Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: davidnix71 on 22 December 2009, 01:11
-
HP computers are racist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM#)
This is hysterical. A black man bought one for Christmas and the camera won't follow his face. It has no trouble with his white coworker Wanda.
-
That's shows how incompetent designers are: it's obvious they've not bothered to test it properly.
I've heard about the use of face recognition for CCTV, I wonder if they use the same software? Great, if you're black there's less chance you'll be caught shoplifting on camera, it's a shame that I'm white so I'll have to black up. ;D
-
Just a small "whoops" on the HP programming department.
-
And the fucking racists should freaking fix their frigging face recognition system.
You can compare that to slavery; only whites were allowed to do it.
-
it's pretty racist of HP, regardless of whether it was deliberate or not (ie: it's racist of them not to consider this as a possible problem before dispatching the software)
-
HP aren't racist.
The software just needs the face to have enough illumination. Obviously someone with darker the skin will reflect less light and will need better illumination.
http://consumerist.com/2009/12/consumer-reports-tests-racist-hp-webcam.html (http://consumerist.com/2009/12/consumer-reports-tests-racist-hp-webcam.html)
-
so black people are actually being racist by having darker faces than whites?
right on.
No, actually i stand by my statement that HP's product is racist*. If they had tested this with a range of different people, not just whites, then they could have uncovered this embarrasing issue before releasing the product.
Just because they're not trying to be racist specifically, doesn't mean the damage hasn't been done.
by the way,
The solution: the webcam needs foreground light to function, and the more pigment in your skin, the closer you seem to have to sit.
that's not a solution, that's just a description of the stupid fact that black people are going to have a much harder time getting this to work than white people, which is actually racist.
-
How do you know that they haven't tested it with black people?
It could be the lighting conditions that they've neglected.
-
If they're not testing in different lighting conditions, then their failure is complete. A computer that only works under certain lighting conditions is a boat anchor, not a business machine.
-
I agree.
I'm not defending their shoddy product development, just that the accusation that they're racist is unfounded.
-
(http://www.kvaes.be/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/devilstriangle.png)
In the HP Photosmart project, the developers cut the quality (quality and effectiveness) of the product to reduce cost (efficiency). This resulted in equal or more time (logistics).
We can safely assume that the final milestone was not met according to the pre-determined planning, and thus Quality Assurance had to suffer.
Is HP racist? Probably not.
-
I agree.
I'm not defending their shoddy product development, just that the accusation that they're racist is unfounded.
it is not unfounded.
the damage is done, ie: they are selling a product that is functionally much more useless for black people.
Whether they meant to or not, the result is racist against black people who want to use this product.
How about black slavery, do you think that was racist? Most people nowadays agree that it was. On the other hand, i bet nobody even thought about things like racism, in the days when slavery was legal in the US (and sanctioned by the UK). Just because they didn't think about it, doesn't mean there's no blame to be handed out.
-
As a sort of follow-up, Sony Cybershot webcams have the same problem as the HP cameras. And Nikon Coolpix cameras now have facial recognition software that registers a warning when someone blinks during the photo shoot. Not surprisingly, it doesn't think too highly of Asian eyes. Which is funny, because Nikon is a Japanese company.
But this article goes a step further and claims that many of these companies are not writing their own software algorithms, they're buying them from other companies. It's possible that the facial recognition program used in all 3 of these products was written by the same team (although not probable). All in all, it means that some jackass rushed their product to market, and the big players didn't do much in-house testing, probably to save money. Does this mean Sony, HP, and Nikon are blameless? Not even close. If they were doing their due dilligence, they'd save a lot of embarrassment down the road.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100122/wl_time/08599195464300 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100122/wl_time/08599195464300)
-
This has made it more obvious to me how dumb computers really are, most animals are much more intelligent than a computer program; my cat can recognise human different faces even though it's something its brain was never designed/programmed to do.
I wonder what the current level of AI is compared to an animal?
Have computers reached, grasshopper-level intelligence yet?
I'm a sceptical that AI will reach human level: even creating a program as smart as a rat is a long way off. Maybe there's some law of physics preventing humans from creating a machine as intelligent as themselves; perhaps such a machine would have to be built by an animal which is much more more intelligent than us.
-
This has made it more obvious to me how dumb computers really are, most animals are much more intelligent than a computer program; my cat can recognise human different faces even though it's something its brain was never designed/programmed to do.
I wonder what the current level of AI is compared to an animal?
Have computers reached, grasshopper-level intelligence yet?
I'm a sceptical that AI will reach human level: even creating a program as smart as a rat is a long way off. Maybe there's some law of physics preventing humans from creating a machine as intelligent as themselves; perhaps such a machine would have to be built by an animal which is much more more intelligent than us.
Can your cat scan through billions of web pages and find occurrences of search terms?
Different tools for different jobs. For now, though, HP should've used cats. 8)
There are two identical twins I know in college, well I see them (normally one of them) around every week or so often. Never call them by their names. Even if I recognize the difference in their faces, I get mixed up with names anyhow and can't associate them with the correct name reliably. So usually if we're going out I ask someone "is mick/kev in the white shirt?" or figure it out like that. Not good at learning small differences in things, and very bad with names. But if I was a cat and I didn't need names I'd probably know mic/kev since I wouldn't associate their differences with a name and then get mixed up so I can't recall it confidently.
-
Can your cat scan through billions of web pages and find occurrences of search terms?
Different tools for different jobs. For now, though, HP should've used cats. 8)
There are two identical twins I know in college, well I see them (normally one of them) around every week or so often. Never call them by their names. Even if I recognize the difference in their faces, I get mixed up with names anyhow and can't associate them with the correct name reliably. So usually if we're going out I ask someone "is mick/kev in the white shirt?" or figure it out like that. Not good at learning small differences in things, and very bad with names. But if I was a cat and I didn't need names I'd probably know mic/kev since I wouldn't associate their differences with a name and then get mixed up so I can't recall it confidently.
A search engine isn't really intelligent because it doesn't actually understand the information it sifts through. I'm not sure that a cat wouldn't either, apart from pictures of other cats, people and mice maybe. ;D
Just because you can't remember names very well doesn't make you unintelligent, it's just that your memory isn't very good. I'm not good at matching faces to names either: I generally need to vaguely get to know people before I can remember their names.
Intelligent animals can do things and solve problems that they would never normally face in the wild. My cat can differentiate between me and other people, even though it probably doesn't know my name but that wasn't what I saying. My point was that in the wild it only has to recognise feline faces, and is only able to recognise humans because it has intelligence, which a machine does not.
No doubt some face recognition software could be designed to sift through a huge database and recognise people better than any human can but because it's not intelligent because it'll completely fail if you asked it to differentiate between two cats.
Animals totally pawn even the most powerful computers when it comes to problem solving and common-sense reasoning.
For example my cat has figured out to open sliding doors, we didn't train it to, it figured it out for itself. What's funny is, if it knows I'm watching, it doesn't bother, it plays dumb and looks up at me to get me to do it. The crafty cat has figured out how to get me to open the door because it's too lazy to do it. ;D Believe it or not, this takes brains, this behaviour can't have been preprogrammed: cats evolved long before people or sliding doors. A robot wouldn't be able to do this unless it was specifically programmed -even a cat is far brighter than any AI currently is.
EDIT:
Added quotes and last paragraph.
-
Computers do what they're programmed to do. So if you program a robot to sense things and what seems like a good idea in the physical world and what seems like not a good idea (such as resting your hand on a hot stove), and record and learn from these things: even communicate these things to buddy robots via the internet, maybe you can call it intelligent?
We may never see "intelligent" robots in our lifetime, but if they do everything we program them to, and we program them to learn about the world then if they're programmed correctly they'll do that.
-
One of the reasons AI usually seems so dumb is that we don't really understand our own intelligence. Like with your cat, you may think that it recognizes you, and you could maybe prove that it recognizes your face, but you will probably never know what it is about your face that makes you recognizable to a cat. So far, facial recognition is based on theories and experiments, but we don't know for sure how we recognize faces, so it's mostly stabs in the dark.
-
The biggest problem with most modern AI systems is that they don't really think or learn. They are still mainly very scripted preprogrammed things. With just pre-written responses to expected events. The only difference is now is that with the large amount of space and processing power, you can have very large and very complicated "decision trees"
I saw a video from a couple of years ago, and at the time the most sophisticated "learning" AI in the world was only able to do very basic things. Like this certain robot was given a car to play with, the most it was really able to figure out was that the car could only be slid easily forwards/backwards and not side to side, and even with that basic ability the computing hardware required was immense.
I also wouldn't under estimate the intelligence of animals when comparing AI to them. Especially when you consider that (Koko) the Gorilla knows over 2000 words of spoken english, and over 1000 sign-language signs. Your average domestic dog has far higher reasoning and logic skills then chimps and 3 year old human infants.
Facial recognition programs aren't really AI, they just have algorithms designed to look for shapes, ex: ovals, circles, and certain colors. They aren't like, "Oh hey thats a pair of eyes on a human head", its more like "Two ovals within a larger oval/circle - Focus Here"
-
One of the reasons AI usually seems so dumb is that we don't really understand our own intelligence. Like with your cat, you may think that it recognizes you, and you could maybe prove that it recognizes your face, but you will probably never know what it is about your face that makes you recognizable to a cat. So far, facial recognition is based on theories and experiments, but we don't know for sure how we recognize faces, so it's mostly stabs in the dark.
You're right, we don't understand our own intelligence, let alone that of other animals. I'm pretty sure my cat recognises me as it's shy around strangers but I can only assume it uses sight, it could be smell but being a visual predator I doubt it, I don't know about dogs though.
The biggest problem with most modern AI systems is that they don't really think or learn. They are still mainly very scripted preprogrammed things. With just pre-written responses to expected events. The only difference is now is that with the large amount of space and processing power, you can have very large and very complicated "decision trees"
Yes, they lack the basic reasoning, all animals with brains seem to have.
I also wouldn't under estimate the intelligence of animals when comparing AI to them. Especially when you consider that (Koko) the Gorilla knows over 2000 words of spoken english, and over 1000 sign-language signs. Your average domestic dog has far higher reasoning and logic skills then chimps and 3 year old human infants.
I know that many animals are more intelligent than human infants but how is a dog brighter than a chimp?
I don't think that's true, unless you're comparing it to a baby chimp or some other ability such as smell.
Facial recognition programs aren't really AI, they just have algorithms designed to look for shapes, ex: ovals, circles, and certain colors. They aren't like, "Oh hey thats a pair of eyes on a human head", its more like "Two ovals within a larger oval/circle - Focus Here"
If I were clever enough to design an AI image recognition system, I would base my design on a mantis shrimp. They're clearly the most intelligent crustaceans with the most complex eyes in the animal kingdom. They have hyper-spectral vision, are sensitive to polarised light and each eye has neurons which processes the information before it gets to the brain. They're capable of recognising each other and there's anecdotal evidence they can recognise people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp)
http://www.uemis.org/es/magazine/nature_and_science/peacock_mantis_shrimps_pugnacious_predators (http://www.uemis.org/es/magazine/nature_and_science/peacock_mantis_shrimps_pugnacious_predators)
http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatfishblog/2008/07/03/mantis-shrimp-order-stomatopoda- (http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatfishblog/2008/07/03/mantis-shrimp-order-stomatopoda-)–-breaking-research-and-care-in-captivity/
I'm more interested in alternate paths to intelligence: we know it's evolved in mammals but it's present in: birds (not as stupid as people once used to believe), fish (yes sharks are actually quite bright despite their reputation) and invertebrates cephalopods (octopus, cuttle fish and squid), stomatopods (mantis shrimp, see above) and possibly also jumping spiders.
"Crows in urban Japan have innovated a technique to crack hard-shelled nuts by dropping them onto crosswalks and letting them be run over and cracked by cars. They then retrieve the cracked nuts when the cars are stopped at the red light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence#Tool_use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence#Tool_use)
Octopus 'turns off' a light which is annoying him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBghUIEfDxg&NR=1# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBghUIEfDxg&NR=1#)
Octopus opening jar to get its dinner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWF6d0nelY&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWF6d0nelY&feature=related#)
These animals have developed brains down a different evolutionary path, especially invertebrates which have totally different nervous systems to ours. Suppose s scientist figures out exactly how we recognise faces? They might believe that it's the only way of doing it until they investigate how a squid does it which is totally different and might be easier for us to develop an implementation.
-
The Dog thing wasn't so much in general intelligence, but they are very good at deducing expressions, and using logic and reasoning to figure out something. For example, a toy was placed under one of two buckets, and a person used a variety of ways of motioning towards it, ex pointing, nodding, hitting the bucket in question, or just looking at it. Dogs were better then Chimps and human infants (I believe also wolves/coyotes) at figuring out there was something significant under that specific bucket.
There is also some evidence suggesting that Dogs are also aware that people and other animals are a separate entity them from themselves and that a person / other animal may not have the same wants and desires of them.
I've seen stuff on squids/octopuses before, and they really are quite smart animals!
-
Dogs can be smart - but they also chase their own tails. And they're such craven creatures - a dog who has overeaten of its own food will still gladly accept any scraps from your table, even if it leads to vomiting.
I personally think all creatures, even humans, become 100x more interesting after they learn to read.
-
Lots of so-called intelligent animals do stupid things
My cats will play with string and will swallow it if I let them, fortunately I only allow them to swallow an inch or so before I stop them: I've heard stories about cats how have swallowed string and it getting tangled in their intestines.
Humans are the worst, they get intoxicated to the point of being ill and vomiting the morning after, then go and do it all again.
Believe it or not, I actually see this as a sign of intelligence. No doubt the dog knows it'll be sick if it eats to much but it enjoys eating so is willing to take the risk. My cats probably know that string has no nutritional value but they love playing and chewing it, although I doubt they know it can rip their insides to shreds.
It's often hard to compare animals which have seemingly comparable cognitive abilities: which is more intelligent dogs or cats?
I've only owned cats so I can't really say but people often have the debate. You can't teach a cat to do tricks like you can a dog but it isn't a pack animal so has no motive to please you. Cats will on the other hand get you to do the work for them, as in my experience with my cats and the sliding doors. I don't know myself and I will be biased towards cats but people probably can relate to dogs more because, being a pack animal, they have better social skills. Scientists have speculated in the past that intelligence evolved in social animals but this has been proven wrong time and time again form orangutans to octopuses which are bright but solitary.
The octopus is often said to have the same mental capacity as a cat but I don't see how they can draw such a comparison for the same reasons as above.
Then there's the mirror test: if an animal can recognise itself in a mirror it's said to have self awareness. I don't agree with that myself, an animal might be self aware, it just might not have the visual mental capacity to understand how mirrors work. If an animal can be proven to understand that what it sees in a mirror is a reflection but it can't recognise itself then it obviously doesn't have self awareness. I experiment with my cats but somehow, I don't think they're bright enough to understand mirrors.
-
No doubt the dog knows it'll be sick if it eats to much but it enjoys eating so is willing to take the risk.
Actually, I think dogs are genetically programmed to eat as much as they can at every possible opportunity. For one, some of them are extremely active, and need energy. But also, dogs are scavengers by nature, and they don't know when the next meal is going to be.
It's often hard to compare animals which have seemingly comparable cognitive abilities: which is more intelligent dogs or cats?
I think cats are more intelligent. For genetic reasons - they're stealth hunters. Whereas a dog who hunts will do so by brute force - chasing down its prey noisily. Also, cats can be trained, provided it is something they want to do. I had a cat with dewclaws on all 4 paws, and she learned how to open kitchen cabinets, just by viewing the procedure a couple times. That being said, I think the cat vs dog intelligence question says a lot about people. People who respond dog usually do so because dogs learn tricks. People who respond cat usually do so because cats have such independent personalities.
Then there's the mirror test: if an animal can recognise itself in a mirror it's said to have self awareness. I don't agree with that myself, an animal might be self aware, it just might not have the visual mental capacity to understand how mirrors work. If an animal can be proven to understand that what it sees in a mirror is a reflection but it can't recognise itself then it obviously doesn't have self awareness. I experiment with my cats but somehow, I don't think they're bright enough to understand mirrors.
Mirror experiments with dolphins have astoundingly positive results. After just a couple minutes, dolphins start to make faces at themselves, and they seem to understand not only that they are viewing their own reflections, but that the reflections are flipped horizontally. Which may be genetic - after all, water is one of the most reflective substances on earth.
-
I think cats are more intelligent. For genetic reasons - they're stealth hunters. Whereas a dog who hunts will do so by brute force - chasing down its prey noisily. Also, cats can be trained, provided it is something they want to do. I had a cat with dewclaws on all 4 paws, and she learned how to open kitchen cabinets, just by viewing the procedure a couple times. That being said, I think the cat vs dog intelligence question says a lot about people. People who respond dog usually do so because dogs learn tricks. People who respond cat usually do so because cats have such independent personalities.
Could you be biased? Have you owned both cats and dogs?
I don't know whether my cats learned how to open the sliding doors by observational learning or whether they figured it out from themselves. My guess it's it was a mixture of both: they observed that it's possible to open the doors but they figured out how to do it themselves.
Then there's the problem with comparing the intelligence of two very different animals.
There's a debate about whether the octopus can learn from observation which has never been proved beyond reasonable doubt but I think it's more intelligent to figure things out for yourself. It's known that cats can from observation but a cat can't open a jar and an octopus can, there again a cat doesn't have eight separate arms covered in suckers, containing twice as many neurons as its brain.
Mirror experiments with dolphins have astoundingly positive results. After just a couple minutes, dolphins start to make faces at themselves, and they seem to understand not only that they are viewing their own reflections, but that the reflections are flipped horizontally. Which may be genetic - after all, water is one of the most reflective substances on earth.
Here's my favourite video of an animal seeing itself, the first minute isn't very interesting so skip it if you like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-DusaSVHmM# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-DusaSVHmM#)
Cuttlefish can see polarised light so I suppose it looks different in the LCD viewfinder. I like the way it reacts but it doesn't prove it recognises itself .