Anyone Using Artificial Intelligence With Their Gold Detectors?

[GB_Amateur]

1 hour ago, Ben201000 said:

It goes through the set amount of data millions of times.

We may be getting "too deep into the weeds" or discussing something that is less important than much that has been written in other posts.  At the risk of this...

Plowing through limited data too many times leads to a well-known machine learning flaw known as 'overfitting'.  The resulting model does well if you give it one of the events from the training sample, but if that training set doesn't cover the space of existing conditions very well it can be way off while give the misleading impression it's accurate.

[jasong]

Inertial navigation using accelerometers and then dead reckoning is far more accurate than GPS for moving systems. It's sufficient for things like general ground sensing. When used in combination with mag sensors and coil data, you could achieve sub-inch resolution easily. 

Essentially you would make the ground it's own reference frame while swinging the coil using inertial navigation, and then tie that high resolution work "chunk" to a traditional lat/lon reference frame via GPS. 

[Dutchman4]

I might be old school, probably because I am old, but for me I like to be in control of the high level intelligence elements.  Sure ground balance, ground tracking, EMI elimination are great features to have and enable the detector and the detectorist to focus on the actual signals of interest but I enjoy training my ears and my mind to learn the sounds of a gold target vs trash or ground noise and it is this element of the hobby that gives me excitement, pleasure and joy.  Each gold field can produce slightly different target sounds and again part of the challenge/fun is to learn those sounds and develop the skill to predict if a pre-dug target is going to be gold or trash.  I still tend to dig most targets anyway but after a few hours of digging trash targets in a particular area I get satisfaction from knowing that I can reach a 90%+ probability of predicting gold vs trash.  IMO it is this HUMAN intelligence skill that differentiates great detectorists from average ones. 

I do enjoy the convenience of technology for every day tasks but I have observed over my lifetime that as technology get smarter the human get dumber.  After Velcro came out kids forgot how to tie their shoes.  After google maps came out people forgot how to read maps.  Even common sense has fallen by the wayside when you read stories of people that are so reliant on technology that they can't even solve simple every day problems. 

Sure the computing power behind AI learning can achieve things in hours or days that would take the human brain years or decades to learn but I will never underestimate to power of the human mind that is a result of thousands of years of evolution in the REAL world. 

Do you really want an AI based, all knowing, detector to reduce you down to the mere unintelligent functions of swinging and digging? 

[Chase Goldman]

6 minutes ago, Dutchman4 said:

Do you really want an AI based, all knowing, detector to reduce you down to the mere unintelligent functions of swinging and digging? 

Depends on whether I am doing it for fun or profit, I suppose.  

[1515Art]

At the risk of demonstrating just how little I know and understand any of this discussion l believe that it would be possible to build a detector capable of seeing and interpreting accurately signatures from an unknown object and identify through this a gold nugget or any other object, but I suspect not by doing the same thing as we do now gathering  data in the same way we always have.

A larger database of more of the same information is constrained by its own limitations, much like determining an objects color from looking at a variety of black and white photographs at different angels and different resolution it can tell you only so much the color always a guess interpolating an answer from incomplete information. The current state of the art technology is well exploited, refined and developed advances are baby steps bringing improvement fine tuning information the same way it’s always done even GZP is a signal timing differences not that different from PI I suspect just processed slightly different.

We will need to add something new to the game, we have one finger now pointing at the ground, VLF, PI and GPZ  our black and white images from these technologies all see objects but due to the variety in objects  their relative location in the ground  the state they are in even within the same element cause so much overlap the best we can do is guess. New led old led, bits of led snow flake after snow flake all looking similar all different. The technology works amazingly at what it does just separating an object out from a huge volume of surrounding noise but something more we’ll need like looking with multi frequency only the frequency will need to gather clues from a different perspective that adds significantly different information?

OK, I have no idea of what I’m talking about and I’ll leave this to you smart guys to figure out, but I’m sure glad someone invented metal detectors.

[Chase Goldman]

27 minutes ago, 1515Art said:

At the risk of demonstrating just how little I know and understand any of this discussion l believe that it would be possible to build a detector capable of seeing and interpreting accurately signatures from an unknown object and identify through this a gold nugget or any other object, but I suspect not by doing the same thing as we do now gathering  data in the same way we always have.

A larger database of more of the same information is constrained by its own limitations, much like determining an objects color from looking at a variety of black and white photographs at different angels and different resolution it can tell you only so much the color always a guess interpolating an answer from incomplete information. The current state of the art technology is well exploited, refined and developed advances are baby steps bringing improvement fine tuning information the same way it’s always done even GZP is a signal timing differences not that different from PI I suspect just processed slightly different.

We will need to add something new to the game, we have one finger now pointing at the ground, VLF, PI and GPZ  our black and white images from these technologies all see objects but due to the variety in objects  their relative location in the ground  the state they are in even within the same element cause so much overlap the best we can do is guess. New led old led, bits of led snow flake after snow flake all looking similar all different. The technology works amazingly at what it does just separating an object out from a huge volume of surrounding noise but something more we’ll need like looking with multi frequency only the frequency will need to gather clues from a different perspective that adds significantly different information?

OK, I have no idea of what I’m talking about and I’ll leave this to you smart guys to figure out, but I’m sure glad someone invented metal detectors.

Like I said previously, we are not going to see a step change in capability without moving away from Induction-based technology.  It's pretty much tapped out and all we are doing is polishing a cannonball while adding bells and whistles to it.

[Sourdough Scott]

I'd be curious to see how AI could be applied to geology and mapping of ancient gold bearing rivers? From what we have now to what geologists have previously discovered and published their findings. Possibly could be a useful tool in future gold patch hunting. 

[GotAU?]

As for accurately mapping where a detector coil has been, here’s a paper describing using a PDA and a camera to precisely map out the coil position and it creates a low resolution outline image of the target as the coil scans it. The primary use for the system was intended for UXO detecting, but it may be useful for relict detecting as well.  They even use the system for object recognition, but it would be useful for small targets though.  As for hardware, I’d think any new smartphone has the capability to do this, as the researchers who made the system were using a basic PDA and camera to do it.

I posted about it here previously:

https://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt2006/doc/Tu.4.5.4.pdf

More Here:

 

[1515Art]

43 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Like I said previously, we are not going to see a step change in capability without moving away from Induction-based technology.  It's pretty much tapped out and all we are doing is polishing a cannonball while adding bells and whistles to it.

Sorry if I’m restating a view previously expressed, not my intention… I picked back up on a thought from last night that needed more time in the oven before it was ready to slice and serve, only skimming new entries.