3 ms·
The drawback of this method is that it's easy to miss a pedestrian amidst the sea of rectangles already drawn. You would be far better off paying people $x/hou
by floatingatoll 7y ago
The drawback of this method is that it's easy to miss a pedestrian amidst the sea of rectangles already drawn.
You would be far better off paying people $x/hour to look at an image for 30 seconds and answer the question "Does this image have any people in it?" Y/N and watching for the human who says "Yes" when the AI says "No".
Their accuracy rating will help distinguish who is best able to detect pedestrians that AI and other people missed (and who is just random-clicking Y/N for pay), and their group effort will ensure that someone eventually sees the pedestrian, even if no one else has.
Asking them to draw boxes distracts them from their job, which is "verify that we are able to detect human beings with perfect accuracy vs. a hundred people trying to detect human beings".
(At worst, ask them to click on the person. No need for a box. Either it's a person or it isn't. If it is, and your AI missed it, then what they think is the right kind of box to draw is the least of your concerns.)
- DrStalker 7y agoWhy pay people to do this when you can make a CAPTCHA that requires them to do it for free? Google must have a really good data set from all those "click the boxes containing X" tests they make people do.
- floatingatoll 7y agoMost people don't have the funds on hand to use predatory pricing^ tactics to train machine learning algorithms. ^ "the pricing of goods or services at such a low level that other suppliers cannot compete and are forced to leave the market", to quote Google's definition (that was itself taken from some other company's dataset).
- TomVDB 7y agoBoth methods aren't mutually exclusive.