Well the algorithms used are fairly general. If you can classify an image, you can detect the objects in them and where they are.
The tasks are high interrelated. In classification they search different parts of the images at different scales to try to find a match. And in localization they run a general classifier across the image and find where it detects objects.
None of that has much to do with whether the task in question is an “everyday vision task”.
(And: How closely did you read the article about a human trying the challenge? Something like 2⁄3 of his errors were (1) a matter of not being able to identify specific varieties of dog etc. reliably, (2) not being familiar with the specific set of 1000 labels used by the ILSVRC, and (3) not having seen enough examples—typically of particular varieties of dog etc. -- in the training set to be able to make a good call. I think the comparison of error rates gives a poor indication of relative performance—unless what you’re mostly interested in is classifying breeds of dog, I guess.)
He estimates an ensemble of humans could get up to 3% error, under extremely idealistic and totally hypothetical conditions, and with lots of hindsight bias over the mistakes he made the first time.
I did mention that even getting 5% error requires extreme amount of effort sorting through reference images and stuff. While the machine can spit out answers in milliseconds.
In the next few years computers will mop up humans on all vision tasks. Machine vision is quite nearly a solved problem.
I’m not saying “I think humans will always get scores better than computers on this task”. I’m saying:
Score on this task is clearly related to actual object recognition ability, but as the error rates get low and we start looking at the more difficult examples the relationship gets more complicated and it starts to be important to look at what kind of failures we’re seeing on each side.
What humans find difficult here is fine-grained identification of a zillion different breeds of dog, coping with having an objectively-inadequate training set (presumably to avoid intolerable boredom), and keeping track of the details of what categories the test is concerned with.
What computers find difficult here is identifying small or thin things, identifying things whose colours and contrast are unexpected, identifying things that are at unexpected angles, identifying things represented “indirectly” (paintings, models, shadows, …), identifying objects when there are a bunch of other objects also in the frame, identifying objects parts of which are obscured by other things, identifying objects by labels on them, …
To put it differently, it seems to me that almost none of the problems that a skilled human has here are actually vision failures in any useful sense, whereas most of the problems the best computers have are. And that while it’s nice that images that elicit these failures are fairly rare in the ILSVRC dataset, it’s highly plausible that difficulty in handling such images might be a much more serious handicap in “everyday vision tasks” than not being able to distinguish between dozens of species of dog, or finding it difficult to remember hundreds of specific categories that one’s expected to classify things into.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think identifying ILSVRC images with ~95% accuracy (in the sense relevant here) is really impressive. Doing it in milliseconds, even more so. There is no question that in some respects computer vision is already way ahead of human vision. But this is not at all the same thing as saying computers are better overall at “any kind of everyday vision task” and I think the evidence from ILSVRC results is that there are some quite fundamental ways in which computers are still much worse at vision than humans, and it’s not obvious to me that their advantages are going to make up for those deficiencies in the next few years.
They might. The best computers are now much better at chess than the best humans overall, even though there are (I think) still some quite fundamental things they do worse than humans. Perhaps vision is like chess in this respect. But I don’t see that the evidence is there yet that it is.
You’ve been making very confident pronouncements in this discussion, and telling other people they don’t know what they’re talking about. May I ask what your expertise is in this area? E.g., are you a computer vision researcher yourself? (I am not. I’m a mathematician working in industry, I’ve spent much of my career working with computer input devices, and have seen many times how something can (1) work well 99% of the time and (2) be almost completely unusable because of that last 1%. But there’s no AI in these devices and the rare failures of something like GoogLeNet may be less harmful.)
You are only actually disagreeing with Daniel in so far as
in the ILSVRC is actually
which is far from clear to me.
Well the algorithms used are fairly general. If you can classify an image, you can detect the objects in them and where they are.
The tasks are high interrelated. In classification they search different parts of the images at different scales to try to find a match. And in localization they run a general classifier across the image and find where it detects objects.
In fact the classifier is now being used to actually describe images in natural language.
None of that has much to do with whether the task in question is an “everyday vision task”.
(And: How closely did you read the article about a human trying the challenge? Something like 2⁄3 of his errors were (1) a matter of not being able to identify specific varieties of dog etc. reliably, (2) not being familiar with the specific set of 1000 labels used by the ILSVRC, and (3) not having seen enough examples—typically of particular varieties of dog etc. -- in the training set to be able to make a good call. I think the comparison of error rates gives a poor indication of relative performance—unless what you’re mostly interested in is classifying breeds of dog, I guess.)
He estimates an ensemble of humans could get up to 3% error, under extremely idealistic and totally hypothetical conditions, and with lots of hindsight bias over the mistakes he made the first time.
I did mention that even getting 5% error requires extreme amount of effort sorting through reference images and stuff. While the machine can spit out answers in milliseconds.
In the next few years computers will mop up humans on all vision tasks. Machine vision is quite nearly a solved problem.
I’m not saying “I think humans will always get scores better than computers on this task”. I’m saying:
Score on this task is clearly related to actual object recognition ability, but as the error rates get low and we start looking at the more difficult examples the relationship gets more complicated and it starts to be important to look at what kind of failures we’re seeing on each side.
What humans find difficult here is fine-grained identification of a zillion different breeds of dog, coping with having an objectively-inadequate training set (presumably to avoid intolerable boredom), and keeping track of the details of what categories the test is concerned with.
What computers find difficult here is identifying small or thin things, identifying things whose colours and contrast are unexpected, identifying things that are at unexpected angles, identifying things represented “indirectly” (paintings, models, shadows, …), identifying objects when there are a bunch of other objects also in the frame, identifying objects parts of which are obscured by other things, identifying objects by labels on them, …
To put it differently, it seems to me that almost none of the problems that a skilled human has here are actually vision failures in any useful sense, whereas most of the problems the best computers have are. And that while it’s nice that images that elicit these failures are fairly rare in the ILSVRC dataset, it’s highly plausible that difficulty in handling such images might be a much more serious handicap in “everyday vision tasks” than not being able to distinguish between dozens of species of dog, or finding it difficult to remember hundreds of specific categories that one’s expected to classify things into.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think identifying ILSVRC images with ~95% accuracy (in the sense relevant here) is really impressive. Doing it in milliseconds, even more so. There is no question that in some respects computer vision is already way ahead of human vision. But this is not at all the same thing as saying computers are better overall at “any kind of everyday vision task” and I think the evidence from ILSVRC results is that there are some quite fundamental ways in which computers are still much worse at vision than humans, and it’s not obvious to me that their advantages are going to make up for those deficiencies in the next few years.
They might. The best computers are now much better at chess than the best humans overall, even though there are (I think) still some quite fundamental things they do worse than humans. Perhaps vision is like chess in this respect. But I don’t see that the evidence is there yet that it is.
You’ve been making very confident pronouncements in this discussion, and telling other people they don’t know what they’re talking about. May I ask what your expertise is in this area? E.g., are you a computer vision researcher yourself? (I am not. I’m a mathematician working in industry, I’ve spent much of my career working with computer input devices, and have seen many times how something can (1) work well 99% of the time and (2) be almost completely unusable because of that last 1%. But there’s no AI in these devices and the rare failures of something like GoogLeNet may be less harmful.)