On Deepfakes

Socializing and general posts on wide-ranging topics. Remember, it's Poststructural!
david_h
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:04 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Mercia

Re: On Deepfakes

Post by david_h »

Nanohedron wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:57 pm I'm pretty impressed that AI can make such pictures independently, and with no human manipulation of the product required.
Do we know if a human chose those 15 and if so what the rejects where like?

I'm impressed by the technology but irritated by the media hype over AI. Does this 'intelligence' tell us anything about cats? Improve our understanding of them ? Could it tell us more about making images of cats than the artists who advertise 'paint your pet' services in the local vet's waiting room? I guess it could be a spin-off from something more useful (or maybe we need fake pictures of cats?). Similarly (useful but off topic) do the AI systems that can match radiologists in recognizing things of concern in a screening X-ray tell radiologist anything new about X-ray interpretation - maybe they do but the media doesn't report it.

I'm all for computers helping us understand the world. Not convinced most AI, as presented by the media, does.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: On Deepfakes

Post by Nanohedron »

david_h wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:32 amDo we know if a human chose those 15 and if so what the rejects where like?
I think it's safe to assume that a human did indeed choose the selection, for it was compiled for human amusement - and that the rejects will have been much on the order of Cthulhu's moggie (#7). From this sample alone, the actual percentages are anyone's guess. That there are convincing successes at all, including close calls, is, for me, more the point.
david_h wrote:I'm impressed by the technology but irritated by the media hype over AI. Does this 'intelligence' tell us anything about cats? Improve our understanding of them ? Could it tell us more about making images of cats than the artists who advertise 'paint your pet' services in the local vet's waiting room? I guess it could be a spin-off from something more useful (or maybe we need fake pictures of cats?).
Well, what I'm getting out of it isn't the verisimilitude of cat images, but the exponential increase in AI's capabilities. The implications far outstrip mere cat pics.
david_h wrote:Similarly (useful but off topic) do the AI systems that can match radiologists in recognizing things of concern in a screening X-ray tell radiologist anything new about X-ray interpretation - maybe they do but the media doesn't report it.
They do, and it does. My awareness of AI in medicine has come about solely from the news media. While the following isn't "media" as some might call it, it's being taken seriously:

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019 ... mitations/

As I understand, there are already cases where AI has made correct diagnoses that humans missed. That's a pretty important finding. I don't think it means AI is our savior, but it has proven to be an important tool if you have the means to use it.
david_h wrote:I'm all for computers helping us understand the world. Not convinced most AI, as presented by the media, does.
I think media presentation is aimed at poor dolts like myself who can't tell ham from a hemostat, but can nevertheless put two and two together. I'm now persuaded that the sum might, in time, be 5. It's both exciting and scary.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
david_h
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:04 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Mercia

Re: On Deepfakes

Post by david_h »

Nanohedron wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:12 pm
david_h wrote:Similarly (useful but off topic) do the AI systems that can match radiologists in recognizing things of concern in a screening X-ray tell radiologist anything new about X-ray interpretation - maybe they do but the media doesn't report it.
They do, and it does. My awareness of AI in medicine has come about solely from the news media. While the following isn't "media" as some might call it, it's being taken seriously:

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019 ... mitations/

As I understand, there are already cases where AI has made correct diagnoses that humans missed. That's a pretty important finding.
Nice article thanks, but regarding the "They do and it does" I read it that it doesn't or they don't. Is the AI, after having learned from many examples, able to 'explain' what the characteristics are that it is spotting that a clinician isn't? Much as you and Ben, in the converse situation, can explain what you think the cat-drawing-AI is getting wrong.

I like the bit about whether people would prefer to be misdiagnosed by an AI or by clinician if the AI had been shown to be better at diagnosis than a clinician.

Getting back to cats. The reason I didn't post examples of weird looking cats is that it we do an image search for "weird looking cats" they have almost all been manipulated and it's hard to be sure any particular one hasn't. An image search for cats yields quite a few that look odder to me than some of the 15 above but I guess we need an array of pre-1980 cat photos to be more confident.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: On Deepfakes

Post by Nanohedron »

david_h wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:45 pm Getting back to cats. The reason I didn't post examples of weird looking cats is that it we do an image search for "weird looking cats" they have almost all been manipulated and it's hard to be sure any particular one hasn't. An image search for cats yields quite a few that look odder to me than some of the 15 above but I guess we need an array of pre-1980 cat photos to be more confident.
I'd say you're right. For me, the only plausibly real samples under "weird cats" are either those with birth defects, or engaging in behaviors that I would call perfectly representative of a cat's physical capabilities but happen to be entertaining to the human onlooker. All the rest are clearly manipulated - and, I ask myself: For what? A cat is not improved by painting an unnatural smile on its face. But then, maybe I'm a wet blanket; I've never heard Photoshop's siren call.

BTW, when I saw the doggy pic my first thought was that it had been manipulated: notably the eyes, and I'm not so sure about that bandana, either. Come to think of it, when you take a good look it appears as if the whole dog's been assembled from parts.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
Post Reply