Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't sound like a terribly formal setting either?
It's an accurate assessment but misses the elephant in the room.
If the elephant isn't wearing a tie it's still a casual setting.
They see your photos
231–240 of 240 posts
Re: They see your photos
#232This is really cool. I posted a photo of what I think was my great grandparents into it and it explained their circumstances in fascinating ways (to the point of mentioning aged clothing, a detailed I overlooked). I’ve been trying to figure out how to process hundreds of my own scanned photos to determine any context about them. This was convincing enough for me to consider google’s vision API. No way I’d ever trust…
I use ChatGPT every day and I just throw a pic and say "alt text", that will give you insane detail, but also limited because the prompt itself insinuates a shorter description for a HTML tag. I just threw a pic in here of my gf holding a loaf she just made and part of it said "The slight imperfections on the bread's crust indicate it's freshly baked, and the woman's posture and facial expression suggest that she is…
That description made me smile, not bad for alt text!
Re: They see your photos
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using a browser with heavy anti-fingerprinting capabilities it will upload a randomized canvas image instead of the intended image, and you'll get a lot of descriptions of pictures of wavy lines and no people.
I find that hard to believe. Which browser intentionally tampers with images before they are uploaded, especially in such a destructive manner?
Firefox with canvas fingerprinting protection enabled.
Re: They see your photos
#234Re: They see your photos
#235This would be pretty great for generating descriptions for the vision-impaired, but it doesn't provide any profound insight beyond what you can tell from a glance. It has a lot of "trying to sound smart" waffle, for example, it had this to say about some tree branches: > A careful observer will also note the subtle variations in the thickness and texture of the branches, implying a natural, organic growth pattern. Ge…
Facebook has been doing for years a basic alt-text generation (not the best but better than nothing) eg: May be an image of 4 people, people smiling and text
Re: They see your photos
#236Took me a while to realize it was just describing Firefox's canvas anti-fingerprinting measures. "Looks to be a textile..."
Re: They see your photos
#237For all 4 of their sample photos and one that I uploaded, their thing failed to notice that there were humans in the pictures. It said the opposite, that there weren't any. I'm disappointed. The one I uploaded is one that I took some years ago, but I've forgotten the time and place, and I'd like to have had it tell me.
If you're using a browser with heavy anti-fingerprinting capabilities it will upload a randomized canvas image instead of the intended image, and you'll get a lot of descriptions of pictures of wavy lines and no people.
That is weird, I upload photos from the exact same browser to other sites all the time and they look fine. Uploading a photo shouldn't touch the canvas. It's just an http post.
Re: They see your photos
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you do any ML for Big Tech? Because it's actually a lot simpler than that: the input is the sum total of your activity, and the output is the likelihood that you'll click on an ad or buy a product on a specific surface. You certainly can predict demographic information like sexual orientation, education level, income, political party, and with a fair degree of accuracy, but all it does is add noise to the calculat…
> You certainly can predict demographic information like sexual orientation, education level, income, political party, and with a fair degree of accuracy, but all it does is add noise to the calculation you really want, which is optimizing the amount of money you'll make. How are all those data points noise? They're crucial information used for targeting ads to a specific audience. Advertisers pay extra for it, becau…
They're noise in the sense that they are imperfect human categories that we superimpose on reality. The alternative is not knowing nothing about the user, it's knowing everything.
Take this simplified example. Say that you want to predict whether a driver will cause a car accident. You could run the stats and say that poorer, older, less educated, alcohol-impeded, sleep deprived drivers statistically cause more crashes, and then take an 80-year-old high school graduate with an income of $20K/year and say "He's three of those five categories, that makes his risk higher." Or you could observe footage of every minute of him driving, count the number of times he strays out of lane, turns without his blinker, doesn't look at the road, speeds, runs a red light, etc. Which is going to give you a more accurate picture?
Marketers build up demographic profiles because historically, that's all the information they have had available to them. The detailed record of everything their customer has ever done has been impossible to collect, or illegal for privacy reasons. Big Tech has that record. And they can use it to make much more accurate machine predictions about what a person will do than demographics alone can predict.
Re: They see your photos
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You certainly can predict demographic information like sexual orientation, education level, income, political party, and with a fair degree of accuracy, but all it does is add noise to the calculation you really want, which is optimizing the amount of money you'll make. How are all those data points noise? They're crucial information used for targeting ads to a specific audience. Advertisers pay extra for it, becau…
They're noise in the sense that they are imperfect human categories that we superimpose on reality. The alternative is not knowing nothing about the user, it's knowing everything. Take this simplified example. Say that you want to predict whether a driver will cause a car accident. You could run the stats and say that poorer, older, less educated, alcohol-impeded, sleep deprived drivers statistically cause more crash…
I'm not understanding your argument.
In your first post you said that computed statistics are there "to make advertisers feel better about themselves". I pointed out that those computed statistics are still very valuable, even if they're based on probabilities and not on tangible data. Of course that with more real-world data the statistics are more accurate, but the reality is that real data is likely unavailable for most users. If the only available data are a few pictures and behavioral records (what they liked, who they follow, etc.), then those computed statistics are still much better than nothing.
Besides, advertisers mostly care about demographics, since that's how companies define their target markets. And most of this information can be gathered from just a few sources, so the type of advanced data analysis in your example is not even required in practice. Whether someone is at risk of having a car accident would be more valuable to insurance companies, than for advertisers to decide what product to show them.
Re: They see your photos
#240magick convert IMG_1111.HEIC -strip -quality 87 -shave 10x10 -resize 91% -attenuate 1.1 +noise Uniform out.jpg This will strip ALL exif metadata, change the quality, shave 10 pixels off each edge just because , resize to xx%, attenuate, and adds noise of type "Uniform". Some additional notes: - attenuate needs to come before the +noise switch in the command line - the worse the jpeg quality figure, the harder it is t…
Does this remove the color profile, though? I strip all mine with exiftool, but I exclude the color profile otherwise the entire image is screwed, especially if it's in some odd colorspace.