Artificial Intelligence vs Human Intelligence

We all have views on AI, usually polarised, and I have to admit when confronted with a chatbot mine becomes very polarised, especially when I have to "ask" three times to contact a human being. Of course the problem here is that the software involved is usually as cheap as possible and the bot only "understands" what is programmed in to it.  However, as ever the overall situation is not black and white, and there is some extremely sophisticated and useful AI which we use happily without even thinking about it. From a birder's point of view using photo processing software gives a whole new dimension, not only to what I've just taken, but more importantly, to those poor shots which I took on slide film, such as Slender-billed Curlew, and a completely black (silhouetted) Parrot which I took years ago. In the eyes of a photographer it may be cheating, but I've always been a birder with a camera, so I don't care. I am just thankful I digitised my slides before throwing them away. I can't wait to get some better software which will improve things even more, but I have just upgraded my PC to accept it as it needs more modern hardware. 

Of course, there's always a downside to everything. If you are a photographer you aren't producing what you photographed, although cameras themselves use very sophisticated software which makes it easy anyway. I don't understand why people strive for perfection when photographing a bird, but each to their own. Plenty of my photos have been on the web or in books and magazines, and if people don't like them they don't have to look at them (but they will, because they're birders). To me there are two big issues with using AI to process photos. Firstly the nonsensical production of garishly coloured images bearing no relation to reality. At least one Facebook group I've joined bans them, but some people seem to enjoy them. I note increasing use of the term "digital creator". Many people asking to friend me on FB describe themselves as such, but personally I find the term worrying in its implications. I suppose that's my age, but most people I meet are just like me, birders, often with a camera these days. The second issue is that of colour, especially when processing a photo of, say, a Phylloscopus warbler. Apart from the fact that people perceive colours differently anyway, if you haven't really looked at that bird in the wild how do you know the image is correct, and AI can't help with that.


 Which brings me to a really big issue with AI, which is identification apps. I am not against them, since in some cases they are invaluable, such as mothing. What used to take hours looking through identification guides now takes minutes, and provided you check the suggested id it is far better than me. I can even identify micro-moths now, because I don't know much about them. But I cannot bring myself to use a bird app, let alone binoculars which tell you what you're looking at. Sound is a different matter, because I've always been poor at remembering calls, plus my hearing isn't good. But being a birder, to me, means learning by experience, and taking pride in being able to identify more difficult species. It is said you never stop learning, and it's true, but if you rely on AI you don't learn, you just tick aother species on your list. Too many people now don't own field guides, I went to Chile not that long ago (1990) when the only guide available was in black and white and Spanish. I translated the bird names and colours in the descriptions, but a friend went as far as trying to colour them in! I sat on the flight home and to pass the time tried to write down the 300 species we had seen from memory. I got to 298, but I still remember what most of them look like. 

If you want to use an app to identify your birds then that's fine, but I just wish that people wouldn't send records to e-bird  or anywhere else without confirming them for themselves. A friend of mine, leading a tour, recently pointed out a species, and a participant checked it on Merlin! Someone at the Bird Fair who markets apps tried to explain it to me, but it takes little for AI to get it wrong, and it often does. I recently did some "experiments" using Obsidentify. I use it for moths and it's generally very good. But if the probability is less than 95% you cannot rely on it, although it does give some amusement. I often find re-taking a photo, or using a different image, makes a difference, but I photographed a Brown-tail, and put it in for fun. Among the 16 possible identifications were Brown-tail (58%), Long-eared and Western Barn Owls, Beech Marten, Badger, and Striped Snail. The correct ID didn't even appear for the first two shots, only when I changed the angle. Always check if you aren't familiar with the species. If this sounds arrogant, I make mistakes, but will admit to them. AI won't.


 I'm sure AI will improve, but in the same way that muscles degenerate if not used, what of our eyes and brains?


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
  Forty Years a Twitcher We all twitch to a certain extent, it is merely travelling to see a new bird, but the term in birding circles, as opposed to the media, still implies a certain effort, beyond normal birding. Many people twitch occasionally, there is a great range from obsessive, going for everything twitching to local county twitching, or occasional when it's a bird you particularly want to see. In my case it's now the last category, but in the last part of the 20th century Ann and I were pretty much full-on twitchers. However, as in everything, twitching has changed. We used to get derogatory comments about "other people's birds" and people going to see birds they'd never heard of, now it's about carbon footprints. But sadly, the one thing that has changed is-it's not so much fun. At one time, everybody knew everybody (or knew of them), and complete strangers would jump in each others cars at the drop of a hat to go and see a rarity. Most of t...
Read more
Image
Owls on social media and in real life "I love owls!" -you've heard it a thousand times. But some people don't, and many cultures hold owls to be harbingers of doom or similar. I won't dwell on that, but I think others dislike owls too - the AI brigade. How can you transform a beautiful bird from its natural plumage to some garish multicoloured effigy, and then post it in a so-called owl lovers group? The same applies to other species, but owls seem to be particular targets. I wouldn't want to stop anyone doing what they wish to do, and thankfully, I have found a group which specifically bans any artificially created images. I know I'm getting on a bit, but I'm sure I get more pleasure and sense of satisfaction from painting or photographing owls. When I started birding if you wanted to see an owl you had to find it yourself, or find someone who would show you one. One of the last regular British birds I saw was Long-eared owl, but things are obviously ...
Read more
Image
 World Curlews Earlier this week was apparently World Curlew Day. Naturally the media weren't interested as it wasn't anything shallow or pointless. So I thought I'd do a blog about Curlews which many of you will already know, but you can just look at the pictures! There are nine species of Curlew or Whimbrel, all in the genus Numenius , although some taxonomists would argue that Eurasian and Hudsonian Whimbrel are conspecific, an argument that's been going on for years. Many years ago Little Curlew (then called Whimbrel) was sometimes considered conspecific with Eskimo Curlew, whether that was clutching at straws in view of its imminent extinction we'll never know, but I think DNA has established they weren't the same species, so it will just be another extinction to add to the "hunted-out" list. I was lucky enough to see these on a trip to see Tuamotu Sandpiper, arranged by Dave Rosair and Wildwings. We were lucky with the timing as birds become fli...
Read more