That’s a very interesting take. Gmail has always had one of the better spam filters in my experience. I absolutely remember when common wisdom was that if you were inundated with spam, one way to help was to forward email to a gmail box and have its spam filters run on it.
Even today, I see very few false positives and false negatives.
It turns out that making a machine that is capable of determining the difference between actual legitimate messages and messages pretending to be legitimate is a really difficult problem to solve
Considering that most of the difference between “wanted” and “unwanted” content depends entirely on the user, I’m surprised systems like these even work as well as they do.
Yeah no shit, 20 years of gmails ‘s complete inability to determine spam from real email is testament to this
That’s a very interesting take. Gmail has always had one of the better spam filters in my experience. I absolutely remember when common wisdom was that if you were inundated with spam, one way to help was to forward email to a gmail box and have its spam filters run on it.
Even today, I see very few false positives and false negatives.
YMMV of course.
It turns out that making a machine that is capable of determining the difference between actual legitimate messages and messages pretending to be legitimate is a really difficult problem to solve
Well we are also trusting an advertising company to filter out ads.
they have an interest in filtering out ads they weren’t paid for tho
Considering that most of the difference between “wanted” and “unwanted” content depends entirely on the user, I’m surprised systems like these even work as well as they do.
In no small part because of adversarial training.