2 ms·

> Maybe I actually know something about it. If you know then you'd agree that with the right setup ML can do this with a very high precision. We're talking abo

> Maybe I actually know something about it. If you know then you'd agree that with the right setup ML can do this with a very high precision. We're talking about a highly customized system trained exactly for this one purpose not some chatbot. > You whined at me a little while ago You're the one whining here buddy-- remember this is about a law about to be forced on you that you find inconvenient ;) I find it suboptimal but in some sense it might be better than nothing. > this was about "abuse, not just porn". These are related. If you have this material, you obtained it from somewhere even if you didn't make it yourself. Some police work and it may lead to some dark web exchange marketplace and actual producers. That said yes, there's difference. The EU law being discussed is probably more fit to counter realtime abuse, compared to Apple's algo for example. > Because this isn't just about stupid bullshit like your embarrassing disease. It's about people ending up in prison. I actually agree with these two sentences, but not in the way you probably intended. > The Stasi were not a child-friendly institution. I was waiting until Hitler gets invoked in a discussion about using tech to combat and prevent child abuse facilitated by tech, I was not disappointed.

Hizonner 2y ago
> If you know then you'd agree that with the right setup ML can do this with a very high precision. No, it cannot. Not with a model that you can run on a phone, no matter how specialized it is. Serious ML takes actual compute power (which translates to actual electricity). Not with a model that you can train on the number of positive examples that are actually available. Current ML is massively hungry for training data. Not with any model that's out there on people's phones and therefore subject to white-box attack. Adversarial examples are not a solved problem, especially not in the white-box environment. Probably not with any model. You would need maybe a 0.0000001 false positive rate. That rate falls asymptotically with both model size and training. > that you find inconvenient ;) The last refuge of the fanatic is to call anybody who raises inconvenient objections a pedophile. > I was waiting until Hitler gets invoked in a discussion about using tech to combat and prevent child abuse facilitated by tech, I was not disappointed. The Stasi did not have anything to do with Hitler, and did not exist at all until after Hitler was dead. They were not part of the Nazi apparatus. Your ignorance of history helps to explain your willingness to give dangerous powers to untrustworthy insitutions, though.
- throwaway290 2y ago
  You would not need a perfect model, since there will have to be a human and due process in the loop. > The last refuge of the fanatic Between us two there's one with maximalist and absolutist views. > call anybody who raises inconvenient objections The actual objections are dealt with. Properly implemented (like Apple's algo) it's not spying, inconvenience and detriment of an individual is a fact of life in any society etc. We just trade personal attacks now. > a pedophile Putting words in my mouth. > The Stasi did not have anything to do with Hitler, and did not exist at all until after Hitler was dead Thanks for correcting me. So basically Stalin then. Wow, such difference.
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    > Putting words in my mouth. You know exactly what you intended to convey with that little smiley, so do I, and so does everybody else.
    - throwaway290 2y ago
      I don't know where to start .It's not only that you assume I imply you are a pedophile, you also think that would be a derogatory word or something? Pedophilia is not a crime (like being gay), sexual abuse is. You're reading too much into this. The smile is there because you called me whining and I did the same to you.

Hizonner 2y ago

> If you know then you'd agree that with the right setup ML can do this with a very high precision. No, it cannot. Not with a model that you can run on a phone, no matter how specialized it is. Serious ML takes actual compute power (which translates to actual electricity). Not with a model that you can train on the number of positive examples that are actually available. Current ML is massively hungry for training data. Not with any model that's out there on people's phones and therefore subject to white-box attack. Adversarial examples are not a solved problem, especially not in the white-box environment. Probably not with any model. You would need maybe a 0.0000001 false positive rate. That rate falls asymptotically with both model size and training. > that you find inconvenient ;) The last refuge of the fanatic is to call anybody who raises inconvenient objections a pedophile. > I was waiting until Hitler gets invoked in a discussion about using tech to combat and prevent child abuse facilitated by tech, I was not disappointed. The Stasi did not have anything to do with Hitler, and did not exist at all until after Hitler was dead. They were not part of the Nazi apparatus. Your ignorance of history helps to explain your willingness to give dangerous powers to untrustworthy insitutions, though.

throwaway290 2y ago
You would not need a perfect model, since there will have to be a human and due process in the loop. > The last refuge of the fanatic Between us two there's one with maximalist and absolutist views. > call anybody who raises inconvenient objections The actual objections are dealt with. Properly implemented (like Apple's algo) it's not spying, inconvenience and detriment of an individual is a fact of life in any society etc. We just trade personal attacks now. > a pedophile Putting words in my mouth. > The Stasi did not have anything to do with Hitler, and did not exist at all until after Hitler was dead Thanks for correcting me. So basically Stalin then. Wow, such difference.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  > Putting words in my mouth. You know exactly what you intended to convey with that little smiley, so do I, and so does everybody else.
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    I don't know where to start .It's not only that you assume I imply you are a pedophile, you also think that would be a derogatory word or something? Pedophilia is not a crime (like being gay), sexual abuse is. You're reading too much into this. The smile is there because you called me whining and I did the same to you.