4 ms·
A lot of perl cluthiching in this article. Just remove the csam identified and reupload the dataset
by artninja1988 3y ago
A lot of perl cluthiching in this article. Just remove the csam identified and reupload the dataset
- simcop2387 3y agoLikely what will happen but because it's a strict liability crime it will warrant as complete a review of all data before re uploading to ensure there's nothing left
- 127361 3y agoThat's just completely ridiculous, I can't believe what the world's come to nowadays over such moral panics. There's likely images of animal and human torture and mutilation in there. And there are people that fantasize about doing such things all the time. Nothing done about that, though.
- 127361 3y agoI think, over a dataset of nearly 6 billion images, it's just impossible to ensure that it contains no child pornography. Like trying to ensure all my kitchen surfaces are 100% free of germs. Not possible, or the amount of effort and disruption caused by the cleaning will make it impossible to get on with my life. Nasty stuff exists out there. We don't want too much of it, though. That's my opinion about it.
- jerpint 3y agoYou have to ask yourself not “how impossible” it is , rather how much effort was put into mitigating this. The answer is probably a nominal amount but obviously not enough
- echelon 3y agoI'll bet OpenAI and Google are also contaminated, but that we'll never know and it'll never be cleaned. With open source efforts, we can eventually reach a state of public certification. It can be fully vetted, unlike closed source models.
- sp332 3y agoThe paper says that almost 500 of these were identified by MD5. That indicates that about 0 effort was put into mitigation.
- morkalork 3y agoSo why all the worry about re-uploading a clean dataset because someone "could do a diff" to find the bad images? Could they not use the same md5 search to find the same?
- doubloon 3y agoi guess the argument is that these images were a needle in a haystack and now you have given the public a supermagnet to go find it. like right now, if someone tries to download old laion and find those images manually, it would probably take them a very very long time. if they had the diff, they would find them in a few minutes. i dont think its a good argument, but its an argument. the researchers found them without a diff so likely someone else can too. so theres not much reason to leave them in that i can tell.
- morkalork 3y agoYes, I get that. But that's not what the researchers did. They used a database of know hashes. Can bad actors not do the same?
- sp332 3y agoI don't think it's easy to get access to the PhotoDNA database. And it would be a service that people query against, so they'd have an audit trail.
- dublinben 3y agoYou're not allowed to have the MD5 hashes these researchers used to find these images, so it's not possible to reproduce this result. These hash databases and APIs are tightly controlled, and only law enforcement, major tech companies and top researchers are allowed to use them.
- larrywright 3y agoAs the article points out, the problem is that by doing so you create a map for people to find CSAM just by diffing the datasets.
- echelon 3y agoGood. Federal agencies can deal with that. Go shut down those websites and prosecute the maintainers. Seems like a freebie. Get the dataset minus the illegal data back. It's essential to maintain parity with closed source efforts. I'd bet that OpenAI also has this in their dataset too. And nobody will ever even know. Open source is the only AI that can be knowingly scrubbed and cleaned.
- hunkins 3y agoI think this is the correct response. Have federal agencies remove the content itself, instead of worrying about identifiable dead links.
- 127361 3y agoThese "illegal content" moral panics have ruined Internet freedom, they are now ruining AI as well. Such moral panics have been used as an excuse for absolutely heinous mass surveillance of the entire population.
- sp332 3y agoThe surveillance is for possible future crimes and is more debatable. We're talking about crimes we know have already happened. What would the argument even be for not addressing those.
- jeromegv 3y agoRuining AI? You don’t think what’s ruining AI is ingesting despicable content in it and then use this data set to train thousand of other tools with this despicable content? In what world don’t you think it’s not a problem?
- hunkins 3y agoThe primary obstacle to this is that a relatively easily identifiable diff would then be accessible for anyone motivated to identify the material.
- sp332 3y agoHow was the data collected in the first place? Why was the data considered useful for training if no one had evaluated it?
- orbital-decay 3y agoIt's useful because it includes most of the web. In enormous datasets like this, introspection and filtering is done with statistical/ML techniques. This was done with both LAION (obviously not enough to filter CSAM out) and the models trained on it - statistical analysis, 3rd party model classification and captioning, aesthetic scores, perceptual hashes etc. Only the filtered part of the dataset makes it into the actual training set, as LAION has notoriously poor quality.
- PeterisP 3y agoThe point of various unsupervised and 'self-supervised' training methods is the ability to use unlabeled data, which enables you to use much more data than it's feasible for people to evaluate. Some crude automated filtering (e.g. deduplication) is still helpful, but removing the bottleneck of having a person look at every single item can enable you to use thousand or million times larger datasets, which is what's required to give models a 'general understanding' of a wide domain, by taking an (automated) look at literally everything that is available.