The article doesn't distinguish the models accuracy in terms of true positive, false positive, true negative or false negative. Just 99%. At a guess I would say it has a high false negative rate, to boost its true positive rate for headlines.
How does it tell good terrorists from bad terrorists?
CNN cannot even recognize North Korean propaganda at the Olympics
AI magically recognizes with 99% accuracy an abstract concept that cannot even be described or characterized with even any accuracy.....I'm more than a little skeptical of these ridiculous claims.
Terrorist Propaganda = Information my government didnt write.
The Original article from a few days ago said the government is touting it as being 99% effective. But there’s been no proof. And I’m sure it was even less that 99%
Reminds me of a thing I forgot to save last week (for this reason) where they have little mini drones kill you based on the hashtags you tweet.
ok, but what percent of communications are terrorist communications...that's...important.
if, say...20% was terrorist communications and this found them with 99% accuracy, so:
p(e|h)=(.99*.2)/(.2*.99+.8*.01)=0.96, or about 96% accuracy...pretty good..if 20% of all communications were terrorists...if...say...0.01% of all communications were terrorist though:
p(e|h)=(0.99*0.0001)/(0.0001*0.99+0.9999*.01)=0.009 or about 0.98% accuracy.
so the question is: what percent of communications are terrorist communications?
Not seen any terrorist propaganda in months, not actively looking for it but has been a while
Hopefully this is only the beginning of a slippery slope and we will soon all be able to censor views we disagree with. Yay! I'd start with disappearing all religions from the internet. Cleanse the internet of religion.