4 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoOr 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.