5 ms·
Correct. If we could magically end the rape of children and stop the propagation of images of such, I think we'd all be on board. But when a system would realis
by macksd 5y ago
Correct. If we could magically end the rape of children and stop the propagation of images of such, I think we'd all be on board. But when a system would realistically just push most of it elsewhere and violate a bunch of innocent people's privacy, people get nervous.
It's like being asked to have an invasive, detailed scan of your body shown to TSA personnel (and recorded) when you fly. The motive is apparently to prevent violence. But there were still incidents on flights when that was being done. It wouldn't have caught the box cutters on 9/11. The stated motive ceases to be part of the equation for me.
- azinman2 5y agoPushing it elsewhere is still a win. You don’t want this to have easy cover. Keep in mind FB reported close to 17M pieces of CSAM last year. So if having the ability to detect it was such a deterrent, why are their numbers so high?
- mlindner 5y agoI think it's actually impossible to use an AI to determine this type of thing. Even courts of humans sometimes rarely get it wrong sometimes with images that are open for debate (for example missing context) on whether it was abusive or not (parents bathing their kids, as one example). Then you have the whole can of worms that pedophiles will find sexual interest in images taken in non-abusive contexts but will use them none the less. How is an AI supposed to determine that. Even our laws can't handle that. There's also images that can be abusive if made public but non-abusive if kept private. For example what about a kid taking pictures of themselves nude (many kids don't have parental moderated accounts) and putting them on icloud (iphone does this automatically with default settings). It's a complete nuthouse and there's no way to do it. (Also don't get me started on drawn artwork (or 3D CG) that people can create that can show all sorts of things and is fully or partially legal in many countries.)
- scoopertrooper 5y agoThey're not using an AI for that purpose. They're just sending a hash of the image and sending it along with iCloud uploads. The hashes are of images that have been identified by humans as containing child pornography.
- eurasiantiger 5y agoNo, the hashes are visual hashes. It is completely possible that a clean shaven adult taking pictures of themselves could get flagged.
- mrtranscendence 5y agoIt's also possible that a picture of an avocado will get flagged. A nude photo of someone who's shaved themselves is unlikely to look so much like an actual CSAM photo that it'll get flagged. It's certainly possible, but again, so's the avocado.
- godelski 5y agoThey're not hashes in the way md5sum or sha256 is a hash. They are _neural_ hashes. Which is not trying to fingerprint a specific image, but tag any image that is deemed sufficiently similar to the reference image. Hashes are unique, neural hashes aren't. To add, there are natural neural hash collisions in ImageNet (a famous ML dataset). Images that look nothing alike to us humans.