> bias being measured is one that's introduced by the researchers Yes. Intentionally. > Ergo the study is useless. No, it is not useless. It just not studyin

> bias being measured is one that's introduced by the researchers Yes. Intentionally. > Ergo the study is useless. No, it is not useless. It just not studying what you seem to think it does. There was a previous very well estabilished finding that you can manipulate images such that they look basically identical to humans but they completely change classification for the neural network. This is an estabilished fact. Have you heard about this? Are you aware of this? Because if you are not that would explain your confusion. This research is not proving that phenomenon. It has been proven before. It follows up on it and investigates what that “basically identical” means. There are two assumptions one can make: 1; The difference between the manipulated and the not manipulated image is so small humans won’t be able to tell which one is wich. 2; Since the manipulations appear to be neural network specific there is no reason to expect that a human will preceive them as the same class as the neural network. For all we know the humans might see the original image as more cat like, or the one we manipulated to look like a truck will appear more cat like to a human. These are the two statements they wanted to investigate.