Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 220 posts

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#91

Post by sp332 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #37
maxerickson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer vision system can have multiple ways of processing an image. So at the limit, it could interpret a scene in terms of what a human sees and also have a separate, better understanding of the scene.

The OP shows that computers DO NOT have a better understanding. Its evident they have no understanding at all; they are simply doing math on pixels and latching on to coincidental patters of color or shading. People recognize things by building a 3D model in their head, then comparing that to billions of experiential models, finding a match and then using cognition to test that match. "Is that a bird? No, its just a…

I don't think your description of how humans recognize things is true. You can do object recognition of a silhouette, or a 2D image, or an impressionistic rendering. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429132231.ht...

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#92

Post by toomuchtodo »

jessaustin wrote: post #89
toomuchtodo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could we not just outlaw SWAT raids?

It's difficult (not impossible!) to directly oppose politically well-connected factions on their bread-and-butter issues. We might have more luck saying to police departments "here is another way you can have lots of money to spend" rather than "we're taking away federal support for the Drug War, which for some time has been the only way you can hire more cops and procure more equipment". The trick would be to make s…

Can we not just defund them? Can't "Stave The Beast" be used for good?

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#93

Post by mellavora »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #45
vinceguidry wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can't get very far into the discussion before all the available options involve overhauling the entire system. And there's no way, realistically, to do that.

> And there's no way, realistically, to do that. Yes, yes there is. We start with the most victimless crimes (drug possession for personal consumption) and go from there. Police unions will fight it. Prison unions will fight it. The court system will fight it. Nevertheless, it must be done.

In support of your position, how did we ever let people convince us that victimless "crimes" were crimes? The definition of crime rests on the concept of harm, which requires a victim.

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#94

Post by platz »

drpgq wrote: post #70
platz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone talking about the kinect said that most all facial recognition algorithms require the face to be level horizontally; if the face is tilted at an angle then it doesn't work. not sure if true but interesting observation.

That's really not that interesting. I work as a research scientist at a face recognition company. If you want, you can detect faces at any angle, but sometimes for speed you will only check upright faces.

it might not be interesting to you as a researcher, but to me as a participant in in a world increasingly filled with face recognition products it's worth knowing that different products will have different capabilities based on their "speed" requirements.

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#95

Post by [deleted] »

mellavora wrote: post #93
toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And there's no way, realistically, to do that. Yes, yes there is. We start with the most victimless crimes (drug possession for personal consumption) and go from there. Police unions will fight it. Prison unions will fight it. The court system will fight it. Nevertheless, it must be done.

In support of your position, how did we ever let people convince us that victimless "crimes" were crimes? The definition of crime rests on the concept of harm, which requires a victim.

[deleted]

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#96

Post by compbio »

Houshalter wrote: post #87
compbio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I have to try this out. My intuition tells me it becomes increasingly hard to create a fooling image, which looks alien, and is able to fool all the nets in the ensemble, even though they have different settings and params. I think they can only fool one net at a time, and have to get very lucky to be able to evolve the image for the other nets, while keeping the same classification. You can't "train" these image…

Overfitting has nothing to do with it. See this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572 I believe the original paper tried ensembles and even got the images to work on different networks.

I was not talking about overfitting. I've seen that paper.

The original paper asked if images that could fool DBN.a could fool DBN.b. The answer was: certainly not all the time. They used the exact same train set and architecture for DBN.a and DBN.b, just randomly varied initial weights. I think this is too favorable for a comparison with a voting ensemble made with nets with a different architecture, train set and tuning. Can they also find images that can fool DBN.a-z?

Also, to test if a net can learn to recognize these fooling images, they simply add them to the train sets. Those noisy images would be far simpler to detect: They have a much greater complexity than natural images. To detect the artsy images, a quick knearest-neighbors run should show that they do not look much like anything it has seen before, so it may be an adversarial image.

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#97

Post by mikeash »

frobozz wrote: post #74
mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This always frustrates me when discussions of plea bargaining and the right to trial come up, and the argument is given that plea bargaining is a necessity because the courts would be horribly overloaded if every case went to trial. If the system doesn't have the resources to give every accused criminal a fair trial, then either you're making too many criminals, the system doesn't have enough resources, or both. Bypa…

Why should every crime go to trial? If the offender says "Fair cop, guv, you've got me bang to rights", why waste everyone's time proving that (s)he did it? It's basically the same as setting up your conditions to take advantage of short-circuit evaluation. You don't put the time-consuming and resource-hungry part first. Were there even the slimmest chance of acquittal, few defendants would utter that phrase without…

By all means, we should allow defendants to simply confess and plead guilty if they wish.

But we should not reward them for doing so. Never should a person be presented with a choice between a certain lesser punishment, or a fair trail and a potential greater punishment. That's the "bargain" in "plea bargain," and it's completely reprehensible.

You say, "few defendants would utter that phrase without there being either a benefit to owning up, or an extra penalty for not doing so." That's exactly how it is! A plea bargain isn't just, "we both know you did it, so just confess and let's skip all the lawyers and stuff." It's always, "We both know you did it, so confess and we'll let you out early. If you insist on taking this to trial then we will throw the book at you." A lot of innocent people will take the plea when faced with that choice.

Not every crime needs to go to trial, but every accused criminal needs to have the right to a trial without being punished for exercising that right. If you remove the punishment then you'll no longer have plea bargains, just pleas.

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#98

Post by warfangle »

Mc_Big_G wrote: post #86
frobozz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should every crime go to trial? If the offender says "Fair cop, guv, you've got me bang to rights", why waste everyone's time proving that (s)he did it? It's basically the same as setting up your conditions to take advantage of short-circuit evaluation. You don't put the time-consuming and resource-hungry part first. Were there even the slimmest chance of acquittal, few defendants would utter that phrase without…

>>Were there even the slimmest chance of acquittal, few defendants would utter that phrase without there being either a benefit to owning up, or an extra penalty for not doing so Oh man, that's so wrong. Even where there is a LARGE change of acquittal, many choose a plea bargain because they cannot afford a good attorney or because the prosecutor is threatening them with something crazy like 40 years for downloading…

And some choose suicide over the plea bargain.

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#99

Post by mikeash »

incongruity wrote: post #47
mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This always frustrates me when discussions of plea bargaining and the right to trial come up, and the argument is given that plea bargaining is a necessity because the courts would be horribly overloaded if every case went to trial. If the system doesn't have the resources to give every accused criminal a fair trial, then either you're making too many criminals, the system doesn't have enough resources, or both. Bypa…

While I largely agree with you, it strikes me that you've missed an option -- It might be that there's something inefficient in the trial process that holds no weight on "fairness". I'm not a legal expert by any means, so it may not be the case, but it seems as though it's a possibility.

You certainly could be right. The way trials are run does not seem very efficient at all, and maybe a lot of the fat could be cut out without impacting outcomes.

On the other hand, if you can get the number of accused criminals down to a reasonable level, it wouldn't matter too much if there was waste in the smaller number of trials.

No doubt the problem can be attacked from many directions.

Re: Images that fool computer vision raise security concerns

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

mellavora wrote: post #93
toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And there's no way, realistically, to do that. Yes, yes there is. We start with the most victimless crimes (drug possession for personal consumption) and go from there. Police unions will fight it. Prison unions will fight it. The court system will fight it. Nevertheless, it must be done.

In support of your position, how did we ever let people convince us that victimless "crimes" were crimes? The definition of crime rests on the concept of harm, which requires a victim.

So-called "victimless crimes" are crimes where the harm perceived is a diffuse harm rather than a focused harm on a particular individual.

There's really no reason why diffuse harms should not be criminal while focused ones should (arguably, diffuse harms are less able to be addressed by individual action through the civil justice system, so outside of focused harms where the victim is unable to pursue action after the crime, like murder, diffuse harms are the most important for government to address directly.)

OTOH, there's often a lot more disagreement over whether what some people perceive as a diffuse harm actually is a harm.

Post reply on HN