An algorithm that takes just seconds to scan a paper for duplicated images racks up more suspicious images than a person.

  • @qooqie
    link
    English
    301 year ago

    This is kind of one of those “yeah, no shit” findings

    • @AbidanYre
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      Not entirely sure why it needs ai for that either.

      • @SpeedLimit55
        link
        English
        101 year ago

        AI is the new buzzword for media to use.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          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.

        • @thbb
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • @Zeth0s
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Better accuracy usually (but not granted if badly implemented)

        • @AbidanYre
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          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.

          • @Zeth0s
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            In Image classification. Neural-network-based ML methods can have greater accuracy than alternative options in image classification

            • @AbidanYre
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              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.

              • @Zeth0s
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                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.