CosmicCleric

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Storytelling is storytelling, regardless of the medium.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 7 months ago)

Hey, it works for you and that’s fine ☺️ 😉.

Be better for Humanity though if people supported corporations that made better products than those that made worse ones.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

But I don’t really see a lot of actual utility in the Steamboat Willy character

Could he be used to sell riverboat cruises?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

They’ve introduced a couple of redirects so that the snap version gets installed.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

It might not be an away team, but instead they got thrown back in time type of situation, which in that case they would just have their normal outfits.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

JNCOs

Junior non-com outfits?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

When you see the cue that the event has happened, you rewind

The event has happened, or the aftereffects that the event happened. That is my point, the aftereffects matter as much as the event itself. As long as the ‘after’ looks different than the ‘before’ for any reason, that is a marker to give you an indication on which way to go, rewind, or advance.

And yes, either the effect or the aftereffects has to last long enough to be noticed by humans, less long by AI (faster to detect changes than humans). But the vast majority of events, when humans are involved, leave long aftereffects usually. Yes, not 100% of the time, but usually.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

I appreciate you responding kindly, and your thoughts, thank you.

What you’ve actually been communicating is that “If there really was no lasting visual cue, then just find a lasting visual cue anyway, then do a binary search on that and it’ll work!

What I’ve been attempting to communicate, and I think have been expressing that, is that “no lasting visual cue” is not right (most of the time), its incorrect, and that there’s (almost) always a visual cue, and that you can do the binary search because there is. Not maybe, but there is, lasting visual cues (most of the time).

I disagreed with the point being asserted by the comment I initially replied to. I think people are getting hung up on my very initial comment, where I implied instead of being explicive, thinking my assumption was a well known one, just based on how I see the world operate (humans are messy). But how those replied to me seem that its not well known (or just not realized).

In hindsight, I should be more explicive, but that’s a horrible way to have to communicate, like if I have to pass every comment through a lawyer before posting it. You’d think people instead of instantly attacking would just have a conversation about try to understand my assumption. That didn’t come up until WAY later in the conversation tree, and only by a single person. There was way too many comments just attacking me with every hypothetical possiblity just to try and prove me wrong, and that, was wrong of them to do. Its not conversational, its bad group think.

Your message is more than just the words you type.

I was just telling my wife that the other day, its how you say that matters as much as what you say. I’m actually a well spoken person (on a good day at least). I’m honestly going to blame some of the confusion not on me, but on others with their hypotheticals, and confluencing how you scan a video, with how you search for sections of a video to scan, as adding to the confusion.

I hope this message helps clarify the debate and confusion for you and anyone else who stumbles upon this long chain.

Well, I think (saying this in 3rd person) what null was trying to do (gatekeeping censorship by telling others to not read my comments and calling me a troll) is really, really wrong. and bad for Lemmy, and I would have liked to have seen more people call him out on it, but instead he was rewarded with up votes. I truly don’t believe I deserved that, or that ANYBODY deserves that, and that his comment should be moderated.

And only because you mentioned it, I don’t feel confused, I feel anger. Anger over how I’ve been treated. It was just supposed to be a friendly conversation, expressing a counterpoint, and people responded by doing things they would not do in public to another’s face.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

I would just be repeating myself at this point, to respond. Lets just leave it at agree to disagree.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Having an AI search for shapes an opaqueness is still totally useless for a binary search if those semi-opaque shapes happen for 10 minutes 34 minutes into an hour long video

Well one of those shapes would happen at the time of the event though, so it’s not useless. One of those would be a gunshot smoke, and could be flagged for review.

Again, you’d just feed the whole video to an AI, you wouldn’t have it do a binary search

One day, when computers and AI are powerful enough, this will be the answer, but even then I would like to think behind the scenes they would use a binary search to speed up the processing time.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

You would have to be confident that said change in environment was done by the bike thief.

Well, the change would happen, the human will be noticed, and then they can watch that moment in time on the tape to see who did it. The binary search would be about shortening what portions of the video tape a human/AI would have to review manually.

It might be better to use some software to remove any frame of video that is identical to the one before it, no motion is taking place, etc. then manually watch the much shorter video of “only when stuff happens.”

So, I hope you’re not under the impression that I’m advocating binary search as the ONLY way of doing a search. I’m just staying within the confines of the subject as brought up by the OP, which was about binary searches.

At the end of the day its about detecting the change/aftereffect, and not the search inandof itself. A binary search just helps you narrow down the video you have to watch manually, especially when there’s allot of it to review.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Actually, an AI could determine the difference between those, based on shape, location, and opacity, etc.

Lmao now I know you’re fucking with me

Yeah lemme spend three weeks training this AI on the difference between gunsmoke, cigarette smoke, vapes, and fog in this specific alley. Oh, y’all already found the killer because someone just watched the video? Well my point stands, the AI could do it faster

Once it’s trained

In another week

Oh shit, it thought that guy’s cell phone was a gun. See you in another month!

Um, I was being completely serious. Having AI determine shapes/opaqueness is a simple matter for it. And I’m assuming the training would already be done before the event happens, over time.

You don’t think crime forensics labs won’t be training AI to do these kind of detections going forward? Really?

(Maybe its a matter of people not truly grocking what AI will do and how it will change things, going forward. /shrug)

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

You’ve claimed that you disagree with this, but have yet to explain why you disagree beyond saying that there would be visual cues.

I have explained it, multiple times. I disagree that there would not be visual clues most of the time. I can’t prove a negative I don’t belleve in, to me its a false scenario that doesn’t (mostly) happen. In fact, the whole point of my very first comment was to rebut implicitly the ‘no visual clues’ clause.

Each comment is not atomic, on its own, its part of an overall conversation being had. To try and do so otherwise is just to play “gotcha” and is intellectually dishonest.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

But the vast majority of events, when humans are involved, leave long aftereffects usually. Yes, not 100% of the time, but usually.

Nobody said otherwise, you’re arguing with strawmen’

Yes, they have. They’ve used it as a reason why a binary search would not work, that the event duration would be too short to be detectable.

And that’s not a strawman, that’s making my point, that its not just the event, but the aftereffects of the event, that makes a binary search possible.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Whatever floats your boat.

We done?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Ok. I initially responded that I didn’t even read your response, because I didn’t, and I just asked again if you are OK. And I really meant it.

But that seemed rude, so I deleted it, and I read your comment.

I appreciate your politeness, sincerely, and thank you for the removal.

The level of toxicity being thrown at me by people (not you) for just discussing when a binary seach is effective or not, that does harm someone, especially when one is just seeking conversation, but that’s the Internet, not much you can do about that, except ask people to stop (which usually gets more toxicity thrown at you).

It just comes off a little weird to people, I feel.

Well, people are not used to someone defending their position well (right or wrong). And talking about being used to train bots tends to make others think of tinfoil hat scenarios, so I get it. But it does really happen in real life (I know).

Binary search is effective for many things. However: imagine a camera on a blank white wall that was recorded for 24 hours. …

As someone who has written binary searches before, I understand that the duration of the event is important, and that short durations make its search effectiveness less than long durations.

But the point I keep hammering on is that its not just the duration of the event that matters, its also if the environment the event happens in and how it changes at the point of the event, for any reason, matters. All you need is for the static image to change from one thing to another, for ANY reason, at the point of the event. And when it comes to humans, that is the norm (change).

Yes, you can describe a scenario where a binary search would not work, but it most likely wouldn’t be a real-world event you are describing (like who would point a camera at a small section of wall and just that small section?).

And a final word for anyone who gets to this point and reads this (this is not directed at you personally). …

I would ask others to consider if those who are running things would want (or not) the general public to realize binary search’s potential effectiveness in crime resolution, and demand it being on video tapes when a crime happens, and how they may react to those who advocate for its use.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

The time of the event doesn’t necessarily coincide with any of the times that you’re checking. That’s the whole point of looking for visual cues.

But one of them potentially will though. A gun firing leave smoke behind.

Even if there’s other smoke in the video, you’re looking at 5 minutes of a 24-hour video, and not scanning through 24 hours of a video manually. And an AI could use a binary search to find any moments of smoke (or not). Not saying it’s a one-size-fits-all solution, just one very important tool in a toolbox.

I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m exhausted talking about this topic, and so if you don’t mind, I’m just going to bail at this point.

Thanks for keeping it civil.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

So, how long are we going to do this?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

It’s interesting to see how you as the only person repeatedly seem to be missing the point. And instead of admitting that you made a mistake you dig deeper and deeper.

Repeating your point, because its being misrepresented, is not digging deeper, its attempting to correct the record.

At this point its painfully obvious that we’re not going to agree, so how about we just agree to disagree, and move on?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

How long are we going to do this?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

If it’s not “for the duration of the rest of the video,” then binary search would be useless

That’s not true. It only has to be long enough to be detectable, by landing on a strip of video that it exists on. It’ll be harder, definately, but still doable.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

How long?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

That’s not relevant.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Or is it “Name checks out”?

I’m never quite sure how to end these “who gets the last word” arguments.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

To each their own. :p

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Anything undetectable by humans would still be useless to AIs. A bit a smoke? Could have been a gunshot 3 minutes ago, could have been a cigarette, could be fog, could be a vape.

Actually, an AI could determine the difference between those, based on shape, location, and opacity, etc.

At that point, just feed the entire video to the AI and have it tell you when it sees guns or puffs of smoke or hears screams.

Is there a point where one technique works better than another technique? Sure. I’m not arguing that. But if you’re dealing with a very long time, you’d still want to do a binary search first.

Binary search is useless when you can just have a machine watch the entire video in one sitting over the course of five seconds and tell you when the interesting thing happens.

Depends on how long that tape is, which is what was being originally discussed by the OP.

A binary search assisted by AI in determining the point in the tape where the effect happened quickly is still a very fast way of doing so (assuming the tape duration is very long), as alluded by others in other topic trees in this topic.