Comment

Comment on Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

The event has happened, or the aftereffects that the event happened.

In which case there are visual cues and it’s something that the comment you argued with acknowledged would be eligible for binary sort

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

source
- CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨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.
  
  source
starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

less long by AI (faster to detect changes than humans).

Many things change things. A bit of smoke in the air might have been from a gunshot that happened 10 minutes ago, or it might have been from a cigarette 15 minutes ago. Binary search relies on changes that indicate a specific thing has happened–a broken window, a bike no longer there, blood stains on the street. 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. Even the things that AIs are truly useful for, like video compression artifacts, wouldn’t help, because any number of things can cause compression artifacts. How could it tell what pixels are slightly off color because of a gunshot 3 minutes ago, and what pixels are slightly off color because someone walked by the screen?

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. 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.

source
- CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨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.
  
  source
  - starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨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. 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!
    
    source
    CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨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.
    
    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
    
    source
    -> View More Comments