How we teach computers to understand pictures | Fei Fei Li 

How good it is to come up with these ideas and make them a reality.

Yeah, well said!

This is the honest science we need.

Well that might be because she is one of the front runners in computer vision research (former head of Google Cloud, tenured Stanford prof teaching CS231n), and the farthest thing possible from a "coy martketeer".

You all probably dont care at all but does someone know of a tool to log back into an instagram account?? I was dumb forgot the account password. I love any help you can offer me

Academics rarely ever only show the good sides of things. They often share the challenges as well; unfortunately, startup entrepreneurs are usually the ones who claim their AI has the solution to everything.

and learn to shitpost 24/7... oh god

the shitposting computer already exists, look up ShitpostBot 5000 on facebook

Leo Chen very soon may be in 2017

haha. you know. I am robot :D

You just did.

@Grease quala CS incorporates enough mathematics to make you a Machine Learning researcher.

Grease quala : cs is engineering of maths.

@Grease quala He is right. I major Intelligent systems on my CS course and what we do are traditional maths and Concepts

@Grease quala I pointed out you were right -_-. I guess i miss typed "I"

Well, if you think about it.. ultimately.... death.

Firepants20 How do you know? ;)

***** I've died a few times this year already.

How long before they sell their findings to the NSA, CIA or another psychopathic warmongering organization?

It gave you goosebumps because she's being manipulative and talks about personal things like her family and children and people usually get emotional when it's about children and puppies.

Dude, you still need more training :)

Tong Tian Bwhahahaha this comment made my day 😂😂😂😂😂😂

My thought exactly 😅

Calvin Smith Well computers have less than 100 years oft evolution and could still beat humans at maths, tennis, chess, Translation depending on how you take it

lol... thats why they're called computation engines.

Alan Watts ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-u3L8vGMDYD8.html

Alan Watts here you go ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Y18bPR7Zlx8.html It‘s badminton but same thing

3 years old, but 300 million years of evolution? yes, but machine's internal clock is way way faster than that of humans, our biological clock is kind of constant. (some people are fast some a slow but generally its compare able within humans) whereas, computers clock are not only way way faster, its getting fast, and more efficient. so i don't think it will need million or thousand or even hundreds of year to catch up to humans. we might see some astronomical advancements within our lifetimes.

I agree she deserves more than a standing ovation. It's quite possible that someone like her (and you) is among the audience. Would you call them and yourself peasants?

They are not peasants. They are Nurses, Engineers, Accountants, Chefs, Managers, Production line workers, IT people, Shop workers, Healthcare workers and street sweepers. You know, the people that keep the world turning while you and your friends are doing your unprecedented work.

@@johnc3403 hahaha owned that mf

I use it (the video) with my NLP students for a final test to find the steps of the Logical Level Alignment. It is beautiful and very clear.

Baldy

+Kariuki Ke thats ultimately the end goal yeah

+apple-sauce if the "the exam" is the universe, and "the computer" is True AI (™, not sold here), then sure

+Kariuki Ke That actually wouldn't be hard now. OCR could recognize the words and preform a google search and google intelligence stuff (the stuff based on DeepMind) could totally answer most of those easily enough... I think the important bit is having it recognize it as a test and refuse to give you the answers, because it would know it's wrong.

+Deveyus Totally agree. We humans need to be able to manage this technology, otherwise it could be a potential disaster.

+Kariuki Ke In the future you'll learn because you want to, and what you're interested in, and forced some junk that you need only to have a hope of attaining life's necessities.

Daniil Pintjuk Thanks for sharing

Thanks for pointing that out.

Daniil Pintjuk 42

"to the NSA".

cloud.google.com/video-intelligence/#demo

If we can create a Brain to computer interface and be able to pull ideas from a database we can harness the power of computers and evolve in symbiosis.

The next iphone will use this technology

your government is already spying on you

Availability bias

War with this tech: enemy shoots a rocket, allies have a device that tells them "Rocket flying with a blue sky" in a robot voice.

***** Good thinking Viktor...

All tools can be used for good or bad purposes. Don't condemn the tool.

Dang Megneous!You know alot!

Megneous We would just have to raise taxes to a dollar or so. Currently, Nasa is paid half a cent per person

Megneous There's more left on Earth which is still undiscovered.

+ChaZ-E That doesn't mean that we shouldn't explore space. Do you know how much good space exploration has done for the world? The materials science, the telecommunications technology, the navigational tech, and global mapping and tracking systems which everyone now takes for granted would be incredibly primitive without the benefits incurred upon the world by space exploration.

+Megneous Humanity has practically demonstrated the possibility to build machinery to deliver people to the moon and back. It may be that NASA is underfunded, but for one, funding is unlikely to be the only issue, because half a percent is still quite a sum. For other, NASA does not unilaterally determine the limits of humanity. Soviet Union has been a major leader in space fare - literally the only thing USA ever beat them to was sending people on the moon. Soviet Union was weakened during the 80ies as was its successor Russia in the 90ies, but i believe going forward, Russia can pick up all the slack that NASA is leaving behind, at a fraction of the cost. Also... why do we need people on the moon? It's not a habitable place! Humanity has not demonstrated a possibility to build truly intelligent machines, or at least machines that are very good at classifying images. But an effort is being put towards that.

Maybe that's the underling program that the neural network made up when it finished. There really isn't a way to find out without a ridiculous number of man hours to pull it apart and check it.

IsYitzach No it is not the underlying program. Neural network just uses propabilities.

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought, too. People can see things, and look at them at many angles. Then people create a mental image of what is a cat. People know that a cat has a head, whiskers, fur, body, four legs, tail, and so on. People can rotate a mental image of a cat in their mind after they have watched a cat. People don't need a million pictures. Of course the mental image of a cat of people is not perfect, for example if you don't know how many nibbles a cat has, then you just don't know it. But you can start guessing what pictures represent. You figure out the 3D model from a picture and use that to guess what there is in the picture. If you see a big portion of a cat, you can rotate your mental image of a cat into the position of the cat in the picture, and if it fits, it sits. If cats had a rare amount of nibbles, and not many other animal of the same size had as many nibbles, and you only saw the stomach, you could guess, it is a cat. One more thing though is the precision of vision. Humans can see tiny details and figure out what they are. But even humans don't see everything. For example I watched that video from a far and I couldn't tell it was a cake in the table. In any case, computer would have to understand also things like structure and material. People have seen cream many times and can say such stuff is cream if there is a cake. But the white stuff could be something else too, like poisonous foam. It is all guessing until verified. People have other senses too, like smell and taste. If it smells bad, it is better not to eat it. If it smells ok but tastes bad, better not to eat it. And even if it smells ok and tastes fine, it still might be spoiled.

No, the kid has to be shown far more pictures...

MultiGoban The kid doesn't have to be shown pictures, because he can look around, and he has two eyes so he can see partly in 3D! And he can process 3D models, he doesn't operate only with images! And people have memory, too. So even if an object gets hidden, people know that it is there. If an object gets so much hidden that only a small slice of its color is shown, the person still knows what that color is, thanks to memory. If a computer uses only seeing pictures compared to other pictures, the computer can't tell that a small slice of white is a toaster. A human can tell that there is a toaster behind cardboard because he saw a toaster earlier. I know pretty much what is in every room of mine, even if I don't see the stuff. Humans work with context too. So they don't have to determine what is an object, because they know the array of objects that there might be. For example a piece of red color propably is not a Ferrari in my bathroom, because I don't even have one... and a car wouldn't fit into my bathroom anyway. The piece of red is propably a bottle of shaving foam... And I can take a better look to, if I happened to have many bottles with red in them. I could also check the material, for example if the red is metallic, I know it is shaving foam, if the bottle of soap with red is plastic. Furthermore, people can relate information too. Some people might not have seen a lion live ever, but watched some pictures, even like one picture, and he knows what a lion is: A big sized yellowbrown robust cat basically. But until the person gets more information, he don't know everything about lions. But the person can get information without pictures, too. For example he learns that lions have big sharp pointy nails, even if he hasn't seen lion nails anywhere. He might have seen cat's claws though. And from context the person might tell, that the yellowbrown thing is propably a lion, if the context is safari, even if the thing is looked far away and most of it is covered in grass. The person doesn't need a picture of a lion covered mostly in grass before that.

Hahaha!

+eupf horia Best comment ever seen !

+Al Swedgin i didnt get it, can someone explain please? :')

Because the voice of the computer produced sound like the voice of Stephen Hawking, so, maybe the host kidnapped Stephen Hawking to do the hard-work behind the scene :)

So what does it mean an algorithm ?

mathematical equations trying to take in input or variables which have values and then processing them in a formula and giving a result

Uzam Qureshi Nice meme.

the joke is dead long time ago. Move on grandpa

I personnaly think than Google can hack theirselves their own captcha if they would ;)

I feel your comment is really valid, Are you saying that these current algorithms / models which were made decades ago are not scalable to the extent of mimicking the brain? Should we look for better models? I know my comment is pretty late, I would like your insight on this.

wow, thank you so much for the reply, i was under the impression that we had not achieved computational speeds of the brain.

Best comment here so far. Completely agree. Computer scientists are tacking the problem the wrong way.

As a neuroscientist, I guess you understand that we're talking about a machine and not a human. Calm down.

Neuroscientists, biologists, chemists etc are already big inventors in the field of machine learning. There’s still an ongoing collaborations across universities in UK between neuroscience, psychology and computer science.

I think that would be a great alternative to still photos! Like you said, it's pretty much the same thing, you just get a lot more data for objects and scenarios. More data should mean more accurate. But then we'd need many man hours to classify each video until the program is able to take over.

Yeah that is out of the question, BUT you could tag the video (which already have tags, at least in youtube) so the machine learns from the context and sequence of the images and not solely on a thousand frames seperately! pretty interesting stuff

I bet google is on that already.

But categorizing the images would be difficult that's why 45000 people were needed to categorise the images

It is the same thing as having images. But most videos are approximately 24frames per second. Thus, going through one videoclip would be equal to processing thousands of images. Also the frames would be almost identical most of the time. Actually it takes a lot more Computer power to process a video than an image. It’s rather the opposite approach that is used, from images we can apply this to video. Say you finally manage to identify a cat. With videos we can teach the machine in what direction the cat moves etc.

make the "your child will fall from his chair" part optional then

but our brain have to succeed by themselves, its the key of learning

I'd like to, but for now it's mainly self education. Good thing the Internet exists!

digital workshop on progress everywhere (look for a fablab around you!)

2nd degree in CS yes! after a BBA.

I am

I (hopefully) will start artificial intelligence bachelor next year

It will be used for that, sure, but it will be used for other things as well. Technology isn't inherently good or evil. Machine vision is useful for everything from smarter image searches to robots that can autonomously navigate and interact with our environment.

Hail hydra

"You are being watched. The government has a secret system, a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror but it sees everything. Violent crimes involving ordinary people, people like you. Crimes the government considered "irrelevant." They wouldn't act, so I decided I would. But I needed a partner, someone with the skills to intervene. Hunted by the authorities, we work in secret. You'll never find us, but victim or perpetrator, if your number's up... we'll find you." Then maybe you can hire ...The A Team

Lol true! Especially with a scary naming like ImageNet (~SkyNet)

you are so smart. What you said has become fact.

Racist

shes really nervous

Eugene Boado With her wearing a drop-dead gorgeous outfit like that I highly doubt she's nervous.. but who knows, with females they do have a rush of emotion :)

shes nervous...english is not her first language...shes been in a computer lab most of her professional and academic life...shes talk to an auditorium full of people...who wouldn't be nervous...

the outfit is compensation or something to distract you from noticing she is nervous

not possible with a 2d image

there are algorithms to estimate 3d shape by a 2d shape, there are some examples on youtube

+KonstantinGeist probably too much processing for a mass-collection system

The solution here can recognize 3D model with one camera... (good point Noah!) and without have to learn light rendering... if it can make link to "cat", it can already map to a 3D cat if you need, and maybe find how he is curled up (as Konstantin said).

I sure hope so! it would be awesome!

Johan Johansson I'd love to meet him/her.

I wish they'd be as sarcastic as I am (if a robot is capable of sarcasm)

john smith Pretty sure Japan already have that. At least i remember seeing handjob robots.. tho i don't know if i would trust someone with iron fists and steel muscles with my precious.

john smith haha nice answer ;D

They are as smart as their creators.

It's light-blue / gold.

MultiGoban It's black and green.

Hollus Elsfik It's red/blue

+Shoop DaWhoop The corpus is free to use not for everybody, but only to researchers for non-commercial use and for educational purposes; also ImageNet is in a precarious situation that they don't own the actual images, only their description, so they don't have a product to sell, they can only offer it on a "fair use" basis. Also Google doesn't necessarily buy data, they buy brainpower, so offers for the ImageNet researchers to join the Google team are definitely a possibility.

They did hire her, she's a chief scientist at Google.