Looks like a joke, but it's true It's facebook awful algorithm
I hardly blame them. Having humans do it, they will be subjected to scenery of decapitations, gore and infants being raped into a bloody mess by their own father. Really hard on a person. Letting machines handle it hurts the artists though.
I hardly blame them. Having humans do it, they will be subjected to scenery of decapitations, gore and infants being raped into a bloody mess by their own father. Really hard on a person. Letting machines handle it hurts the artists though.
I hardly blame them. Having humans do it, they will be subjected to scenery of decapitations, gore and infants being raped into a bloody mess by their own father. Really hard on a person. Letting machines handle it hurts the artists though.
I'm sure there are plenty of 4channers and LiveLeakers that wouldn't mind being paid to filter content. I know I'm pretty well unphased by that stuff by now. But, that's the thing; you don't have to pay dumb machines: they do their work for the cost of maintenance and when they fuck up you can just say "we're doing our best but you know how janky technology can be" and the masses will agree.
there are plenty of 4channers and LiveLeakers that wouldn't mind...
That is not a brag. I am sure facebook would want workers more likely to censor and ban malicious users for disturbing content and not hit Share for reactions and lulz.
"Intelligent" Algorithms?! My ASS has better Artificial-Intelligence than their stupid automatic flagging system/bots!
Because why would international billion-dollar companies simply hire people to check their work, when they can simply use a flawed computer program and line their pockets even more?
Котенок said:
That was great but.... why does John Oliver want to have sex with a carebear so much? Just curious. It is 2018 so I am not trying to fetish shame him.
Because every late-night host who followed in Jon Stewart's footsteps thinks being a prick at every chance you get equals progressive comedy, and in Oliver's case, he tries to salvage that by making himself look like what he thinks is the average person on the Internet.
"Intelligent" Algorithms?! My ASS has better Artificial-Intelligence than their stupid automatic flagging system/bots!
And now Tumblr's been hit too. They still let those porn bots run free, but you draw so much as one lewd drawing? Your account's as good as gone. They're trying to fix this issue, but it's not going too well.
EDIT It got worse; now it adopted Facebook's algorithms.
And now Tumblr's been hit too. They still let those porn bots run free, but you draw so much as one lewd drawing? Your account's as good as gone. They're trying to fix this issue, but it's not going too well.
...why are they using these algorithm in the first place then? Shouldn't they disable them and *then* fix them rather than fix them as they are wrecking the whole place?
...why are they using these algorithm in the first place then? Shouldn't they disable them and *then* fix them rather than fix them as they are wrecking the whole place?
They are actual AIs. They learn by processing data.
LOTS OF DATA. Like shit tons of it. The more the better. You can have a shitty, half-assed, copy-pasta algorithm, and it'll still eventually figure something out so long as you feed enough data into it.
As for why they don't just have the AI doing 'silent' classifications in the background as it's learning, well, they means you need a human to vet every single one of its decisions to make sure it's on the right path. Set it loose online, and you can just assume every decision it makes is valid (well, valid for your purposes) until someone complains, then you vet those and tell the AI it got those 'special cases' wrong (assuming, of course, that it's a genuine complaint).
But yeah, it's shit for all the people caught in the crossfire.
They are actual AIs. They learn by processing data.
LOTS OF DATA. Like shit tons of it. The more the better. You can have a shitty, half-assed, copy-pasta algorithm, and it'll still eventually figure something out so long as you feed enough data into it.
As for why they don't just have the AI doing 'silent' classifications in the background as it's learning, well, they means you need a human to vet every single one of its decisions to make sure it's on the right path. Set it loose online, and you can just assume every decision it makes is valid (well, valid for your purposes) until someone complains, then you vet those and tell the AI it got those 'special cases' wrong (assuming, of course, that it's a genuine complaint).
But yeah, it's shit for all the people caught in the crossfire.
I think it would be more efficient, in the long run, to actually have a person go over the stuff the AI is marking, that way it can learn a lot faster. Sure, you will need to pay *one* person for it, but considering I can go through nearly thousands of images on danbooru on daily basis, for fun, I do not see the issue there other than tiny bit extra cost all things considered.
And I do want to point out that the AI algorithms for Youtube still suck after being created by one of the biggest company in the world. And there the algorithm isn't really under proper supervision either (considering it's impact). It has gotten better at its task but it has taken it longer than it would have for a normal person to do so.
From that alone I would think that it would have been a lot more effective to have number of people working with it over time and refining its process by marking which of it's choices were right or wrong as it went by rather than wait for reports of all the casualties. ^_^,
I mean, would you give an automatic drone access to high-yielding explosive missiles and then throw them out and just let them "learn by doing" or would you actually put in the effort to make sure that they don't cause civilian and innocent causalities? (tbf, I wouldn't give automatic algorithm access to weaponry in the first place so regard this as just an example)
they do their work for the cost of maintenance and when they fuck up you can just say "we're doing our best but you know how janky technology can be" and the masses will agree.
This is exactly the reason. Low accountability and high control for stealth banning. Google for example does not really profit from Youtube alone, they want it for the very valuable influence it serves. They tried to make Google+ like an addition but that didn't really work because they forced it on people who didn't want it.
I had friends who once worked for Google and the stuff they talk about is almost like the Cold War all over again with all the background shifty business going on. I still like Google overall though since they are a very innovative company, despite being shysters.
This is exactly the reason. Low accountability and high control for stealth banning. Google for example does not really profit from Youtube alone, they want it for the very valuable influence it serves. They tried to make Google+ like an addition but that didn't really work because they forced it on people who didn't want it.
I had friends who once worked for Google and the stuff they talk about is almost like the Cold War all over again with all the background shifty business going on. I still like Google overall though since they are a very innovative company, despite being shysters.
That's not really how it works, though. "Market Share" is the name of the game.
For reference, Microsoft, Google's arch-nemesis, only really makes money on Windows and Microsoft Office. Everything else is a loss that they sustain just to stay in the market. And they've been giving out free copies of Windows 10 for a while. Google has been giving out Open Office, which has all the features of and is fully compatible with all your old Microsoft Office files, for free for no reason other than to jab Microsoft in the eye. That's how these behemoths play this game, OK?
So, yeah, they can't figure out how to make YouTube really reliably pay for itself, but Google didn't spend a billion and a half dollars on something that loses money for no reason; YouTube is, by bandwidth, 10% of the Internet, and 20% of HTTP traffic. It's also basically unique. Streaming sites are something of a challenge to YouTube, but no other direct competitor for user-uploaded content is able to really work, and most independent sites just plain use YouTube embeds.
Google+ was basically its own thing. Google+ was really Google trying to eat into Facebook's market share and it just used YouTube as a means of getting people onboard. That's because if you make the most popular website on the Internet require an account in something, you can strongarm millions of people into signing up for anything. That's what they're aiming for - a monopoly on a certain type of Internet experience that they can eventually use to bludgeon any and all competition to death. They're basically aiming for making TV obsolete so that everyone wants to advertise on Google ads (which can charge more) instead of TV. Yeah, maybe the money doesn't technically come through YouTube, and YouTube still posts losses, but it's feeding their main business more customers, so it's still their win.
It's not a conspiracy for social manipulation, it's a conspiracy of economic manipulation where they're playing the long game; Some giants are actually giant enough that they're focused upon long-term goals and are actually willing to eat short-term losses to achieve them. (And Google and Microsoft in particular have been eating "short-term" losses for a very long time...)