4 ms·
It'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" classifi
by timbre 13y ago
It'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.