> Neural networks are unsuccessful because they are not detecting anything. They're just making statistical correlations that happen to be right for the specific set of training data they have received. There's no robustness whatsoever. Artificial gullibility.
This is what the brain does, too. All inductive reasoning comes down to statistical correlations. The human brain has NEVER had "robustness".
By robustness I mean the brain is pretty hard to exploit. You can't trick it into thinking an image is pornographic just by changing the color balance.
There's an entire subreddit devoted to a technique for fooling the brain into thinking an image is pornographic by overlaying patterns that obscures clothed sections [1] (and at least one more about more generic optical illusions)
Not quite the color balance, but how anyone can assert the brain is hard to exploit is beyond me.
> You can't trick it into thinking an image is pornographic just by changing the color balance.
If the only data someone has about an image is its colour balance and you asked them to classify which they think are pornographic, then yes you can.
It's a pretty stupid idea to impose such limitations though, on humans or ANNs. Even if you did only care about colour balance, you don't need an ANN to tell you that; just scale the image down to 1 pixel x 1 pixel, then look at its colour.
> > By robustness I mean the brain is pretty hard to exploit. You can't trick it into thinking an image is pornographic just by changing the color balance.
> No it's not, just ask any advertiser.
One of the great things about humans is that they can consider the context of a remark, although apparently this is not universal.
This is what the brain does, too. All inductive reasoning comes down to statistical correlations. The human brain has NEVER had "robustness".