3 ms·
> to Google it's an unsolved problem? It's an unsolved problem for anyone. > Why can I identify spam at a glance, with greater than 90% accuracy I don't thin
by Avamander 4y ago
> to Google it's an unsolved problem?
It's an unsolved problem for anyone.
> Why can I identify spam at a glance, with greater than 90% accuracy
I don't think you understand how terrible even 99.998% accuracy is at their scale.
> They probably have the worlds largest and highest paid staff of ML experts, and they resort to auto-flagging based on IP address?
You think they aren't using them for this? IP addresses very likely go into their model as well, when determining something is spam.
> Fix it.
They are and adversaries are breaking them again.
- kingjojo23 4y ago> I don't think you understand how terrible even 99.998% accuracy is at their scale. What does scale have to do with it, am I missing something? Wouldn’t a spam detection rate of 99.999% mean that only every 100000th spam mail would get through on an account basis, how’s that terrible?
- Avamander 4y ago> What does scale have to do with it, am I missing something? The person I replied to said they can identify spam with 90% accuracy with a glance, my point was that it's abysmal as accuracy. Even orders of magnitude better it'd still be bad. > Wouldn’t a spam detection rate of 99.999% mean that only every 100000th spam mail would get through on an account basis, how’s that terrible? I didn't specify if it's per-account or a false positive rate, it's also actually not relevant to the point I'm trying to make. When you receive billions of letters a month small errors start to matter and they're doing a better job than the person I replied to thinks they do.