Having worked in this space (ID verification of live-humans to ID documents), yes, I absolutely think people are better at the 1:1 person:document yes/no question than I think an AI model is at saying which of 200M people this face is. Just having a prior of a physical document with their name and likeness on it already makes up 1 factor of the N-factor authentication.
>So the model is verifying faces against ... A database of zero faces? Surely there's 200M faces in there, or else how does it work?
No. The model is, "Hey! this guy is being a pain in the ass. He even claimed that The President wasn't blessed with superintelligence and doesn't actually smell really good!
We need to get this terrorist off the streets! He sure looks a whole lot like that illegal on the FBI most wanted list, doesn't he? Off to CECOT with him!
What's that? He's a twelfth generation citizen? No way! Look, the app I used to claim this guy matches an illegal who's also a child rapist!
Your papers are all fake (if, as a citizen he's even carrying them). Onto the plane with you Senor.
That's the model. Feel free to disagree, but come back and reread this comment in 18 months. I hope you read it then and think "what a paranoid guy! Nothing like that could ever happen here!" But I'm not holding my breath. :(
In 18 months the discussion will have moved on to make excuses for the conentration camps. Alligator Auschwitz and such camps must be much larger to hold everyone.
Are you saying that a computer should be trusted without human intervention? If so, I have a computer right now that says you should be banned on the Internet.
Please don't spread unscientific misinformation. You can say ICE bad, or you don't believe in borders, but saying computer facial recognition is inaccurate compared to humans is just factually incorrect.
Looks like GP is using ChatGPT (see the utm_source in their link) to find the first result that supports their viewpoint rather than doing a broad discovery and analysis
The horror! Someone using an LLM for basic information gathering like "is AI facial recognition accurate compared to humans?" rather than going off vibes or one off sensationalized articles.
People are exceptionally good at facial recognition because of the Fusiform face area, which is a specialized portion of the temporal lobe optimized for it.
I think you’re going to need to back that up in order for me to take your claim seriously. I’ve always found Nate Silver to be opinionated, sure, but with opinions based on data.
(To be clear, I’m not disputing that Silver thinks BlueSky is failing—I’ll take your word for that—I’m disputing that he’s doing so because he had an axe to grind rather than data backing him up.)
It doesn't matter, because nobody is taking Nate Silver's word for anything. That Nate Silver dunks on Bsky is of absolutely no probative value whatsoever.
I think that is OP's point though, that when we open the door to things that are different not in kind, but only in degree, then we are likely to always expect the degree to increase
Yes I know that this is the slippery slope but it also accurately describes the trajectory of politics in America at basically every step
HTML is data and presentation all in one. The idea with XML + XSLT is that the XML contains the raw, structured data, and one or more XSLTs define how to present it.
It's similar to a modern web app talking to a REST API to get raw data in JSON form and then using that data in some user-friendly rendered web page. Except it's a standard that anyone can use, instead of everyone rolling their own client-side browser code.
Of course, XML is so complicated that it fell out of favour, but that was the idea.
it can be, but because it started as an SGML language (and nowadays who knows what it is) it allows ambiguous structures, plus it doesn't support arbitrary tags, whereas in XML the structure is strict but the tag schema is completely free.
The context I have heard the ham and eggs analogy was for certain scrum rituals that were supposed to be for ham people only (ie, excluding people without a stake in the outcome). Someone probably told this boss to butt out of a meeting.
It is all dumb stuff, imo. 00's agile got away with a lot of stupid things - usually with the implicit aim of increasing the number of billable devs (or to sell conference tickets or books. It was almost like, the more absurd, the better. There are still remnants of that but, thankfully, it has mostly disappeared.
