
My city can't afford to keep the potholes out of the streets. They're not going to be embedding electronics into the streets any time soon. It's also very convenient to miss the fact that these will need to drive with humans for the next 50 years. They will have to drive like the humans do, which means obeying speed limits and more importantly moving at the common speed of traffic. An artificial speed limit chosen by the car itself will just make driving unworkable for humans once some of these are on the road.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Must be nice living in a city with cash to burn on embedded weather-proofed electronics in every street sign.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You make several valid points. The biggest rebuttal about them is that the countries you mention are mostly homogenous populations, without the racial history that defined the US. The biggest problem (imho) today is that the US has a large population that is being told every day that they have to "stick it to the man". Modern black culture in America is its own worst problem, and many who try to escape it are punished by that same culture for "being white".
Poor immigrants come in from Asia every year. We don't see the problems in the poor Asian communities that we see in the poor black communities. So it isn't simply a "non-white" problem. It is a cultural problem withing the modern day black community. Part of the blame can certainly be placed on racism, but that once "whites only" was outlawed, racism is more of a crutch than actual reason for someone being held back.
For many of the programs that worked in other areas, we have seen them attempted here in the US. They fail within a few years because
1. It was a political move, and ignored after the election
2. Only a dozen people were successfully helped, out of thousands/millions
3. Blacks actively attacked the blacks that participated
4. Clinics/offices in the neighborhoods served were vandalized or burglarized
5. Corruption, bribes, slush funds, rather than real aid
6. Too many people allow all of the above to happen
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
One of us is. But there isn't spittle on my chin, so it's not me. Thank you for the clarification of your viewpoint.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Rifle is fine
playmoney.me - The free alternative to paper board game play money
Genuinely interested - do you have a source for your claim that white America has a similar crime rate to Switzerland?
But yes, ethnicity still plays too large a role in sentencing
That's a myth also, perpetuated by the same kind of shoddy "research" as the supposed "wage gap". When you control for other factors, they both largely go away.
When it comes to the wage gap, controlling for actual hours worked eliminated the majority of it; when it comes to sentencing disparities the same happens when you control for aggravating factors such as previous criminal history and use of violence/weapons in the commission of the crime.
The amount of yellow needed to turn black into that shade of gold is retarded. Way more than the amount of blue you need to turn the white into a light blue.
If and when self-driving cars really become a thing, vandalism of street signs will probably have to be elevated to a felony with a mandatory minimums, even if no one gets hurt. It'll also have to be something where minors can be charged as adults because they're the ones who probably do the majority of it, and you know there will be teens who'll think it's funny to cause a 10 car pile up.
As others here note, traffic disruption pranks aren't a big problem now even though stealing signs, or introducing obstacles is already possible.
No defense against attempts to disrupt traffic is going to cover all cases, but an excellent one already implementable for all self-driving systems should be obvious.
Self-driving cars aren't navigating a blind road grid, they already have virtually complete maps of the entire road system. Give each car a database of the location of all signs in existence. Humans need signs to inform them of the traffic law in effect at an intersection (for example) computerized systems do not.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Kinney gets machine gunned.
https://media.giphy.com/media/FvaTwHY7YDn20/giphy.gif
Optical illusions work because our visual system takes certain shortcuts to reduce the amount of processing needed to identify what it is we're looking at. e.g. We assume diagonal lines are 3-dimensional, leading to errors when we view a 2D object with diagonal lines. The only information actually provided was the horizontal line + 2 diagonal lines. Our brains extrapolated the nonexistent 3D nature of the object to create the error. (The top line looks like the the edge of a box viewed from the inside, so our brain concludes the line is further away and thus bigger than it appears; the bottom line looks like the edge of a box viewed from the outside, so our brain concludes the line is closer and thus smaller than it appears.) Likewise, the computer vision AI makes the turtle/rifle error because it's extrapolating from its very limited information subset to determine if the object is a turtle or a rifle.
These sorts of errors disappear as you add more information, thus reducing the amount of extrapolation needed. I was driving on a rural highway at night when suddenly it seemed like the road was twisting and warping. This went on for about 10 seconds until I moved into an area with fewer trees, and I realized what I thought were billboards in the distance were actually boxcars on a moving train. My brain had been assuming they were fixed points in space, when in fact they were moving. So initially it erroneously concluded the billboards were static and the road was warping, but the moment I recognized them as boxcars my brain correctly realized the "billboards" were moving and the road was static.
So in these early stages of visual AI, we're going to encounter a lot of these errors. But as the AI becomes more sophisticated and able to take into account more contextual information, these errors will begin to disappear. They probably won't disappear entirely, because you can only glean so much information from a static photo. But for real-life applications like security, the turtle/rifle error is highly unlikely to happen once the AI starts comparing the questionable object in multiple frames in a video instead of a single frame, or starts comparing it from multiple viewpoints provided by multiple cameras.
Or they're different ones who are merely pissed off at Trump. Far more likely different ones, but that wouldn't fit into your narrative.
"Some Very Fine People on Both Sides." Your own leader says so, dummkopf.
Noted Nazi and anti-Semite Donald Trump announced Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Worst. Hitler. Ever!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The biggest problem (imho) today is that the US has a large population that is being told every day that they have to "stick it to the man".
Yes, the right-wing anti-government militia is certainly a problem! Too bad you forced the FBI to stop reporting on them, because you wanted them to spend billions building a worthless border wall after shutting down their attempt to track down the routes firearms followed in illegal cross-border smuggling.
Modern black culture in America is its own worst problem, and many who try to escape it are punished by that same culture for "being white".
That's right, they must be the problem in themselves, that way you don't have to be responsible for doing anything!
How convenient for you. Just wave your hands and scream about their "culture" while closing your eyes.
Part of the blame can certainly be placed on racism, but that once "whites only" was outlawed, racism is more of a crutch than actual reason for someone being held back.
Wow, you believe once segregation was found to be unlawful, all problems related to it magically disappeared? What silliness you believe. Besides, it is still practiced. Don't believe me? Go see how many school systems are still segregated.
For many of the programs that worked in other areas, we have seen them attempted here in the US. They fail within a few years because
You forgot the number one reason: There's a political party that doesn't want them to work, that wants to deny the effectiveness, or even the desirability, because that getting in the way of their condemning that very same black culture that you, and they, have spent decades denouncing, in between the times you try to color it as scientific or whatever.
We don't see the problems in the poor Asian communities that we see in the poor black communities.
So you're also blind to the problems in poor Asian communities. Huh. Why not add in Mexican, German, Irish, Italian, Okies, and even the Islamic communities that keep seizing control of entire imaginary cities?!? Oh, and don't forget the Native Americans who did so well after being shoved onto wasteland reservations and deprived of even having a sustained community.
Congratulations WASPs, you've done the Lord's Work, haven't you?
Oh please, don't even go there. You live in the same modern world I do. You have given up at least the same 'bodily autonomy' as I have to continue to enjoy that modern world.
Let me explain it this way: I could spend all my money drinking alcohol, either at the bar getting drunk, or buying bottles of whiskey and drinking in the privacy of my own home. I don't do that. Not because the government says I can't, but because I choose not to. Similar to illegal drugs (or legal drugs, or, for that matter, auto-erotic asphyxiation) . I could do it, but I choose not to because I choose not to. Participating in that activity does not give me the return to justify itself.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That's why I told your mother to lay off the mexican food on the day before my weekly trip thru her town. All day long people have been asking me if I have shit on my chin, and I just point to your mom and say "Ask her."
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Algorithms, unlike humans, are susceptible to a specific type of problem called an "adversarial example." These are specially designed optical illusions that fool computers[...]
In other words, just like the optical illusions that humans are notoriously susceptible to? Jesus. The phenomenon is actually somewhat interesting, but maybe you shouldn't start out with a blatant self-contradictory assertion.
Indeed, it's too brown and odorous to be spittle.
That's why I told your mother to lay off the mexican food on the day before my weekly trip thru her town. All day long people have been asking me if I have shit on my chin, and I just point to your mom and say "Ask her."
Just for the record ... that last one wasn't me.
Good to know. :^)
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The biggest problem (imho) today is that the US has a large population that is being told every day that they have to "stick it to the man".
Yes, the right-wing anti-government militia is certainly a problem!
Does BET have a show called "Hold My Beer" that features your mythical creatures denigrating women and breaking laws? No? Nothing like the rap videos featuring crime and bad behavior?
Or, do your vast right wing militia call someone an "Uncle Sam" for wanting to leave the group to fit into the successful business culture in America? No again?
Do those militia depend on the government for their rent money, and cheat the system to get it?
I'm not sure what your definition of "stick it to the man" is, but you many want to rethink it.
Too bad you forced the FBI to stop reporting on them, because you wanted them to spend billions building a worthless border wall after shutting down their attempt to track down the routes firearms followed in illegal cross-border smuggling.
The FBI has time and money for one investigation at a time? The FBI is building a wall? The FBI can't figure out where the guns Obama sold the drug cartels are because they didn't bother tracking the guns? Well, that part is true at least.
Modern black culture in America is its own worst problem, and many who try to escape it are punished by that same culture for "being white".
That's right, they must be the problem in themselves, that way you don't have to be responsible for doing anything!
How convenient for you. Just wave your hands and scream about their "culture" while closing your eyes.
What do you think I can do, personally, for the blacks living in Chicago's south side? Send them money, set up a GoFundMe page? Take away their guns so they stop killing each other?
It isn't white people killing blacks on the streets every weekend.
Part of the blame can certainly be placed on racism, but that once "whites only" was outlawed, racism is more of a crutch than actual reason for someone being held back.
Wow, you believe once segregation was found to be unlawful, all problems related to it magically disappeared?
Not in the same instant, but at some point in the last fifty fucking years government-endorsed racism stopped being the reason blacks were being held back.
What silliness you believe. Besides, it is still practiced. Don't believe me? Go see how many school systems are still segregated.
,
Schools are segregated because no white person wants to live in neighborhoods where they'll be robbed or killed just for being white. They are not segregated because the poor little black kids aren't allowed in the 'whites only' school.
And, again, the blacks who make the effort to rise out of those high crime neighborhoods, and attend good schools, public or private, are then called Uncle Toms for forgetting their roots. The ones keeping segregation alive aren't white.
For many of the programs that worked in other areas, we have seen them attempted here in the US. They fail within a few years because
You forgot the number one reason: There's a political party that doesn't want them to work,
Finally, you are blaming the Democrats. What a relief.
Or do you really think Republicans want to pay even more welfare to blacks? No, they want them to work. Haven't you ever heard the horrible phrase, "Get a job"?
that wants to deny the effectiveness,
The failure of the programs proves their ineffectiveness. That's my point. The reasons for that failure are listed.
or even the desirability, because that getting in the way of their condemning that very same black cultur
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yes but you have to keep in mind that the U.S. imprisons more of its population than Russia.
And almost 8x the rate of most civilized countries.
prison population
US. 2,193,798 737 per 100,000
RUS 0,874,161 615
CHN 1,548,498 118
AUS 25,790 125
UK. 80,002 148
FRA. 71,190 103
Once you get a prison record (even a jail record really) in the U.S. it is very hard to get a decent job again. Even an arrest record can kill your chances for many job categories.
And keep in mind that white entertainers pay a $4,000 fine for a full bag of pot while hispanic mothers go to prison for 12 years (at a cost of $31,000 per year) for less than a single joint.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
As someone who sexually identifies as an attack helicopter, I am concerned about the health risks this could pose.
It might make more sense, but that is not the way it is. I think we have found your problem. You think the world will make sense, with a thought process like that the next thing you will do is conclude that someone must have designed it that way.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually, if you adjust for being raised in a single parent household vs being raised by both parents, the difference in conviction rates between whites and blacks disappears (or, at least drops to the margin of error of studies on the subject). The same thing happens to poverty rates.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So ? The AI has a bug. And likely several others.
Most places on earth do not allow AI to drive cars on public roads. Some places that do allow, do so experimentally, provisionally. Bugs are not a coincidence but expected at current level of development.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
It does output some answers that aren't on your list. So who's smarter ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I'm not the one who originally made the point, perhaps they'll have some prepared talking points. The real answer, though, is whoever actually properly identifies the thing being looked at more often. The real real answer is that it doesn't matter as long as we have to teach the AI in the first place.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
To be honest, my bugbear is taht AI was always a misnomer, because it's not intelligent at all, precisely because of things like this. There is no line of thinking that leads it to believe that a 3D turtle is a rifle - if you asked it to tell you WHY it was a rifle, and it could pick out features on the image that look like a rifle from a certain angle, yes, you could claim it was intelligent. But it can't do that
Are you saying the purpose of the algorithm was to explain to "you" WHY it decided certain thing was a rifle, it was tested successfully before release, and yet it couldn't explain it to "you" ? Most algorithms I know of don't have this purpose - except to explain to the developers / support staff , that too typically only in debug mode.
If its purpose does not include explaining those decisions to "you", is there any failure in the situation you described ?
BTW, why shouldn't an AI that could write billions of sentences of English without ever writing "taht" except to point out your mistake be considered superior to you in prose writing ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
No one has made this point "originally". If you mean ledow , his original point was mainly that the AI is not really "intelligent" (as if means anything in particular) due to not being able to explain WHY [sic] the decision was made.
He shifted to this new definition of "you can say we have AI" later - which included answering over and above the list of options.
The real real answer is that it doesn't matter as long as we have to teach the AI in the first place.
So which human could identify a rifle on the moment of their birth ?
If real real answer to the question is that no one is "smarter", does smarter really mean anything ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
So which human could identify a rifle on the moment of their birth ?
None, of course. Both the AI and the human will, hopefully, grow smarter as they're taught, of course; so the real question is whether a given AI or a given human will fare better given identical inputs over time. You seem to want to reduce things to absurd levels for some reason.
It's really not important that humans and AIs both start at 0, it's more or less a given, nor is it important that one or the other might fare better with better inputs; again, that should be expected. What really matters with regard to who's "smarter" is, given identical starting points consistently identical inputs over a period of time, which of them realizes the greatest improvement in their abilities.
Something tells me our current generation of AIs could give you a run for your money in that test.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You seem to want to reduce things to absurd levels for some reason.
You are confusing me with yourself.
You said that it doesn't even matter if AI has to be taught. And this is the real answer twice over. This was the most absurd level in this thread. It contradicts many of your statements in this recent post about both starting at 0 and improving with training.
Since everyone involved here has to be taught, by your "original" statement, it doesn't matter for anyone.
I never made statements reduced to such absurd level.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
You said that it doesn't even matter if AI has to be taught.
Try taking that statement in the context of the question I was answering. You asked who was smarter and I pointed out that it doesn't matter who's smarter as long as we're the ones who have to do the teaching; that in no way means that it doesn't matter that we're the ones doing the teaching. In fact, it places all of the importance on us doing the teaching which, in turn, places importance on the AI doing the learning.
What you were actually replying to just then was an entirely different point: it is a given that the AI would have to be taught. Of course, since it's also a given that a human would also have to be taught, you see the same thing on both sides of the equation, ergo no, it actually doesn't matter and you can remove it from the equation altogether. That's a rational reduction, the same as removing "+ 3" from "N + 3 = 5 + 3".
Who does the teaching is what matters, not that both sides must learn. As long as we're the teachers, we can prevent any AI from becoming smarter than us if we so choose.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
" It does output some answers that aren't on your list. So who's smarter ? "
Are you taking only about AI systems personally trained by you ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
"They havn't programmed in a silly algorithm yet. "
The other point of note is that the classifier doesn't do the machine equivalent of turning its head to verify the image.
Note that the tabby in the first example was correctly classified when the image was rotated.
I see this a lot when tracking social messaging scammers. The "clever" ones mirror or slightly rotate stolen images that the classifier knows about, so that a well-known photo of Brianna Lee becomes something completely new to the classifier. (the fun part is then matching/tracking the altered images and seeing which groups of scammers are using them, as that allows you to see the connection paths between them)
The short answer is that the image classifier is trivially defeatable and has been for a while. This isn't news. The newsworthy part is fooling it into misclassifying an image as something completely different - and that would be solved in large part by running the image through more angles/transformations.
Google/Tineye/Facebook and others could do better. IF they chose to.
Touch screen keyboard.
s/taking/talking/
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
"Automated cars have already shown that they are very poor at dealing with humans when they do unexpected things."
Actually, they've been coping quite well with this (like making illegal turns in front of the robocar), whilst I can show you any number of human drivers who can't even cope with having to pass an opposing car on a narrow country lane because they're pathologically unaware of the width of their vehicle and refuse to proceed unless they have 6 feet clearance on either side.
Unlike humans, who need to be individually taught to recognise each new hazard, you only need to teach one AI and that programming can be shared to all of them almost instantly.
A robocar doesn't need to be perfect, just better than most humans are (most of the time), all of the time.
That isn't a particularly hard threshold to hit. Most humans make 2-5 driving errors PER MINUTE (lapsed concentration, tunnel vision, fixation, flat-out rulebreaking, etc etc) and they aren't looking in all directions at once _AND_ humans can only cope with a couple of simultaneous hazards at once. (EG, watching the wobbly cyclist in front of you along a lane of cars at a shopping area where car doors are opening and cars are pulling out may result in completely missing the pedestrian who just stepped out onto a crossing in front of you)
Insurance companies will drive robocar adoption. It's already been noted that robocars have lower incident rates than humans _AND_ they don't trigger incidents like some humans do ("I've never had a crash but I've seen plenty as people try to pass me", etc). When this trend is played out in statistically large numbers you'll see insurance premiums for manual driving skyrocket _AND_ insurance companies start to demand that drivers pass more stringent tests, more regularly - which will trickle into government requirements for driving licenses becoming both more stringent and with regular retests (this is already happening in europe anyway.)
Robocars will rapidly penetrate the professional driving fields, leading to lower taxi fares (the most expensive part of a hire vehicle is the driver) and once these become lower than the standing costs of keeping a car, you'll see a radpid dropoff in personal vehicle ownership. This is already happening in urban areas, with many urban dwellers not bothering to get driving licenses because they don't need them. Expect it to spread to towns and suburban areas too. Busses are likely to disappear thanks to the road damage they do, coupled with the high operating costs out of peak periods, being replaced with 6-8 seat transport (this is about the optimum size) which may entrain during peaks.
Removing human drivers is likely to virtually eliminate traffic jams, because the single biggest CAUSE of traffic jams is impatient drivers following too closely (phantom jams on freeways disspate within minutes if only 10% of drivers adopt legal following distances) or trying to queue jump, not clear intersections, etc etc.
Reducing car ownership is likely to be coupled with lower urban speed limits, but paradoxically we're likely to see transport speedups as traffic will be freer flowing (the journey average speed in central London is under 10mph and outside the central part it's still less than 20mph).
Parking problems will virtually disappear - both because of fewer cars competing for parking and because if parking is too expensive in any given area, personally-owned transports can be ordered to go park somewhere cheaper. Governments which have large parts of their income geared around parking income should be preparing for this (In the UK it's illegal for councils to use parking/fines income (on or offstreet) for general revenue, but many launder it in ways so that they can - Westminster being the stellar example of "a parking company with a local government attached"
Signs are there for hoomans. Transports will note them, but already ubiquitous communications nets mean that changed limits will be flooded across an area quickly - and to counter
"Ethnicity plays too large a role in committing the crimes in the first place."
When it comes to drug offences, they're committed in roughly equal numbers across all ethnic groups, with a higher rate in higher socioeconomic groups.
That isn't reflected _at all_ in US criminal charging and conviction rates, with high status individuals usually being able to get off with a warning or by paying their way free, whilst low status individuals are more likely to both be convicted for the same crime and get substantially higher sentences for the exact same conviction.
When it comes to other crimes, the distribution is socioeconomic with skin colour playing almost no part in it at any given socioeconomic level. The question is WHY does the USA still have functional apartheid, treat its black citizens like 3rd class people and get away with it?
A stop sign is defined by its size, shape and colour. (Hexagonal and red), which is the same virtually everywhere in the world, but the word stop is not.
Similarly, all other road signs have legal definitions of size, shape, colour, border colours, reflectivity and artwork.
Fooling a general purpose recognition algorithm is one thing, but there are enough cues in the sign's shape and size to hand off to specific "regulatory/advisory signs" routines in the first instance and generate an exception report for signs which appear "odd" (a robo version of "fixmystreet.com")
if anything I'd expect vandalised signs (or illegal/unauthorised speed limit signs - something which is happening a lot in the UK at the moment) to be reported far quicker by a robocar than by humans.
Only a reckless autonomous vehicle programmer would rely on general purpose recogntion algorithms for processing regulatory/advisory signboards. This kind of sensationalist article headline is clutching at straws, whilst the actual autonomous vehicle researchers are shaking their heads and tutting at the idiots who believe them.
Sign vandalism is and will be a minor issue. Regulation might be needed for the display of signs which might be confused with regulatory signage - but unsurprisingly this is already in place in most parts of the world because they fool human drivers too and have been known to cause crashes.