36 ms·
This is a paper that was published in CVPR (Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition). In that context it is unambiguous that CNN means Convolution
by usmannk 7y ago
This is a paper that was published in CVPR (Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition). In that context it is unambiguous that CNN means Convolutional Neural Networks.
- pedrocx486 7y agoIn that context, yes. But in the context of (eg) a person that just happened to drop here on HN for a quick read, it makes no sense in the headline.
- jiofih 7y agoWelcome to hacker news.
- GEBBL 7y agoSomeone who scanned the front page and didn’t delve into these comments might infere that the American news network CNN artificially generate images for their news stories. That’s how I picked this up.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoWhere artificially generated images are improbable. Oh wait. Also, let me quote the linked page: > malicious use of fake imagery is likely be deployed on a social media platform Nope, that couldn't possibly relate to any news network. Never never never gonna admit that!
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoWhere would you draw the line though? Would you want the same for e.g. HTML? HTTP? HN? YC? I mean personally I'm all in favor of more usage - or even automatic insertion - of the `<abbr>` tag. Can probably be done with a browser addon as well.
- m12k 7y agoOne relatively easy to draw line is whether the abbreviation has other commonly used meanings. CNN has, while none of HTML, HTTP, HN or YC do.
- kristopolous 7y ago"CNN generated Image" sounds like "Images generated by the Cable News Network, CNN" as if the corporation has some software/policy for editing and prepping images in a way they can be detected. It's not so absurd, photojournalism can be quite specific in rules. The ability to classify photos by news outlet based on identifying their photojournalism rules through computer algorithms sounds like a remarkably clever idea. HTML doesn't have that ambiguity.
- saystupidthings 7y agoLmao imagine seeing "CNN generated images" and thinking it was the news channel.
- kerakaali 7y agoI wonder if part of an issue is the generation gap? For older readers, I imagine that they're much more familiar with CNN referring to the Cable News Network. Whereas for younger readers heavily involved in tech, me included, we aren't as heavily tied to the former abbreviation, so CNN referring to neural networks comes more readily to mind.
- deepnet 7y agoI found CNN a bit confusing, even though I did guess it meant Convolutional Neural Net. Perhaps my pre-caffeine morning brain is overly pedantic but Generative Nets use deconvolutions to generate images from latent codes, so using CNN rather than GAN (Generative Adversarial Network) is a bit confusing in this context. CNNs are used by VAEs (Variational AutoEncoders, also generative) use convolutions to produce the latent codes and the discriminator (adversarial) part of GAN training uses convolutions. I think Generative Networks ( or GNNs ;-) ) would perhaps have been clearer.
- p1esk 7y agoGANs use transposed convolutions to generate images. I haven’t seen anyone use a true deconvolution operation in deep learning. Not even sure it’s possible to invert the result of a convolutional layer, because it’s lossy.
- lp251 7y ago"Transposed convolution" was called "deconvolution" for a short period of time. The authors apparently weren't aware that "deconvolution" has meant "the inverse problem of recovering a convolved signal" since at least the 70s.
- rplnt 7y agoNot really, I just thought that CNN (the news network) uses generated images in their articles. The topic about recognizing them, or even generating them, would make sense in CVPR.
- mihaaly 7y agoEither the paper should not be presented elsewhere or should speak out the meaning! Did they really hoped for that their paper will remain in a specific group of experts? I seriously doubt so.
- taytus 7y agoYeah, we are not in that context, aren't we?
- pmelendez 7y agoAlso, the original authors are not necessarily the ones that posted it in here.
- notatoad 7y agoIf that were their justification, they wouldn't need to define the acronym in the paper. However, in the introduction section of the actual paper they do define CNN. But they use the acronym 9 times before defining it, which is what's kinda weird. And the website isn't published in the CVPR, it's published on the internet.