My work is all about computer programs/algorithms, and how best to solve problems via logical code via observation of biology
Seems to me to be the way mankind usually comes up with the best solutions for most of our self created problems. Back engineer and plagiarize someone else's imaginative design.
So I think you are guarenteed a win there CP, for the ground work is already done and mostly only a better understanding of it required.
perhaps you are against my data mining techniques to discovering a cure to every cancer that has plagued humans?
Not at all. Go for it if that is what makes you happy. I have a more "the clock is winding down" attitude and approach to existance though and feel that there will only be more and more requirement for the increase of medical knowledge (etc) just to coax each new iteration/generation out of us before humanity becomes not all that different from Daleks in terms of melding decrepit flesh with artificial means of keeping it going.
Anyway, perhaps a better "internet" AND filter for the same could be built if we compared the web to our own nervous and circulatory systems and modelled accordingly ?
regarDS
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
I have now reviewed that show in the view of your stance ...
IMHO, WTF are you talking about?
I'm talking about the section where the doco maker went up against the A.I. in identifying pictures containg an animal in them. How did the programmer achieve the desired result without actually programming specific animals into some sort of reference database ?
Ask yourself, who would really want to be on a panel with the day after day job was to scan through millions of pr0n images and filmclips in order to catagorise and classify them ? Who would objectivity be maintained ? Actually, how would SANITY be maintained ... and how would the worker compensation be determined for that matter.
The problem is far bigger than any human can manage in terms of fulfilling the laws of the land re: our classifications system. Thus, we need an automated way of doing it, using A.I. type technology.
The "Where's my robot" program just on gave an excellent example of how an A.I. could be programmed to do that kind of job.
regarDS
IMHO, WTF are you talking about?
I'm talking about the section where the doco maker went up against the A.I. in identifying pictures containg an animal in them. How did the programmer achieve the desired result without actually programming specific animals into some sort of reference database ?
Ask yourself, who would really want to be on a panel with the day after day job was to scan through millions of pr0n images and filmclips in order to catagorise and classify them ? Who would objectivity be maintained ? Actually, how would SANITY be maintained ... and how would the worker compensation be determined for that matter.
The problem is far bigger than any human can manage in terms of fulfilling the laws of the land re: our classifications system. Thus, we need an automated way of doing it, using A.I. type technology.
The "Where's my robot" program just on gave an excellent example of how an A.I. could be programmed to do that kind of job.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
Forget about child porn. Or regulations regarding what can and can't be portrayed. That is not what we are arguing about.
The topic is internet censorship. Not what about might fit under the filter or now.
When observing how quickly and often the topic can fall away to individual expressions of subjectivity based selfishness coupled with rebellious attitudes towards higher community standards, it becomes quite easy to see both the need and justification for internet censorship.
When ILCF is brought in, once again it is going to be more to do with a troublesome few ruining it for the majority, just like with the "patriot act" in relation to the so called "war on terror".
Seems to me that the folk getting the most indignant about ILCF are getting upset with the wrong people ... everyone should be working towards removing/preventing the problem happening in the first place than getting upset with what those we have elected to govern us have come up with.
If we all were decent people wanting the very best kind of world for our children and families, there would be no need for either ILCF or the "patroit act", etc, etc, etc, in the first place.
But we aren't, and so ILCF is well justified, along with whatever comes next to help tackle the problems we keep creating with our individualistic selfishness that see us constantly falling foul of "the golden rule".
Okay, back to watching "The Monolith" doing its own kind of filtering/educating on SBS's screening of "A Space Odyssey". :)
regarDS
The topic is internet censorship. Not what about might fit under the filter or now.
When observing how quickly and often the topic can fall away to individual expressions of subjectivity based selfishness coupled with rebellious attitudes towards higher community standards, it becomes quite easy to see both the need and justification for internet censorship.
When ILCF is brought in, once again it is going to be more to do with a troublesome few ruining it for the majority, just like with the "patriot act" in relation to the so called "war on terror".
Seems to me that the folk getting the most indignant about ILCF are getting upset with the wrong people ... everyone should be working towards removing/preventing the problem happening in the first place than getting upset with what those we have elected to govern us have come up with.
If we all were decent people wanting the very best kind of world for our children and families, there would be no need for either ILCF or the "patroit act", etc, etc, etc, in the first place.
But we aren't, and so ILCF is well justified, along with whatever comes next to help tackle the problems we keep creating with our individualistic selfishness that see us constantly falling foul of "the golden rule".
Okay, back to watching "The Monolith" doing its own kind of filtering/educating on SBS's screening of "A Space Odyssey". :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
Anyone currently watching "where's my robot" on SBS ?
If so, you would have just seen something that could be incorporated almost now into creating the kind of Internet Filter that could screen "undesirable" pictorial information via A.I. rather than depending (and inflicting) upon much in the way of human intervention by way of catagorisation once initial parameters were established.
In the investigation on how to "build better sight/recognition" for the future of robotics, the documentary demonstrated a program that pitted human against A.I. in relation to identifying as to whether there was an animal in the picture or not.
The result was a tie in the demo given – which is fine considering that duplication of ability was the aim.
The AI was able to achieve the result not so much by knowing the specific animal but more to do with recognition of basic shapes, colour variations, etc.
Not too much of a stretch to imagine an A.I. doing similar sorts of identifications in relation to pr0n and the like, and the job made even easier when coupled with text information embedded in web-pages and url names, etc.
I think this kind of technology could go beyond mere current "oh, this pic has x amount of flesh tones so might/might not be pr0n so let's blat it anyway" software ... I can imagine the A.I. filter of the future actually able to apply real-time selective sound and visual censoring to live streams without the need for the entire stream to be blocked.
ie, no more Janet Jackson Superbowl moments. :)
ILCF is only going to be the beginning, and regardless of if the trials pass or fail and ILCF becomes mandatory or not, it isn't going to end there.
regarDS
If so, you would have just seen something that could be incorporated almost now into creating the kind of Internet Filter that could screen "undesirable" pictorial information via A.I. rather than depending (and inflicting) upon much in the way of human intervention by way of catagorisation once initial parameters were established.
In the investigation on how to "build better sight/recognition" for the future of robotics, the documentary demonstrated a program that pitted human against A.I. in relation to identifying as to whether there was an animal in the picture or not.
The result was a tie in the demo given – which is fine considering that duplication of ability was the aim.
The AI was able to achieve the result not so much by knowing the specific animal but more to do with recognition of basic shapes, colour variations, etc.
Not too much of a stretch to imagine an A.I. doing similar sorts of identifications in relation to pr0n and the like, and the job made even easier when coupled with text information embedded in web-pages and url names, etc.
I think this kind of technology could go beyond mere current "oh, this pic has x amount of flesh tones so might/might not be pr0n so let's blat it anyway" software ... I can imagine the A.I. filter of the future actually able to apply real-time selective sound and visual censoring to live streams without the need for the entire stream to be blocked.
ie, no more Janet Jackson Superbowl moments. :)
ILCF is only going to be the beginning, and regardless of if the trials pass or fail and ILCF becomes mandatory or not, it isn't going to end there.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
I think there has been a little to much spooky mulder going on here recently.
Lets stick to the point:
Agreed and good idea, HM.
1, It will not protect kids from online nasties
Correct, it will not protect all the kids all the time from all online nasties. It will only protect some of the kids some of the time from some of the online nasties – which But Of Course is considerably better than what is currently the case.
2, It will not stop kids from being abused.
Correct ... but what has that to do with ILCF as proposed ? Sounds like an attempt at selling straw ...
3, Clean Feed be will abused by conservite and religious groups
The far more correct thing would be to say that it will be abused by any who are given the opportunity to abuse it. Every Special Interest Group under the sun will attempt to utilise such a facility to their own ends given the opportunity, including those who oppose the conservatism I personally side with and see as more beneficial to the well being and progress of humanity than the opposite. Normal Government Accountability will apply with this as it does with everything else. The Government is by the people for the people after all ...
4, Clean feed will not prevent access to blacklisted site by tech savey internet users
Correct, it will not immediately achieve this. Tweaking will be in order, but for most web users, it will do its required/necessary job.
5, Clean feed will block legitimate sites unfairly
Correct. Healthy flesh also suffers when the knife is applied against harmful cancer. Nothing new there and nothing that tweaking wouldn't improve upon.
6, There will be no transparency on the content of the black lists
I'm not convinced on the accuracy of that one, particularly seeing as any so called "black list" is hardly going to remain secret for very long.
7, Security could be at risk if you use Internet banking, online shopping
I call "incorrect" on that one, and also more a case of "cart before the horse" at this stage of the game. That kind of scare-mongering isn't going to serve the "anti ILCF" proponents as it will be quite easily shot down.
9, Freedom of information and speech which is not protected here to start with will be further at risk
Uh, now I reckon we are getting back to Spooky Mulder Town, HM ... still, plenty of "correct"s from me prior to that.
regarDS
Lets stick to the point:
Agreed and good idea, HM.
1, It will not protect kids from online nasties
Correct, it will not protect all the kids all the time from all online nasties. It will only protect some of the kids some of the time from some of the online nasties – which But Of Course is considerably better than what is currently the case.
2, It will not stop kids from being abused.
Correct ... but what has that to do with ILCF as proposed ? Sounds like an attempt at selling straw ...
3, Clean Feed be will abused by conservite and religious groups
The far more correct thing would be to say that it will be abused by any who are given the opportunity to abuse it. Every Special Interest Group under the sun will attempt to utilise such a facility to their own ends given the opportunity, including those who oppose the conservatism I personally side with and see as more beneficial to the well being and progress of humanity than the opposite. Normal Government Accountability will apply with this as it does with everything else. The Government is by the people for the people after all ...
4, Clean feed will not prevent access to blacklisted site by tech savey internet users
Correct, it will not immediately achieve this. Tweaking will be in order, but for most web users, it will do its required/necessary job.
5, Clean feed will block legitimate sites unfairly
Correct. Healthy flesh also suffers when the knife is applied against harmful cancer. Nothing new there and nothing that tweaking wouldn't improve upon.
6, There will be no transparency on the content of the black lists
I'm not convinced on the accuracy of that one, particularly seeing as any so called "black list" is hardly going to remain secret for very long.
7, Security could be at risk if you use Internet banking, online shopping
I call "incorrect" on that one, and also more a case of "cart before the horse" at this stage of the game. That kind of scare-mongering isn't going to serve the "anti ILCF" proponents as it will be quite easily shot down.
9, Freedom of information and speech which is not protected here to start with will be further at risk
Uh, now I reckon we are getting back to Spooky Mulder Town, HM ... still, plenty of "correct"s from me prior to that.
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
