4 ms·
They probably have some statistics in the background which tells them some form of Trustlevel. You also need to assume that there are potentially control pictu
by Kletiomdm 5y ago
They probably have some statistics in the background which tells them some form of Trustlevel.
You also need to assume that there are potentially control pictures in it as well.
I think this is a very liable approach.
- ncann 5y agoYeah, it's not like they will label something a train just because a single person says so. But if you have 10k responses with 95% confidence saying it's a train, it's very likely to be the case.
- organsnyder 5y agoBut GP is describing exactly the opposite: there might be a train that's not immediately visible at a glance, leading most people to not label it.
- not2b 5y agoFor unambiguous images almost all humans will label them the same way. For ambiguous ones humans will differ. Presumably they'll accumulate stats on each image and will be able to detect cases like this.
- rolph 5y agounless a properly obfusicated bot net has seeded the data set with -everything is a train- responses to the tune of >>10k responses with 95% confidence saying it's a train<<
- wfleming 5y agoI think you meant "viable", not "liable". Given the discussion, your typo is ironically amusing, though.