4 ms·
We’re not affiliated with any of the researchers. The many people taking issue with “v5” because it’s not by the same author as “v4” but not with “v4” even tho
by yeldarb 6y ago
We’re not affiliated with any of the researchers.
The many people taking issue with “v5” because it’s not by the same author as “v4” but not with “v4” even though it’s not the same author as “v3” are the “fanbases” I was referring to.
FWIW, the YOLOv4 author noted he's not opposed to Ultralytics's project (https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png) as long as model comparisons are fair.
And Redmon has shared he's happy for anyone to use the YOLO name https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657
I don’t think I’m going to convince you that we don’t have some kind of hidden agenda, but we’ll continue to provide support and information about all of the new models.
- sk0g 6y agoYOLOv4's authors were connected to previous ones to some extent at least, unlike YOLOv5's 'authors'. I don't particularly care either way, but attacking people put off by intentionally confusing naming is probably not the best move if you're trying to establish credibility.
- yeldarb 6y agoApologies if I appeared to be attacking anyone. That certainly wasn’t the intention.
- nl 6y agoThe YOLOv5 author has a widely used YOLOv3 implementation too. Having said that, I don't think it's a naming choice I'd have made. But the OP is blaming the unaffiliated blog post authors for something they are just reporting.