Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Computer vision acronyms, as silly as any other computing acronyms and project names.

Computer vision acronyms, as silly as any other computing acronyms and project names.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
11 Posts 2 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

    Computer vision acronyms, as silly as any other computing acronyms and project names. Genuinely working on a project in which we use both YOLO and COCO, because computers are very serious.

    ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
    ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
    ossington@mastodon.xyz
    wrote last edited by
    #2

    Anyway, I'm just starting to read the original paper on COCO (Common Objects in Context) and am already amused by "Our dataset contains photos of 91 objects types that would be easily recognizable by a 4 year old." Does this explain why "teddy bear" is an object category all of its own?

    (Why yes, I seem to be lightly live-tooting reading computer science papers, why do you ask?)

    ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

      Anyway, I'm just starting to read the original paper on COCO (Common Objects in Context) and am already amused by "Our dataset contains photos of 91 objects types that would be easily recognizable by a 4 year old." Does this explain why "teddy bear" is an object category all of its own?

      (Why yes, I seem to be lightly live-tooting reading computer science papers, why do you ask?)

      ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
      ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
      ossington@mastodon.xyz
      wrote last edited by
      #3

      Also, this paper from 2015 is a bit of a callback to the "more innocent" days of computer vision when labelling was done with people earning piecework on Mechanical Turk, instead of in more formalized labelling outsourcing shops... Not actually more innocent, because Mechanical Turk has also always been a creepy and exploitative method of getting microtasks done. Just, the Overton window of creepy has really moved in the last couple of years...

      ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

        Also, this paper from 2015 is a bit of a callback to the "more innocent" days of computer vision when labelling was done with people earning piecework on Mechanical Turk, instead of in more formalized labelling outsourcing shops... Not actually more innocent, because Mechanical Turk has also always been a creepy and exploitative method of getting microtasks done. Just, the Overton window of creepy has really moved in the last couple of years...

        ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
        ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
        ossington@mastodon.xyz
        wrote last edited by
        #4

        Okay, "To further augment our set of candidate categories, several children ranging in ages from 4 to 8 were asked to name every object they see in indoor and outdoor environments." So not just that objects should be recognizable to a four-year old, but they actually used real children to come up with categories of objects.

        ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

          Okay, "To further augment our set of candidate categories, several children ranging in ages from 4 to 8 were asked to name every object they see in indoor and outdoor environments." So not just that objects should be recognizable to a four-year old, but they actually used real children to come up with categories of objects.

          ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
          ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
          ossington@mastodon.xyz
          wrote last edited by
          #5

          And one of the joys of using pay-per-microtask platforms to label images: “Since we have 91 categories and a large number of images, asking workers to answer 91 binary classification questions per image would be prohibitively expensive.”

          ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

            And one of the joys of using pay-per-microtask platforms to label images: “Since we have 91 categories and a large number of images, asking workers to answer 91 binary classification questions per image would be prohibitively expensive.”

            ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
            ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
            ossington@mastodon.xyz
            wrote last edited by
            #6

            But also, the nitty-gritty you get in papers like this is very refreshing compared to the popular discourse on "AI." Like, they define how many worker-hours it took to do specific stages of their labelling process. Because it's a scientific paper, this stuff is actually written down with a degree of honesty, rather than being some trade secret. The honesty, at least, is a nice case of "simpler times" ten years ago.

            ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

              But also, the nitty-gritty you get in papers like this is very refreshing compared to the popular discourse on "AI." Like, they define how many worker-hours it took to do specific stages of their labelling process. Because it's a scientific paper, this stuff is actually written down with a degree of honesty, rather than being some trade secret. The honesty, at least, is a nice case of "simpler times" ten years ago.

              ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
              ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
              ossington@mastodon.xyz
              wrote last edited by
              #7

              Now I just want to write about ontology in computer vision datasets 😅

              ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

                Now I just want to write about ontology in computer vision datasets 😅

                ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
                ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
                ossington@mastodon.xyz
                wrote last edited by
                #8

                Or. more to the point, the construction of reality in computer vision

                ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

                  Or. more to the point, the construction of reality in computer vision

                  ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
                  ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
                  ossington@mastodon.xyz
                  wrote last edited by
                  #9

                  And though "goat" was included in the list of candidate categories, it didn't make it to the final 91 categories that were selected. This concludes my semi-live reading of the 2015 COCO paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0312

                  ossington@mastodon.xyzO 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

                    And though "goat" was included in the list of candidate categories, it didn't make it to the final 91 categories that were selected. This concludes my semi-live reading of the 2015 COCO paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0312

                    ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
                    ossington@mastodon.xyzO This user is from outside of this forum
                    ossington@mastodon.xyz
                    wrote last edited by
                    #10

                    Spoke too soon. "Aardvark" also didn't make it into the final category list.

                    charette@mstdn.caC 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ossington@mastodon.xyzO ossington@mastodon.xyz

                      Spoke too soon. "Aardvark" also didn't make it into the final category list.

                      charette@mstdn.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                      charette@mstdn.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                      charette@mstdn.ca
                      wrote last edited by
                      #11

                      @ossington Please don't use MSCOCO! And I'm speaking as the software developer that maintains YOLO!

                      See my description of MSCOCO here: https://codeberg.org/CCodeRun/darknet#mscoco-pre-trained-weights

                      Quote: "The MSCOCO pre-trained weights are provided for demo-purpose only."

                      People are expected to train their own network. MSCOCO is a horrible network to use. Join us on the YOLO discord if you want to read the past discussions on why MSCOCO is a horrible network to use.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      0
                      • R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups