3 ms·

Somewhat tangentially, I really dislike that Ultralytics (and others) started slapping higher version numbers of their YOLO variants. Redmon used the numbering

by Imnimo 2y ago

Somewhat tangentially, I really dislike that Ultralytics (and others) started slapping higher version numbers of their YOLO variants. Redmon used the numbering scheme v2 and v3 for his improvements on his original model. But Ultralytics' 11 is it's own thing with no connection to Redmon. I just think it gives a misleading impression of what the history is.

kookamamie 2y ago
Agreed. YOLO, the midel name, was essentially hijacked.
daemonologist 2y ago
Ultralytics also had, for at least ~a year, a language model replying to GitHub issues using their CEO's account (without any kind of disclosure). It was frequently confidently incorrect and probably wasted thousands of developer hours (because when the CEO replies to your issue with advice why wouldn't you take it at face value?!) Looks like they've since given the bot its own account but that experience definitely soured me on the company. (Also, there's an MIT licensed implementation of "yolov9" here: https://github.com/WongKinYiu/YOLO https://github.com/WongKinYiu/YOLO . Affiliated with neither Redmond nor Ultralytics as far as I know.)
- Loughla 2y ago
  >a language model replying to GitHub issues using their CEO's account (without any kind of disclosure) What is the possible justification for this? And did they just not do any oversight at all? Did no one notice the CEO was suddenly full of shit?
  - tensorturtle 2y ago
    The ultralytics/ultralytics repo is pretty beginner friendly (kudos to them for that) but I surmise that it therefore draws a lot of beginner level coders who can't immediately tell that the AI generated "solutions" are bs.
    - Loughla 2y ago
      I guess my question was geared more towards the CEO and company. Either they didn't notice the BS, which isn't great, or the did and chose not to do anything about it, which might be worse.
- tensorturtle 2y ago
  I've made several contributions to their main repo and the LLM generated mush replies from various core team accounts have been a horror, derailing Issues threads and such. An excellent case study in how not to use LLMs.
  - bagels 2y ago
    The only appropriate response is to turn your own bot on them that submits pointless pull requests so their bot can reply to them with nonsense critcism.
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  Yep, the bot gave the complete wrong answer to something for me. Problem is that it wasn’t me that asked the question, and the person who read the answer took it at face value. I knew from the formulaic response it was an LLM but had to fight with the other person to get them to see it. As soon as you see the question being repeated back at you in summary form as part of the answer it’s probably an LLM.
rldjbpin 2y ago
the whole "asking for permission" to assign a YOLO model variant was weird to begin with. "gpt" is a more egregious example of using naming scheme to gather more attention than a substantial connection to the original. however this is a simple price to pay for allowing open research without requiring to go through the conventional approval/clearance process.

by Imnimo 2y ago

kookamamie 2y ago

Agreed. YOLO, the midel name, was essentially hijacked.

daemonologist 2y ago

Ultralytics also had, for at least ~a year, a language model replying to GitHub issues using their CEO's account (without any kind of disclosure). It was frequently confidently incorrect and probably wasted thousands of developer hours (because when the CEO replies to your issue with advice why wouldn't you take it at face value?!) Looks like they've since given the bot its own account but that experience definitely soured me on the company. (Also, there's an MIT licensed implementation of "yolov9" here: https://github.com/WongKinYiu/YOLO https://github.com/WongKinYiu/YOLO . Affiliated with neither Redmond nor Ultralytics as far as I know.)

Loughla 2y ago
>a language model replying to GitHub issues using their CEO's account (without any kind of disclosure) What is the possible justification for this? And did they just not do any oversight at all? Did no one notice the CEO was suddenly full of shit?
- tensorturtle 2y ago
  The ultralytics/ultralytics repo is pretty beginner friendly (kudos to them for that) but I surmise that it therefore draws a lot of beginner level coders who can't immediately tell that the AI generated "solutions" are bs.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    I guess my question was geared more towards the CEO and company. Either they didn't notice the BS, which isn't great, or the did and chose not to do anything about it, which might be worse.
tensorturtle 2y ago
I've made several contributions to their main repo and the LLM generated mush replies from various core team accounts have been a horror, derailing Issues threads and such. An excellent case study in how not to use LLMs.
- bagels 2y ago
  The only appropriate response is to turn your own bot on them that submits pointless pull requests so their bot can reply to them with nonsense critcism.
thebruce87m 2y ago
Yep, the bot gave the complete wrong answer to something for me. Problem is that it wasn’t me that asked the question, and the person who read the answer took it at face value. I knew from the formulaic response it was an LLM but had to fight with the other person to get them to see it. As soon as you see the question being repeated back at you in summary form as part of the answer it’s probably an LLM.

rldjbpin 2y ago

the whole "asking for permission" to assign a YOLO model variant was weird to begin with. "gpt" is a more egregious example of using naming scheme to gather more attention than a substantial connection to the original. however this is a simple price to pay for allowing open research without requiring to go through the conventional approval/clearance process.