Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   It used to be a human quirk that our brains recognized faces from inanimate objects. But apparently computers do it, too. Whether this means we're more like them or they're more like us, one thing is clear: buy robot insurance   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, facial recognition technology, open source software, false positives, computers  
•       •       •

5582 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2012 at 1:31 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-07 01:26:43 PM  
now we're gonna be swarmed by computer jesus sightings?
 
2012-08-07 01:32:54 PM  
As long as I an saved from the terrible secrets of space...
 
2012-08-07 01:35:12 PM  
Like that time in Google sky I thought I saw Patrick Swazye....
img834.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-07 01:35:48 PM  
PareidoliaPedophila was once thought of as a symptom of psychosis, but is now recognized as a normal, human tendency.
 
2012-08-07 01:35:52 PM  
eggshell-robotics.node3000.com

Because robots are strong, and they're made of metal.
 
2012-08-07 01:36:56 PM  

p4p3rm4t3: Like that time in Google sky I thought I saw Patrick Swazye....
[img834.imageshack.us image 800x583]


I like the thumbs up in the upper left.
 
2012-08-07 01:38:16 PM  
Wow, computers can do what we program them to do
 
2012-08-07 01:40:25 PM  
This is bullshiat, Foster. Don't listen to that moron.
 
2012-08-07 01:42:18 PM  
So we tell a computer how WE see a face, then when it applies those rules, it sees faces! Holy shiat!!!
 
2012-08-07 01:44:38 PM  
nuh-unh, this would violate Asimov's Second Rule of Robotics! it can't be done! Asimov said so!

(i was saying the other day it bugs me how Asimov's 3 laws or 4 laws, whatever, are for the most part, universally accepted in SciFi. i mean, he's Asimov and i'm not, advantage him, but......why wouldn't a robot hurt his maker? what gives it morality/ethics? lame.)
 
2012-08-07 01:45:55 PM  

ZzeusS: As long as I an saved from the terrible secrets of space...


PAK CHOOIE UNF.
 
2012-08-07 01:47:43 PM  
.

stirfrybry: Wow, computers can do what we program them to do


Agreed, this seems somewhat self-fulfilling. We do it, so we program computers to do it When you tell a computer "this is what looks like a face", and ask it to find faces, it's going to spit your own definition back at you.
 
2012-08-07 01:48:45 PM  

rickythepenguin: nuh-unh, this would violate Asimov's Second Rule of Robotics! it can't be done! Asimov said so!

(i was saying the other day it bugs me how Asimov's 3 laws or 4 laws, whatever, are for the most part, universally accepted in SciFi. i mean, he's Asimov and i'm not, advantage him, but......why wouldn't a robot hurt his maker? what gives it morality/ethics? lame.)


Ummm. They were never posited to be an innate feature of the robots, you gob. They were just programmed that way.
 
2012-08-07 01:48:55 PM  

rickythepenguin: nuh-unh, this would violate Asimov's Second Rule of Robotics! it can't be done! Asimov said so!

(i was saying the other day it bugs me how Asimov's 3 laws or 4 laws, whatever, are for the most part, universally accepted in SciFi. i mean, he's Asimov and i'm not, advantage him, but......why wouldn't a robot hurt his maker? what gives it morality/ethics? lame.)


It's creator does. It has to be programmed to follow those rules. Of course you could make one that didn't... and then you have the whole "open to interpretation" thing... does that mean a robot would stop your doctor from administering a shot? He's technically hurting you, but for a greater good... so a robot that would allow that could then interpret all sorts of danger as allowable if it thought it'd bring you good fortune... "*beep* sure, let the guy get hit by a car, the resultant law-suit will be beneficial for him *beep*"..
 
2012-08-07 01:49:04 PM  
Done in one.
(I've always wanted to say that)
 
2012-08-07 01:49:25 PM  
Sometimes there is no difference between an inanimate object and a human face.

images.sodahead.com
 
2012-08-07 01:50:43 PM  
When you are done identifying human faces, you can come identify my shiny metal ass.

cdn.superbwallpapers.com
 
2012-08-07 01:51:43 PM  
/slaps self for using "it's" instead of "its"...
 
2012-08-07 01:51:45 PM  

Eternal Virgin: p4p3rm4t3: Like that time in Google sky I thought I saw Patrick Swazye....
[img834.imageshack.us image 800x583]

I like the thumbs up in the upper left.


Looks like a different hand gesture to me...

/also Google "swazye nebula", and woop there it is!
 
2012-08-07 01:53:52 PM  
Any one who has face-recognition on their digital camera knows this. That little box pops up on almost anything.

/It's also known as simulcra
//I see faces on my money, am I insane?
 
2012-08-07 01:54:51 PM  
They do it, too?
 
2012-08-07 01:55:05 PM  

rickythepenguin: nuh-unh, this would violate Asimov's Second Rule of Robotics! it can't be done! Asimov said so!

(i was saying the other day it bugs me how Asimov's 3 laws or 4 laws, whatever, are for the most part, universally accepted in SciFi. i mean, he's Asimov and i'm not, advantage him, but......why wouldn't a robot hurt his maker? what gives it morality/ethics? lame.)


The Laws of Robotics, when they're referred to in sci-fi, are assumed to be part of a robot's basic programming. They behave according to the rules that are programmed into them. It's when you get beyond basic physical harm and into the repercussions of the "zeroth Law" that things get kinda hazy.
 
2012-08-07 01:57:07 PM  
since humans program robots, what conclusions would you draw?
 
2012-08-07 01:57:38 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-07 01:58:30 PM  
Oh, if you wanna see some cool image recognition shenanigans in action try running a hundred dollar bill through your scanner
 
2012-08-07 01:58:44 PM  
img8.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-07 02:00:54 PM  
mthruf.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-07 02:04:49 PM  

palelizard: .stirfrybry: Wow, computers can do what we program them to do

Agreed, this seems somewhat self-fulfilling. We do it, so we program computers to do it When you tell a computer "this is what looks like a face", and ask it to find faces, it's going to spit your own definition back at you.


... So say the experts!

Google "computer vision" to get started. I'll check back in a couple of years.
 
2012-08-07 02:04:57 PM  

Tali: The Laws of Robotics, when they're referred to in sci-fi, are assumed to be part of a robot's basic programming. They behave according to the rules that are programmed into them. It's when you get beyond basic physical harm and into the repercussions of the "zeroth Law" that things get kinda hazy.



yeah, that's the point. why are they collectively assumed or perhaps the better work, attributed, to robots?

it is just one of those things that bugs me. you cna't have a discussion on robots without some jackwipe throwing out Asimov's Laws at every turn.

"but what if it tries to kill you?"

"ZOMG IT CAN'T!"

"ok....but what if it tries?"

"BUT IT CAN'T!"

"i get that. i understand what you're saying, and why. but assume that the robot's programming breaks down, and it turns on the creator. "

"BUT THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN!"

etc.
 
2012-08-07 02:05:31 PM  
I use Windows Live Photo Gallery and it occasionally finds faces in the strangest places. Sometimes I can figure out how it thought it saw a face but other times I'm completely mystified,
 
2012-08-07 02:06:39 PM  

mccallcl: Google "computer vision" to get started. I'll check back in a couple of years.



Joe Rogan said on his podcast recently, when talking about Google Goggles, that he'd pay money to see what Tom Cruise sees for 24 hours. He wsa like, "it's probably just Tom Cruise staring at guy's dicks all day, sighing" or something like that. i thought it wsa funny.
 
2012-08-07 02:09:11 PM  
This just in from curiosity:
www.thespacereview.com
 
2012-08-07 02:09:44 PM  
stonicus:
does that mean a robot would stop your doctor from administering a shot?

Typically in Asimov's fiction, only a very stupid robot, not intended for much contact with humans (eg. a robotic mining truck), would be unable to contextualize the doctor's actions and recognize them as beneficial. Rule of fictional convenience and all that.

Tali:
The Laws of Robotics, when they're referred to in sci-fi, are assumed to be part of a robot's basic programming. They behave according to the rules that are programmed into them. It's when you get beyond basic physical harm and into the repercussions of the "zeroth Law" that things get kinda hazy.

And I believe only the smartest robots could act on the Zeroth law, and even then the result could be permanently damage to their positronic brains. I read waaaay too much of this stuff as a kid
 
2012-08-07 02:12:24 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I use Windows Live Photo Gallery and it occasionally finds faces in the strangest places. Sometimes I can figure out how it thought it saw a face but other times I'm completely mystified,


Obviously its pointing out ghosts in the infrared spectrum. Duh!
 
2012-08-07 02:14:54 PM  

rickythepenguin: Tali: The Laws of Robotics, when they're referred to in sci-fi, are assumed to be part of a robot's basic programming. They behave according to the rules that are programmed into them. It's when you get beyond basic physical harm and into the repercussions of the "zeroth Law" that things get kinda hazy.


yeah, that's the point. why are they collectively assumed or perhaps the better work, attributed, to robots?

it is just one of those things that bugs me. you cna't have a discussion on robots without some jackwipe throwing out Asimov's Laws at every turn.

"but what if it tries to kill you?"

"ZOMG IT CAN'T!"

"ok....but what if it tries?"

"BUT IT CAN'T!"

"i get that. i understand what you're saying, and why. but assume that the robot's programming breaks down, and it turns on the creator. "

"BUT THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN!"

etc.


Well, that's just somebody being a pedantic asshole unwilling to see any viewpoint but his own.

Humans are flawed. We make mistakes. We can't keep a PC from blue-screening, I sincerely doubt we could ever perfectly program a robot such that its programming would never break.

I've done consulting at a couple of factories for major multi-national corporations where their automated manufacturing machinery ran on 20-year-old releases of OS/2 because any attempt to switch to a more modern OS caused the whole works to go haywire... and anyone thinks we can make a robot flawlessly follow Asimov's Laws? Ahahahahaha.
 
2012-08-07 02:15:01 PM  
Anyone else see a skull in this?

i216.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-07 02:17:26 PM  
I have a sixth sense, I see dead people.
 
2012-08-07 02:19:37 PM  

Banned on the Run: Anyone else see a skull in this?

[i216.photobucket.com image 575x575]


Boobs! Boobs forever.
 
2012-08-07 02:23:03 PM  
So the toaster sees Him, too??

drinkswellwithothers.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-07 02:23:16 PM  
People have been talking about this sort of thing for 100s of years. Well, except the computer aspect.

I know that my eyes have seen some things that at first seemed 100% realistic, until I got closer and focused better, and realized (for instance), that's not a house built too close to the street. It's a telephone poll. Or, that's not a dog sitting there. It's a paper bag.

It seems to me (and I'm no expert of course), that the human mind tends to try to makes sense of what your eyes see. So it tries to fill in the blanks with things that make the shapes more familiar and thereby more recognizable.

I don't think I'm stretching that idea too far. Like I said, I've experienced it quite a few times.
 
2012-08-07 02:23:37 PM  

tricycleracer: [mthruf.files.wordpress.com image 500x445]


1958 Cadillac

farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-07 02:25:02 PM  

Banned on the Run: Anyone else see a skull in this?

[i216.photobucket.com image 575x575]


I waited for three minutes before I gave up and checked to see if it was a gif. It isn't.

Damn you for not scaring me.
 
2012-08-07 02:27:48 PM  
I'm still freaked out when kinect signs me in when I'm sitting on the couch playing with my balls watching porn.
 
2012-08-07 02:30:27 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org


Tali: Well, that's just somebody being a pedantic asshole unwilling to see any viewpoint but his own.

 
2012-08-07 02:31:31 PM  

rickythepenguin: Google Goggles


Do you mean Google Glass?

Either way I love Rogan. World's second-greatest living stoner.

On-topic: computer vision is really hard. A lot of progress has been made in the private sector since Intel released OpenCV, which was state-of-the-art at the time I programmed my Mac to recognize sign language.

Also on-topic: there's a difference between facial recognition (similar to what I worked on) and facial identification (infinitely harder).
 
2012-08-07 02:32:38 PM  

rickythepenguin: yeah, that's the point. why are they collectively assumed or perhaps the better work, attributed, to robots?

it is just one of those things that bugs me. you cna't have a discussion on robots without some jackwipe throwing out Asimov's Laws at every turn.

"but what if it tries to kill you?"

"ZOMG IT CAN'T!"

"ok....but what if it tries?"

"BUT IT CAN'T!"

"i get that. i understand what you're saying, and why. but assume that the robot's programming breaks down, and it turns on the creator. "

"BUT THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN!"

etc.


Which is funny because the Robot series deals explicitly with robots either breaking or getting around the three laws.
 
2012-08-07 02:32:42 PM  

Rufus Lee King: There's only one way to deal with these robots: disintegrating acid!

[www.misterkitty.org image 549x558]


assets.hulu.com
 
2012-08-07 02:33:53 PM  

stirfrybry: Wow, computers can do what we program them to do


Came to say this.
 
2012-08-07 02:34:36 PM  

durbnpoisn: People have been talking about this sort of thing for 100s of years. Well, except the computer aspect.

I know that my eyes have seen some things that at first seemed 100% realistic, until I got closer and focused better, and realized (for instance), that's not a house built too close to the street. It's a telephone poll. Or, that's not a dog sitting there. It's a paper bag.

It seems to me (and I'm no expert of course), that the human mind tends to try to makes sense of what your eyes see. So it tries to fill in the blanks with things that make the shapes more familiar and thereby more recognizable.

I don't think I'm stretching that idea too far. Like I said, I've experienced it quite a few times.


I haven't had any depth perception since I was 6 months old. It's amazing the tricks your brain will play on you when it's given 2 things in the air and has no clue where they are. (Or for even more fun, try deciphering tree branches in somewhat poor light).

/Also, putting stoplights at the end of slight dips in the road should be BANNED. The forced perspective means that I try to stop hundreds of yards back and then have to creep up to the light.
 
2012-08-07 02:40:52 PM  
I submit moulding. Clearly Zoot from Python's Holy Grail on the left and an early 20th century jazz singer on the right.

howtopool.comhowtopool.com
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report