6 ms·

And yet ... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf%EF%BB%BF http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf%EF%BB%BF

by jyzzmoe 11y ago

Houshalter 11y ago
Not really relevant to this. That deals with images, where you can perturb a huge number of pixels slightly to exploit weird edge cases. Even linear classifiers break on it, e.g. https://karpathy.github.io/2015/03/30/breaking-convnets/ https://karpathy.github.io/2015/03/30/breaking-convnets/
- empiricus 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that if you move just a little the image, the convnet is no longer fooled. So this kind of exploit works only for completely stationary images, and it is very to overcome.
JuliaLang 11y ago
I can break humans too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions
- jyzzmoe 11y ago
  Humans are able to recognize these as optical illusions. (otherwise we wouldn't be calling them "illusions") Further, none of the optical illusions shown are so wildly "off" and "crazy" as the algorithmic goofs demonstrated in the paper referenced above.
  - DavidSJ 11y ago
    They're obviously crazy to us. Our illusions might look obviously crazy to them. And generally humans don't natively know when they're experiencing an optical illusion. They have to be taught it. And in either case, it's not the human vision system that learns the lesson, it's some other part of the brain that learns to discount the vision system's conclusions.
- breuderink 11y ago
  Further, these inputs were /optimized/ to confuse the particular classification software. If only we would be able to optimise optical illusions for a given human viewer...
  - one-more-minute 11y ago
    I bet you could do it with sound, too. Imagine producing what would seem like abstract noise – unrelated to anything in the natural world – but with particular structures and sequences of tones optimised to produce particular emotive responses; pleasure, excitement, calm, energised dancing, romantic dancing... ... wait, don't we already do that?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

And yet ... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf%EF%BB%BF http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf%EF%BB%BF

by jyzzmoe 11y ago

And yet ... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf%EF%BB%BF http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf%EF%BB%BF

Not really relevant to this. That deals with images, where you can perturb a huge number of pixels slightly to exploit weird edge cases. Even linear classifiers break on it, e.g. https://karpathy.github.io/2015/03/30/breaking-convnets/ https://karpathy.github.io/2015/03/30/breaking-convnets/

empiricus 11y ago
I'm pretty sure that if you move just a little the image, the convnet is no longer fooled. So this kind of exploit works only for completely stationary images, and it is very to overcome.

JuliaLang 11y ago

I can break humans too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions

jyzzmoe 11y ago
Humans are able to recognize these as optical illusions. (otherwise we wouldn't be calling them "illusions") Further, none of the optical illusions shown are so wildly "off" and "crazy" as the algorithmic goofs demonstrated in the paper referenced above.
- DavidSJ 11y ago
  They're obviously crazy to us. Our illusions might look obviously crazy to them. And generally humans don't natively know when they're experiencing an optical illusion. They have to be taught it. And in either case, it's not the human vision system that learns the lesson, it's some other part of the brain that learns to discount the vision system's conclusions.
breuderink 11y ago
Further, these inputs were /optimized/ to confuse the particular classification software. If only we would be able to optimise optical illusions for a given human viewer...
- one-more-minute 11y ago
  I bet you could do it with sound, too. Imagine producing what would seem like abstract noise – unrelated to anything in the natural world – but with particular structures and sequences of tones optimised to produce particular emotive responses; pleasure, excitement, calm, energised dancing, romantic dancing... ... wait, don't we already do that?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]