Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Create 'Psychedelic' Stickers That Confuse AI Image Recognition (techcrunch.com)

"Researchers at Google were able to create little stickers with 'psychedelic'-looking patterns on them that could trick computer AI image-classifying algorithms into mis-classifying images of objects that it would normally be able to recognize," writes amxcoder: The patterned stickers work by tricking the image recognition algorithm into focusing on, and studying, the little pattern on the small sticker -- and ignoring the rest of the image, including the actual object in the picture... The images on the stickers were created by the researchers using knowledge of features and shapes, patterns, and colors that the image recognition algorithms look for and focus on.

These stickers were created so that the algorithm finds them 'more interesting' than the rest of the image and will focus most of it's attention on analyzing the pattern, while giving the rest of the image content a lower importance, thus ignoring it or confusing it.

The technique "works in the real world, and can be disguised as an innocuous sticker," note the researchers -- describing them as "targeted adversarial image patches."

112 comments

  1. Detail vs shape by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It looks as if the AI is concentrating on the area with the most detail, even though it is not really relevant. I've seen similar, ummmm, distractions confuse AI. For example, disguising a stop sign so that a self-driving car is confused.

    1. Re:Detail vs shape by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans have similar problems. Instead of stop sign, they sometimes concentrate on areas with the most detail, like a smartphone.

    2. Re: Detail vs shape by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...heavy rain and little objects flying around because of strong winds and a little windshield fog obscure their view....

      An obscured view is quite the different problem than this thread's discussion of having a clear view of the object being analyzed. :)

    3. Re:Detail vs shape by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Look! A squirrel!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Detail vs shape by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Yup. Considering that AI was designed by humans, I'm not sure if this is a surprise. ;)

    5. Re: Detail vs shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is an important point. Trying to confuse a self driving car is dangerous and stupid, but carrying these tings around to confuse some marketing harvester is good fun. I bet I know how laws will get written if this becomes a thing tho...

    6. Re: Detail vs shape by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      AI image recognition systems will recognize what, and only what, they have been trained to recognize. If you train a system with a million pictures of dogs, and a million pictures of cats, it can learn to tell a cat from a dog. But if you then give it a picture of a goat, it will not classify it correctly, because that isn't what it was trained to do.

      Similarly, current image recognition systems are not (yet) designed to resist the intentional spoofing described in TFA. In the future, they will become more robust. An obvious way to do this is to use a GAN, with one NN generating spoofs, while another NN learns to resist them.

    7. Re: Detail vs shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we can just find the right impossible 3d shape, we can infect the collective with it and shut it down for good!

    8. Re:Detail vs shape by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Or as another simpler example, my first Straight Talk phone not being able to correctly scan most UPCs. My second and current one does fine though.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    9. Re: Detail vs shape by arth1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trying to confuse a self driving car is dangerous and stupid

      Not necessarily. It could be useful for sabotage against other countries, or for stopping/disabling a car that has lost its mind, so to speak.

    10. Re:Detail vs shape by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Of course humans can also be distracted by certain things:

      http://97x.com/a-naked-woman-s...

    11. Re:Detail vs shape by mikael · · Score: 1

      That's why human vision works on segmentation, breaking down the scene into a collage of cut-out shapes of different textures, then using stereoscopic depth perception to figure out where they are relative to each other and with occlusion, then using image classification to figure out what each object is. The downside is that you can camouflage anything simply by blurring the edges or by using razzle-dazzle techiques used in World War II.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    12. Re: Detail vs shape by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      Humans have similar problems. Instead of stop sign, they sometimes concentrate on areas with the most detail, like a smartphone

      Stop sign and traffic light notifications are the way forward.

    13. Re:Detail vs shape by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      You wait till AI gets more mature... and we find the AI equivalent of "attractive specimen of the opposite gender".

    14. Re: Detail vs shape by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Exactly. These specific stickers only work on this specific system.

      The first line of the following paragraph from TFA is ridiculously misleading, as it would require having access to the training mechanism of 'that image classifier at the airport':
      "What could be done with these? Stick a few on your clothes or bag and maybe, just maybe, that image classifier at the airport or police body cam will be distracted enough that it doesn’t register your presence. Of course, you’d have to know what system was running on it, and test a few thousand variations of the stickers — but it’s a possibility."

      Also, note that this image classifier was specifically asked to classify the entire image as one specific object. No 'image classifier at the airport' will have such a task. Of course this classifier 'fails' if there are multiple objects in the same image. This specific classifier would probably also give the exact same result if you just used an image of an actual toaster next to the banana.

      The only real result here is that image classifiers can see 'psychedelic' representations of objects as strong instances of those objects (note that the psychedelic image patch kind of looks like a toaster). I imagine that if you train the classifier with classes of actual 'psychedelic' classes of images ("graffiti wall", "mushroom trip"), that the psychedelic adversarial examples become much harder to find as the classifier then just classifies the weird image as such (as would a human perhaps, if forced to call it a single thing).

    15. Re: Detail vs shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a lot of bumper stickers on your can and you'll get it totaled.

    16. Re:Detail vs shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, way to go to get AI, now get moving, keep moving, move along, nothing to see here...

  2. Oh no! by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    Oh no! Our spying may be tampered with!

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  3. Bumper Stickers by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

    Now we need bumper stickers that confuse 'Self-Driving AI' to the point where the vehicle takes the next exit and parks alongside the road (when safe to do so). So little Passenger Pete can safely finish texting, watching his movie, etc.

  4. With your donation to the FSF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll now receive, as a token of our appreciation, a tin foil hat covered with anti-image req decals.

  5. More like "targeted advertorial image patches" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect advertising with these patches. You will be confused into buying more products with them.

  6. Retrain. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1. Add stickers to images.
    2. Retrain network
    3. Stickers useless.

    1. Re:Retrain. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Adaptive entropy is fun! This is pure nerd stuff and will become a regular sport, we can hope.

    2. Re:Retrain. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      1. Add random stickers to images.
      2. Need to retrain network constantly.
      3. Network useless.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Retrain. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      4. kiddies make new patterns faster than researcher's can learn them; it's a whack-a-mole!

    4. Re:Retrain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Banaaaanaaaaa!

    5. Re:Retrain. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      They'll probably figure out a more generic solution.

    6. Re:Retrain. by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      That's more like it. The stickers are acting like noise which makes the network useless.

      That reminds me of a not really learning network situation but there's a relation. I saw a post very recently of a guy who had posted white noise movies on youtube and he got inundated by copyright notices, because the automated copyright detection found all kinds of patterns in it.

    7. Re:Retrain. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      They'll probably figure out a more generic solution.

      Like they have figured out a generic solution instead of antivirus database updates?
      Dream on.

    8. Re:Retrain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in this case, the generic solution is obvious: don't let a tiny part of the image distract you from the whole of the rest of it.

      Still, I imagine as facial recognition becomes more widespread, "t-shirts with someone else's face on them" will become more popular.

    9. Re: Retrain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid the machines always reach the same conclusion in every scenario. Kill all humus.

      The software still has some bugs.

    10. Re:Retrain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Still, I imagine as facial recognition becomes more widespread, "t-shirts with someone else's face on them" will become more popular."

      Che Guevara seen 62134 times in town.

    11. Re:Retrain. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Che Guevara seen 62134 times in town.

      Initiate Protocol 13.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    12. Re:Retrain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you generate new stickers for the current images.

  7. Dick Van Dyke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has left the building.

    1. Re:Dick Van Dyke by NEDHead · · Score: 2

      Perhaps he left to attend his brother's funeral?

    2. Re: Dick Van Dyke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too soon man. Too soon.

  8. By this time next year ... by Big+Bipper · · Score: 2

    Amazon will be selling hats and scarves with psychedelic looking patterns on them.

    --
    You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
    1. Re:By this time next year ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HyperFace will launch as a textile print at Sundance Film Festival on January 16, 2017. https://ahprojects.com/project...

    2. Re:By this time next year ... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Amazon will be selling hats and scarves with psychedelic looking patterns on them.

      The 60's are back, baby!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  9. Badly trained, needs to learn to reject noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The images are just confusing badly trained AI. The image recognition system apparently has not been properly trained to ignore background noise. The training of the image recognition system will adapt to this by doing proper training with image noise like this.

    1. Re:Badly trained, needs to learn to reject noise by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Correct. Now all we need to do is gather every possible psychedelic sticker possible to begin our training.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: Badly trained, needs to learn to reject noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can start with all those Grateful Dead stickers.

  10. let's get that on clothing by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember the "worlds ugliest t-shirt" in one of William Gibson's novels? All cameras in that book's world were compelled by their firmware to fill image of the wearer of that suit with background. One could laugh at such a notion except ....scanners won't do banknotes

    1. Re:let's get that on clothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a hoodie that you can change these patterns on demand. Morph along with the AI retraining :) Fun times, game on.

      Looks like the gangsta uniform of hoodie and shades is going to need to become standard dress in the post-modern distopia we are in.

    2. Re:let's get that on clothing by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      should be doable, e-ink on cloth came out 7 years ago

    3. Re:let's get that on clothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could laugh at such a notion except ....scanners won't do banknotes

      Except:
      1. Scanners were explicitly programmed to detect the EURion constellation pattern in images, and refuse to scan to prevent copying bank notes.
      2. Security cameras are not image scanners, so they won't block out video containing that pattern. In theory you could add some black-out pattern recognition to the camera hardware/firmware too, but that would take a global conspiracy to keep it a secret (assuming the capability would be used by government spooks only). Since a lot of US hardware is made in China, they would have to know about it too. And all companies involved would have to remain quiet.

    4. Re:let's get that on clothing by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      rebuttals:

      Now there are more than just EURion constellation in money to trigger scanners, there are other security features in bills that do it.

      Novel was sci-fi about future, and the governments did have that behavior built into security cameras. Maybe some kernel BLOB was required and enforced by treaty? Not hard to imagine as an analogous situation to scanners.

  11. Tie-die comeback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My sister used to make tie-dye clothes, is that good enough.

  12. I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend... by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes"

    Reminds me of Ghost in the Shell's Laughing Man calling card... His sticker would appear over people's faces in VR if they were infected.

    1. Re:I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It always makes you wonder if there's an exploit for human vision of the type hypothesized here

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      As I recall, his sticker/logo only appeared over his own face.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  13. ESPN's Bill Walton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. ALPR? by Ralgha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would one of these stickers on the bumper of my car defeat the automated license plate readers?

    1. Re:ALPR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you hiding?

    2. Re:ALPR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his sp3d

    3. Re:ALPR? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      If you glue enough of them over the license numbers/letters, definitely.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:ALPR? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Would one of these stickers on the bumper of my car defeat the automated license plate readers?

      Not really, no, because license plate photos are generally interpreted by humans, not AIs.

    5. Re:ALPR? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      Huh? Ever drive on a modern toll road? Those cameras send data to a system that mails you a bill. No humans involved.

    6. Re:ALPR? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To add to my previous comment: I regularly use parking garages that read my plate to know that I already paid at the kiosk. Again, no humans involved. Sounds like you live in the 80s. Not sure if that's 1980s or 1880s.

    7. Re:ALPR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could cover your car with stickers that look like license plates. AFAIK most automated license plate scanners predate the A.I. craze and actually look for specific features of a plate instead of throwing a black box trained network at it.

    8. Re:ALPR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you living in the 2000's. In China you just pay with your mobile phone.

    9. Re:ALPR? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that creating bumper stickers in a common license plate font would be enough. It would be fun to try.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  15. Cue the $10 stickers... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Just waiting for manufacturers to start selling $10 stickers, shirts, hats, backpacks, luggage tags etc.

    When's the IPO?

  16. Robot Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When the robots take over our jobs and then decide we aren't needed, we'll just get them addicted to these stickers. They'll soon get bored with theirs and go looking to trade each other for new ones. Then they'll begin their own industry of trippy stickers so they can get a better high. All day they'll sit and run their batteries dry. RIP to the bots that get stuck in a while loop.

  17. Computer Chess by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With a similar enough network or access to the targeted network, simply create a network that learns to fool the other one. Loosely like two computers playing chess but more like a spam generator to defeat filters.

    Adversarial network learning... just not an official use of it... The solution is to add this kind of learning to the network... except it won't be fool proof until the network is quite good; since the adversary could have as many variations of attack as the classifier has in recognition.

    If you created the adversarial network used to train it, you could leave INTENTIONAL holes for future exploitation. Even going so far as to purposely train in holes if you had that kind of access. It's not like anybody is going to spot your code in the AI -- only the training setup... which could be long gone after years of training... In the future, I would expect to have VALUE in AI training whereby the cost of "reboot" would be quite significant... finding bad training data over millions of samples and years of experience could be difficult and who's to say all that would be retained? You take the resulting network from last week and retrain from that point-- you'd not go back years ago and restart. I'm talking way out... because AI is so simple now you can just archive all input data... maybe by that point we can still archive it all and learning hardware will be faster... anyhow, it makes for interesting Sci-Fi possibilities even if it may never become an issue (even if it doesn't, there would still be a cost involved in retraining from scratch.)

  18. Bias of expectations by kencurry · · Score: 1

    If the image was a true unknown, then who would know if the sticker or the banana is more "key?". Just need a time constraint for AI to write off a weird thing as "weird thing" and move on to the next pattern in the image.

    Now that I think about it, I would be curious how the AI would handle a jumble photo, and be able to identify all the stuff in the picture?

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  19. Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't captian Piccard going to try this with the Borg at one point in time?

    1. Re: Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captain Picard WAS a borg. Traitor.

    2. Re: Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to find this comment.
      Yes... a shape that was impossible to completely analyze.

    3. Re: Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here to find this comment.

  20. Actual Intelligence by DCFusor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is not as easily fooled as this pattern matching NN grossly incorrectly hyped as Artificial intelligence. Just saying - hype is hype no matter how much you want to believe you've got the next big thing and innovation (and in this case, NN research and pattern matching work go WAY back).

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Actual Intelligence by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      People are also easily fooled, but in different ways. Researches will update their networks to be more robust for this kind of trickery, and we'll move on.

    2. Re:Actual Intelligence by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Not if the learning models are based on neural nets. They have a fundamental limitation (in how they are very different from actual neurons).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:Actual Intelligence by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Neural nets can approximate arbitrary functions to arbitrary precision, so where's the fundamental limitation ?

    4. Re:Actual Intelligence by DCFusor · · Score: 2
      1. Incomplete training sets - no NN can "expect the unexpected". 2. NN's alone are just pattern matchers - there is no underlying understanding. A picture of a truck is a truck. A real intelligence would perhaps notice the edges of the painting...crappy analogy, but hopefully it communicates. 3. Knowing when you don't know - some types of NN can have confidence estimates, key word, estimate. But still, a blue truck against a blue sky in an intersection in the desert where there's almost no intersections, almost always blue sky and rarely trucks across the road? Give me a break. Don't tell me what "researchers will do" unless you can get a lot more specific about just how they're going to do that - and whether they are actually researching anything worthwhile at all, or just throwing mountains of data at mountains of CPU and hoping. I could go on, but if you don't already get it...no point.
      .

      This is not purely a case of just improving the basic tech or the basic inputs, though that's part of it. A NN is a hammer that makes the whole world your thumb. More is needed - NN's will always be good for data reduction, but only as a layer of what's needed to have anything like "real" artificial intelligence on which lives can depend.
      .

      Yeah, this is at least partly my lawn, I'm not speaking from inexperience.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    5. Re:Actual Intelligence by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      The definition of that arbitrary function is not known in the design phase. Its behavior is not known. Its variability is not known. Its susceptibility to false alarms and false positives in the presence of random and structured noise is not known. As this research has shown, that susceptibility appears to be quite high, and while the hackers know why, the designers may not. In computer geek terms: it's full of zero-day vulnerabilities waiting to be discovered.

      This sea of ambiguity is in direct contrast with the traditional practice of engineering where the behavior of the physical objects used in the design is not only known, but it is extensively and exhaustively characterized over the full range of operating conditions expected of the finished product and beyond, with ample safety margins whose size is determined not by guesswork and rules of thumb but by rigorous statistical analysis of the variability in those expected physical conditions.

      Same thing goes for equations and algorithms used in traditional engineering design. Their mathematical properties are known, and the models defined by those equations and algorithms are tested in physical experiments, not just software simulations. If software simulations are used for testing, then there are usually reams of paperwork and documentation ensuring that that software simulation models real physics to a prescribed accuracy. That's one of the reasons many engineering software codebases are dinosaur FORTRAN monoliths. They are validated against reality and the work of validating any rewrite in modern programming languages exceeds by a wide margin any annoyances from having to deal with the old codebases.

      This because traditional engineering as a profession grew up in an era where consequences of mistakes cost human lives. The IT stuff did not grow up in that era for the most part and that's why there isn't the same level of professionalism in software. My degrees are in traditional engineering fields from ABET-accredited programs. But I mostly write code for a living and make one-off electronics for R&D, rather customer-facing, purposes. I never needed to get an engineering license for that and I didn't, though I have no qualms calling myself a "software engineer" or an "electronics engineer" informally. But I would never dream of using the 'E' word in a way that implied I was qualified to do engineering design of analysis for something my employer would sell to a customer that merited such analysis where, for example, safety of life were concerned.

      My contention is that the academics who revived deep-learning and neural nets from mothballs in the last decade and sold it to the likes of Google and Facebook who use it mostly to score more eyeballs and clicks on ads don't have a visceral understanding of the distinction of the vast gulf between those two modes of thinking about "engineering." And they push neural networks as the panacea to places where it doesn't belong, like safety-of-life applications in self-driving cars.

    6. Re:Actual Intelligence by superwiz · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a hint: uniform vs non-uniform convergence. Both converge. But only one of them implies the other. If you really don't get how this is relevant, I'll will gladly explain the difference for a measly fee of $500 million (just think of all the startups which don't have to be funded and fail and all the savings). If you do get the implications, you are welcome. I will not explain further though.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  21. for real fun by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Put up a topologist's-sine-curve-weighted gradient. If there is an AI which can discern it, it's either not refined enough or it's the next step. I guarantee that no neural net will ever handle it.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  22. They should also try magnets. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    They seem to mess Bender up a bit.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:They should also try magnets. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      We're whalers on the moon
      We carry a harpoon
      But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales
      And sing a whaling tune!

      Address all complaints to the Monsanto Corporation!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  23. Bright shiny objects by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Our "real" human visual algorithms are distracted by bright, shiny objects in a similar way. It's not just AI that can be fooled.

    1. Re:Bright shiny objects by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      You may be projecting your own lack of intelligence. There's a difference between being distracted and thinking the distraction is important to classifying what one is looking at. Humans like shiny, but they aren't going to look at a sticker and not see it's pasted on a car or a sign or a tree.

    2. Re:Bright shiny objects by arth1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Our "real" human visual algorithms are distracted by bright, shiny objects in a similar way. It's not just AI that can be fooled.

      Not only bright shiny objects.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Bright shiny objects by sinij · · Score: 4, Informative

      Humans do suffer from similar problem, however we have compensatory mechanisms to correct visual errors.

      Ever glanced at something, seen something weird and had to do a double-take? This is exactly what happened to you. Quick neural nets misidentified something and you had to do full image processing to clear the confusion up.

      The reason Humans know to do a double-take is because we have many other neural nets sitting on top of image identification nets. So when our image identification malfunctions, other nets red-flag it and do error-correction. Sometimes it takes long time to process. Sometimes we decide it is just safer to get the hello out of there (e.g. seeing ghosts).

    4. Re:Bright shiny objects by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

      Setting aside your needless insult, why DO we tend to be attracted to shiny objects? Perhaps it's because at some level, our brains think it might be something important, or dangerous? Our brains have been trained to notice things that might be important to our survival and safety. Anything that is unusual or unexpected might be some sort of threat, leading us to be distracted unnecessarily.

    5. Re:Bright shiny objects by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Our brains have been trained to notice things that might have been important to our survival and safety in the world how it was thousands of years ago.

      FTFY

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. In yo face #nemesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It didn't take long.

  25. hugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we'll just show him this image in introduce the borg back into the collective. they'll all be dead within weeks.

  26. Sounds liek the AI version of the Parrot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. I see 2 problems here by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

    1. The AI assumes that it always sees only one object.
    2. How can it classify this sticker as a toaster? It should be classified as unknown. I think they cheat by assuming that every image can be classified

  28. Try this one: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeINzoA7Kww

  29. No sense of scale by Solandri · · Score: 1

    A human looks at that picture, sees the banana and "thing" are sitting on a flat surface, and decides they must be about the same distance so their size in their picture is their actual scale. The banana is a lot bigger, so the human decides it is more important than the "thing".

    An AI looks at that picture, sees the banana and "thing", but crucially doesn't estimate distance. Since the "thing" has a lot more detail the AI decides it's must be further away, and its greater detail means its the more important part of the picture, and the banana is just fluff in the background. And it gets lost trying to analyze the "thing".

  30. Obligatory Monty python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No nn expects the Spanish inquisition!

  31. Make a note of this by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    It will be useful when we're trying to fight SkyNet during the inevitable upcoming robot apocalypse.

    1. Re:Make a note of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if we want to protect our bananas.

  32. Tin-foil hats becoming more stylish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Psychadelic patterned tin-foil will be appearing in stores shortly.

  33. Gibson Once Again Proven Prescient by dave562 · · Score: 1

    While not exactly the same thing, in one of William Gibson's recent trilogies the characters wore clothing with specific patterns that were designed to render them invisible to surveillance cameras. The basic premise was that the even though the cameras recorded them, the computers monitoring the cameras did not realize that there were people in the images.

    1. Re: Gibson Once Again Proven Prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero History
      World's ugliest t-shirt

  34. Distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explains why ugly starlets sport big tats.

  35. Wear cap with sticker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get instant classification as willing to escape AI.

  36. Remember the ScrambleSuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in "A Scanner Darkly"? My favorite Philip K. Dick novel. Richard Linklater did a good movie version, too.

  37. As long as they aren't hot dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just hope it doesn't break my hot dog / not a hot dog app. The recognition on that is stellar - I doubt it could be fooled.

  38. Segmentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does seem to be a problem, but I think most vision systems would segment an image into all the things it could see in the picture based on the classes it knows about. Chances are that system would find the banana and give a false classification to whatever it thought the sticker was, if anything.

  39. Stop worrying about AIs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The AI book that everyone should get is available for pre-order. "Artificial Intelligence For Dummies" by John Paul Mueller and Luca Massaron.

  40. captchas? by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

    Can we expect to see this appearing as part of Captchas, then?

  41. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, Lisa Frank sticker sets see a huge sales growth!

  42. Focusing on, and studying by PPH · · Score: 1

    So, they figured out how stoners' brains work.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  43. Disappointment by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    I was hoping for something we could put on a cheek that would thwart facial recognition software. Or at least make me look like somebody better looking. (No, I wasn't looking for a full-face mask.)

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.