6 ms·

Doesn't it? You arbitrarily picked 16 possible photorealistic faces out of a total solution space of what? Millions? Wouldn't the balance of probability be o

Doesn't it? You arbitrarily picked 16 possible photorealistic faces out of a total solution space of what? Millions? Wouldn't the balance of probability be on someone in the general population of humans more closely resembling one of your 16 candidate images than any of your candidates resembling the Ground Truth image? Doesn't the problem get both better and worse as you scale your N up from 16? That is, it would be better because one of your candidates is more likely to match the Ground Truth, but it would be worse because you've also widened your net for catching false positives?

rabidrat 6y ago
I saw the blurry picture of Obama and my brain thought "I think that's Obama". When it was 'enhanced' it became a (white) person that I would never recognize as Obama. In fact I did not recognize them at all. The image may have been a more probable person overall, but clearly not a more probably famous person. Which makes me wonder, can we train a model on only famous people, weighted by their relative famousness?
- ben_w 6y ago
  > can we train a model on only famous people, weighted by their relative famousness? Well, yes, but why would you want to?
  - rabidrat 6y ago
    So that we can take a picture of ourselves and have it tell us which famous person we most look like when blurry?
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      The hit kids app of the summer.
SkyBelow 6y ago
>You arbitrarily picked 16 possible photorealistic faces out of a total solution space of what? Millions? Wouldn't the solution be to find a 4 different axes and pick faces that represent different endpoints. With a little psychology to help us identify what features are best to inform the public of we should be able to create a collection of photos that will be more likely to result in someone identifying the suspect than either the single photo option or the photo collection option. We would still need to test to see if it is better than the single lower quality photo option.

rabidrat 6y ago

I saw the blurry picture of Obama and my brain thought "I think that's Obama". When it was 'enhanced' it became a (white) person that I would never recognize as Obama. In fact I did not recognize them at all. The image may have been a more probable person overall, but clearly not a more probably famous person. Which makes me wonder, can we train a model on only famous people, weighted by their relative famousness?

ben_w 6y ago
> can we train a model on only famous people, weighted by their relative famousness? Well, yes, but why would you want to?
- rabidrat 6y ago
  So that we can take a picture of ourselves and have it tell us which famous person we most look like when blurry?
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    The hit kids app of the summer.

SkyBelow 6y ago

>You arbitrarily picked 16 possible photorealistic faces out of a total solution space of what? Millions? Wouldn't the solution be to find a 4 different axes and pick faces that represent different endpoints. With a little psychology to help us identify what features are best to inform the public of we should be able to create a collection of photos that will be more likely to result in someone identifying the suspect than either the single photo option or the photo collection option. We would still need to test to see if it is better than the single lower quality photo option.