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

  • @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.