Log in | Register
Forum > Announcements > Thread

New image comment quality filter

[deleted]
Jul 31, 2022 - permalink

(This is attempt #2 at improving the image comments; attempt #1 was here)

I have added a quality filter for newly created image comments. If the comment you are posting falls below the quality threshold, you will get an error message when you click the post button. You can then revise your comment if you want to.

I am deliberately not saying how the quality filter works. Depending on your commenting style, you may run into it almost never, or you may run into it for basically every comment you post.

This is only active for image comments, and not for commenting anywhere else on the site.

If you are trying to post a comment and the filter is stopping you, and you are really convinced the filter is wrong, post here with the content of your comment.

This was rejected: This woman is strong. Is that her max?

Jul 31, 2022 - permalink

This was rejected: This woman is strong. Is that her max?

Say thanks to to one who endless Spam Pics with his strong and powerful phantasies 😜

Chainer
Aug 01, 2022 - permalink

This was rejected: This woman is strong. Is that her max?

Looking at your comments, I think this is correct. Also looking at your comments from before and after the filter was implemented, this seems like the filter working as intended.

Aug 01, 2022 - edited Aug 02, 2022 - permalink

'Our research indicates that people's intuitive first reaction to a photo is the most valuable data you have. This data represents people's true feelings about an image and therefore is the most useful data in future Artificial Intelligence search algorithms which soon everyone will be using more and more. A quality filter will skew this data in a way that gives less authentic results. You see, increasingly we are discovering it's all about how people feel, not what they say.'

It is the most useful data because a majority of people even now can not be trusted to give a correct and useful description of a picture. The minority that can will get drowned by the majority.

Here's a little explanation for those who are not data scientists.

I'm not saying this about the quality of the comments now. But in general if an AI is fed low quality information, it can become good at giving you low quality information. People focus too much on the intelligence and too little on the artificial. No artificial intelligence has thought a single thought, drawn a single conclusion or had one single intention, ever.

There must be the step somewhere where someone has an intention to do something. There must be a step somewhere where someone does the thinking. To explain AI to a man on the street, in simple terms, it could be said that it is a program that goes through a list of data. This phase is called its "training". It will store into another list every connection there was in the first list, such as coffee is with milk and sugar, strawberries with ice cream. Then the "trainer" will guide it to focus on certain of these at the expense of others. Then it will go through normal input data and highlight these same connections in it.

The trick that seemingly separates AI from normal programming is not that one must be told exactly what to do and the other must not because it can somehow "figure things out" on its own. It's that with an AI the "lists" are multi-dimensional and therefore it can process pictures, video and signals. The logic is fuzzy. Therefore it can connect coffee and Chigurh (the villain from No Country for Old Men) because of the similar pronunciation to sugar, unless guided to de-emphasize this connection. Finally, things are processed massively in parallel. None of these three things are new by themselves. It's the combination of these three that make a functional similarity sorter and pattern matcher that is more commonly known now as the AI.

Sometimes the results can be fed back into the process. But there is a danger here. An AI can accidentally recognize smileys or faces painted on a totem pole as almost human faces and veer into a state where it recognizes these as proper human faces. It thinks nothing. It understands nothing. It only processes mathematical differences and similarities. Enabling this feedback is how a public chatbot AI could be turned into a neo-Nazi. And this is the reason why an AI face generator often has hats and eyeglass rims melting into or coming out of the faces. This is because there is nothing that "knows" what these things are. There is just a giant multi-dimensional array of numbers that contains probabilities of a certain two-dimensional shape of a certain color appearing next to another or in a certain part of the picture when given a particular task, such as recognize or produce the face of a smiling young adult woman.

I understand that if you can not trust the commenters but use a quality filter, you would need to effectively second-guess your data. That is, to figure out what the commenters were thinking. To think about thinking. To first know and then sort out their mistakes and biases to get at what their thinking is worth. Usually not much, especially if they were already second-guessing themselves when writing the comment. The emotional reactions have a certain determinism to them and using this determinism an AI, once given a goal, can work out which comments and commenters to highlight or de-emphasize en masse. But only by seeing enough correlations between the desired end result and the data.

Tl;dr: How many boings from how many different persons with different tastes per picture would that require?

The biggest danger with AI is not that it will think too much and take over the world. It is that people who do not want to think will outsource their thinking to something that does not think at all and trust that it has done their thinking for them. It probably will work if the desired end result involves as little thinking as possible. Such as wishing to repeat a certain kind of emotional response.

Aug 02, 2022 - permalink

@zarklephaser4

Thank you for those insights! I don't think there is motivation or time for the admins of this site to implement something as sophisticated to tag and sort pics. But if someone could make it work here, this AI-tool surely could be sold for a lot of money. Or does it exist already for small community social media sites like this one?

Aug 02, 2022 - permalink

Thank you for those insights! I don't think there is motivation or time for the admins of this site to implement something as sophisticated to tag and sort pics. But if someone could make it work here, this AI-tool surely could be sold for a lot of money. Or does it exist already for small community social media sites like this one?

That could have been true a few years ago, but if you keep up with AI developments, its clear that AI will become ubiquitous, and cheap, and soon. Open AI is open, and is one of the most advanced, for example. It's only a matter of time for even a backwater site like GWM to have sophisticated AI available. And it will help us find exactly what we are searching for. And as @zarklephaser4 pointed out so well, it is shortsighted to add a quality filter at this late stage so close to the AI revolution, without understanding the implications. Those knee jerk responses really are important from a AI building a sense of what photos to prioritise.

The quality filter is old paradigm. It is like taking a gun, pointing at your foot, and shooting.

Aug 02, 2022 - permalink

But if someone could make it work here, this AI-tool surely could be sold for a lot of money.

Artificial intelligence is a computational concept. I am quite sure freely available generic implementations exist somewhere.

I am not an expert on using AI. I just like knowing about the philosophical and metaphysical side. In other words, what an AI is and what it is not, what it can do and what it can never do. It can never "become conscious" or "take over the world" or "program itself" or have "good will" or "evil intentions", like something or have a desire for something or "ensure" or "be concerned about" its survival.

That would be practically like saying that certain numbers or mathematical operations are conscious while others are not.

The real problem here in this site would be I think that an AI can not magically tell what is a bicep or what is a vein. To an AI an image is just a two-dimensional array of numbers. It does not even "see" shapes or colors initially. You would need to "train" it with massive amounts of data to get something that can recognize body parts as certain shapes and colors with worse accuracy than a toddler or a Rottweiler. In other words, feed it hundreds of pictures while classifying them as containing or not containing this or that thing you would eventually want it to recognize.

The principle is sound in limited cases. But the fantastic part here is that it could ever correlate these boings or other spontaneous utterances with anything that is in the picture. And you can already do a simple text search for boings or split biceps.

If you put low quality data in, you get low quality data out. If you have very little data to put in, you will barely get any data out. This is true to the extreme when toying with an AI.

Chainer
Aug 03, 2022 - permalink

That could have been true a few years ago, but if you keep up with AI developments, its clear that AI will become ubiquitous, and cheap, and soon. Open AI is open, and is one of the most advanced, for example. It's only a matter of time for even a backwater site like GWM to have sophisticated AI available. And it will help us find exactly what we are searching for. And as @zarklephaser4 pointed out so well, it is shortsighted to add a quality filter at this late stage so close to the AI revolution, without understanding the implications. Those knee jerk responses really are important from a AI building a sense of what photos to prioritise.

The quality filter is old paradigm. It is like taking a gun, pointing at your foot, and shooting.

I'll take a definite improvement now over a slight chance at an improvement in the not-so-near future.

I'm not even sure the existence of the low-effort comments would be helpful to an ML model trained on the comments in some way, or if it would be pure noise, dominated by a relatively small number of users that doesn't generalize at all.

Aug 03, 2022 - permalink

I am not an expert on using AI. I just like knowing about the philosophical and metaphysical side. In other words, what an AI is and what it is not, what it can do and what it can never do. It can never "become conscious" or "take over the world" or "program itself" or have "good will" or "evil intentions", like something or have a desire for something or "ensure" or "be concerned about" its survival.

I agree, and it's something that always bugs me about this myth about AI. Hollywood does nothing to help this perception about computers coming to "life".

Aug 03, 2022 - permalink

I'll take a definite improvement now over a slight chance at an improvement in the not-so-near future.

I'm not even sure the existence of the low-effort comments would be helpful to an ML model trained on the comments in some way, or if it would be pure noise, dominated by a relatively small number of users that doesn't generalize at all.

It's your site Chainer, you must do what you think will work best. Hopefully you wont exclude short comments with excellent search terms which will help with future searching, sorting or tagging like 'peak', 'split', 'vein' or whatever the specific thing is that people are into.

Aug 03, 2022 - permalink

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Aug 03, 2022 - edited Aug 03, 2022 - permalink

I disagree that AI won't become conscious. Initially we will (mis)perceive AI as conscious but as it becomes more sophisticated we won't be able to tell if it is conscious or not. Therefore, we'll probably, eventually feel compelled to legislate for this, however erroneous this concept may be. At least, initially erroneous. AI will probably result in a representation of consciousness, but eventually how will we be able to construe "artificial consciousness" from "organic consciousness"?

Aug 03, 2022 - permalink

Initially we will (mis)perceive AI as conscious but as it becomes more sophisticated we won't be able to tell if it is conscious or not.

Who is this we who will perceive or misperceive AI as conscious? You and your friend?

And who is this other we who will not be able to tell if it is conscious or not?

Are you trying to hypnotize people? Swinging a pocket watch, staring intently from under slanted eyebrows. "You will misperceive AI as conscious." A clear pause. "Then you will not be able to tell if it is conscious." Another pause, then continuing on a lighter tone. "You will think these bunny slippers are alive and willing to go for a walk without you. That has to be stopped. Now wake up!"

I'd guess you have zero idea what you are talking about. I'd rather listen to someone fantasize how in the future every girl will be a bodybuilder. My piss will turn into liquid gold that will be made into liquid jewelry before any AI will become conscious.

Initially people will misperceive me as the savior of the Internet, but as I become more sophisticated, they won't be able to tell if I am the savior or not. Therefore they'll probably feel compelled to legislate for this, however erroneous the concept may be. At least initially erroneous. My actions will probably result in a representation of saving the Internet, but eventually how will we be able to construe "representation of saving" from "actually saving"?

Nobody knows the meaning of saving the Internet. And you don't know what is consciousness. Clearly not even what it looks like.

Aug 04, 2022 - edited Aug 04, 2022 - permalink

AI will probably result in a representation of consciousness, but eventually how will we be able to construe "artificial consciousness" from "organic consciousness"?

There is a story I know I want to tell but I did not know where and when I should do it. But this seems like just the right place.

Years ago I became acquainted with a woman in her late twenties. She was small-boned and slightly shorter than average. She had done some general lady fitness stuff. Aerobics or something. But no real sports. Nothing with weights and no martial arts. I saw her occasionally and we usually just talked a bit. Nothing serious or interesting. She was moderately charming and likable the same way kittens are. Whiny and secretive also, though it was quite easy to find out what she was hiding, but usually at the cost of making her angry for a while.

I am quite sure she never dated anyone. I thought her too strange to even consider, except for what follows. After a few years she became more friendly towards me. I did not know what to make of it. It did feel nice but there was an edge to it. This went on for say a year or two, at the end of which I connected enough dots to realize that at some point after I had met her she had started going for one-night stands. Some of those she extended to short friendships with benefits. This had given her more confidence, which I had seen as the change in her.

It had also made her a bit less strange. She was still desperate about life, but in a markedly different way. Having initially just humored her immaturity I almost got bitten by it, so maybe I wasn't all that mature either. Soon after that realization I dropped all contact. I'm happy to say that I never even kissed her. Her sex life was none of my business really, but I just wasn't up for the amount of doublethink after I realized what was driving her. But being a man I must confess that the thought of free sex from a borderline aerobics kitten did bug me for a while. Also the power and depth of the delusion that must have plagued the other guys. Or was I just envious?

I will get relevant soon. Just bear with me.

I think I have by now deleted all the photos I had of her. She had clothes on in all of them. She sometimes really liked to be in a photo, sometimes she really didn't. But with a photo at hand it was easier to ask myself the million-dollar question. The answer is obvious and predictable on the surface, but there's a lesson I learned from it. There was nothing wrong with her body but you're far better off not sleeping with the person she was.

You could solve the riddle by reminding you of who she was and feel a bit depressed. Or you could intentionally focus on her body, try to pretend that the person in the body did not exist and feel excited. Now this is not about her anymore but has made me wonder how much this same wilful delusion is present in all casual sex and friendships with benefits. You wouldn't be having sex with the person or desiring who she is, but rather she would temporarily give you her body to play with, turning more into an onlooker than a participant. This pattern, this action, this process of dissociation is almost the very definition of psychological damage.

What you are saying about artificial intelligence works the same way and has the same kind of seductive power and quality. If we all did our best to pretend that the AI is conscious then we could think and nobody who is in the same delusion could blame us for thinking that the AI is in fact conscious. We could all even feel compelled to legislate for it. As if that made it any more real. You destroy your own grasp on reality to give power to a fantasy in order to pretend that the thing in the fantasy is powerful. While at the same time, according to Franco De Masi, you are clandestinely elated about the power of your own mind to free itself from reality.

Aug 04, 2022 - edited Aug 04, 2022 - permalink

Zarklephaser4 - Rather than all this offensive bull why don't you just say "I don't understand what you're talking about" instead of dressing it up as rambling nonsense? It would make your comments far more succinct, less idiotic and less nauseating...

"Are you trying to hypnotize people? Swinging a pocket watch, staring intently from under slanted eyebrows. "You will misperceive AI as conscious." A clear pause. "Then you will not be able to tell if it is conscious." Another pause, then continuing on a lighter tone. "You will think these bunny slippers are alive and willing to go for a walk without you. That has to be stopped. Now wake up!"

What kind of misunderstanding is this? Talk about delusional! You live in a fantasy world full of miscomprehensions and clunky, facile notions!

Aug 04, 2022 - edited Aug 04, 2022 - permalink

Rather than all this offensive bull why don't you just say "I don't understand what you're talking about" instead of dressing it up as rambling nonsense?

But I understood perfectly what you were talking about. I also understood perfectly that you had no clue what you were talking about.

You claimed that an AI would become conscious. But you gave zero reasons for anyone to think so. Instead of that you shared a fantasy in which more and more people would be deluded, but you failed to give any hint how, why and by what. Actually far more people have been deluded by news articles and TED talks on AI than any actual AI that exists now or probably will ever exist in the future.

This is like I sent some woman a letter telling how in the future she will be deluded into marrying me. "You can't stop yourself from being deluded. If I pretend to be the perfect husband and I am sophisticated enough, you will eventually come to believe it." You think that would work?

What kind of misunderstanding is this?

Just poking fun at your fantasy. But I think I did better when I proclaimed myself the savior of the Internet. The only thing required would be for people, including you, to believe in it. Seems like everyone else got that.

But instead of deciding to out-insult you now, I'd rather explain a few more things and nauseate you some more in the process. Referring to Sartre, it's the emptiness of your own worldview that nauseates you.

I already told you and everyone else that an AI is just loads of numbers and multipliers and relationships between them. Numbers aren't conscious. Mathematical operations can be performed by machines and by conscious agents but mathematical operations themselves are not conscious any more than printed words are conscious of their meaning. No matter how furiously you would try to square this circle, it simply will not happen.

Animals are aware of their environment through their senses, but animals are not conscious, strictly speaking. They have no concept of intention or autobiography. And neither does an AI. It can be guided to put words after other words by its source material and an uncritical observer can be fooled for a while in a controlled environment, but that's about it.

...less idiotic...

The original meaning of the word is a private person. You're right. Belief in a conscious AI is a delusion of the masses and at some point it could be even necessary to legislate for it to maintain the delusion. I would find it less sad if they legislated for angels and demons instead. It would be hubristic but not such a total lie, because angels and demons are by definition conscious beings.

Aug 05, 2022 - permalink

I'd wish you'd get back on topic - this thread is not about AI in the end. But Cres has some valid points and seems to know about the implications of AI in my opinion. You should do some more reading Zarklephaser.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_...

Aug 05, 2022 - permalink

Copyright NY Times

In the Times today...

cgsweat
Aug 05, 2022 - permalink

While this might be a stimulating discussion for a small handful of users, I might remind everyone that this is a website dedicated to girls with muscle, and as Chainer stated in the original post:

If you are trying to post a comment and the filter is stopping you, and you are really convinced the filter is wrong, post here with the content of your comment.

Unless you are reporting an issue with being able to make a comment under this new filter, then anything else seems to be off topic. There are any number of other sites and forums you could go to to discuss AI and whether it's sentient or not, or the ethics or it, or w/e.

Comments continuing this off topic discussion below this line will be deleted.

Aug 05, 2022 - permalink

I had a recent experience with the comment filter that I think is silly. I'm not a fan of this new feature, though I am 100 % behind people being more respectful toward the women featured on this site and the people (like me) who frequent it.

I replied to a comment about Irina Pimenova being from Russia. I said, "Think she's from Ukraine," and the comment filter wouldn't let me post that. Then I changed it to, "I think that she is from Ukraine, not Russia," and it accepted that.

Is it just because I lengthened the sentence? Does it filter out incomplete sentences or something, even though they convey the same information? I don't understand.

cgsweat
Aug 05, 2022 - permalink

I think those are good questions, and they might very well be part of a bug, or at least based on what I was told about how the filter works.

Chainer would have to answer that though.

Chainer
Aug 06, 2022 - permalink

I replied to a comment about Irina Pimenova being from Russia. I said, "Think she's from Ukraine," and the comment filter wouldn't let me post that. Then I changed it to, "I think that she is from Ukraine, not Russia," and it accepted that.

Are you sure that "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly, word for word, what you said? Because I am trying to reproduce it, and that comment gets accepted. If you just said "she's from Ukraine" that would not be accepted.

That said, I do think the filter is due for some adjusting to make it less likely that the presence or absence of a single irrelevant word makes as much of a difference.

Aug 06, 2022 - permalink

Why wouldn't "shes from Ukraine" be accepted? How is that a low effort comment? This seems to be getting ridiculous!

Aug 06, 2022 - edited Aug 06, 2022 - permalink

Are you sure that "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly, word for word, what you said? Because I am trying to reproduce it, and that comment gets accepted. If you just said "she's from Ukraine" that would not be accepted.

That said, I do think the filter is due for some adjusting to make it less likely that the presence or absence of a single irrelevant word makes as much of a difference.

I'm not sure if "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly what I posted, but it wasn't just "She's from Ukraine" because I genuinely don't know for sure where she's from. But I do know that I just extended the unaccepted sentence by a few words to say the exact same thing and it was accepted. I might've said "Isn't she Ukrainian?" I forget now. My memory sucks.

« first < prev Page 5 of 7 next > last »