4 ms·

I feel like this paper reads part like a paper on AI and like a marketing piece humble brag, “back in 2014 when we were doing X” which seems like its trying to

I feel like this paper reads part like a paper on AI and like a marketing piece humble brag, “back in 2014 when we were doing X” which seems like its trying to say “we’ve been doing DNN image face before Google and Facebook made it popular”. But if you read papers from Google, FB, MS, et al on AI, they don’t have these kinds of humble brags and they contain far more citations of previous work in the field.

googleAI 9y ago
The entire rebranding of Google to being about "AI" is marketing. All in service of driving sales to Google Cloud.
bllguo 9y ago
That seems like a particularly cynical reading :) I can't say I got the same impression.
lloeki 9y ago
Could that one refer the the Photos.app (was it in iPhoto already?) feature that matches faces?
threeseed 9y ago
Back in 2014 teams at Apple weren't allowed to release papers. If they were you wouldn't be making this comment since you would be including Apple in the list of companies who do this. Not that this is even a paper. And who cares about Google, Facebook anyway ? They never invented this technology nor were they even the first to incorporate it in shipping products.
amelius 9y ago
Well, the way Apple publishes their results means that other people always have to refer to the "Apple Journal" when they cite those results. Wheareas Apple does not refer to articles published by Google and Facebook in that way (by naming them). There's no single reference to Google or Facebook on that blog (or journal, as they like to call it).
ucaetano 9y ago
Yep, plenty of it: However, due to Apple’s strong commitment to user privacy, we couldn’t use iCloud servers for computer vision computations. Every photo and video sent to iCloud Photo Library is encrypted on the device before it is sent to cloud storage, and can only be decrypted by devices that are registered with the iCloud account
- sarreph 9y ago
  What do you want them to say? Something like "We didn't use an already-existing, massive database of ours because [REDACTED]." Despite my somewhat facetious alternative, I am genuinely interested in how you think they could have worded that 'better'.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    They could have matter of factly just described their algorithm. How many papers do you read from ACM that start off with a long, marketing oriented set of paragraphs to justify why the paper's algorithm was written? Let if you're reading a paper on style transfer using DNN, you don't get "Well, we wanted to paint replicas of these paintings, but due to corporate issues, our motto, or our lack of impressionists, we were forced to invent this algorithm..." I just felt like there was an excess of Apple branding and marketing in what's supposed to be a scientific paper. Yes, Google does this too, but on it's blogs, not in the actual CS papers it publishes. The papers on Map Reduce or Dremel aren't full of humble brags.
    - threeseed 9y ago
      This isn't a research paper. Apple never claimed it to be one. It's not in some scientific journal. It's not peer reviewed. It doesn't contain any level of detail. It lacks any of the sort of norms you would expect from a paper. It's even hosted on Apple.com in a blog style format. So why are you holding it to a research paper standard ?
      - cromwellian 9y ago
doe88 9y ago
I can be mistaking myself but I read more this article like a technical blog post than a paper. It seems to me it is more akin of the usual technical blog posts written by big tech companies than the writing of a paper formally submitted to an academic journal.

googleAI 9y ago

The entire rebranding of Google to being about "AI" is marketing. All in service of driving sales to Google Cloud.

bllguo 9y ago

That seems like a particularly cynical reading :) I can't say I got the same impression.

lloeki 9y ago

Could that one refer the the Photos.app (was it in iPhoto already?) feature that matches faces?

threeseed 9y ago

Back in 2014 teams at Apple weren't allowed to release papers. If they were you wouldn't be making this comment since you would be including Apple in the list of companies who do this. Not that this is even a paper. And who cares about Google, Facebook anyway ? They never invented this technology nor were they even the first to incorporate it in shipping products.

amelius 9y ago

Well, the way Apple publishes their results means that other people always have to refer to the "Apple Journal" when they cite those results. Wheareas Apple does not refer to articles published by Google and Facebook in that way (by naming them). There's no single reference to Google or Facebook on that blog (or journal, as they like to call it).

ucaetano 9y ago

Yep, plenty of it: However, due to Apple’s strong commitment to user privacy, we couldn’t use iCloud servers for computer vision computations. Every photo and video sent to iCloud Photo Library is encrypted on the device before it is sent to cloud storage, and can only be decrypted by devices that are registered with the iCloud account

sarreph 9y ago
What do you want them to say? Something like "We didn't use an already-existing, massive database of ours because [REDACTED]." Despite my somewhat facetious alternative, I am genuinely interested in how you think they could have worded that 'better'.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  They could have matter of factly just described their algorithm. How many papers do you read from ACM that start off with a long, marketing oriented set of paragraphs to justify why the paper's algorithm was written? Let if you're reading a paper on style transfer using DNN, you don't get "Well, we wanted to paint replicas of these paintings, but due to corporate issues, our motto, or our lack of impressionists, we were forced to invent this algorithm..." I just felt like there was an excess of Apple branding and marketing in what's supposed to be a scientific paper. Yes, Google does this too, but on it's blogs, not in the actual CS papers it publishes. The papers on Map Reduce or Dremel aren't full of humble brags.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    This isn't a research paper. Apple never claimed it to be one. It's not in some scientific journal. It's not peer reviewed. It doesn't contain any level of detail. It lacks any of the sort of norms you would expect from a paper. It's even hosted on Apple.com in a blog style format. So why are you holding it to a research paper standard ?
    - cromwellian 9y ago

doe88 9y ago

I can be mistaking myself but I read more this article like a technical blog post than a paper. It seems to me it is more akin of the usual technical blog posts written by big tech companies than the writing of a paper formally submitted to an academic journal.