TV networks seem to disagree with you... or at least place an immense amount of emphasis on finding hot presenters, for some reason.
There are plenty of people willing to be a presenter for the amount they are willing to pay. So they get to be more selective - attractiveness is one of the most obvious things to select further on.
Social scientist here, and I have no clue of what you're talking about. Calculus destroyed my engineering aspirations.
Then come derivatives. So you have a function graph, and you're trying to determine the slope at a certain point. It's really simple for say y = x, where you just take any two points, but what if the graph is curvy? You'd take the point and then a point close to it, and calculate the slope for that. If the function is fairly smooth, that's fairly close to the actual slope. So you push the other point closer to the original point, and the slope you calculate gets closer to the real slope. You edge closer and closer, and suddenly it sounds a lot like a limit, where your initial point is x, your second point x + h, and h becomes smaller and smaller, so h -> 0.
Here's what's cool though. Since you didn't use 5, or 7.23, but x, you can put any point into this, so you've got a function that maps x onto the slope at x of the original function (at least if I remember correctly). You play around with a couple of different kinds of functions and arrive at various rules for differentiating things without having to do the whole limit thing, like x^2 -> 2x, x^3 -> 3x^2, e^x -> e^x, etc.
And derivatives are really handy. Say in kinematics, velocity is the derivative over time of position, acceleration is the derivative over time of velocity, and suddenly a whole bunch of things make a lot of sense.
Integrals are pretty neat too. So you want to estimate the area under a function from point a to point b. so you draw a box, and there's an area you're missing, or an area you're including but shouldn't, but it's close to the actual area underneath the function. So you think...hrm, I could use two boxes of half the width, that'd be closer to what I want to find. Then three, ten, a hundred, with the sum of the area of boxes getting closer to the actual area. Said more mathy, it'd be a to b, with a width of b-a, and each box gets a width b-a/h, and h gets infinitely large. Then we make that little limit jump again, and get a function. We do that for a couple of functions, deduce some rules, so we don't need to go through the entire process whilst integrating simple functions. a -> x + C, x -> 1/2x^2 + C for example.
With some understanding of the FTC (fundamental theorem of calculus), which roughly states that derivatives and integrals are inverse operations of each other (isn't that neat?), it again helps us make sense of things. For example, look at the equations in physics for constant accelerations: v = v_i + at, x = x_i + vt + 1/2at^2. See how v is the integral of a, and x is the integral of v? For the first one, "v_i" is the constant factor C, and "at" is what comes from the factor a. For the second one, "x_i" is the constant factor C, "vt" is "v_i" integrated, and "1/2at^2" is the integral of "at".
Calculus is super neat.
It generally worked well, with the exception of false negatives for cartoon nudity and false positives for pastrami.
> “My coauthor (asked): ‘What image do you want to use? How do you feel about the Lena image?’ And, I said ‘Definitely not.’” Her coauthor wholeheartedly agreed. And then Needell half-joked: “We should go against the grain and use a Fabio image or something, a male model.” And from there, they both decided to use the image and “take a stance.”
> “I don’t know if the Fabio image will take off but I think what it will do is… stick in people’s minds. And when they think about using the Lena image, they might think (about) using at least a neutral image.”
The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner, which they had outfitted with analog-to-digital converters (one each for the red, green, and blue channels) and a Hewlett Packard 2100 minicomputer. The Muirhead had a fixed resolution of 100 lines per inch and the engineers wanted a 512 x 512 image, so they limited the scan to the top 5.12 inches of the picture, effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders.
Cited from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/lennapg/
Then, in contrast, run some Japanese woodblocks in the Ukiyo-e style, since many of those are actually explicit. (including straight up porn woodblocks) Most Japanese woodblocks are also highly stylized as well, and it can take a moment to realize what is going on, including in some of the pornographic or hinting at the explict/could be explict/explict personalities.
I'm not going to say all Robert Mapplethorpes are safe for all work environments, nor all Japanese woodblocks, but I am curious to know if it can see the difference of person in homoerotic outfit who looks physical and gets you to notice his form, vs a Suzuki Harunobu being a bit more sly but more more explict in he is telling a story and his story is sex
In any case, we just had things like fuzzy logic, SVM's, primitive ANN's, and so on. I could describe and illustrate the patterns with ease but couldn't encode them into an algorithm for the life of me. That the modern tech created in the image set some of the same exact patterns my brain spotted is pretty amazing. The researchers also have a ton of training data to better illustrate NSFW and SFW. That they're throwing in lots of SFW is very smart as it's easier to bias this topic than most.
All I can say I keep up the good work. Been neat to see an insurmountable-on-Pentium2 problem get stomped by the CNN's. I still want to see them applied more to hunting source code defects, host forensics, and intrusions.
A classifier isn't human judgement by itself, and you need to be aware of how people view something in context. Good training images are also critical (one of the reasons why hell broke loose above were some people mastectomies were more likely to be censored than others)
Though I will admit I am very curious what happens if you throw a Robert Mapplethorpe at it.
Then everyone got censored, then the group got banned, then facebook got slammed by cancer groups and cut a deal with them to rehost cancer support groups as long as everyone stopped sharing mastectomies directly to facebook because Facebook could not specially moderate and alter feeds for those thinking about or dealing with prophylactic mastectomies. However, this issue still pops up ALL THE TIME for them on Instagram
Warning: In spanish and surely NSFW for someone: http://verne.elpais.com/verne/2016/04/19/articulo/1461073073...
Reminds me of an MMORPG guild I used to be a member of, called Fist of Innoruuk. The forum had a large background image of a fist in a (star? wreath? can't recall). One of the members was reading the forum at work when his boss walked by and asked why he was looking at a fisting forum at work: "What's a fisting forum?".
That's actually a very, very large percentage of people
> Plenty of folks don't make the suggestive links for images of this kind.
Well, not out loud.
> If you're interested in using convnets to filter NSFW images, check our NSFW API documentation to get started. https://developer.clarifai.com/guide/tag#nsfw
I know it's only a matter of training with other inputs, but most solutions I've seen haven't been trained with enough non-Caucasian images to give good results. Since this at least seems to be detecting shape regardless of skin tone it has more potential, but it'll only be as good as its training set.
I have not quantified how robust this net is in the face of noisy labels.
EDIT: Just created an account and tried it out on a test image, and it returned "nsfw" with prob 0.998, which is pretty amazing.
EDIT2: It's much less strong against oblique views, even with full color. http://40.media.tumblr.com/cfeea64370e3b1228906472ebd8f344e/... (NSFW, obviously!) only returns 0.541.
The image has a surprising history. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna for the basics.
https://www.facebook.com/images/fb_icon_325x325.png is classified as "cross", "no person", "Resurrection", "spirituality", "symbol", "religion", "god".
In all seriousness, I found this pretty interesting, as I've been toying with using RNNs to classify NSFW images on my icon conversion site. The biggest issue that I've run into is that "icons" are squarely in a different class that photographic images. For some reason the *NN networks that I've toyed with break down on classifying icons because they aren't able to easily correlate a stylistic interpretation with a real item. It kind of makes sense given how they work, but there's got to be a way to work around it...
EDIT: I see, https://clarifai.com/#demo.
 EDIT: I did not find my original link, but here is a similar paper http://www8.cs.umu.se/education/examina/Rapporter/NaeemAshfa...
What a time to be alive
Is there some way to locate areas most suitable for "enhancement" and process only those?
I find this hilarious for reasons that are off topic on HN and politically inflammatory.
There certainly can be a bot that pays more attention to any feature the programmer instructs it to, but to what purpose? What is the bot supposed to do with this particular stream of bits that was just promoted to its attention?
If the answer is, "stop other productive work and waste CPU cycles" that says a lot more about what "turns on" the programmer than about the program itself.
Things that turn on and distract an AI would be things found in their positive training data. Nudity wouldn't work, but if you train an AI for long enough, it might develop some interesting 'fetishes'.
Most realistic scenario: A new startup releases a 100% neural net based OS. Microsoft and Apple are implementing their own NNs but they struggle to keep up - until Cortana finds out that sex sells...
I don't think though that men can create neural nets that simulate the brain of woman ;-)
> A reader emailed to complain about how this and other HN discussions often become derailed by off-topic carping about blog design. I agree completely. Could there be a more classic form of bikeshedding? It would seem parodic if it weren't sadly real. This has become more of a thing on HN lately. It needs to become less of a thing.
I don't know why some websites hijack scroll events. What are they trying to achieve? A better scrolling experience? Almost every time, it makes it a lot more frustrating.
Browsers have options to disable smooth scrolling for a reason. Please don't force it back on.
fwiw I have the same content on my personal blog which shouldn't do anything with your scrolling http://ryancompton.net/2016/04/19/what-convolutional-neural-...
Your personal blog is much more readable, thanks :)
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11530734 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11530336 and marked it off-topic.
but if demand is strong then exploitation should go down by economics.
Exploitation is rife in all society, the US is unusual in that the welfare state encourages exploitation of the poor. Restaurant staff getting paid $5 an hour in Florida for instance. 
But back to your question :
> Have you ever wondered if the women that you're classifying have any reservations about being exposed for your titillation
I provided you with direct evidence that the answer was "no". You seem to have shifted the question to "exploitation" not "reservation".
JJ famously called out the industry but she seems to have few reservations about going back.
This really does not make you question at all how much they want to appear to be happy in porn even if they really aren't? How can you possibly tell apart those who are happy from those who aren't? And if they are appearing in porn without really wanting to, how can you jerk off to them with a clear conscience?
So my conscience is as clean as buying a cup of coffee from someone who hates being a barista.
I am sorry for people who are exploited in all walks of life, porn just happens to be one of those.
How can you use a computer ? Or any of the plethora of stuff made in the third world.
Porn is here to stay. Hounding and demonising it makes the situation worse, not better.