4 ms·
Yes we can - and what people miss, you don't have to be ML only or Human only - it can be Human lifeguard augmented by ML, especially at places like beaches whe
by bigmattystyles 5y ago
Yes we can - and what people miss, you don't have to be ML only or Human only - it can be Human lifeguard augmented by ML, especially at places like beaches where the horizon to scan is much larger. I suppose the danger is of the human becoming complacent.
As far as training data, if we know what it looks like, we can create virtual scenes that simulate different conditions and scenarios and train on that. Obviously, it won't be perfect but if it gets deployed, we can start getting more real life data and augment the training on that.
Not for lifeguards, but I've always imagined a future vision system that would track me in my lap swim workout. At the end, it would tell me my stats, length swam, times, stroke done (with count) and maybe even down the line coaching my form.
- ineedasername 5y agoyou don't have to be ML only - it can be Human lifeguard augmented by ML Yep, when it comes to such things my background leans towards NLP. Not sure what the OCR state of the art is these days, but it used to be side-by-side human-assisted computer: The computer did the bulk of the work. For language translation (at least in lower stakes applications) it was the reverse: A human assisted by a computer. Even within computer-only NLP methods, they often benefited from a mixed-model approach using both rule-based & stochastic methods together.