Technology

I'm being a bit extra but...

Your statement:

The article headline is wildly misleading, bordering on being just a straight up lie.

The article headline:

A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It

The general story in reference to the headline:

• He found csam in a known AI dataset, a dataset which he stored in his account.
• Google banned him for having this data in his account.
• The article mentions that he tripped the automated monitoring tools.

The article headline is accurate if you interpret it as

"A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It" ("it" being "csam").

The article headline is inaccurate if you interpret it as

"A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It" ("it" being "reporting csam").

I read it as the former, because the action of reporting isn't listed in the headline at all.

^___^

Google’s only failure here was to not unban on his first or second appeal.

My experience of Google and the unban process is: it doesn't exist, never works, doesn't even escalate to a human evaluator in a 3rd world sweatshop - the algorithm simply ignores appeals inscrutably.

Another point is, the reason Google's AI is able to identify CSAM is because it has that in its training data, flagged as such.

In that case, it would have detected the training material as ~100% match.

I don't get though, how it ended up being openly available as if it were properly tagged, they would probably exclude it from the open-sourced data. And now I see it would also not be viable to have an open-source, openly scrutinisable AI deployment for CSAM detection for the same reason.

And while some governmental body got a lot of backlash for trying to implement such an AI thing on chat stuff, Google gets to do so all it wants because it's E-Mail/GDrive and all on their servers and you can't expect privacy.

Considering how many such stories of people having problems due to this system is coming up, is there any statistic of legitimate catches using this model? I suspect not, because why would anyone use Google services for this kind of stuff?

The article headline is wildly misleading, bordering on being just a straight up lie.

A 404Media headline? The place exclusively staffed by former BuzzFeed/Cracked employees? Noooo, couldn’t be.

This was about sending a message: "stfu or suffer the consequences". Hence, subsequent people who encounter similar will think twice about reporting anything.

We really don't want that first part to be law.

Section 230 was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and is a crucial piece of legislation that protects online service providers and users from being held liable for content created by third parties. It is often cited as a foundational law that has allowed the internet to flourish by enabling platforms to host user-generated content without the fear of legal repercussions for that content.

Though I'm not sure if that applies to scraping other server's content. But I wouldn't say it's fair for the scraper to review everything. If we don't like that take, then we should illegalize scraping altogether, but I'm betting there are unwanted side effects to that.

This, literally the only reason I could guess is that it is to teach AI to recognise childporn, but if that is the case, why is google going it instead of like, the FBI?

Combined surface air munitions

Right I thought it was cyber security something or other like API keys now duck duck go probably thinks I'm a creep

Yeah it's pretty common, unfortunately

I had no idea what the acronym was. Guess I'm just sheltered or something.

Not sure where it originates but it's the preferred term in UK policing and therefore most media reporting to refer to what might have been called "CP" on the interweb in the past as CSAM. Probably because porn implies it's art rather than crime, and also just a wider umbrella term

Lol why tf people downvoting that? Sorry I learned a new fucking thing jfc.