How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
eclecticlight.co
How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#2Just for famous paintings, apparently. Surely the article could have showed off more than just that?
I guess there was a single mention of a Havanese dog.
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#3Just for famous paintings, apparently. Surely the article could have showed off more than just that? I guess there was a single mention of a Havanese dog.
For what it's worth, I just tried this with a contemporary painting I own that's not famous but sat least came through the gallery system and it was recognized
Edit: it just gives me a link to https://www.artsy.net/artwork/mark-andrew-bailey-ingess It does not present any information like artist, size etc in the iOS interface when showing this painting, just the link. Still pretty cool.
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#4Based on the article, I’d expect Apple was retooling their CSAM scanner to try to catch art thieves.
Jokes aside, I would like to use this opportunity to express something I really want: I really wish I could search Wayback Machine with perceptual hashes. Google Images has had search by image for a long time, but it seems to get rid of content after a while once it’s offline. Meanwhile, Internet Archive has a ton of images you basically can’t find elsewhere anymore, and depending on how it was archived, it may be very difficult to find it if you don’t already know the URL. For sake of preservation, that would be genuinely amazing. You could go from a single thumbnail or image and potentially find more images or better versions.
It’s not like being able to identify common objects and artifacts with a phone camera isn’t super cool, but its far from perfect and in some of its more novel use cases (such as helping blind people navigate) that can be troublesome. Nothing technically stops the aforementioned Internet Archive phash index except for the fact that there will probably never be enough resources to create or maintain such an index.
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#5Based on the article, I’d expect Apple was retooling their CSAM scanner to try to catch art thieves. Jokes aside, I would like to use this opportunity to express something I really want: I really wish I could search Wayback Machine with perceptual hashes. Google Images has had search by image for a long time, but it seems to get rid of content after a while once it’s offline. Meanwhile, Internet Archive has a ton of…
Agreed that it'd be great to have that phash image index. A full text search of the Wayback Machine's archives would be amazing to have as well..!
I've been putting away the idea of starting a server that would request archives from the Wayback Machine, parse text from the html documents, and create the world's-simplest-search-index i.e. just the location (document id) of every encountered word. There's a ton of problems with this "plan", but... having any search would be better than nothing?
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#6Based on the article, I’d expect Apple was retooling their CSAM scanner to try to catch art thieves. Jokes aside, I would like to use this opportunity to express something I really want: I really wish I could search Wayback Machine with perceptual hashes. Google Images has had search by image for a long time, but it seems to get rid of content after a while once it’s offline. Meanwhile, Internet Archive has a ton of…
Agreed that it'd be great to have that phash image index. A full text search of the Wayback Machine's archives would be amazing to have as well..! I've been putting away the idea of starting a server that would request archives from the Wayback Machine, parse text from the html documents, and create the world's-simplest-search-index i.e. just the location (document id) of every encountered word. There's a ton of prob…
Honestly, I think possibly the biggest problem with indexing Wayback Machine is simply the size. I’m pretty sure it’s growing far faster than anyone can pull WARCs out for indexing, especially because well, it’s not exactly high throughput on the download side. I don’t blame anyone for that, but it does make the prospect of externally indexing feel a bit bleak.
At this point, I’d like it if there were just tools to index huge WARCs on their own. Maybe it’s time to write that.
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#7Just for famous paintings, apparently. Surely the article could have showed off more than just that? I guess there was a single mention of a Havanese dog.
Just tried it on my pup, a triumph! https://imgur.com/a/bpkSTuu
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#8I had a ton of pictures from a trip to Portugal in 2003 which I had roughly located (the dates told me which city I was in) but the integrated lookups in Photos made it pretty easy to see exact names and locations for most of the historic buildings, artwork, etc.
The big thing I wish they had was a workflow optimization: it'd be great if there was a way to copy the locations with a single click and copy them to temporally adjacent photos since if you took a picture of, say, a famous church you could safely assume that the closeup details of stonework 3 minutes later were in the same place.
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#9> Confusion between the Pissarro and Gallen-Kallela paintings above resulted from a ‘collision’, in which their Neural Hashes are sufficiently similar to result in misidentification, one of the reasons that Apple was dissuaded from using this technique to detect CSAM.
So if two literal paintings made centuries ago can cause a hash collision, there's no way this ever should have been considered for matching against files that no one else can see or research with for the most serious crime/reputation damage imaginable. It would not even be remotely hard to make up some collisions, and it could probably be done even without the original dataset.
Re: How Good Is Monterey’s Visual Look Up?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed that it'd be great to have that phash image index. A full text search of the Wayback Machine's archives would be amazing to have as well..! I've been putting away the idea of starting a server that would request archives from the Wayback Machine, parse text from the html documents, and create the world's-simplest-search-index i.e. just the location (document id) of every encountered word. There's a ton of prob…
Honestly, I think possibly the biggest problem with indexing Wayback Machine is simply the size. I’m pretty sure it’s growing far faster than anyone can pull WARCs out for indexing, especially because well, it’s not exactly high throughput on the download side. I don’t blame anyone for that, but it does make the prospect of externally indexing feel a bit bleak. At this point, I’d like it if there were just tools to i…
Right, the download speed is definitely an issue (and like you say, it's quite understandable considering the volume/traffic they deal with), and the continual growth is one of many factors I didn't consider.
I wonder if the IA would allow someone to interconnect directly with their storage datacenter, if one were to submit a well articulated plan to create this search index/capability.
Also, what do you mean by tools to index WARCs? Specifically, the gzip + WARC parsing + html parsing steps? Would the (CLI?) result be text extracted from the original html pages, i.e. something along the lines of running `strings` or beautifulsoup?