4 ms·
you bet! i was automatically thinking about how did he manage to get sufficiently good resolution, how did he cope with lighting/background changes, and so on..
by mailshanx 13y ago
you bet! i was automatically thinking about how did he manage to get sufficiently good resolution, how did he cope with lighting/background changes, and so on....
- timbre 13y agoIt's really the wrong approach. Supervised learning is the way to go. For example a paper by Kumar et al.[1] shows how to build an "attractive woman" classifier that is 83% accurate. [1] http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~neeraj/publications/base/papers/nk_pami2011_faceattrs.pdf http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~neeraj/publications/base/pap...
- anaphor 13y agoPresumably if they used 310 million faces instead of only 3.1 million it would be even more accurate, which is pretty impressive.
- VladRussian2 13y agoi'm confused - an .edu paper has been already mentioned while "Weird Science" hasn't been yet.