[neptvn]

> Apart from the fact that nobody wants to risk having false positives, there’s a simple argument as old as machine learning itself: whatever a human can do, a machine can be taught to do. Humans have no problem correctly interpreting adversarial examples, so there must be a way to do it automatically.

So by all means, the authors (and a vast majority of researchers) seem to be confident that ML/DL is the road to AGI, hence can "solve" human intelligence (given it is computational)? For how long are we gonna drag the adage that mimicking a human (Turing test) is equal to reaching human levels of intelligence?

[moxious]

It is not true that whatever a human can do, a machine can be taught to do. The human must have insight into HOW they do it in order to teach it, or otherwise come up with some new algorithm. There are a large class of things humans do that they don't understand the mechanics behind, and for which there also aren't algorithms.

I'm not talking empathy or philosophy. How about just folding laundry. Not just one type, not in a controlled environment, but folding any laundry anywhere.

[IanCal]

> It is not true that whatever a human can do, a machine can be taught to do. The human must have insight into HOW they do it in order to teach it, or otherwise come up with some new algorithm.

Why does this mean a machine cannot be taught to do it?

> There are a large class of things humans do that they don't understand the mechanics behind,

Sure.

> and for which there also aren't algorithms.

Well, we manage to encode it in our brains.

[Pedro9009]

It is not true that whatever a human can do, is the correct way to look at it. The fine motor skills and insight needed for many tasks will always be beyond that of a machine. A machine also has a great deal of trouble with adapting to things popping up that it has to deal with.

[zardo]

>Humans have no problem correctly interpreting adversarial examples, so there must be a way to do it automatically.

Not true, we just have different priors and are fooled in different ways. See stage magic, optical illusions, etc...

[throwaway613834]

> Not true, we just have different priors and are fooled in different ways. See stage magic, optical illusions, etc...

But we can often recognize them as such, which is important. Actually, on that note, is there work on making machines being able to recognize magic tricks?

[ben_w]

> But we can often recognize them as such, which is importan

Can we? The occult, new age, and religious sections of bookstores suggests otherwise, as do paid horoscope readings, homeopathic medicines, un/lucky numbers (housing and lottery), and shell-game scams.

[soundwave106]

All of those (along with stage magic and illusions) have plenty of material (in bookstores and elsewhere) describing either the mechanics, the long odds, or debunking them largely as pseudoscience and/or scams. So it's clear that some people at least can recognize them.

I think it's also possible for humans to be 100% aware of the "adversarial attack", and still use these types of mediums for light entertainment. This seems to describe many people who occasionally buy lottery tickets for entertainment, and would probably apply to many who attend and produce modern stage magic shows.

(In fact, I notice that some of the top modern crusaders against con artists who do use illusions and paranormal / occult claims for adversarial reasons are stage magicians themselves -- James Randi, Penn and Teller, Derren Brown.)

[ben_w]

“Some” is not ”often”. If there are any illusions that affect all humans, then by definition we cannot give them as examples because nobody realises they exist.

Yes, it is possible for people to know lottery odds and still play for the excitement. This does not invalidate the claim that many play the lottery with the expectation of winning, nor that people choose numbers superstitiously.