4 ms·
Suddenly, a shaded rock appears. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com
by shpx 11y ago
Suddenly, a shaded rock appears.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_...
We're doing humans wrong. Maybe not all wrong, and of course, humans are extremely useful things, but think about it: sometimes it almost looks like we're already there. There always going to be an anomaly; lots of them, actually, considering all the things shaded in different patterns. Something have to change.
I agree that we aren't there, but we'll never be there, every system can be fooled, its just a question of 95%, 99% or 99.99%
- jonahx 11y agoThis analogy doesn't hold, because the whole point of these classifiers is to classify things the same way humans would. The fact that all classifiers -- including human beings -- fail in some cases is a separate issue. The goal is to create a computer classifier that succeeds and fails in the same cases humans do.
- jweir 11y agoMagicians would be out of work if our vision were 'flawless.'
- benplumley 11y ago> We're doing humans wrong. I don't follow. If you asked a human what the linked image looked like, they'd likely say a face, but if you then asked them what it actually was, they're all going to change their answer to a rock, even specifically a rock on Mars (if given a colour version of this image). It's true that humans see patterns that aren't there, but does that detract from our ability to recognise objects?