Yes, they have probably put up billions in research and hardware for training.
As advanced as AI gets, it is still fundamentally based on digital representations of reality. They can get statistically strong scores but will individually produce some inexplicable results.
In other words, they can be hacked and manipulated.
For example; they did some tests on a visual AI system, you want to know what the computer believes the difference is between a wolf and a German shephard? The wolf has snow in the background.
Another example that fooled facial trackers was a miniature test image in the frame ( a known test image) this fooled the AI into believing it was in the testing phase.
And again, as with Tineye, adding a random transparent overlay on a known image fools the system into thinking it is unique.
While these systems are very good, none known are capable of taking a movie screenshot to determine the contextual meaning and then adding that meaning to a text in the image.
Sometimes as little as a singular pixel can make the difference between an image of a panda with 95% confidence to a boat with 99% confidence.
Statistically good, individually flawed results. That's why camouflage will continue to work for the foreseeable future.
Yes, they have probably put up billions in research and hardware for training.
As advanced as AI gets, it is still fundamentally based on digital representations of reality. They can get statistically strong scores but will individually produce some inexplicable results.
In other words, they can be hacked and manipulated.
For example; they did some tests on a visual AI system, you want to know what the computer believes the difference is between a wolf and a German shephard? The wolf has snow in the background.
Another example that fooled facial trackers was a miniature test image in the frame ( a known test image) this fooled the AI into believing it was in the testing phase.
And again, as with Tineye, adding a random transparent overlay on a known image fools the system into thinking it is unique.
While these systems are very good, none known are capable of taking a movie screenshot to determine the contextual meaning and then adding that meaning to a text in the image.
Sometimes as little as a singular pixel can make the difference between an image of a panda with 95% confidence to a boat with 99% confidence.
Statistically good, individually flawed results. That's why camouflage will continue to work for the foreseeable future.