[daavoo]

> But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly.

Hi, I am the author.

The demo app and any provided code example includes a step asking a human to verify the detected features. You can't upload them automatically unless you modify the source code.

I reiterate the human verification across the docs, linked post, and any code samples.

I haven't ever uploaded features automatically. In fact I manually edited and labeled hundreds of swimming pool samples myself before even training the first version.

Happy to hear and implement any ideas on how to improve the process to prevent automated features to be uploaded.

I know some people might say: just don't publish the tool, I think we can do better at embracing AI and having an open discussion.

[boredpudding]

I don't understand the 'human verification' aspect.

Your docs show a simple image where the user can choose to keep a new object or not. [0] Afterwards it says: "The ones you chose to keep will be uploaded to OpenStreetMap using upload_osm.". This is uploading features automatically. The fact that it asks 'are you sure' is just silly. We all know if humans have to click yes 90% of the time, and no 10% of the time, they'll miss a lot of no's.

The image also proofs that:

- You don't see any polygons properly. You just see a an image of where the pool is. Already on the image I can see that if the polygons align to that image, it will be a total mess.

- You don't see any polygons further away from the object.

Both these points are in stereo's reply that the resulted data was a mess.

Please consider pulling the project. This will generate a lot of data that volunteers will have to check and revert.

[0] https://github.com/mozilla-ai/osm-ai-helper/blob/main/docs/s...

[daavoo]

> This will generate a lot of data that volunteers will have to check and revert.

This is just not true. The data can be easily identified with the `created_by` tag. And I have been reviewing myself any data uploaded with the demo (with a clear different criteria on what is good enough)

[yorwba]

> Happy to hear and implement any ideas on how to improve the process to prevent automated features to be uploaded.

Idea: do not automatically create features that a human can simply approve, instead require them to draw the polygon themselves.

[K2h]

long time editor of osm here. what you describe is what the rapid [1] editor from meta does where user is forced to manually select objects overlayed sat imagery. is limited to 50 objects before user must push. a great method i think

[1] https://rapideditor.org/

[daavoo]

That is what I will implement before bringing back the demo https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43448649

[IshKebab]

That kind of defeats the point surely?

[halosghost]

I am afraid your “human in the loop” isn't [0].

You acknowledge the problem of AI slop up-front, but seem to have chosen to plow forward anyway. Please do consider your actions and their effects carefully [1]. You are in a position of potential influence; try not to squander it.

All the best,

-HG

[0]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/

[1]: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/radical.pdf

[Vinnl]

"plow forward" and implying they didn't consider their actions and their effects seem ungenerous, given the list of precautions in the comment you're replying to.

You can disagree on whether the measures are effective, of course, but they're clearly not thoughtless.

[hgomersall]

Tracing satellite data is really boring to do but easy to check. I would describe AI acting as a centaur here, or perhaps a pairing of equals.

[necovek]

I believe your critique would be more valuable if you've actually uncovered cases where the human in the loop missed these issues and bad or "wobbly" data ended up in the OSM database: did this happen? (the other comment from another person confirms it has)

Otherwise, you are discounting their effort based on a prejudice — others might be unable to supervise an AI, but someone who's actually developed it might have a better chance of success.

[akimbostrawman]

I know at this point it's almost one of Mozilla's mottos to be horrible at communication but how come nobody felt the need to maybe talk about stuff like this before publishing it?