3 ms·
But is it really "AI"? Seems like little more than a fancy image processing method that: - recognizes a face - removes a few common wrinkles, e.g. nasolabial
by A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
But is it really "AI"? Seems like little more than a fancy image processing method that:
- recognizes a face
- removes a few common wrinkles, e.g. nasolabial folds (-- these in particular are the most common marker of an "aged" face, and people who don't have them or who have broad nasiolabial folds are often said to "age gracefully")
- smooths out and brightens the rest.
It's not creating or generating anything, really. Just running a very adroit filter in real time. To what extent is it, then, AI? We should be wary of the way buzzwords are inserted everywhere, I think. (Remember when it was all "nano"?)
- dymk 4y agoIt's called AI because there's an ML model in there somewhere doing some heavy lifting
- tantalor 4y ago> some heavy lifting Nice
- yencabulator 4y agoThat's called just ML... ML doesn't imply intelligence.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoIt's not AI, it's advanced image processing.
- cirrus3 4y ago- Hey check out this AI tiktok feature - You mean advanced image processing? - blank stare. uh... ok, whatever, it's really cool - It is advanced image processing, not "AI" - yea, so anyway, check this out
- adastra22 4y agoThe whole history of AI is one of moving goal posts: X is hard, only people can do it. X requires intelligence. A computer doing X is AI. AI researcher programs a computer to do X Oh, X isn't AI, it's just [describe what AI researcher did]. That's not real AI.
- salamo 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect > Researcher Rodney Brooks complains: "Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a computation.'"
- adastra22 4y agoThanks I didn’t realize it had a name.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoI don't know. Back in the 80s the goal posts for AI was always a machine that understands. We've not even come close to building that. Instead, for-profit companies seem to have let their marketing departments move the goal-posts to the 40-yard line. "We can't build real machine intelligence, so we'll call this AI." For me, I always thought R2D2 or R. Daneel Olivaw were what AI was supposed to be. Not "playing Go is hard, so a computer program that can do that is AI." It's the AI label that has been misapplied. I know, this is where I get the lecture about words meaning different things over time. It's why the technical term for the stuff we've been talking about is Machine Learning systems, not "AI." The "AI" phrase is marketing fluff.
- adastra22 4y ago> I don't know. Back in the 80s the goal posts for AI was always a machine that understands. We've not even come close to building that. For any reasonable definition of understanding, we have. If you wanted to test my understanding of an article after reading it, what would you ask me? Now submit the same articles to ChatGPT and ask the same questions. I'm not sure who would score better.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway1777 4y agoShhhh, don’t give away the secret sauce.
- Gigachad 4y agoThe is this AI debate is never ending. At this point AI is any technology that is not trivially explainable and works on poorly defined problems.
- A_D_E_P_T 4y agoThis seems trivially explainable and clearly well defined, though? No fuzzy edges here.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 4y agoIf it's clearly defined then write code that implements the same filter. No neural networks or ML models allowed. Then I will believe you.
- salamo 4y agoActually it would be really interesting to see code that attempts to e.g. classify MNIST digits from first principles. No neural nets, no GBDTs, no clustering. And no cheating by trying to translate the above into if-then statements. Seems next to impossible.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 4y agoI recall Andrej Karpathy saying that people originally tried to do that for image classification (such as cats/dogs problem) and weren't able to get anything close to high accuracy.
- kaba0 4y agoSlightly relevant, Viola–Jones Face-Detection Algorithms pretty much does “manual” face recognition.
- notyourwork 4y agoI think you're being a bit pedantic about it because they used the term AI.
- cirrus3 4y agoIt's not really worth arguing about the definition of "AI". All the things you listed as "not AI" could just as easily be a list describing what "AI" can do. Sure, there are more technical terms for these particular "filters" and how they actually achieved, but almost no one cares about making that distinction IRL. "AI" is going to stick as a broad term, get used to it.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> But is it really “AI”? No, nothing is “really AI” except AGI, everything else is only called AI when its new and shiny. Once its established, it stops being AI. E.g., rule-based expert systems are no longer described as AI by almost anyone, despite being one of the earliest kinds of “AI” systems. In a few years, LLMs and diffusion-based text-to-image and image-to-image systems won’t be “AI” either.
- kaba0 4y agoThose are still AI, they are not ML.
- fxtentacle 4y agoIt probably is some sort of convolutional filter chain to do that recognizing and blurring, so you'd deploy it as a TFlite with TensorFlow Lite, which kinda makes it AI :p