3 ms·
> This is not true. It’s mathematically provable that false positives are possible, not that they must happen. In fact, the chances of collisions happening are
by imchillyb 4y ago
> This is not true. It’s mathematically provable that false positives are possible, not that they must happen. In fact, the chances of collisions happening are astronomically low and basically nil when you use them in the way Apple was proposing @JimDabell
WTF are you on about?!
That IS NOT how math works. If millions of images are uploaded per day, there are GUARANTEED false positives.
It's not a /maybe/ but an absolute fucking certainty.
This guy's a shill...
- omginternets 4y agoI agree his overconfident tone isn't helping, but let's not assume malevolence. I think his argument is that the FP rate can be set to a vanishingly small value, and so we can in theory proceed as if it were effectively zero, as we do with hash collisions. This reasoning is false for two reasons: one theoretical, and one practical. The theoretical reason is that a nonzero FP rate means that as the number of samples approaches infinity, a false-positive is guaranteed to occur (as you rightly point out). The practical reason is that complex image classifiers do not exhibit what any sane person would consider a "vanishingly small" FP rate, especially given the volume of samples being processed in this case.