3 ms·

> I'm going to start including pictures of the moon surface in all my albums. Sorry to say it but they're going to be able to exclude whatever you throw at it.

> I'm going to start including pictures of the moon surface in all my albums. Sorry to say it but they're going to be able to exclude whatever you throw at it. And even if you found some way to meaningfully degrade the quality, they'll analyse what you do and find a solution for that. They are not going to suddenly throw their hands up in the air and decide to give up. It's a matter of how many resources can you throw at the problem and how many can they to counteract you.

kafkaesq 11y ago
They're going to be able to exclude whatever you throw at it. How, exactly? You're talking about something that's one of the most poorly understand areas in AI at present, and making it sound like it's a solved problem.
- DominikR 11y ago
  > How, exactly? You're talking about something that's one of the most poorly understand areas in AI at present, and making it sound like it's a solved problem. With manpower. I said that they are going to analyse whatever users do to wilfully degrade the service and will find a way to exclude that. Just like they do with search for years. Somehow they manage to keep their search relevant even though so many people constantly work on coming up with new SEO tricks that would seriously degrade this service if left unchecked. Of course I cannot know how _exactly_ they will do that, even the persons working on that service cannot know at this moment how exactly they will keep this working in the future since they do not know yet what people will try to do.
  - gleenn 11y ago
    I like your enthusiasm but look at the number of images again, and remember that Google is notorious for trying hard not to use humans. I think the statistical significance will probably overwhelm moon pictures, and that's what they'd use long before some human starts poking around for weird data.
    - nickcano 11y ago
      Or they could train a network to recognize persons likely to try and poison their data sets and use it as an exclusion. You could go on to argue that those persons could also poison that data, but then they could handle it in a similar way. This goes process could theoretically go on ad infinitum.
gue5t 11y ago
Exactly. Machine learning is an inequality-expanding lever just like many other forms of capital. This is one of the reasons Google et al are so dangerous.
- SquidLord 11y ago
  This has about as much reasonable intellectual bearing as suggesting that language is an inequality expanding lever just like many other forms of capital and one of the reasons Google and others are so dangerous. This is just the Luddite fallacy repeated over and over. By this logic, we should never develop new informatic methodologies, we should never develop new forms of analysis, we should never develop new software – because of economies of scale exist. I'll the state the obvious: that's stupid. There's no way to soften that blow.

kafkaesq 11y ago

They're going to be able to exclude whatever you throw at it. How, exactly? You're talking about something that's one of the most poorly understand areas in AI at present, and making it sound like it's a solved problem.

DominikR 11y ago
> How, exactly? You're talking about something that's one of the most poorly understand areas in AI at present, and making it sound like it's a solved problem. With manpower. I said that they are going to analyse whatever users do to wilfully degrade the service and will find a way to exclude that. Just like they do with search for years. Somehow they manage to keep their search relevant even though so many people constantly work on coming up with new SEO tricks that would seriously degrade this service if left unchecked. Of course I cannot know how _exactly_ they will do that, even the persons working on that service cannot know at this moment how exactly they will keep this working in the future since they do not know yet what people will try to do.
- gleenn 11y ago
  I like your enthusiasm but look at the number of images again, and remember that Google is notorious for trying hard not to use humans. I think the statistical significance will probably overwhelm moon pictures, and that's what they'd use long before some human starts poking around for weird data.
  - nickcano 11y ago
    Or they could train a network to recognize persons likely to try and poison their data sets and use it as an exclusion. You could go on to argue that those persons could also poison that data, but then they could handle it in a similar way. This goes process could theoretically go on ad infinitum.

gue5t 11y ago

Exactly. Machine learning is an inequality-expanding lever just like many other forms of capital. This is one of the reasons Google et al are so dangerous.

SquidLord 11y ago
This has about as much reasonable intellectual bearing as suggesting that language is an inequality expanding lever just like many other forms of capital and one of the reasons Google and others are so dangerous. This is just the Luddite fallacy repeated over and over. By this logic, we should never develop new informatic methodologies, we should never develop new forms of analysis, we should never develop new software – because of economies of scale exist. I'll the state the obvious: that's stupid. There's no way to soften that blow.