Awesome next step! Yes it is going to be expensive, yes it will not be successful in the beginning and so on… We need this kind of research, cause it will not develop itself!
There’s an interesting aspect of this issue that I think the post summary really dismisses. Photos coming from phones these days sort of are AI, and in an annoyingly pervasive way.
I’ve actually gone back from using my phone to using a proper camera again over the last year or so because I’m getting so irritated by the amount of ML-based post-processing my phone does. It results in a lot of photos looking bad, and there’s no easy way to bypass it besides setting the phone to save raw which sort of defeats the point of using the phone in a lot of ways (ability to go from taking the photo to posting on the device). A really common situation for me is when I take a photo with my phone that is blurry because of bad focus/shake/low light/some combination. The phone does really aggressive ML “sharpening” of the image that makes it look extremely artificial and, frankly, a lot worse than if the postprocessing had been omitted. I’ve had sets of photos I took totally ruined by this kind of “helpfulness.”
It’s a tricky issue, there absolutely are benefits to cameras using the best technology available to create the best photograph available. I’m not meaning to appeal to some sense of artistic integrity or “real photography” here. I just hate the lack of control over the product. I used to be really into photography as a hobby and had a lot of opinions about lenses and mostly set up exposures manually. Nowadays I use my Sony Alpha with the kit lens and rarely take it off of its “smart” auto mode, which does have some ML-driven features like subject detection. But it feels like I have so much more control over the output than I do with my phone, because the Sony doesn’t run the image through ten layers of AI processing that’s not a whole lot better than the state of the art in Instagram filters before saving it. If I don’t hold the camera steady it’ll just come out motion blurred, not like someone new to photoshop has just discovered the posterize button.
As I understand Apple is better than most of the Android vendors about this kind of thing and the iPhone processing probably produces better output - but it’s still frustrating to me feeling like photos are changing from “capturing the scene” to “recreating the scene.” I did graduate work on forensics of digital images, learned a lot of theory and methods for analyzing and reversing in-camera processing. I did some research on the “auto HDR” feature that was starting to appear in Android devices at the time and whether or not it defeated some known forensic methods for device fingerprinting (mostly, not totally). But that was the tip of the iceberg… it used to be that cameras only did a bit of processing, debayering for example, the kind of things that really need to be done to turn sensor data into a useful image because of the properties of the sensor and readout pipeline. But phones, the dominant photographic tool today, are taking it to this whole new level where they do what would have been very complex postprocessing on every image, as it’s taken.
As with so many things, I guess it’s good when it works, but endlessly frustrating when it doesn’t. At least it feels like the phone vendors are doing their part to preserve “traditional” photographic technology, if that’s what you’d call a Sony mirrorless, by really nerfing phones as tools for people who want much control over the result. I do understand there are third-party apps for iPhone that expose a lot more user control but it seems like they also have some limitations with how much of the camera stack they can control/bypass.
I agree so much with this comment. Including feeling like I need to switch back to carrying around a proper camera.
When I switched to the Google Pixel 2, the post processing truely was revolutionary compared to other phone cameras and I stopped using anything other than the phone to take pictures. Even back then, iPhone had post processing turned up to a level that most pictures looked a bit “off” to me in the background details, but most people didn’t seem to notice it, even if I tried to point it out. Google’s flagship camera seemed to avoid that over processing and the results were really good. Unfortunately, Google seemed to get cocky about it and just kept increasing the level of processing as the years passed.
Now I’m on a Pixel 7 Pro that I got specifically for the 5x zoom camera and I’ve been consistently pissed off by every zoom picture. Even though it’s an optical zoom, the processing gets turned up so high that I feel like it’s worse than early days low resolution digital zoom. The picture basically looks a pretty decent prompt generated picture vs. a camera shot. It’s kind of ridiculous how bad details get just made up with the pictures out of the 5x zoom lens. The 2x and 1x lenses are substantially better, but still frustrating.
The annoying thing is every photo looks pretty good in the preview thumbnail and even usually looks pretty good in the phone gallery. But if you zoom in or view on a monitor, the digital slurry in the background becomes to apparent. I haven’t tried to print a photo from this phone, but I imagine they would generally look pretty poor.
They’ve optimized so incredibly heavily for the common use case (browsing pictures on your phone) that they’ve forgotten everything else.
This is the default law action from Musk these days. Also, a nonsensical law suite is enough to shut a big newspaper sometimes. The governing Liberal Democratic Party in Japan successfully silenced a news organization by starting a 1 billion yen (or some amount) nonsense law suit. Hell, they control the supreme court judges also.
Did you read the article? X is alleging that media matters had to manipulate their platform in order for it to generate these ads next to the hateful accounts. According to their records, those ads only appeared one time, for the user account associated with Media Matters. This supports their theory that manipulation was required.
I guess we'll have to wait for the court case to find out who's right. But immediately assuming the X lawsuit has no merits just because you don't like Elon Musk is a bit disingenuous.
Unless I'm missing it, nowhere in the article or elsewhere did they say that ads only appeared one time.
They said that ads were served for one particular account 50 times (and presumably have data to back that up but I'm not inclined to give them benefit of the doubt). And that media matters had scrolled/refreshed a bunch of times to see whose ads would be displayed. Which seems reasonable to me.
Then TwitX made some claim about "50 out of 50 billion ads served" or something, which is a disingenuous comparison. This was one example of a problem. No one claimed it was the only example, so why would anyone compare against all ads served anywhere?
I agree with your point in general, but I have a hard time applying it here. Unless the lawsuit alleges that MM hacked into Twitter or doctored the screenshots, then the core claim of the MM report “Twitter served ad Y next to post Z” is not under dispute. If the claim is that refreshing a page is malicious, then I don’t think we need to wait to call the lawsuit malicious.
I agree that the core claim of the MM report is not under dispute. But take a look at their article now that you know the context around how those ads were generated.
I don't know if it's defamatory, but you have to agree that it comes off as a bit disingenuous based on the new info from X. Of course that info from X could be BS, which is why I said we'll have to wait for the court case to know for sure.
I mean, it’s splitting hairs. While the proximity probably didn’t help, I doubt the companies deciding to pull ads weren’t like “sure, we don’t mind hanging out in a nazi bar, just make sure not to seat us next to any nazis.” I mean, some probably were, but there has been increasingly large amounts of pressure on these people and within like 24 hours of each other Elon endorses replacement theory and the MM story drops that Elon is running ads for nazis. There are only so many times you can make a dumb excuse. For lots of us, that was a long time ago. Even the capitalists are realizing now at least that he’s bad for business.
No doubt - the advertisers are 100% right to pull out. I was only answering the original commenter that asked how the MM report could be considered defamatory. I definitely didn't intend to come across as a Musk apologist.
Okay, that’s a fair point. They left too many blanks for the reader to fill in, and some will assume the problem is more widespread than it is.
When I put my Social Scientist hat on, I don’t think the methodology was totally unreasonable or obviously malicious, so X would have to strengthen their claims to convince me to wait for court. But you’re right, MM should have done better.
Basically, Musk is alleging is that they claimed this was a common practice when it was, in fact, extremely rare.
In his tweet about this he said that out of 5.5 **billion ** ad impressions that day, less than 50 were objectionable according to Media Matter’s criteria. In other words, there was a 1 in 100 million chance that a normal user would randomly see something like this.
For comparison, the following things have about a 1 in a million chance of happening (i.e. are 100 times more likely):
flipping a coin 20 times, getting tails every single time
winning the PowerBall lottery if you buy six tickets a week for a year
a devastating earthquake occurring in Seattle within the next 5 hours
I just read the MM piece and it doesn’t appear to make any specific claims about how frequently this might have happened, it merely says “We recently found ads for Apple, Bravo, Oracle, Xfinity, and IBM next to posts that tout Hitler and his Nazi Party on X.” and that “X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content.” which does indeed appear to be factual since it makes no claims about frequency, so I guess we’ll see if the court is convinced that it was defamatory. It certainly seems to be the truth, but not the whole truth.
If it turns out they really DID have to create 100 million page views in order to find a single questionable ad placement, and they failed to mention that, you could make the case that they were intentionally trying to hurt his business.
Didn’t he already write a public letter explaining how what they did does reveal ads, but that it was unfair because they went ad hunting and searched for ads on a page?
Boohoo, just because they over-searched to see it happen, means that it can and does happen.
This is a failure on your part, not theirs. This is how scientific research is conducted.
Not that you understand science or handling failure, Elon.
This is the “So few people find a festering rat’s anus in their can of SpaghettiOs that finding one shouldn’t be considered an actual problem” argument, eliding the fact that the number of rat anuses in ANY SpaghettiOs can should be “zero”
Like, really looking forward to court case when Elon or Yacco have to explain “yes your honor, the thing they said is true, but to get it to happen they had to use our platform!!!” If I had to guess, Elon has to know he’s going to lose, but the point isn’t necessarily a win, it’s to tie up Media Matters in a legal battle that Elon can keep going effectively forever. This is one of his favorite tactics – doing whatever the fuck he wants because he knows the only thing you can do is sue, and he can pay lawyers forever so you’re going to have to blink first.
X claimed Media Matters “manipulated” the social media platform by using accounts that exclusively followed accounts for major brands or users known to produce fringe content and “resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing” the feed until it found ads next to extremist posts.
Media Matters’ report misrepresented the typical experience on X “with the intention of harming X and its business”, the company said in the lawsuit.
Yes exactly. They proved that advertisements can and will be shown alongside objectionable content, and that there are no protections against that. Them conducting a test is not “manufacturing images”. X arguing the vast majority of users won’t experience that is merely because the majority of users won’t browse that content - but those who do will see any adverts alongside it.
This is a frivolous lawsuit from a company that will probably be gone before the suit is even heard. Twitter is worth barely more than its debt at this point - and that’s ignoring things like not paying rent for their offices.
What an absolutely disrespectful comment about someone that attended Dartmouth’s engineering school, worked at Goldman Sachs, an aerospace engineering contractor, Tesla, a tech startup that had a successful exit, and has been the CTO of OpenAI for 5 years. Somehow none of that matters because while she was able to do all that, she also might have given birth to and raised a child?
I think you need to reevaluate how you see the world.
theguardian.com
Active