'AI is not the cause, it’s an accelerant. The pace of change is challenging' Experts give Congress deepfakes straight dope

The US House of Reps' Intelligence Committee on Thursday held its first hearing into computer-fabricated videos dubbed deepfakes, quizzing experts from across worlds of AI, social policy, and law. These deepfake videos are typically generated by deep-learning software to fool viewers into thinking someone said something they …

[I.Geller]

Blockchain technology in AI database as a means of combating fake news

I'm the expert, you need no others.

The US PTO is the closest in structure to AI database: everything is interconnected, everything has a unique timestamp: each patent is explained by all the others.

The same goes for AI database: everything is explained by all the information and everything has a unique timestamp. If something is not explained - then clearly something is wrong.

For example, if a patent came that is not referenced by other patents with unique time stamps - it is either a discovery or a forgery.

Speaking of news, if the news does not have a pedigree with unique timestamps - it's either a sensation or a fake, which will be discovered at once. (2010, long before the word "blockchain" came)

AI database is a blockchain database:

14. The computer system of claim 9 in which said facility configured to extract predicative phrases is further configured to assign to the subtexts information regarding the date of their origin.

[I.Geller]

Blockchain technology and AI

If the appearance of fake can not be controlled - its lifecircle can be.

Impossible to control what is written and appears, mainly due to the fact that a news is new, often have no history but only of those who created it. However possible to control those who wrote it, as well as the farther fate of the fake - there is AI blockchain technology.

[JLV]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

You know, for being the father of AI and ML and an expert at everything, you seem to be attracting Rodney Dangerfield levels of respect and recognition.

Googling Ilya Geller gets a “Product Manager” Linkedin entry at some sort of security outfit. Not CTO, Product Manager. 4 patents, which I confess I didn’t look at - having neither AI knowledge nor a deep interest in perusing legalese.

And, that’s it, except for numerous forum/social media “Alice is strong” posts, in which you tout your genius.

No widespread recognition of your obvious talents by others that I could see (US PTO patents may or may not be significant, based on their spotty software patents quality history). No one else seems to care.

How unjust. See icon.

Can you explain? On second thought, your explanations are akin to Amanfrommars’ wrt clarity, without any redeeming intentional irony, so just go away and fade away.

You been tellin' me you're a genius

Since you were seventeen

In all the time I've known you

I still don't know what you mean

[I.Geller]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

I had been dying for quite a while, actually for many years. As soon as I came back I got a quarrel with the CIA/ Google - the CIA justly decided I aimed to destroy their creation Google. So no publications, no the Government grants, no Venture capitalists. Ten years I'm knocking on all the doors, behind which there are always people from the CIA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

It's because we remotely read your thoughts.

[I.Geller]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

Don't ever study fundamental sciences. Never study philosophy. Never think to do business on science.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

you're forgetting about a couple of things...

a) freedom of speech

b) artistic expression

And, from the article:

"Users can be easily manipulated to like, comment, and share posts without thinking about the potential harm they can cause."

happens in HERE _ALL_ of the time!!!

"Potential harm" - to WHAT exactly? If I could produce a ship-load of videos that use extreme audio/video editing to make fun of lib-tard politicians and their *RIDICULOUS* ideas, and how they continue to TRY AND RESTRICT MY FREEDOM [while simultaneously INCREASING THEIR OWN POWER CONTROL AND WEALTH], I'm gonna DO it. Consider it a Guerrilla tactic for FIGHTING AGAINST THEM.

keep on snarkin' !!!!

[I.Geller]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

Yes, there is a certain bifurcation, I find an outlet in the words of Bible... If you don't know what to do - try Bible?

[Jamie Jones]

Re: Blockchain technology and AI

Bob, a couple of questions:

1) If "libtards" are so ridiculous, why do you need to fake them?

2) If right-wingers are so intelligent, how will your fakes fool them?

No, the problem is, faking is lying. If it's not hiding it's fakeness, all well and good.

The problem mainly effects the left because the Trumpets are total morons who believe any bullshit fed to them.

As for "free speech", if it's factual, knock yourself out, Bubba.

Just don't someone dare to factually report on the right, because you "free speech advocates(!)" will just blindly shout "FAKE NEWS" and Trump will call you the enemy of the people, and encourage violence (much video evidence there)

As for:

"TRY AND RESTRICT MY FREEDOM [while simultaneously INCREASING THEIR OWN POWER CONTROL AND WEALTH"

What have you bern smoking? Granted, you aren't female, so you're not affected by the right wing abortion restrictions.

I also assume you don't want to Boycot Israel in protest at their governments policy regarding Palestine, because the good old free-speech loving republicans have made that illegal too.

As for power and wealth, you are getting confused - it's Trump who is seeding right-wing allies in supposedly neutral jobs - Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court, Barr as atterny general, etc. and it's Trump who tries to sack his enemies, and it is Trump who gave the tax breaks to the wealthy.

[David Given]

Re: Blockchain technology in AI database as a means of combating fake news

This post's just a little bit too coherent to be obviously machine generated, but some of Geller's other replies are definitely ringing all my chatbot alarm bells.

[I.Geller]

This AI technology kills Google, FB and Internet at once.

Respect for those who haven't read my poetry yet? So I continue:

A personal profile, consisting of texts structured into synonymous clusters, allows computer to annotate (that is, expand) 1-2 words of a search query to several hundred and thousands, and find the looked for information from a single search. You shouldn't be a qualified and experienced search specialist to exploit my patented AI search system.

SQL language is not capable of this, to achieve a similar result multiple SQL queries and a highly qualified searching person are required.

Therefore personal profile is the key to AI technology, only having it AI can answer questions; which this skill is (according to NIST TREC) the essence of AI.

Also this AI technology kills Google, FB and Internet at once.

[David Given]

Re: This AI technology kills Google, FB and Internet at once.

You are Arthur T. Murray, and I claim my five pounds.

(And I will be impressed if anyone gets that reference.)

[I.Geller]

Re: This AI technology kills Google, FB and Internet at once.

The Internet and SQL are a terrible mistake! They exists only because n-gram parsing was used! If you use the right (my patented) AI-parsing, annotate words by the dictionary and encyclopedia, allocate synonymous clusters - instead of Internet and SQL will be a true relational database, where everything can be found, nothing is lost and there is no crime.

This is a database! Instead of spying after us the Government can absolutely legally control it, and we can sue it as much as we want. The Government doesn't need our profiles, doesn't need steal from us - we can get our privacy back.

Because I made this discovery I can't be funded, many very powerful the Government agencies and people (mostly thieves) don't want the Internet and SQL to die, along with Google, FB and Oracle.

[I.Geller]

My AI database is the only place where the blockchain technology is used.

Someone started shouting about blockchain technology, getting ready to take the stage with my AI database, but then did not dare because I patented everything from A to Z. That's how this hoax with blockchain appeared.

My AI database is the only place where the blockchain technology is used. The only one!

[doublelayer]

Re: This AI technology kills Google, FB and Internet at once.

Let's assume all this stuff I skimmed to be correct. Why does it matter to this topic? You're talking at length about text-based AI and making lots of claims about it. The article is about videos made with programs and the policy and societal facets of that technology. Yes, the term AI could apply to both the text-based things you like to discuss and also the neural networks used to work with the videos here, but other than that, your comments don't respond in any way to the article or to any other discussions.

The question I'm asking is how your comments have any relation to this topic. I've read your posts before, so the following answers won't be sufficient:

1. Saying something about how you don't like neural networks because I mentioned them. We're not debating technological differences here; neural networks are what is being used in this specific case.

2. Explaining how synonymous clusters work. That's part of the stuff I'm assuming to be correct because it doesn't matter, and it is not at all related to the technology used to create the videos or the current policies of any part of the government toward them.

3. Telling me that the USPTO is like a blockchain. We don't care.

4. Saying that you don't like SQL or the internet. Not that I have a clue what your problems are with those things, but I don't see that your gripes with these technologies impact on this topic in any way.

5. Saying the $big_institution doesn't like your ideas. Once again, unless it has to do with a faked video or a political, societal, or technological action that could be taken in connection to a faked video, I don't care.

[I.Geller]

Google, FB and Internet at once.

Impossible to know what is news and what is fake (disguised as news) without following its development. I was a fake myself, and you all laughed when I came here five years ago.

Therefore, it is necessary to follow the fate of a news (or fake) in time, which means fixing timestamps (blockchain technology. Although there is no such technology, there is just good old timestamps. The name blockchain was invented for marketing.)

1. Those neuronal networks are neither neuronal nor networks. They do not fix the external inner essence of a person, do not create his individual profile (Lexical Clone). They're flawed, the wrong technology was used.

2. Synonymous clusters are the highest achievement of what I consider and call AI technology! They are used when indexing information. For example, when indexing video information so that it can be easily found and understood by computer.

3. You really care! The US PTO is as close to my AI database as possible and I don't know of another database like this. The only thing standing between the US PTO and AI is parsing and dictionary annotations. It tracks timestamps and can easily detect fake.

4. Oh! Still as affects! Has a direct attitude! If you replace the Internet with an AI database, what happens becomes easily controllable. In that database it is impossible to fraud, deceit, commit a crime. Everything can be found instantly and nothing is lost.

5. Of course they ALL don't want AI! They are ALL not able to transform, ALL became fossils in SQL technology. Naturally they ALL have their people in all departments of the Government and ALL try to kill AI by any means. Look at our "free" press? This program of misinformation? Not a word about AI technology. Find one article on the actual AI technology in the past 10 years? Only my posts.

[veti]

Re: Blockchain technology in AI database as a means of combating fake news

Why does this comment read like a slightly overwrought bid at beating the Turing test?

[I.Geller]

Re: Blockchain technology in AI database as a means of combating fake news

Vladimir Veselov, Amazon - Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having beaten the Turing test, ask what technology he used.

[deadlockvictim]

Expert

Ilya» I'm the expert, you need no others.

What is the opposite of a troll? Proselytiser, perhaps?

I. Geller passionately believes in all that he writes yet still ends up writing like a troll.

Personally, I consider the consumption of news akin to the consumption of food. If you want to binge on American cable-networks, the fast-food outlets of the news world, then you can expect bad things to happen to you down the road. One needs a balanced diet. You know what is good for you — quality journalism from respected news outlets and you need to consume a wide range of news outlets.

If your information comes only from one source and is almost impossible to corroborate, then the chance of being fake is quite high.

[I.Geller]

Re: Expert

Yes, I'm a troll. What else do you expect from me? When there is a solution but nobody wants to see it? AI database.

[deadlockvictim]

Re: Expert

You see, I don't think that you are. A troll doesn't necessarily believe what he/she posts and posts purely to irritate the initial poster.

You, I believe, passionately believe in all that you post and are trying your damndest to convince us. When you post that you are THE expert, I believe that you believe that you are correct and write this without malice. From what I have seen of your posts, I would tend more towards you being Aspie rather than you being a troll. However, I may be wrong.

[I.Geller]

Re: Expert

Read my articles at NIST TREC and patents. I believe OpenAI uses my AI-parsing, Why they don't disclose what parsing they use? There are only two - n-gram and my patented AI-parsing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You patented maths?

[fedthetroll.icon]

[JLV]

Re: Expert

There’s another species of troll to consider here as well: the patent troll

[I.Geller]

Internal Relations theory of Analytical Philosophy

I created Internal Relations theory of Analytical Philosophy, which is based on the only known fact in all Humanities, do you know about it? And AI database came from this theory and is based on this discovered by me fact, and SQL - from External theory.

So the AI database appeared on a powerful theoretical basis, which I created. And you will all pay for my many years of work, which became the patents.

[JLV]

Re: Internal Relations theory of Analytical Philosophy

Q.E.D.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Expert

lessee - the solution to RAMPANT FREEDOM GOING UNCHECKED is... A DATABASE?

HA HA HA HA HA HA! (oh you were serious?)

[Trev 2]

Re: Expert

This guy is Larry whatshisname from Oracle desperately trying to flog us another overpriced database before they (Oracle) become just a footnote on a Wikipedia page.

Sure I've got an MS Access 97 CD round here he can use for this world saving database.

[I.Geller]

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

It depends on the society in which this AI database, which will soon replace the Internet, can exist. AI database is very easy to control: any movement in it, any new sound can be instantly detected. For example, China instead of controlling its citizens can control all the information in its proprietary AI database...

But no crime! No fraud! No fakes and false information! In democratic societies everything will be decided in court.

That's not a question "if?" but "when?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Expert

> quality journalism from respected news outlets

Aren't they illegal?

[A.P. Veening]

Re: Expert

Aren't they illegal?

Not quite yet, but Trump sure is trying to make it so.

[I.Geller]

OpenAI

I really do not like what OpenAI publishes on its website. The overall impression is that the main objective is to confuse a reader by slippery wording and vague phrases, to hide by any means the used technology. For example, all articles keep absolute silence about the parsing OpenAI uses, how and whether OpenAI uses and detects parts of speech.

[steviebuk]

Re: OpenAI

This has to be some sort of AI chat bot test.

[I.Geller]

Re: OpenAI

AI originated from NIST TREC QA and as a result it finds answers to questions in a brief, concise form. In addition to finding AI can also produce new information based on what is available to it, something that never existed before.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Expert

"Trump sure is trying to make it so."

Saying things like that is _USUALLY_ called "pandering to the perception" (at least by me) and is a PERFECT example of trolling for up/down votes, etc. [like was mentioned in the article, or at least that was my interpretation of the quote I made a few posts up]

I'd ask for proof of your B.S. assertion if it was not so obviously 'fake news'

[Jamie Jones]

Re: Expert

Well, seeing "fake news" basically these days means "accurate news the right don't agree with", then I guess you could call it that.

I mean, c'mon, how the hell could you claim that with a straight face? There are hundred of examples (with evidence) just a google click away.

Just a few:

A free press is not an 'enemy,' it's a pillar of democracy: Mitt Romney

11 Nov 2018 | A free press, even a biased one, is enshrined in the Constitution because it is essential to our ... Romney: Trump is wrong to vilify the press.

Is the free press free? Using truth claims to examine fake news ...

Donald Trump has questioned the validity and accuracy of claims, even going as far to ... Donald Trump has attempted to undermine the free press in the USA. .....

Donald Trump and the global assault on press freedom | Financial ...

12 Nov 2018 | Mr Trump himself has since suggested that other journalists could have ... Under the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act co-sponsored by|...

Trump v CNN: lawsuit becomes test case on press freedom | Media ...

14 Nov 2018 | Donald Trump and several of his top aides were accused of violating the US constitution's guarantee of freedom of the press in a district court in|...

Opinion: How Donald Trump undermines press freedom at home ...

26 Feb 2019 | President Trump has consistently vilified the media at home and undermined press freedom abroad. ... DW Freedom of Speech Award.

Trump's media attacks are an abuse of power. We're holding him to ...

17 Mar 2019 | The last two years should frighten anyone who cares about an independent free press. Lies are now “alternative facts”, according to Trump|...

Trump vs. the media: how Trump makes the press into opposition - Vox

30 Oct 2018 | Donald Trump's media manipulation strategy, explained. ... lied or given succor to violent paranoiacs; we fret over the future of the free press.

How Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric has gotten out of control ...

5 days ago | It was February 16, 2017, and President Donald J. Trump had just held a ... Trump offered a new twist on his recent line of attack on the press.

In remarkable exchange, Trump offers startling view of role of free ...

1 Feb 2019 | First, that the role of the free press is to hold the powerful to account. And second, that President Trump's attacks on the news media have|...

Opinion | Trump and a Free Press - The New York Times

5 Feb 2019 | At the White House, President Trump submits to questioning by The ... of a free press and the courage of individual journalists who embody it.

[cd11]

Re: Expert

No, just an endangered species

[amanfromMars 1]

Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

Jack Clark, policy director at OpenAI, a San-Francisco-based artificial general intelligence research lab, a former Register journalist .....

Nice one. El Reg well to the fore in all that currently matters if interested in what the future has planned for presentation .... and virtual realisation ..... with practical demonstrations that easily terrify FUD forces into chaotic self-destructive ineffectual reaction?

[I.Geller]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

I'm the first! OpenAI is doing what I did 15 years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

Was 12 years ago last week...

[I.Geller]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

Read NIST TREC?

Examples of the Search for Answers to Definition Questions. When searching for answers to definition

questions in The Brothers Karamazov I have in particular gotten the following kinds of answers:

Question: Do you hate me so much? I am leaving you! Two answers with Compatibility 35.4% And if I am

and with Compatibility 26.3% You are a fool, that's what you are

My next remark: Why do you insult me? You called me a fool, you said that I am insane! How could you?

Answer with Compatibility 36.6% : You are a fool, that's what you are

Question: Listen, you are a hooligan and ruffian! You insult me for nothing! I challenge you to a duel!

Answer with Compatibility 19.5%: Why do you insult me (This phrase is borrowed from the history of

the interrogation and it’s mine).

Question: I am attacking you! Are you ready to defend yourself? Answer with Compatibility 33.3%: You

are a fool, that's what you are

I also asked (Clone of) Plato36 some definition (descriptive) questions:

Question: You are dead for many years. I took your speeches and analyzed them closely. I understood what

you are speaking about and how are you speaking. Now I can reconstruct your soul base on your

contemplations. Answer with Compatibility 31.6% : And who are you

Question: I am your grandson. Answer with Compatibility 28.9%: CALLICLES: Yes, I do; but what is the

inference

Question: I need to get the proof that this is you and you can talk and think. Would you ask me something

that I will know that this is you? Answer with Compatibility 41.4%: SOCRATES: And what would you

consider this to be

Question: I know that you like an order. You always were tried to build a system of understanding, the

system that helps to understand everything. I know that you looked for somebody that knows. Did you find

one who knows? Answer with Compatibility 13.4%: You have been proved to see that which you do not

see; and you have already admitted that seeing is knowing, and that not-seeing is not-knowing: I leave

you to draw the inference

Question: Am I right? Did I understand you? Answer with Compatibility 14.0%: CALLICLES: I will do

you the favour of saying 'yes

[doublelayer]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

I know I shouldn't do this, but I can't help it. The pedantry commands me:

"Question: Listen, you are a hooligan and ruffian! You insult me for nothing! I challenge you to a duel!"

That's not a question. Three sentences, all of which are purely declaratives. Whoever or whatever chopped that book up looking for questions didn't manage that one properly. A little hint for the next patent: most questions in English have at least one of two indicators. The first is that they end with a question mark (?), and the second is that they may contain a word in the set [who, when, what, why, which, how]. Try that one and get back to me.

[I.Geller]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

Yes, language is infinitely sensitive. One sign, one letter changes everything. So I experimented with punctuation, misspellings, word order, everything. Computer easily learns new.

[Charles 9]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

OK, then have your vaunted system parse THIS:

"I say, I say, I say! My dog has no nose."

"Really? Then how does it smell?"

"Terrible."

[I.Geller]

Re: Well, well, well ........ Who'd have a'thunk it?

Had no idea my AI parsing was appreciated...

The same way as this:

‘What do you know about this business?’ the King said to Alice.

‘Nothing,’ said Alice.

‘Nothing WHATEVER?’ persisted the King.

‘Nothing whatever,’ said Alice.

Each word has its own dictionary / encyclopedia definition which is distilled because of its compatibility with this word's context and definitions of other surrounding it words. Thus, each template is uniquely indexed by its words' definitions. The deeper each word's definition (more synonymous included in it) the more unique its index and the better its pattern is indexed.

[Pascal Monett]

"People watching falsified videos of political leaders could be duped into believing lies"

Yeah, well people watching Fox News are regularly duped into that and I don't see anyone doing anything to stop it.

[Anonymous Coward]

a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

or was it?

;)

[bombastic bob]

Re: a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

what about all of those photos etc. of drunken Mrs. Clinton?

(One in particular made a funny demotivational)

[Anonymous Coward]

You can replay the hearing in the video player below... ®

but is is the real hearing, or has it been doctored?! And, actually, did it ever actually take place? How can I verify news site x, y, z report the actual facts, past their ridiculous claims "trust us, because we're trustworthy!"? And is it really Friday, or is it a simulation of, run by my lenient overlords on Monday morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You can replay the hearing in the video player below... ®

You make a good point. In the end, we chose to believe information from people and sources that we trust. From time to time we may choose to validate those sources ourselves - actually attend Council meetings, Court Hearings, political hustings and if we determine that the previous reportage that we had trusted is incorrect we stop trusting that source or those people. I would argue that some of our main news sources have already prostituted a lot of the public's trust in them, so that many people now choose to trust other sources.

Running stories that you haven't verified is a cardinal sin - one that's eventually going to destroy the trust of your customer/client/viewer/reader. And some of the best known news gatherers and carriers have done just that.

They only have themselves to blame.

[I.Geller]

News and my patented blockchain AI technology

...from people and sources that we trust...

That's what my patented AI database does: it saves patterns and their timestamps, uniquely identifies sources, that is the level of confidence in the authors of the news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: News and my patented blockchain AI technology

You ARE the AI, and I collect my $5.

[bombastic bob]

Re: News and my patented blockchain AI technology

I'm too lazy to do a patent search, but if you were to give us the patent number we could all look at it ourselves to see what it's all about... and THEN snark all over it!

heh heh heh heh

/me recognizes a few patents out there for things like perpetual motion devices, microwave based star drive systems, and other crackpot ideas. If you want to shell out the $ and file the thing, you too can have one o' those!!!! might be fun at parties

my own name is on a provisional patent (among many other names, department boss, supervisor, a couple of other engineers) having to do with a wireless network reliability method for wifi streaming audio/video content, as I'm the guy that did the prototype for it. never went anyplace as a product though. the latter part is what REALLY matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You can replay the hearing in the video player below... ®

No, it's not the real hearing - it's a deepfake. I can tell by the pixels.

[I.Geller]

OpenAI?

A well-thought-out and prepared deception? As OpenAI?

Tell me why to annotate a patterns using random texts? When there are many good structured (by alphabet) dictionaries and encyclopedias? When one annotation by a structured dictionary definition requires less than a thousand (okay, a few thousand) operations? OpenAI argues that instead it needs billions of operations! Billions!

Would you please count how much you lose by making this OpenAI way? How much money you lose?

Not to mention that OpenAI stubbornly doesn't say that patterns consist of words, which are parts of speech.

OpenAI is a deep, well thought out and prepared deception, provocation and diversion.

[bombastic bob]

Re: OpenAI?

"OpenAI is a deep, well thought out and prepared deception, provocation and diversion."

without actually researching whether or not I'm right [and I most likely am, instinctively] I would venture to guess that Open AI covers a broader spectrum of what A.I. _could_ be, sort of like what the STL libraries have tried to do with all of their implementations for various collections of things, in a GENERIC sense, which tends to be inefficient [but covers a wide spectrum of possibilities].

So yeah there's an example or two of "that" out there, which also suggests that using OpenAI [like using STL] is not necessarily a bad choice except (possibly) for certain exceptions.

And if I bothered to research this, which I probably won't, I'd probably just confirm what my instincts and experience are telling me.

[I.Geller]

OpenAI?

Earlier I expressed my hypothesis that the CIA does not allow me for many years to make my technology of AI-parsing, annotation and synonymous clusters known, to convert a theory into a finished product. The version of course is very controversial, but someone really stands in my way and does not let me do anything.

I suspect that OpenAI appeared to finally confuse everyone. I don't know who is behind this diversion but this is for sure a diversion!

To do this, OpenAI focuses on idiotic parsing by patterns, rather than words and parts of speech. Also OpenAI claims that they annotate using random texts, while I have long developed billions times cheaper method of annotating by dictionary definitions and articles from encyclopedia.

Why? Who finances this?

[I.Geller]

Another argument why you should avoid OpenAI

Another argument why you should avoid at all costs the use of OpenAI technology:

1. Annotating by randomly found texts OpenAI can not verify their validity, that is its technology can annotate information by fake patterns. And then the devil knows what will be gotten as explanations on your patterns...

2. My technology of annotating by dictionary definitions and articles from encyclopedia is protected from the use of fakes: definitions and articles are obtained from apriory well verified sources.

[MonkeyCee]

Fakes versus bias

I thought it was fairly easy to spot fake news stories. Like all lies, they are almost always too perfect and too simple. They are designed to skip past your rationale and appeal directly to your emotions. You WANT them to be true.

As an example, the whole David Cameron and a pigs head seemed to be bollocks to me from the start. No one has said "I saw him do it" only "my mate saw him, and my mate now says he didn't".

But how many people believe that story, because they would really REALLY like to find it true, since it would confirm their own beliefs.

So we can know a story/video is fake, and still in our hearts believe it. And no legislation is going to change that.

Photos have been faked for years. Video is a series of photographs. It's just a scale issue. So we all take our news with a grain of salt, which is probably a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Fakes versus bias

But that's the problem. If you know "too perfect and too simple" seems to be a lie, then you fill the market/news with it, and it's much harder to filter out to find things.

Hide a needle in a stack of needles. Once you publish only lies, people have less places to go to to find facts.

[Eddy Ito]

Re: Fakes versus bias

So we all take our news with a grain of salt, which is probably a good thing.

Exactly, it's largely a matter of learning how to read Pravda or the New York Times.

[I.Geller]

Re: Fakes versus bias

Yes, a bit of pepper under one's tail is a good idea!

There is no a text created without a bias, everything is subjective. The whole question is to isolate the bias that you like, as a system of sets of patterns; where the patterns' words have a clear polarization - you can remove those biases which are wrong.

By doing this you will become blind and deaf, because you will see only what you want. Therefore read fake news first! This way you train your brain.

[doublelayer]

Re: Fakes versus bias

Of course there needs to be critical thinking. Nobody denies that. However, even the most critical of thinker eventually must find some information to trust. They can get that from a number of places, but the fact that video was hard to fake convincingly meant that it could be used as a better primary source for some time. Of course videos could be edited to remove important sections, but it wasn't easy to insert completely false information into them. Many people have grown to consider video a good source of information; if there's video of it, it happened. The problem isn't those who never thought critically about the news, as they have believed whatever they were told, true or false, for a while. The problem is the people who try to find sources and verify things only to find a video that cannot be confirmed.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Fakes versus bias

"So we all take our news with a grain of salt, which is probably a good thing."

The BEST thing that can come out of a ship-load of convincing 'fake news' is that people actually DO this, start thinking instead of feeling/reacting, and recognize that there is way too much B.S. out there to leave your skeptic hat on the hat rack while viewing it.

Hell, let's just call B.S. and 'fake news' on EVERYTHING, and wait for the dust to settle.

[Charles 9]

Re: Fakes versus bias

Nope. Won't work. People are too busy. That's why things like Twitter and I stage am caught on. They want the truth, condensed, because they have no time. If the truth can't be condensed into 240 characters or less, it's TMI.

[Eddy Ito]

Re: Fakes versus bias

That's just the problem. Oftentimes truth simply can't be condensed. When condensed we get things like that viral video of the catholic kid and the native american at the Lincoln memorial that gets sensationalized by most major news outlets yet isn't true.

[Charles 9]

Re: Fakes versus bias

Then you have a major problem because if the truth can't be condensed, then it won't be believed, end of. Keep It Simple, Stupid and all that.

[Robert D Bank]

this could easily become like plastic pollution in the oceans, we all end up consuming it in little bits, whether we like it or not, and it'll be everywhere. At least until there's a way to recognise something doctored technologically.

[bombastic bob]

plastic pollution in the oceans? ugh, I hate environmentalist wackos using these kinds of premises as "examples" because we can EASILY forget to QUESTION THE @#$%-DAMNED PREMISE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

oh, and thanks for the subtle 'fake news' embedded in there. Nice. Job.

this could easily become like YOU BEATING YOUR WIFE because that is JUST AS FAKE as you asserting the 'plastic pollution in the oceans' thing.... [yes it's a reference to that classic leading question of 'how long have you been beating your wife' to which there is NO possible answer that comes WITHOUT the un-due criticism].

Such tactics are transparent. Your 'tricks' are for CHILDREN. <-- that was a reference to a breakfast cereal commercial

[J.G.Harston]

VoteUp: Indonesia doesn't have rivers full of plastic because of westerners using carrier bags, but because INDONESIA not having a functional waste disposal system to deal with the plastics thrown away by INDONESIANS.

[Charles 9]

Except you can't ask the wife beating question to a BACHELOR.

[Adrian 4]

Recognising doctored technology won't happen - it's an arms race between fakes and detection.

This is a good thing - it will take a while, but eventually everybody will be as suspicious of video as they already are of simple photos.

[Charles 9]

NO, because the end result will be DTA, and people will retreat into their instinctual echo chambers. Without SOME level of trust, society will cease to function as we know it.

[Mike 137]

"The constant flood of information makes it difficult to reign in the viral nature of social media."

I suspect the Queen of England would agree. It's probably difficult to rein it in as well.

[amanfromMars 1]

Re: Constant Floods of Information Making IT Difficult to Reign ....

I suspect the Queen of England would agree. It's probably difficult to rein it in as well. .... Mike 137

Next to impossible and never are the two safest bets to make regarding issues aired there, Mike 137.

Methinks a Sublime Guidance with Guardians of Palace Barracks is the Best of Arrangements Provided in one Virtually Advanced IntelAIgent Operating System Offer that Quells Troubles with Soluble Solutions ...... Dynamic Pragmatic Positions.

And now you know what Crown Services and MI sections are busy doing for higher payments to the Defence Budget ‽ .

[Hemmels]

Missing the point

Isn't everyone looking at the technology involved and looking for regulation or protection of interests of this stuff? Take deepfakes out of the equation for now. I guess the concern is "But they are so misleading, or will be in future and that's a worry" - But why is it a worry?

"Fake news" has grown a lot recently because of the prevelance of social media, but as far as I'm aware, even before the 90s we learned at school how to find and trust primary sources before jumping to "OMG THEY SAID THIS".

Doctoring videos has been around as long as videos. I don't even trust newspapers given their funding sources and interests of their owners.

Surely it's up to the consumer/viewer to say "I've seen a video showing X said Y" and not "X said Y". Isn't "don't believe what you see on the internet" a thing still too?

[JLV]

Re: Missing the point

You are, of course, right. But what has changed is the capability to self-publish and forward information. People weren’t necessarily smarter 30 years ago, but they could not propagate rumors as quickly to as many people. Hoaxes did exist, see Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but most of them failed to take root, it took a lot of logistical effort and persistence to keep them up against the pushback of a competent free and open press. Now all you need are Youtube claims about 9/11 or vaccines and you can make a persistent mess.

Law of unintended consequences in what Tim Berners-Lee came up with, though the baby is well worth her bathwater.

[a_yank_lurker]

Re: Missing the point

While the Internet allows for faster dissemination of rumors, hoaxes, and the like it also allows for rapid dissemination of information. It puts more onus on the individual to verify the source and the quality of the information than before. Before, the press did this job (often incompetently).

What was not really emphasized to most in their education is the need to and how to check something against sources available. A corollary of this is also what the best sources to use for checking information and how to detect likely bias in the sources, again something that has been lacking in education. Don't use Wikipedia is not really teach someone what to use or how to use the sources.

[JLV]

Re: Missing the point

In a world where Kim Kardashian is worth 100s of M$ there is no reason to expect that a sizable proportion of the electorate isn’t going to stop at the ooooh, shiny, so pretty level. For those people the availability of alternate sources of information that they would have to think through is pretty much irrelevant if you’ve managed to push through and crystallize an initial false understanding. Ditto cases in our extremely polarized politics where folk will just ignore info that goes against their preconceptions.

So it seems easier to preempt fake news than to rely on everyone seeing through it.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Missing the point

"even before the 90s we learned at school how to find and trust primary sources before jumping to 'OMG THEY SAID THIS'."

Fixed it for ya. I think that pretty much explains it. 4-inchers (people who view everything through a 4-inch screen) under the age of 40 may be driving all of this... and the "lack of education" system set them up.

All their base are belong to fake news. They have been set up the bomb. etc.

/me has a nice faked-up photo that I did with Obama's face as 'Cats' and the 'All your base are belong to us' as a demotivational... [it was fun]. It wasn't purely my idea, but I ran with it and made it better.

[doublelayer]

Re: Missing the point

"Surely it's up to the consumer/viewer to say "I've seen a video showing X said Y" and not "X said Y". Isn't "don't believe what you see on the internet" a thing still too?"

But that's not good enough. It's well and good if I know something's false, but if someone else believes it, I can still get hurt. Suppose someone is angry at me and makes a fake video of me plotting a crime. I clearly know it isn't true. However, I need my boss to know that as well so I keep a job. I need my neighbor to know that as well so they don't call the police on me. I'd prefer that my friends and family know that so I don't lose their company. When a lie believed by someone else can cause problems for others, it's not enough to say that people should just come to their own conclusions. If something can be done to support the objective truth (I'm not sure there is such a thing, but if), it should be considered quite strongly.

[Hemmels]

Re: Missing the point

If your boss puts you on garden leave for something you didn't do, happy days. If anyone else wants to presume guilty, more fool them.

And yes, I know in the real world this isn't a thing, and trial by media exists and lives are ruined (hospital staff turned killers anyone?) but that doesn't mean we can't stress the point that this isn't acceptable and bow down to it.

[JLV]

Any of you look at the vid that brought down the Austrian far-right-based coalition? So far, no one really knows who scammed them, but it was someone pretending to buy influence on Russians’ behalf. Long vid, plenty of details, but I can see this not being innately believable in 20 yrs.

There’s a lot of downside to deep fakes but also upsides to exposing venality and corruption in politicians. It would be a shame if investigative journalism lost its bite due to this.

[croc]

How do you do a "deepfake" of someone that speaks mostly in lies and the rest of the time only utters nonsense...? I am of course speaking about the orange-haired CIC of the USA.

[bombastic bob]

"I am of course speaking about the orange-haired CIC Speaker of the House of Representatives of the USA."

Fixed it for ya. I think Pelosi was drunk at the time... [that's her new excuse]

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter though? At least in the US, comments like grab her in the pussy ARE muttered by even the president - deepfakes might make that guy more credible. I suspect many other countrie's MP's too

[J.G.Harston]

"It requires .... changing civilian behaviour."

So, stopping humans from being humans. When has that been tried before? New Soviet Man? Humans don't work as we think they should, we need to change them.

Humans are social creatures, social communication is near enough the foundational definition of what makes humans human, it's close to being the cause of why language itself evolved. And these people have declared that the fundamental defining characteristic of being human is a flaw to be eliminated.

[Adrian 4]

Wise words

"David Doermann, a professor working at the University of Buffalo’s Artificial Intelligence Institute, summed it up succinctly: “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on,” he told the committee."

Goodness me. The committee must have been astonished to learn of this. What a revelation !

[Richard 12]

Re: Wise words

I guess shoes are quicker to don than boots.

[DavCrav]

Re: Wise words

"The committee must have been astonished to learn of this. What a revelation !"

Yes, the lie in that quotation by David Doermann must be very Swift.

[DavCrav]

Re: Wise words

"'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' Winston Churchill.

The sad fact is the truth never catches up to all the people the lie reached."

Like you. The quotation was probably by Swift (as I implied in my comment), but predates Churchill by a century or two.

[Kaltern]

This is turning into a Flat Earth type discussion...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know why politicians seem to be so panicked by this. It saves them coming up with their own lies and sounds like it would be a real time-saver. Isn't this what computers are for?

[I.Geller]

Lexical noise as another argument why you shouldn't trust OpenAI

There is a sentence "Alice and Bob exercise merrily, she trains a lot."

The word "merrily" can be an example of lexical noise; where it's typically superfluous patterns that do not explain the central themes contained within the digital textual information and, accordingly, removal of such noise often results in an improvement in the quality of the structured data.

Suppose somebody doubts if Merrily the athlete who trains a lot being exercised by both Alice and Bob - it's a name. Or is it an adjective?

One wrong pattern can radically change everything!

With my patented lexical noise deletion AI-parsing gets these FOUR patterns, from the sentence:

- Alice exercise merrily - 0.25

- Bob exercise merrily - 0.25

- she trains a lot - 0.5

- Alice trains a lot - 0.5

AI sees that the word "merrily" is an adjective from its context and subtext, from its dictionary-encyclopedia definitions.

Without the purging, not knowing if "merrily" is a name or an adjective, AI-parsing gets FIVE patterns:

- Alice exercise merrily - 0.1(6)

- Bob exercise merrily - 0.1(6)

- merrily exercise merrily - 0.1(6)

- she trains a lot - 0.5

- Alice trains a lot - 0.5

With the purging AI gets TWO synonymous clusters, without - THREE!

OpenAI cannot delete lexical noise and its results are not trustworthy - OpenAI sees no separate words but patterns, doesn't determine parts of speech and uses dictionary-encyclopedia definitions.

My AI database can, therefore, be 100% trusted.

[I.Geller]

Guys, I'm glad! Three "thumbs down"! Finally, at least some reaction from people who understand what I'm saying.

[Chris Tierney]

Jumbled mess

Tidy it up.

[I.Geller]

More on lexical noise

Lexical noise is the biggest problem for AI because one accidental pattern can change everything.

For instance there is a sentence "Alice and Bob exercise merrily, she trains a lot."

The word "merrily" can be an example of lexical noise; where the noise is typically superfluous patterns that do not explain the central themes contained within the digital textual information and, accordingly, removal of such noise results in an improvement in the quality of the structured data.

Suppose computer doubts - if merrily the athlete who trains a lot being exercised with both Alice and Bob - and AI thinks that "merrily" is a name "Merrily". Or is it yet an adjective?

Using my patented lexical noise deletion AI-parsing gets FIVE patterns (from the sentence) because AI sees that the word "merrily" is an adjective (from its context and subtext, from its dictionary-encyclopedia definitions).

Without my purging (dictionary-encyclopedia) the same AI-parsing gets SEVEN patterns! and TWO synonymous clusters with, without - THREE; among them this:

- merrily exercise merrily - 0.1(6)

- merrily exercise a lot - 0.1(6)

Thus computer finds the above sentence searching for the query "Is Merrily exercise a lot?", even if the sentence doesn't say a word about Merrily as a person.

OpenAI and other companies, which annotate using random texts and not by dictionaries-encyclopedias, cannot delete lexical noise and their results are not trustworthy: they will find the above sentence looking for "Merrily". Many of them are saying that their trained language models provide up to 90 percent accuracy, while my AI can provide 100% accuracy.

My AI database can, therefore, be 100% trustworthy and what they found cannot at all.

[Milton]

"Antisocial media"

I daresay "antisocial media" was not a typo, and it carries a lot of truth. I'd suggest it's increasingly hard to argue that the free social media model, in particular facilitating the ability of so many cowards to screech anonymously, is on balance a good thing. If we could wind time back 25 years, wouldn't we insist that you could not post anonymously on the net (any more than you could have a letter published anonymously in the newspaper) and that internet services like Google and Facebook must be paid for, certainly not "free" to abuse people's privacy and personal data?

Consider that cowardly anonymity has been a problem since the days of libels being handed out in the steets of London, c.1675. Consider that even if deepfake tech had existed 50 years ago, it would barely have mattered, without the internet to spread noxious lies faster than the truth could catch up.

One (admittedly slightly simplistic) way of summarising the effect of the 'free' anonymity-favouring internet is that it has provided a fertile ground for those with the minds of children. Lies, stupidity, irrational hatreds, fear and bigotry have a safe place to play, with far too little adult restraint.

Indeed, the internet, providing a warren of dank, dark spaces for the foetid of thought and speech, has been an absolute gift to the political right: it's where their lies—almost the only currency they have left—can gain traction and visibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Antisocial media"

Well at least everyone gets a go, as opposed to just those who have the money/power to influence media. If it's a choice between only the elite being able to spread rampant bollocks or everyone can do it; then I will opt for the latter every time.

Yeah, sure, there is a much greater volume of rampant bollocks to deal with; but IMO we as a species are in that tricky period between being enabled to do something and learning how to deal with it.

And let us not forget that "Official" and un-anonymous sources of information have used the power of bigotry to give us both Brexit and Trump as prez. Anonymity has also not played much of a part in even bigger bads like starting wars, but misinformation has. Weapons of mass destruction anyone?

[DavCrav]

Re: "Antisocial media"

"Well at least everyone gets a go, as opposed to just those who have the money/power to influence media. If it's a choice between only the elite being able to spread rampant bollocks or everyone can do it; then I will opt for the latter every time."

How do you reckon that little experiment is going so far, hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Antisocial media"

Swings and roundabouts, really. There is a huge volume of rampant bollocks, of course, cyberbullying, misinformation (that the even-older-than-us generation seem particularly prone to); revenge porn; trolling and the like.

But there's pluses too: people in positions of power are more likely to be called out and maybe held accountable for their actions; there is an unbelievable vast amount of real information; anonymity protects journalists and people in oppressive regimes; and pseudoanonymity helps people to be more candid, especially about work-related subjects that they would not otherwise be able to share; and more candid about taboo subjects. I've learned more on Reddit than I ever did at school. And we would not be having this conversation without pseudoanonymity....you might be here if you had to stump up ID, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

Like I said earlier, I think we're in a transition phase between getting the ability and learning to deal with it.

[Charles 9]

Re: "Antisocial media"

"Like I said earlier, I think we're in a transition phase between getting the ability and learning to deal with it."

But what if it turns out that most people can't deal with it and just go all Cognitive Dissonance and become more hidebound and desperate for their echo chambers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Antisocial media"

Even echo chambers have pluses. If, say, I caught a rare 1:5 million disease tomorrow I could fire up the internet with a pretty good chance of finding a group of my fellow afflicted and learn about prognosis, treatment, lifehacks and other relevant information.

Also, you do have to deal with people outside your bubble in RL....the more out there your opinions are and the more aggressive you are about evangelising them; the more static you're going to get back. So there are limiting factors at play.

More importantly, I believe, the current technology is mobile and not - as it was for us OG nerds - a cubic metre of assorted boxen. You can stay inside if you choose, but it is an option.

[Charles 9]

Re: "Antisocial media"

You don't get it. True echo chambers are actually Reality Distortion Fields. You hear static, they hear praise. Nothing you say can convince them other wise as they'll use sophistry, confusion fu, and other strategies (including "I reject your reality and substitute my own" now en vogue in Washington) to deny you any purchase. Even ignoring is considered you surrendering to them. Put it this way: there's a reason they say you can never win an argument with an irrational person; the irrational don't play by the rules.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Antisocial media"

So what? And why try to win arguments anyway? A thing is true or it is not.

[Charles 9]

Re: "Antisocial media"

Truth is relative, and the accuracy of any fact is up to the person's perspective. Put it this way. Do you want an omnicidal maniac anywhere near a Big Red Button?

[Carpet Deal 'em]

Maybe it's time to beat the public over the head with PGP?

The only way to guarantee a given video isn't doctored would be to have it cryptographically signed by the camera that shot it. Of course, this would make even re-encoding impossible(so video-hosting sites would need to post (only?) the original or risk being called out), but that seems like a relatively small price to pay to be sure if that Pelosi-Schumer sex tape is real.

[Charles 9]

Re: Maybe it's time to beat the public over the head with PGP?

Already beaten. Cameras and companies have been hacked to obtain camera signing keys.

[knandras]

Oooh shiny

Now that it affects the politicians, it becomes an important issue.

Instead of voting for these monkeys, we should all be allowed to vote on the issues, the infrastructure and authentication methods are there, and those that don't wish to vote could still default to have their elected representative vote as they see fit.

[Voidstorm]

Politics : "We must see to it that our lies are the only ones people believe"

Freedom : *chokes on the hypocrisy*

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be a star!

My new company Virtual Star, will take any movie (yes any) that you have a legal copy of, and put your face on anyone, or even all people in the movie. You can replace Bruce Lee, Sean Connery, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, or even Adult movies. Now you can "give it" to your most liked or hated person of your choice! It's just a purchase away.

Media will never be the same - it's all about you!