4 ms·
To be fair, that particular comic's 5 year task was solved shortly after it was posted, at least in part to prove it was wrong.
by pqdfdsaff 7y ago
To be fair, that particular comic's 5 year task was solved shortly after it was posted, at least in part to prove it was wrong.
- gmiller123456 7y agoWithout having heard of or tested the solution, I'll bet anyone $1M that I can produce an image that produces an incorrect answer. Which would mean it's not "solved".
- pqdfdsaff 7y agoIf I can produce an image that you incorrectly label as Bird or No Bird, does that mean it's accurate to say you cannot tell me if pictures have birds in them? Or is that needlessly pedantic beyond any practical use case and clearly the intended context?
- emodendroket 7y agoNo, I don't think it's pedantic and impractical. There are many use cases where the possibility of adversarial input makes heuristics a non-starter.
- pqdfdsaff 7y agoPlease tell me the practical concerns regarding adversarial inputs against a phone app that tries to tag pictures of birds in national parks.
- emodendroket 7y agoWell of course if you define it narrowly that's true, but computer vision has many more safety-critical applications, most obviously self-driving.
- gmiller123456 7y ago"Doing better than me", or any other human, wasn't the problem proposed. Anything other than 100% accuracy means the problem isn't solved as there will always be room for a better solution.
- pqdfdsaff 7y agoThe problem posed was "can my app tag photos with birds". The answer is now yes for all practical purposes. You italicized the word 'solved' to emphasize that under technical scrutiny it is not true in response to a claim about being pedantic. 100% accuracy on identifying birds is, epistemologically, impossible.