3 ms·
It seems like there wouldn't be a lot of room for false positives in what you're suggesting. Assuming that the pictures aren't all passport photos (face-on, hi
by prospero 18y ago
It seems like there wouldn't be a lot of room for false positives in what you're suggesting. Assuming that the pictures aren't all passport photos (face-on, high resolution, uniform lighting), there would be a lot of hand-holding required on the part of the user to get high accuracy on the matches.
You could make the user interaction straightforward, with some iterative attempt at matching face A with profile picture B (if the user nixes the match, the program would note that and try again), but that's still non-trivial. I don't know that it'd be worth the trouble.
- joshwa 18y agoI'm imagining the interaction to be a little like a bayesian spam filter-- a training period, followed by occasional corrections. The UX is key, as you indicated-- imagine a nice tight grid of matches for one person (each cropped to just the face area), and you can click each picture to toggle yes/no, with perhaps some more advanced interaction possible for algorithm-specific training (indicating angle, or eye position, or a sunglasses yes/no toggle).
- prospero 18y agoIt's actually pretty straightforward to detect a face; most mid-range digital cameras can do it nowadays. The problem is that even if you tell the program that face A is not face B, all you've done is given it a very small hint in a VERY big problem space. The human brain is hard-wired to detect faces (newborn babies prefer to look at pictures of human faces rather than colorful shapes), which I think makes it feel like an easier problem than it actually is. That being said, don't let me stop you from trying. It would definitely be a cool (and very saleable) bit of tech.