[HN Gopher] Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta
___________________________________________________________________
Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta
Author : socratic1
Score : 148 points
Date : 2023-07-20 13:21 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.projectaria.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.projectaria.com)
| germinalphrase wrote:
| While acknowledging the utility of this kind of
| object/environment mapping in AR applications - the privacy
| obliteration is stark.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Yes, and it scares the shit out of me.
|
| Now. Facebook, the company that nobody trusts to do this sort
| of thing, is going to have to really work hard to demonstrate
| that they are to be trusted with this data. Apple, and to a
| lesser extent google, don't.
|
| That cool startup could get away with lots of things, so long
| as people like the product.
|
| Fortunately for us, AR glasses are limited by power
| consumption, this means that they can't really do always on
| realtime streaming of data to the backend for mining. Sure you
| could have always on mm accurate location, but you can't have
| video recording at the same time. If you want facial
| recognition, you'll have to stop the music playing.
|
| Now, what would help is a decent set of privacy laws, ie:
|
| Any cameras smaller than x, must only allow recording of data
| from persons that expressly allow it, unless in the public
| domain. People attempting to re-create personally identifiable
| data from such sensors will be liable to 5 years in jail and or
| an unlimited fine. (insert carveouts for legitimate research
| and persons working towards providing evidence for court cases)
|
| This isnt perfect, but its a lot better than what we have now.
| jayd16 wrote:
| I think you underestimate the power consumption of streaming
| video compared to what a VR headset already does. I mean,
| they already Chromecast the feed if you so choose.
|
| I will say that Meta is fairly aware of their reputation. The
| TOS is clear that they do not upload or share any video
| capture and they seem committed to it. As it is now, all the
| scene understanding is done on device.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > I think you underestimate the power consumption of
| streaming video compared to what a VR headset already does
|
| Rayban stories have a 167mah battery[1] the quest2 has a
| 3640mah battery[2] even then, it only last 2 hours, more or
| less, rather than an entire day.
|
| [1]https://beckystern.com/2023/04/30/ray-bans-stories-
| teardown/
|
| [2]https://www.meta.com/gb/legal/quest/product-information-
| shee...
| dustypotato wrote:
| First thing I notice while browsing from EU is that there's only
| one option regarding cookies. Accept all! Even if I click "Learn
| more" there's no "accept necessary cookies" or "Reject cookies".
| First time I encounter something like this.
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| Noticed the same thing as I always select 'necessary only' or
| something like that.
|
| Instead, I just closed the page and clicked on HN comments to
| see what it was about.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > First time I encounter something like this.
|
| Facebook itself use to have this exact banner with no
| alternative until they were strong-armed to properly comply
| with GDPR.
| anthonyskipper wrote:
| That's a common dark pattern.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| Dark pattern is a term normally used for legal, but immoral
| user experience. In this case legality is questionable as
| they redirect you to other external sites to manage your
| "consent" https://optout.aboutads.info (at least from a
| European GDPR perspective)
| constantly wrote:
| It's not really a dark pattern because they're not tricking
| you into accepting or coercing more than is acceptable into
| doing so, they're just not allowing you to decline. Which
| means if not accepting cookies is a dealbreaker for you, no
| problem, just: move along.
| [deleted]
| coldpie wrote:
| I have to admit, for technical folks like ourselves, I don't
| understand why you care what options the dialog presents. Just
| use a "Kill Sticky" plugin to nuke the stupid dialog so you can
| read the page, or even Accept them, and then instruct your
| browser to do whatever you like with the cookies the site
| creates (i.e. delete them). It's all in your hands, the popup
| dialog doesn't do anything you can't do yourself.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| you should care because often this agreement is not about the
| technical detail of cookies, but allowing the company you are
| interacting with to share data about you with 3rd parties.
| coldpie wrote:
| If you think which HTML div element you click on to dismiss
| a sticky banner has any bearing whatsoever on how your data
| is handled server-side, I've got a trip to the Titanic in
| an Oceangate submersible to sell you.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Legally it does, at least if you're in the EU. The only
| reason websites are slow on the uptake around this is
| that the legal gears are slow, however we have seen many
| considerable fines in this space in the last few years
| and things are improving.
| bad_username wrote:
| It's also in direct violation of GDPR.
| guy98238710 wrote:
| Or just use private window in the browser and then close it.
| explaininjs wrote:
| Learned helplessness. Teach the citizens that the only thing
| protecting them from the Big Scary Internet is their
| benevolent government. Meanwhile the politicians collect
| millions from the mass media companies that lobbied for the
| god-awful implementation of the law we all ended up with, and
| as everyone gets worn down into Accepting All always, they
| simultaneously forget that their User Agent holds all the
| cards (or in this case, cookies), and it can be instructed to
| do anything the User wants with them.
| js8 wrote:
| Aside from what ethbr0 said, which I agree, that you're
| blaming the victim, I want to address the "learned
| helplessness" idea.
|
| I heard recently that's actually wrong. We are born
| helpless, and learning to take control. The helplessness is
| innate, and we learn to overcome it.
|
| In democracy, the innate helplessness of citizens is
| overcome by learning to participate in governance -
| activism, elections, public functions and so on.
|
| The people who say "government does nothing good ever" are
| the ones who want to keep people in their natural helpless
| state. It's like telling a student, "you're doing it all
| wrong and can never be good".
| explaininjs wrote:
| Please don't tell me you're unironically arguing "learned
| helplessness" doesn't exist because you "learned" you're
| born "helpless" and the only path to actualizing change
| as an individual is through the official government
| sanctioned mechanisms... because if that is your _honest_
| argument... wow.
|
| For reference, in my experience, the public works
| projects that get front page news coverage with tons of
| anecdotes from locals about how incredibly helpful and
| long-needed the installation was, are those that were
| completely unsanctioned.
|
| And the _only_ path to substantial policy change in all
| of history has _always_ been violent revolution.
| guy98238710 wrote:
| You are definitely not born helpless. Babies keep
| screaming until they get what they want. They also
| tirelessly try to master mobility. Learned helplessness
| would mean they wouldn't even try crying or moving.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Did you just take a problem that free market tech created
| and blame it on the government? ;)
|
| _User_ agent sovereignty would be nice... except the most
| used browser and 1 /2 of smartphones are controlled by
| Google, the largest ad tracking company on the planet.
|
| We're way past the 90s.
| explaininjs wrote:
| Google, the same company that provides a _litany_ of fine
| grained cookie retention options in its User Agent's
| options page? Except thanks to the government's
| antagonistic policies (read: big-media's lobbying) those
| are useless as you need to keep on clicking the damn pop
| ups every time you visit a page "anew".
|
| Also never forget we already had a perfectly good
| solution in the form of Do Not Track headers that a
| benevolent governing body would have simply mandated
| abiding by. Instead we have this shithole.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| DNT was ignored from the time it was implemented.
|
| The only way it ever would have been respected if it was
| required to cryptographically sign an acceptance of
| cookies, then the server was required to retain that
| attestation as proof of acceptance, subject to legal
| liability if they were found in possession of tracking
| data without a valid attestation.
|
| Absent enforceability, _even when the server actively and
| maliciously decided to ignore it_ , it was a toothless
| solution.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The EU just should have said "if you don't respect DNT,
| go directly to jail and don't pass Go".
| ethbr0 wrote:
| How would not respecting DNT have been proven?
|
| The rub here is that everyone wanted to ignore DNT,
| because it made them lots and lots of money.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| How can you prove that they respect your preferences in
| those consent theater pop ups?
|
| I think those pop ups are the worst thing that ever
| happened to the web because they eliminated the moral
| authority that anyone had to say "it is user hostile to
| use pop ups". Once the EU made it appear "required" and
| even "laudable" or "prosocial" there was no basis to say
| "you shouldn't put this other popup in that will make
| users feel harassed".
|
| So now we get pages where the popups get in the way of
| the other popups.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Point.
|
| I suppose the formalism around popups, and specifically
| when the EU decided to start levying fines on entities
| who used dark patterns to avoid the spirit of
| "accept/reject must be equally easy to click", convinced
| me that user-visible was a better way to win the fight.
|
| Granted, it's not a _technically_ optimal solution, but
| it may be a politically optimal one. Vis-a-vis the people
| vs the advertising industry.
|
| I'm unconvinced that DNT would have ever garnered the
| same support as something that people, and specifically
| politicians, can see. Which would have led to ad money
| quietly carrying the day.
|
| I'm hopefully after we've chiseled "Thou shalt respect
| user decisions" in stone deeply enough, we can flip back
| to enabling a user agent to automatically respond to that
| question for us.
| explaininjs wrote:
| GDPR doesn't involve any of your crypto-nerding so I
| don't see how this is relevant in any way.
| rglullis wrote:
| Is it the time of the day where I make Brave advocacy
| again?
|
| Brave has shown that we can have an user agent that is
| aligned with the user, even if the browser engine is made
| by Google.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| The same Brave that is selling data for AI companies,
| which may or may not include personal data ?
|
| I'd say it's probably not a good day for Brave advocacy.
| Neither is any other day.
| rglullis wrote:
| That's a very good example of "argument-by-Google". You
| know what conclusion you want to achieve, so you just go
| around looking for statements that are either taken out
| of context or misunderstood and that can be backed by a
| (shallow) google search.
|
| For the record: go back to the article that you are
| (wrongly) alluding to [0] and see how much the author has
| retracted. Also, see the response from Brave's Chief of
| Search.
|
| I "have" to keep advocating them because all the
| opposition that is presented is always based on false
| information, biased and prejudiced and clearly made by
| people who never used the browser or tried to understand
| the value proposition.
|
| There are tons of things to criticize about Brave (their
| "partnerships" with Binance and Solana, their complete
| lack of interest in making BAT an _actual currency_ for
| payments online, them completely losing the train of
| decentralized social media) but none of that ever comes
| up from the detractors, only this kind of bullshit like
| the one you bring up.
|
| [0]: https://stackdiary.com/brave-selling-copyrighted-
| data-for-ai...
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| I'm just going to quote the updated, follow up article:
|
| The Brave Search API does not respect the site's
| licensing, and Brave is under the assumption that 1)
| because they are a search engine and 2) because they
| attribute the URI of data - this puts them in the clear
| to scrape and resell data word-for-word.
|
| Brave steals data and resells it, and is not to be
| considered a trustworthy entity.
| rglullis wrote:
| The article went from "selling personal data to AI
| companies" to "selling results in the API search with a
| longer summary than Google which might be a violation of
| fair use policy", and yet you still don't want to back
| down.
| sanderjd wrote:
| This particular problem with annoying cookie dialogs is
| actually a government-created problem though...
|
| But I do agree with you that "free market tech" created
| the problem of "tracking cookies are ubiquitous and users
| don't know how to control them". But then regulators just
| layered another annoyance on top of that, instead of
| solving that actual problem.
| samstave wrote:
| I have to admit, for the non-technical folks like not-
| ourselves, I don't understand why people dont know about such
| "simple lifehacks" -->
|
| You're knowledge is sound, but rather than condescedingly
| relegate people to your 'simple' workaround - the ENTIRE
| premise of cookies and tracking against ones implicit desire
| to be private, is assinine.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's amazing how much worse browsing the web has gotten after
| all these pop-ups everywhere.
| kaffeeringe wrote:
| You mean how much worse surfing the web got after it became
| visible, how much companies are tracking us? The problem is
| the tracking, not the banner. If you don't sell your readers
| data, you don't need a banner.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Isn't that a GDPR violation since they're not allowed to
| prevent access if you refuse to share data not necessary for
| the service to function? Since it's from Meta I suspect
| regulators would enjoy another thing to add to the list for
| future fine calculations.
| mike_d wrote:
| Not at all. You can have a single prompt with a single accept
| button if you are only using functional cookies on a site.
| capableweb wrote:
| In that case, you don't need anything, no notice nor
| consent required at all, get rid of the entire
| modal/popup/banner.
| dspillett wrote:
| It depends. If everything stored & tracked is genuinely
| necessary (as defined by the regulations) then consent is not
| required. If they are just telling you that they are storing
| & tracking necessary things like session information, then
| all is good (unless the things they store & track are not, in
| fact, strictly necessary and non-privacy-affecting).
|
| Of course if they don't need consent, then why are they
| making a song & dance about it having us click an accept
| button?
| cutler wrote:
| This one is tame compared with a whole industry of "data
| privacy" popups which hide "Legitimate Interest" opt-outs
| within Vendor lists containing hundreds of entries. Someone
| needs to slap some serious lawsuits on these gangsters.
| nightpool wrote:
| This is common on many, many sites like this because they do
| not have any tracking cookies or anything else that they would
| need consent for, but they're still required to display a
| cookie banner "notifying" you that cookies are "in use" as per
| the terms of the old 2009 ePrivacy Directive. In this case, it
| appears that projectaria.com sets 1) one cookie for the user's
| DPR (1 or 2) so that the backend can serve optimized images, 2)
| one cookie for the user's locale, and 3) one cookie for a CSRF
| token for form submission.
| rglullis wrote:
| AFAIK, that is not true. Cookie banners are only required if
| they are used for tracking purposes.
| capableweb wrote:
| > but they're still required to display a cookie banner
| "notifying" you that cookies are "in use"
|
| Common misconception but this is not true. If you use cookies
| only for functional purposes (not for tracking for example),
| you do not need to show any cookie banners. Like if you have
| a shopping cart and you have a cookie for keeping track of
| what's in it, it's for functional purposes for the user and
| hence needs no notice to be used.
|
| The UK's ICO made a handy summary for people who are curious
| about what the directive actually says:
| https://ico.org.uk/media/for-
| organisations/documents/1545/co...
|
| Specifically:
|
| > Exceptions from the requirement to provide information and
| obtain consent
|
| > Activities likely to fall within the exception: [...] Some
| cookies help ensure that the content of your page loads
| quickly [...] Certain cookies providing security that is
| essential to comply with the security requirements [...]
| nightpool wrote:
| > Common misconception but this is not true. If you use
| cookies only for functional purposes (not for tracking for
| example), you do not need to show any cookie banners. Like
| if you have a shopping cart and you have a cookie for
| keeping track of what's in it, it's for functional purposes
| for the user and hence needs no notice to be used.
|
| Personally, I would not put a cookie banner of any kind on
| my website. However, given this text: The
| term 'strictly necessary' means that such storage of or
| access to information should be essential, rather than
| reasonably necessary, for this exemption to apply. However,
| it will also be restricted to what is essential to provide
| the service requested by the user, rather than what might
| be essential for any other uses the service provider might
| wish to make of that data. It will also include what is
| required to comply with any other legislation the person
| using the cookie might be subject to, for example, the
| security requirements of the seventh data protection
| principle. Where the setting of a cookie is
| deemed 'important' rather than 'strictly necessary', those
| collecting the information are still obliged to provide
| information about the device to the potential service
| recipient and obtain consent.
|
| I think it's clear why a more risk-conscious organization
| like Meta might take a more conservative reading of
| "Strictly necessary" that does not apply to e.g. bandwidth
| optimizations related to a device's DPI
| sanderjd wrote:
| But it's easier and less risky to just always put in the
| standard language that everyone ignores and mindlessly
| clicks through anyway. Which is why this was very silly
| legislation. People helping develop future legislation (in
| the EU and elsewhere) should be aware of this as a
| cautionary tale of incentivizing theater with only cost and
| no benefit.
| croes wrote:
| Then why does the banner say?
|
| >We use cookies to personalise and improve content and
| services, deliver relevant advertisements and increase the
| safety of our users
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| It's probably the default language for the company.
| Technical, t he at allows them to have tracking cookies
| even if they don't have them now
| guy98238710 wrote:
| Language is all that matters when it comes to law. It's a
| blatant violation of GDPR.
| sangnoir wrote:
| What if the banner language suggests they _might_ break
| GDPR, but in reality they are not doing those things? If
| my SaaS forces you to select a checkbox that states you
| 're agreeing to allow me to set fire to your house (which
| is illegal) - would the sign up itself be breaking the
| law? IANAL, but I don't think it would be; I wont be
| breaking any laws until I commit arson.
| nerdponx wrote:
| It's breaking the law because you're essentially being
| forced to consent to some thing that they legally must
| give you the option to opt out of. It's not about them
| doing it, it's about the validity of their request for
| consent.
|
| If I hire a hitman to murder somebody, but the hitman
| chickens out, I'm still guilty of having hired a hitman,
| even if nobody died.
| croes wrote:
| Deceptive
| nerdponx wrote:
| Right, I'm sure this is boilerplate language provided by
| a law firm.
| otikik wrote:
| Yep, closed it down immediately. IANAL but that might not be
| legal in Europe
| machinekob wrote:
| Non-commercial licence :[
| optymizer wrote:
| "I can't use this to make money". Sad face.
|
| If I had a company, which is a for-profit entity, I wouldn't
| want competitors to use my company's tech for free either.
| Roark66 wrote:
| I wonder, let's say one uses it on an open source project that
| accepts donations. Is that non-commercial enough? Or is it a
| no-no because money is involved? I'm just curious.
|
| I'm glad such free datasets exist even if they are restricted
| to educational/hobby use.
| sp332 wrote:
| You can't use it in an open-source project. Open source
| licenses don't restrict commercial use.
| [deleted]
| zombiwoof wrote:
| love Meta. they fell face first into the "Metaverse" and now are
| just releasing all their AI related work to juice their stock and
| be "innovative".
| achr2 wrote:
| > All sequences within the Aria Digital Twin Dataset have been
| captured using fully consented researchers in controlled
| environments in Meta offices.
|
| The requirement and boastful nature of this heading is a
| frightening tell against the company/industry's perceived
| practices.
| quietthrow wrote:
| Genuine question: What is an egocentric data set? Eli5 please?
| What can this be used for?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| As you know, to make machine learning work, it needs loads of
| data.
|
| Most picture and videos are taken from a camera at arm's
| length, not attached to someone's face.
|
| so if you want to make AR glasses "see" and "understand" the
| world from the point of view of a human (ie navigation, where
| is x, etc etc) then you need to make a dataset with that sensor
| configuration.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vnZCwf5_QE has a simple
| example from CMU, rather than facebook
| ikhatri wrote:
| Egocentric means that the sensors frame of reference is the
| same as the ego (self). The person walking around is wearing
| the sensors/glasses themselves & their pose is given as "ego
| pose".
|
| This dataset is clearly targeted for research on AR/XR/VR
| applications.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| +1
|
| I'll "yes and" here...beyond AR/VR a more powerful use case
| is multi-modal learning (with RL) which is what Meta is
| probably the leader in IMO.
|
| Example paper here: " Towards Continual Egocentric Activity
| Recognition: A Multi-modal Egocentric Activity Dataset for
| Continual Learning"
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10931
|
| This IMO is the pathway to AGI, as it combines all sense-
| plan-do data into a time coordinated stream and mimics how
| humans transfer learning to children via demonstration
| recording and behavior authoring.
|
| If we can create robotics with locomotion and dexterous
| manipulation, egocentric exploration, and a behavior
| authoring loop that uses human behavior demonstration and
| trajectory reinforcement - well, we'll have the AI we've been
| all talking about.
|
| Probably the most exciting area of research that most people
| don't know or care about.
|
| That's why head mounted all day ego centric AR is so
| important - it gives eyes ears and sense perception to our
| learning systems with human directed egocentric behaviors,
| guiding the whole thing. Just like pushing your kid down the
| street in the stroller.
| posterboy wrote:
| > a behavior authoring loop
|
| A behaviour that authors loops?
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I would read it as "a loop that authors behaviors".
| socratic1 wrote:
| +1
|
| Applications of embodied AI very interesting. Additionally
| a lot of hard problems are increasingly being solved in
| simulation like this. See Wayve's GAIA world model
| dleeftink wrote:
| Just to make sure I understand your excitement: we _need_
| guinea-pigs _ahem_ people to wear 'head mounted all day
| ego centric AR' with who knows how many integrated sensors
| for long stretches on end, so we can finally get to our
| fabled A.G.i?
|
| That is some B.F. Skinner level future we're aiming for--
| only this time around, humans become the fully surveilled
| 'teaching machine'.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| As with most technology, there are plusses and minuses.
|
| If used correctly (if is doing lots of heavy lifting
| here) this type of system, eye gaze, imu & microphones
| would provide much much better hearing aids than the
| current state of the art, at a much cheaper price (go
| look up the price of hearing aids, its _extortion_ )
|
| Using gate analysis, it would be possible predict when
| someone is prone to falls, allowing much longer
| independence for older people.
|
| Assuming that its possible to understand who you are
| talking to and what they said, you could mitigate and
| support dementia much more than we can now.
|
| However.
|
| You also have a vast network of headsets with highly
| accurate always on location, able to see what you are
| looking at, who you talk to, what you say, and in
| somecases what you feel about things.
|
| Add in some basic object/facial recognition and you have
| an authoritarian's wet dream.
|
| now is the time to regulate, but alas, that wont happen.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Well no...not guinea pigs. But correct conceptually - if
| it's opt-in only and perfectly transparent to everyone
| what is happening, which in this specific case of Aria it
| absolutely is.
|
| If we want to make machines with equivalent or better
| capacity as humans we have to transfer the process for
| scientific discovery, including the sum of our cognitive
| capacity and knowledge to them.
|
| If you quantize human adult-infant interactions, then it
| boils down to Human adults introducing learning
| trajectories, labeling input data and biasing weights
| with reinforcing behaviors for new reinforcement agents.
| If we can re-build the infrastructure to do precisely
| that, where the agent is in the place of the infant and
| society is in the place of the "Human Adult" then we will
| have re-built at scale the process for human development.
|
| The best way we know how to do this today is implementing
| transfer learning approaches from the basic human
| developmental research. I started down this road back in
| 2010 trying to follow the work of Frank Guerin out of the
| University of Aberdeen [1] [2].
|
| [1]https://www.surrey.ac.uk/people/frank-guerin
|
| [2] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_c
| itation...
| msaeki wrote:
| Is that model (parents giving labeled input and affecting
| some weights in the child's head with reinforcement)
| really a good fit for the reality of how people learn to
| do things?
|
| It's my understanding (though I haven't looked at the
| primary sources myself) that one of the facts that
| inspired Chomsky's language theories and work for
| instance, was that when you quantify the information
| communicated by parents to language learning children,
| there's actually not very much of it. Not nearly enough
| to support that what's going on is anything like the kind
| of learning embodied by machine learning models.
|
| If that's true, and there is something of how to act
| intelligently / humanly already encoded in children
| (maybe genetically?) and not communicated by this sort of
| training, wouldn't ignoring that and trying to get to it
| purely in this machine learning way be.. at least not at
| all informed by evidence / examples of it working in
| nature?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| So this is extremely complicated and nuanced with respect
| to intelligence acquisition, and I don't think there's a
| definitive right or wrong answer.
|
| I certainly acknowledge my own bias with this however,
| with respect to what Chomsky discusses, I make the
| distinction that most of the "code/data/information" that
| you need in order for the language capacity to develop is
| actually embedded in our biological mechanical systems.
| That is to say, if you were to take a human infant and
| never expose it to another human with respect to
| generating sounds for language, the infant would still
| develop some sort of sound based communication system. We
| see this with feral children, mute children, deaf
| children. They still have a verbal function, even if it's
| not connected to any semblance of coherency.
|
| So in that sense it's like you're given all of the
| building blocks for language out of the gate biologically
| and then the people who are around you tell you how to
| assemble them into some thing that is functional. This is
| why different languages have different rules yet language
| acquisition is consistent across cultures.
|
| This is why I am insistent on holistically understanding
| the computing infrastructure and systems because the
| sensors processors, etc. are the equivalent to our cells,
| genes muscles, bones, etc. Most people don't think about
| computing systems and generally intelligent systems this
| way.
|
| If you go back and look at the work of wiener and early
| Cybernetics it does discuss a lot of this, however, after
| Cybernetics was absorbed into artificial intelligence,
| which was an absorbed into computer science, it doesn't
| really look holistically at systems of systems,
| unfortunately, in the general case.
|
| And I would argue that all of machine learning currently
| is very much moving in to the direction that I am
| describing where is exposure to frequency of correlated
| data that gives you your effective understanding of the
| world, and being able to predict the future state. That's
| what I mean when I say multi-modal is "sequential and
| consistent in time" with respect to causal action.
| dleeftink wrote:
| But what about observer effects? People act differently
| when recorded, and rarely do we catch humans acting
| natural when knowingly observed (some of the early
| 24h/day Twitch streamers come to mind). And what happens
| once trials are done? How would people feel about their
| actions becoming part of a technology potentially able to
| replace them?
|
| Even when this barrier can be overcome (i.e. people
| become accustomed to wearing these devices), I worry
| about the opt-in nature of it. We've yet to see a
| disruptive technology adhering to this principle through-
| and-through, and if current learning efforts are anything
| to go by, training data is not something companies want
| to willingly let go or lose out on.
|
| Taken both, this path has the potential to be quite
| coercive if no strong guarantees or safeties can be
| upheld, especially if early exciting trials generate an
| interest-boom similar to the one we're seeing right now
| in the LM-space.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| This is a great point and why, I advocate so vociferously
| thatall of these systems and future organizations that
| are going this direction should be cooperatively owned,
| based on mutual voluntary Democratic principles, rather
| than owned by a small subset of wealthy individuals in
| your standard business construct.
| dleeftink wrote:
| That would be a welcome future, indeed. And hopefully,
| not just upheld in some regions of the world, but
| everywhere where AR-backed AGI gets off the ground. And
| this governing structure would need to work for some
| decades at least. Which would be quite a feat.
|
| That still leaves my first question regarding observer
| effects and how people would respond to such a technology
| on an individual level. It would have the capacity to
| reshape behaviour towards preferential and/or optimal
| interactions, would it not? Seeing how we do not want
| reinforce models with 'erroneous' interactions?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| TBH I don't know, and I think there's a real chance that
| there's going to be actual changes in how people behave
| as a result - which, if it's integrated like many other
| social changes will become another layer in the fabric of
| society, displacing another layer. For better or worse I
| think it's just an exposure thing.
|
| You are persistently surveilled in London and Shanghai
| and New York City - yet people act just as unhinged in
| ways they did before cameras were installed.
|
| I'm not sure what other data acquisition/technology arc
| is possible though, and open to ideas.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > You are persistently surveilled in London and Shanghai
| and New York City - yet people act just as unhinged in
| ways they did before cameras were installed.
|
| Unhinged people do, but ordinary people? I'd be willing
| to bet that normal people who are in areas where they are
| aware they're on camera don't behave as their normal
| selves. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-20 23:01 UTC)