7 ms·
The Wolfram Language Image Identification Project
- pdevr 11y agoI tried with the sample pictures on my computer, and it recognized all of them - some with uncanny accuracy. I uploaded some photos which I took recently. It recognized them to fairly well. Changing the orientation of an image, even if the orientation is provided in the metadata, seems to trip it up though. Overall, amazing. Considering that it is from the Wolfram stable, not much of a surprise!
- taliesinb 11y agoYup, we're aware of and working on the orientation issue! Thanks for trying it!
- taliesinb 11y agoSome of the underlying details (mostly non-technical): https://www.imageidentify.com/about/how-it-works https://www.imageidentify.com/about/how-it-works The function in the Wolfram Language is called ImageIdentify (obviously): http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/ImageIdentify.html http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/ImageIdentify.html A blogpost from Stephen Wolfram about this site and related topics: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/05/wolfram-language-artificial-intelligence-the-image-identification-project/ http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/05/wolfram-language-arti...
- wlievens 11y agoA photo of my wife and toddler daughter yields "instrumentation". I'm not sure what to think about that.
- Geep 11y agoWhoa that's awesome! NKS!
- pmelendez 11y agoIt seems like it doesn't work with illustrations (i.e cartoons, logos, etc). Also, lights seems to confuse the model; for instance, a picture of my son with candle on a birthday cake was identified as "instrumentation" and a picture of me with a light source in the back was tagged as light bulb.
- noreasonw 11y agoI have tried with two images, one a book in Spanish entitle: Lo mejor de "Fantasy & Science Fiction", another with my watch. In the first one it classified as a machine or something like that, the second is a device. Nothing fancy and very far from what they say in the blog.
- a1b2c3 11y agoHelp Mr. Wolfram train his engine for free.
- noreasonw 11y agoR, Python and open software applications are going to be a very fierce contender in machine learning, image recognition, data mining and statistics. I wonder if close source is going to compete with the 5000 packages available in R and in the future more and more people are going to be able to improve on the shoulder of giants.
- tormeh 11y agoWell, the philosophy for the Wolfram language is different. Basically, their approach seems to be "put everything imaginable in the standard library", which is kinda awesome, actually. Should be more coherent and discoverable.
- blt 11y agoI like the idea. programming today takes way too much effort wiring up libraries. I wish they would find a way to make it cheaper though.
- rhodin 11y agoDiscoverability of functionality in the system, and common ways to put things together, is an important topic. We (I'm an employee) are constantly improving our documentation system to make it easier to see what's there. With over a hundred thousand examples there's a lot of ground covered but more initiatives in this area are rolling out.
- jameshart 11y agoImpressed to see that it doesn't necessarily get all the sample images provided on the site right - obviously would be tempting in a tool like this to pick images there that are guaranteed to be correct, but for example the image of a bicycle wheel disc brake gets classified as a 'bicycle chain', and the typewriter as a 'computer keyboard'. Good to demonstrate the failure modes, rather than attempt to project complete infallibility. I also like the secondary classification it does of people, looking for a 'notable person' match.
- tormeh 11y agoInserting absurd images seem to throw it off: https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/blogs/3994/2011/05/64577-54968.jpg https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/blogs/39... I mean, how could I not try this?
- taliesinb 11y agohttps://www.imageidentify.com/result/1f5oz7ogn6g8g https://www.imageidentify.com/result/1f5oz7ogn6g8g
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vlasev 11y agoWell, it's not ENTIRELY wrong https://www.imageidentify.com/result/0j627xm37r6yl https://www.imageidentify.com/result/0j627xm37r6yl
- slavik81 11y agoI find it pretty cool to see sensible failures. I gave it a Charizard, and if you squint you can sort of see why it came up with jack-o'-lantern. https://www.imageidentify.com/result/12gdvqqz1w0vd https://www.imageidentify.com/result/12gdvqqz1w0vd
- ComputerGuru 11y agoYou know the old saying "can't see the forest for the trees?" [1] [2] 1: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+see+the+forest+for+the+trees https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+see+the+forest+for+t... 2: https://www.imageidentify.com/result/1whslg106cfcp https://www.imageidentify.com/result/1whslg106cfcp
- Flimm 11y agoIt supposed to identify one item, so the fact that it got "tree" seems to be a correct response to me.
- Geekette 11y agoInteresting. Tried out a few pics from my desktop and it got some right and a couple wrong but I could see why in one case (ottoman cushions identified as "containers", probably based on shape). It would be really cool to see a refined use case for artifacts, i.e. detailed scanning and identification of sculpture by style and origin.
- ahamino 11y agoIt couldn't identify smoke https://t.co/jlK6yswXGT https://t.co/jlK6yswXGT
- voltagex_ 11y agoIt got Bill Gates though -https://www.imageidentify.com/result/06eboar58u4rw https://www.imageidentify.com/result/06eboar58u4rw
- ridgeguy 11y agoInteresting. I gave it a pic of me, and it returned "person" - good. I gave it a pic of my wife at a White House dinner, and it returned "construction" - a definite "What the heck?". I suppose this could have been a subtle political comment, but whoosh, I don't get it... I gave it a pic I took of an F22 in a 9g turn (in afterburner) and it returned "afterburner" - surprised me that it ID'ed the aircraft's propulsion regime rather than calling it an aircraft, but nonetheless impressive. How do they get it to key on Mach diamonds? Bookmarked. I'll check in occasionally to see how it's doing in its ascent to sentience.
- icanhackit 11y agoI'll check in occasionally to see how it's doing in its ascent to sentience. Turing Test: Pair it up with a chat-bot algorithm on Skype and see if it can start conversations with random users based on their home decor. "Nice red leather couch you've got there."
- bane 11y agoReally cool, I tried with a few photos and it did surprisingly well. I provided training info on the ones it got wrong, hopefully it keeps getting better. Very impressive and I don't mind helping train it.
- stevenh 11y agoEverything I uploaded resulted in a ridiculously inaccurate response. Here is a much better example of this type of classification engine: http://www.clarifai.com/#demo http://www.clarifai.com/#demo
- Geekette 11y agoJust tried it out with the same pics I used for Wolfram. For one of the previously wrongly identified pics, Clarifai produced better results. For another, it miscategorized it with the same tags as Wolfram.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- fernly 11y agoGave it a pic of tip-off of a basketball game. It offered "Instrumentation".
- cromwellian 11y agoI hate to be negative, but I found the announcement post suspiciously devoid of any acknowledgement of the huge work that has been done in this field over the last few years. Wolfram's post seems to be written in the tone as if he's suddenly discovered a way to do this, when it's old hat. No mention of the results and ILSVRC (Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge) contests held every year. Or ImageNet and all of the associated projects.
- seanp2k2 11y agoHere's a [biased] bit on Wolfram, the person: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/SkepticsOnWolfram.html http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/SkepticsOnWo... TL;DR [quote] Although it is clear that Wolfram is no crank, not someone skeptics would label a pseudoscientist, skeptics will notice that, despite his flawless credentials, staggering intelligence, and depth of knowledge, Wolfram possesses many attributes of a pseudoscientist: (1) he makes grandiose claims, (2) works in isolation, (3) did not go through the normal peer-review process, (4) published his own book, (5) does not adequately acknowledge his predecessors, and (6) rejects a well-established theory of at least one famous scientist. [/quote]
- jgalt212 11y agoWhile not applicable for this post, I really like: > (5) does not adequately acknowledge his predecessors as a huge indicator of PR-driven news article rather than a news-driven news article.
- bobwaycott 11y agoneeds to improve before i'll be asking it to automatically order my dessert ... https://www.imageidentify.com/result/0fmiowetw4u07 https://www.imageidentify.com/result/0fmiowetw4u07