5 ms·
Those are the results with a training set of 7000, I imagine it would get spookily accurate with a 50K training set.
by grandalf 12y ago
Those are the results with a training set of 7000, I imagine it would get spookily accurate with a 50K training set.
- iopq 12y agoProbably not. There's diminishing returns with higher samples. If your extra 43K samples follow the same general pattern (without adding some outliers that will give new patterns) it won't look any different. You'd have to capture some gene that gives a difference in appearance that the 7K didn't.
- dvanduzer 12y agoWhere'd you get that number?
- grandalf 12y agoJust a guess. The faces were pretty close but for a few angles here and there.
- dvanduzer 12y agoI couldn't figure out what a training set of any size would even mean. Taking X number of DNA sequences paired with real photographs, and then extrapolating to DNA sequences without a photograph? That might do something interesting if someone tried it, but I don't think it's that kind of technique at all.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]