[News] Soccer AI FAILS and mixes up ball and referee's bald head.
deep learning machine learning arxiv explained neural networks ai artificial intelligence paper soccer camera fail head bald ball tracking computer vision hough transform ethics broader impact statement
#ai #tech #news

This soccer camera is operated by an AI to track the ball. However, the AI has an interesting failure mode and repeatedly mixes up the ball with the bald head of a referee. This raises some interesting questions about the role of ethics in AI research.

Footage from SPFL Championship : ICTFC 1 v 1 AYR : 24/10/2020

Links:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/yannickilcher
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ykilcher
Discord: https://discord.gg/4H8xxDF
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/yannic-kilcher
Minds: https://www.minds.com/ykilcher
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/YannicKilcher
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yannic-kilcher-488534136/

If you want to support me, the best thing to do is to share out the content :)

If you want to support me financially (completely optional and voluntary, but a lot of people have asked for this):
SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/yannickilcher
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/yannickilcher
Bitcoin (BTC): bc1q49lsw3q325tr58ygf8sudx2dqfguclvngvy2cq
Ethereum (ETH): 0x7ad3513E3B8f66799f507Aa7874b1B0eBC7F85e2
Litecoin (LTC): LQW2TRyKYetVC8WjFkhpPhtpbDM4Vw7r9m
Monero (XMR): 4ACL8AGrEo5hAir8A9CeVrW8pEauWvnp1WnSDZxW7tziCDLhZAGsgzhRQABDnFy8yuM9fWJDviJPHKRjV4FWt19CJZN9D4n
 So there is this recording of the soccer match which is quite interesting because the camera of the match is AI controlled which just means that it's programmed to track the ball. Now it tracks the ball by visual features and what's funny about this particular one is that the AI switches constantly between the ball and the bald head of one of the referees which if you look at it looks exactly alike especially in low resolution at which I guess the camera would operate on. Yeah if you haven't seen it go look at it is quite funny but it highlights a more interesting point. Technology fails. Now this particular system it's probably not very much AI it's not very smart I can guess that it's very standard kind of feature extractor maybe something like a Huff Transform with a few sift or surf features here and there to look at the color things and kind of low level information to track the ball. It's usually enough and it's probably more robust than deep learning let's be honest here but while this instance is funny a lot of times when these systems fail they have bad or even catastrophic consequences. Let's say a self-driving car mixes up a head of a child consequences can be quite grave so I would like to put this to the sort of people who advocate for having things like broader impact statements in papers and saying that the entire AI research process should be filled with considerations of ethics to the end application. We all agree that these things can fail but let's take this particular instance right here. If this system is trained at all it's probably not trained on too many bald heads and therefore simply mixes up the ball in the bald head because it looks almost the same. Interestingly enough this is one of the situations where the system disproportionately often fails for white men but let's leave that out of the picture for now. Where in this process exactly should someone step in and say wait this is ethically concerning should the inventor of the Huff Transform I don't know who that was maybe Alfred Huff? Paul Huff. Say huh you know if my system detects circles in images then obviously the negative consequences could be that it mixes up a head with a ball. Interestingly enough the Wikipedia page of the circle Huff Transform says that it can be used to detect people's heads. I just thought that was funny. Where in the process except at the end when someone actually takes the technology and puts it into a camera that person should consider the failure modes knowing what the technology is about. To go to the inventor of a circle detector and expect from them to predict kind of these negative outcomes is ludicrous. I'm sorry try to write the broader impact statement for the Huff Transform. Doubt you would have come up with this failure mode or anything similar to it if it hadn't actually happened and you shouldn't. Like circle detectors are useful and they sometimes fail and when they fail we'll deal with it. After all even with the best broader impact statement this wouldn't have been prevented. That was just my two cents. Go check it out have fun bye bye.
 So there is this recording of the soccer match which is quite interesting because the camera
 of the match is AI controlled which just means that it's programmed to track the ball. Now it
 tracks the ball by visual features and what's funny about this particular one is that the AI
 switches constantly between the ball and the bald head of one of the referees which if you look at
 it looks exactly alike especially in low resolution at which I guess the camera would operate on.
 Yeah if you haven't seen it go look at it is quite funny but it highlights a more interesting
 point. Technology fails. Now this particular system it's probably not very much AI it's not very smart
 I can guess that it's very standard kind of feature extractor maybe something like a Huff Transform
 with a few sift or surf features here and there to look at the color things and kind of
 low level information to track the ball. It's usually enough and it's probably more robust than
 deep learning let's be honest here but while this instance is funny a lot of times when these
 systems fail they have bad or even catastrophic consequences. Let's say a self-driving car mixes
 up a head of a child consequences can be quite grave so I would like to put this to the sort
 of people who advocate for having things like broader impact statements in papers and saying
 that the entire AI research process should be filled with considerations of ethics to
 the end application. We all agree that these things can fail but let's take this particular
 instance right here. If this system is trained at all it's probably not trained on too many bald
 heads and therefore simply mixes up the ball in the bald head because it looks almost the same.
 Interestingly enough this is one of the situations where the system disproportionately often fails
 for white men but let's leave that out of the picture for now. Where in this process exactly
 should someone step in and say wait this is ethically concerning should the inventor of
 the Huff Transform I don't know who that was maybe Alfred Huff? Paul Huff. Say huh you know
 if my system detects circles in images then obviously the negative consequences could be
 that it mixes up a head with a ball. Interestingly enough the Wikipedia page of the circle Huff
 Transform says that it can be used to detect people's heads. I just thought that was funny.
 Where in the process except at the end when someone actually takes the technology and puts
 it into a camera that person should consider the failure modes knowing what the technology is about.
 To go to the inventor of a circle detector and expect from them to predict kind of these negative
 outcomes is ludicrous. I'm sorry try to write the broader impact statement for the Huff Transform.
 Doubt you would have come up with this failure mode or anything similar to it if it hadn't
 actually happened and you shouldn't. Like circle detectors are useful and they sometimes fail
 and when they fail we'll deal with it. After all even with the best broader impact statement this
 wouldn't have been prevented. That was just my two cents. Go check it out have fun bye bye.