3 ms·
In what way is data poisoning in the passive voice? It's a nominal group. Pretty efficient and straightforward. Data poisoning pretty much means the (action of)
by jraph 4y ago
In what way is data poisoning in the passive voice? It's a nominal group. Pretty efficient and straightforward. Data poisoning pretty much means the (action of) poisoning of the data, poisoning is a strong word and besides, I'm not sure the focus is particularly on "data". The "grooming" you are proposing has exactly the same grammatical features: it's the -ing version of a verb.
- hinkley 4y agoBecause it makes it sound like I broke one of your drinking glasses instead of killing your dog. Data is an inanimate object. Misusing data affects Organics.
- austinjp 4y agoWell by that token, grooming might as well refer to combing your hair. That's clearly daft, though. In fact, its current usage probably first emerged in the 1970s in relation to child abuse [0]. Since then it's been hijacked by various right-leaning individuals and groups as a dog-whistle for whatever they happen to be most worried about today [1]. That makes it a heavily over-loaded word that's becoming a general fnord. The problem with fnords is that they discourage thinking. So I'm not in favour of using 'grooming' to refer to data/model poisoning. [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260517742046 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/088626051774204... [1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/why-misusing-groomer-as-a-political-smear-is-especially-dangerous/2022/04 https://www.edweek.org/leadership/why-misusing-groomer-as-a-...