Tag Archives: you
#437491 3.2 Billion Images and 720,000 Hours of ...
Twitter over the weekend “tagged” as manipulated a video showing US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden supposedly forgetting which state he’s in while addressing a crowd.
Biden’s “hello Minnesota” greeting contrasted with prominent signage reading “Tampa, Florida” and “Text FL to 30330.”
The Associated Press’s fact check confirmed the signs were added digitally and the original footage was indeed from a Minnesota rally. But by the time the misleading video was removed it already had more than one million views, The Guardian reports.
A FALSE video claiming Biden forgot what state he was in was viewed more than 1 million times on Twitter in the past 24 hours
In the video, Biden says “Hello, Minnesota.”
The event did indeed happen in MN — signs on stage read MN
But false video edited signs to read Florida pic.twitter.com/LdHQVaky8v
— Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) November 1, 2020
If you use social media, the chances are you see (and forward) some of the more than 3.2 billion images and 720,000 hours of video shared daily. When faced with such a glut of content, how can we know what’s real and what’s not?
While one part of the solution is an increased use of content verification tools, it’s equally important we all boost our digital media literacy. Ultimately, one of the best lines of defense—and the only one you can control—is you.
Seeing Shouldn’t Always Be Believing
Misinformation (when you accidentally share false content) and disinformation (when you intentionally share it) in any medium can erode trust in civil institutions such as news organizations, coalitions and social movements. However, fake photos and videos are often the most potent.
For those with a vested political interest, creating, sharing and/or editing false images can distract, confuse and manipulate viewers to sow discord and uncertainty (especially in already polarized environments). Posters and platforms can also make money from the sharing of fake, sensationalist content.
Only 11-25 percent of journalists globally use social media content verification tools, according to the International Centre for Journalists.
Could You Spot a Doctored Image?
Consider this photo of Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Giving the middle finger #DopeHistoricPics pic.twitter.com/5W38DRaLHr
— Dope Historic Pics (@dopehistoricpic) December 20, 2013
This altered image clones part of the background over King Jr’s finger, so it looks like he’s flipping off the camera. It has been shared as genuine on Twitter, Reddit, and white supremacist websites.
In the original 1964 photo, King flashed the “V for victory” sign after learning the US Senate had passed the civil rights bill.
“Those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This photo was taken on June 19th, 1964, showing Dr King giving a peace sign after hearing that the civil rights bill had passed the senate. @snopes pic.twitter.com/LXHmwMYZS5
— Willie's Reserve (@WilliesReserve) January 21, 2019
Beyond adding or removing elements, there’s a whole category of photo manipulation in which images are fused together.
Earlier this year, a photo of an armed man was photoshopped by Fox News, which overlaid the man onto other scenes without disclosing the edits, the Seattle Times reported.
You mean this guy who’s been photoshopped into three separate photos released by Fox News? pic.twitter.com/fAXpIKu77a
— Zander Yates ザンダーイェーツ (@ZanderYates) June 13, 2020
Similarly, the image below was shared thousands of times on social media in January, during Australia’s Black Summer bushfires. The AFP’s fact check confirmed it is not authentic and is actually a combination of several separate photos.
Image is more powerful than screams of Greta. A silent girl is holding a koala. She looks straight at you from the waters of the ocean where they found a refuge. She is wearing a breathing mask. A wall of fire is behind them. I do not know the name of the photographer #Australia pic.twitter.com/CrTX3lltdh
— EVC Music (@EVCMusicUK) January 6, 2020
Fully and Partially Synthetic Content
Online, you’ll also find sophisticated “deepfake” videos showing (usually famous) people saying or doing things they never did. Less advanced versions can be created using apps such as Zao and Reface.
Or, if you don’t want to use your photo for a profile picture, you can default to one of several websites offering hundreds of thousands of AI-generated, photorealistic images of people.
These people don’t exist, they’re just images generated by artificial intelligence. Generated Photos, CC BY
Editing Pixel Values and the (not so) Simple Crop
Cropping can greatly alter the context of a photo, too.
We saw this in 2017, when a US government employee edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger, according to The Guardian. The staffer cropped out the empty space “where the crowd ended” for a set of pictures for Trump.
Views of the crowds at the inaugurations of former US President Barack Obama in 2009 (left) and President Donald Trump in 2017 (right). AP
But what about edits that only alter pixel values such as color, saturation, or contrast?
One historical example illustrates the consequences of this. In 1994, Time magazine’s cover of OJ Simpson considerably “darkened” Simpson in his police mugshot. This added fuel to a case already plagued by racial tension, to which the magazine responded, “No racial implication was intended, by Time or by the artist.”
Tools for Debunking Digital Fakery
For those of us who don’t want to be duped by visual mis/disinformation, there are tools available—although each comes with its own limitations (something we discuss in our recent paper).
Invisible digital watermarking has been proposed as a solution. However, it isn’t widespread and requires buy-in from both content publishers and distributors.
Reverse image search (such as Google’s) is often free and can be helpful for identifying earlier, potentially more authentic copies of images online. That said, it’s not foolproof because it:
Relies on unedited copies of the media already being online.
Doesn’t search the entire web.
Doesn’t always allow filtering by publication time. Some reverse image search services such as TinEye support this function, but Google’s doesn’t.
Returns only exact matches or near-matches, so it’s not thorough. For instance, editing an image and then flipping its orientation can fool Google into thinking it’s an entirely different one.
Most Reliable Tools Are Sophisticated
Meanwhile, manual forensic detection methods for visual mis/disinformation focus mostly on edits visible to the naked eye, or rely on examining features that aren’t included in every image (such as shadows). They’re also time-consuming, expensive, and need specialized expertise.
Still, you can access work in this field by visiting sites such as Snopes.com—which has a growing repository of “fauxtography.”
Computer vision and machine learning also offer relatively advanced detection capabilities for images and videos. But they too require technical expertise to operate and understand.
Moreover, improving them involves using large volumes of “training data,” but the image repositories used for this usually don’t contain the real-world images seen in the news.
If you use an image verification tool such as the REVEAL project’s image verification assistant, you might need an expert to help interpret the results.
The good news, however, is that before turning to any of the above tools, there are some simple questions you can ask yourself to potentially figure out whether a photo or video on social media is fake. Think:
Was it originally made for social media?
How widely and for how long was it circulated?
What responses did it receive?
Who were the intended audiences?
Quite often, the logical conclusions drawn from the answers will be enough to weed out inauthentic visuals. You can access the full list of questions, put together by Manchester Metropolitan University experts, here.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Image Credit: Simon Steinberger from Pixabay Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#437477 If a Robot Is Conscious, Is It OK to ...
In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man,” Data, an android crew member of the Enterprise, is to be dismantled for research purposes unless Captain Picard can argue that Data deserves the same rights as a human being. Naturally the question arises: What is the basis upon which something has rights? What gives an entity moral standing?
The philosopher Peter Singer argues that creatures that can feel pain or suffer have a claim to moral standing. He argues that nonhuman animals have moral standing, since they can feel pain and suffer. Limiting it to people would be a form of speciesism, something akin to racism and sexism.
Without endorsing Singer’s line of reasoning, we might wonder if it can be extended further to an android robot like Data. It would require that Data can either feel pain or suffer. And how you answer that depends on how you understand consciousness and intelligence.
As real artificial intelligence technology advances toward Hollywood’s imagined versions, the question of moral standing grows more important. If AIs have moral standing, philosophers like me reason, it could follow that they have a right to life. That means you cannot simply dismantle them, and might also mean that people shouldn’t interfere with their pursuing their goals.
Two Flavors of Intelligence and a Test
IBM’s Deep Blue chess machine was successfully trained to beat grandmaster Gary Kasparov. But it could not do anything else. This computer had what’s called domain-specific intelligence.
On the other hand, there’s the kind of intelligence that allows for the ability to do a variety of things well. It is called domain-general intelligence. It’s what lets people cook, ski, and raise children—tasks that are related, but also very different.
Artificial general intelligence, AGI, is the term for machines that have domain-general intelligence. Arguably no machine has yet demonstrated that kind of intelligence. This summer, a startup called OpenAI released a new version of its Generative Pre-Training language model. GPT-3 is a natural language processing system, trained to read and write so that it can be easily understood by people.
It drew immediate notice, not just because of its impressive ability to mimic stylistic flourishes and put together plausible content, but also because of how far it had come from a previous version. Despite this impressive performance, GPT-3 doesn’t actually know anything beyond how to string words together in various ways. AGI remains quite far off.
Named after pioneering AI researcher Alan Turing, the Turing test helps determine when an AI is intelligent. Can a person conversing with a hidden AI tell whether it’s an AI or a human being? If he can’t, then for all practical purposes, the AI is intelligent. But this test says nothing about whether the AI might be conscious.
Two Kinds of Consciousness
There are two parts to consciousness. First, there’s the what-it’s-like-for-me aspect of an experience, the sensory part of consciousness. Philosophers call this phenomenal consciousness. It’s about how you experience a phenomenon, like smelling a rose or feeling pain.
In contrast, there’s also access consciousness. That’s the ability to report, reason, behave, and act in a coordinated and responsive manner to stimuli based on goals. For example, when I pass the soccer ball to my friend making a play on the goal, I am responding to visual stimuli, acting from prior training, and pursuing a goal determined by the rules of the game. I make the pass automatically, without conscious deliberation, in the flow of the game.
Blindsight nicely illustrates the difference between the two types of consciousness. Someone with this neurological condition might report, for example, that they cannot see anything in the left side of their visual field. But if asked to pick up a pen from an array of objects in the left side of their visual field, they can reliably do so. They cannot see the pen, yet they can pick it up when prompted—an example of access consciousness without phenomenal consciousness.
Data is an android. How do these distinctions play out with respect to him?
The Data Dilemma
The android Data demonstrates that he is self-aware in that he can monitor whether or not, for example, he is optimally charged or there is internal damage to his robotic arm.
Data is also intelligent in the general sense. He does a lot of distinct things at a high level of mastery. He can fly the Enterprise, take orders from Captain Picard and reason with him about the best path to take.
He can also play poker with his shipmates, cook, discuss topical issues with close friends, fight with enemies on alien planets, and engage in various forms of physical labor. Data has access consciousness. He would clearly pass the Turing test.
However, Data most likely lacks phenomenal consciousness—he does not, for example, delight in the scent of roses or experience pain. He embodies a supersized version of blindsight. He’s self-aware and has access consciousness—can grab the pen—but across all his senses he lacks phenomenal consciousness.
Now, if Data doesn’t feel pain, at least one of the reasons Singer offers for giving a creature moral standing is not fulfilled. But Data might fulfill the other condition of being able to suffer, even without feeling pain. Suffering might not require phenomenal consciousness the way pain essentially does.
For example, what if suffering were also defined as the idea of being thwarted from pursuing a just cause without causing harm to others? Suppose Data’s goal is to save his crewmate, but he can’t reach her because of damage to one of his limbs. Data’s reduction in functioning that keeps him from saving his crewmate is a kind of nonphenomenal suffering. He would have preferred to save the crewmate, and would be better off if he did.
In the episode, the question ends up resting not on whether Data is self-aware—that is not in doubt. Nor is it in question whether he is intelligent—he easily demonstrates that he is in the general sense. What is unclear is whether he is phenomenally conscious. Data is not dismantled because, in the end, his human judges cannot agree on the significance of consciousness for moral standing.
Should an AI Get Moral Standing?
Data is kind; he acts to support the well-being of his crewmates and those he encounters on alien planets. He obeys orders from people and appears unlikely to harm them, and he seems to protect his own existence. For these reasons he appears peaceful and easier to accept into the realm of things that have moral standing.
But what about Skynet in the Terminator movies? Or the worries recently expressed by Elon Musk about AI being more dangerous than nukes, and by Stephen Hawking on AI ending humankind?
Human beings don’t lose their claim to moral standing just because they act against the interests of another person. In the same way, you can’t automatically say that just because an AI acts against the interests of humanity or another AI it doesn’t have moral standing. You might be justified in fighting back against an AI like Skynet, but that does not take away its moral standing. If moral standing is given in virtue of the capacity to nonphenomenally suffer, then Skynet and Data both get it even if only Data wants to help human beings.
There are no artificial general intelligence machines yet. But now is the time to consider what it would take to grant them moral standing. How humanity chooses to answer the question of moral standing for nonbiological creatures will have big implications for how we deal with future AIs—whether kind and helpful like Data, or set on destruction, like Skynet.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Image Credit: Ico Maker / Shutterstock.com Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#437466 How Future AI Could Recognize a Kangaroo ...
AI is continuously taking on new challenges, from detecting deepfakes (which, incidentally, are also made using AI) to winning at poker to giving synthetic biology experiments a boost. These impressive feats result partly from the huge datasets the systems are trained on. That training is costly and time-consuming, and it yields AIs that can really only do one thing well.
For example, to train an AI to differentiate between a picture of a dog and one of a cat, it’s fed thousands—if not millions—of labeled images of dogs and cats. A child, on the other hand, can see a dog or cat just once or twice and remember which is which. How can we make AIs learn more like children do?
A team at the University of Waterloo in Ontario has an answer: change the way AIs are trained.
Here’s the thing about the datasets normally used to train AI—besides being huge, they’re highly specific. A picture of a dog can only be a picture of a dog, right? But what about a really small dog with a long-ish tail? That sort of dog, while still being a dog, looks more like a cat than, say, a fully-grown Golden Retriever.
It’s this concept that the Waterloo team’s methodology is based on. They described their work in a paper published on the pre-print (or non-peer-reviewed) server arXiv last month. Teaching an AI system to identify a new class of objects using just one example is what they call “one-shot learning.” But they take it a step further, focusing on “less than one shot learning,” or LO-shot learning for short.
LO-shot learning consists of a system learning to classify various categories based on a number of examples that’s smaller than the number of categories. That’s not the most straightforward concept to wrap your head around, so let’s go back to the dogs and cats example. Say you want to teach an AI to identify dogs, cats, and kangaroos. How could that possibly be done without several clear examples of each animal?
The key, the Waterloo team says, is in what they call soft labels. Unlike hard labels, which label a data point as belonging to one specific class, soft labels tease out the relationship or degree of similarity between that data point and multiple classes. In the case of an AI trained on only dogs and cats, a third class of objects, say, kangaroos, might be described as 60 percent like a dog and 40 percent like a cat (I know—kangaroos probably aren’t the best animal to have thrown in as a third category).
“Soft labels can be used to represent training sets using fewer prototypes than there are classes, achieving large increases in sample efficiency over regular (hard-label) prototypes,” the paper says. Translation? Tell an AI a kangaroo is some fraction cat and some fraction dog—both of which it’s seen and knows well—and it’ll be able to identify a kangaroo without ever having seen one.
If the soft labels are nuanced enough, you could theoretically teach an AI to identify a large number of categories based on a much smaller number of training examples.
The paper’s authors use a simple machine learning algorithm called k-nearest neighbors (kNN) to explore this idea more in depth. The algorithm operates under the assumption that similar things are most likely to exist near each other; if you go to a dog park, there will be lots of dogs but no cats or kangaroos. Go to the Australian grasslands and there’ll be kangaroos but no cats or dogs. And so on.
To train a kNN algorithm to differentiate between categories, you choose specific features to represent each category (i.e. for animals you could use weight or size as a feature). With one feature on the x-axis and the other on the y-axis, the algorithm creates a graph where data points that are similar to each other are clustered near each other. A line down the center divides the categories, and it’s pretty straightforward for the algorithm to discern which side of the line new data points should fall on.
The Waterloo team kept it simple and used plots of color on a 2D graph. Using the colors and their locations on the graphs, the team created synthetic data sets and accompanying soft labels. One of the more simplistic graphs is pictured below, along with soft labels in the form of pie charts.
Image Credit: Ilia Sucholutsky & Matthias Schonlau
When the team had the algorithm plot the boundary lines of the different colors based on these soft labels, it was able to split the plot up into more colors than the number of data points it was given in the soft labels.
While the results are encouraging, the team acknowledges that they’re just the first step, and there’s much more exploration of this concept yet to be done. The kNN algorithm is one of the least complex models out there; what might happen when LO-shot learning is applied to a far more complex algorithm? Also, to apply it, you still need to distill a larger dataset down into soft labels.
One idea the team is already working on is having other algorithms generate the soft labels for the algorithm that’s going to be trained using LO-shot; manually designing soft labels won’t always be as easy as splitting up some pie charts into different colors.
LO-shot’s potential for reducing the amount of training data needed to yield working AI systems is promising. Besides reducing the cost and the time required to train new models, the method could also make AI more accessible to industries, companies, or individuals who don’t have access to large datasets—an important step for democratization of AI.
Image Credit: pen_ash from Pixabay Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#437451 Robot swarms follow instructions to ...
What if you could instruct a swarm of robots to paint a picture? The concept may sound far-fetched, but a recent study in open-access journal Frontiers in Robotics and AI has shown that it is possible. The robots in question move about a canvas leaving color trails in their wake, and in a first for robot-created art, an artist can select areas of the canvas to be painted a certain color and the robot team will oblige in real time. The technique illustrates the potential of robotics in creating art, and could be an interesting tool for artists. Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots