4 ms·
I'm a bit skeptic. They have several very good examples, and those are really impressive. Everything about how often these striking results occur is 'coming soo
by Zeebrommer 12y ago
I'm a bit skeptic. They have several very good examples, and those are really impressive. Everything about how often these striking results occur is 'coming soon' though. And since it is neural network-based, being lucky sometimes doesn't say anything about the statistical performance. What percentage of the test dataset was labelled correctly?
- gaurav_v 12y agoModel performance is discussed in their full paper, here: http://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/deepimagesent/devisagen.pdf http://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/deepimagesent/devisag...
- userbinator 12y agoI'd like to see the worst-case behaviour too - e.g. hilariously wrong results. Seeing the failures (and their rate) makes it more believable and enables a more unbiased evaluation of the capabilities of the system. It's like those "up to XX% better" claims - "up to", not "at least" being the key phrase here.