- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
An algorithm that takes just seconds to scan a paper for duplicated images racks up more suspicious images than a person.
You must log in or register to comment.
This is kind of one of those “yeah, no shit” findings
Not entirely sure why it needs ai for that either.
AI is the new buzzword for media to use.
It’s in the corporate world too. Today my boss mentioned the AI capabilities that a certain piece of software offered. Turns out being able to search text embedded in illustrator as Live Type is bleeding edge. Who knew.
This? https://helpx.adobe.com/illustrator/using/retype.html
That could actually be helpful for me. Didn’t know it was a new feature lol.
As commonly said: the product advertises its new AI feature. The job posting of the person who implemented it was ‘data scientist’, and the technique used is called logistic regression.
Well, in this context, it’s more image comparison or some other simple technique not even relying on a training dataset.
Better accuracy usually (but not granted if badly implemented)
Better accuracy than what? What the article describes is fairly basic image processing. The whole thing could be done with like a dozen lines of Python.
In Image classification. Neural-network-based ML methods can have greater accuracy than alternative options in image classification
For classification, sure. But based on the article that’s not what they were doing here. This was just comparing an image to a bunch of other images to see if it was the same.
To see if they are similar. They are not interested to see if the image is the same but to understand if the message is the same, to the level that it is a fraud, not simple citation. They are flagging frauds…
I have no idea how they do it, and I strongly believe it is an overkill given that the credibility of published research is low due to the mafia-like academic system, not because of few frauds.
