This is kind of one of those “yeah, no shit” findings
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
66 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
73727 readers
3564 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not entirely sure why it needs ai for that either.
AI is the new buzzword for media to use.
It's in the corporate world too. Today my boss mentioned the AI capabilities that a certain piece of software offered. Turns out being able to search text embedded in illustrator as Live Type is bleeding edge. Who knew.
This? https://helpx.adobe.com/illustrator/using/retype.html
That could actually be helpful for me. Didn’t know it was a new feature lol.
As commonly said: the product advertises its new AI feature. The job posting of the person who implemented it was 'data scientist', and the technique used is called logistic regression.
Well, in this context, it's more image comparison or some other simple technique not even relying on a training dataset.
Better accuracy usually (but not granted if badly implemented)
Better accuracy than what? What the article describes is fairly basic image processing. The whole thing could be done with like a dozen lines of Python.
In Image classification. Neural-network-based ML methods can have greater accuracy than alternative options in image classification
For classification, sure. But based on the article that's not what they were doing here. This was just comparing an image to a bunch of other images to see if it was the same.
To see if they are similar. They are not interested to see if the image is the same but to understand if the message is the same, to the level that it is a fraud, not simple citation. They are flagging frauds...
I have no idea how they do it, and I strongly believe it is an overkill given that the credibility of published research is low due to the mafia-like academic system, not because of few frauds.