|
|
|
|
|
by xmichael999
2542 days ago
|
|
I don't know too much about facial recognition technology (I work more in the ALPR space), but I know enough to tell you that a single photo is not enough to train the software to do anything useful. Either they were sold a dream by a company making bogus claims, or they just don't give a shit about false postives in the slightest and they use it as justification to randomly stop and search people. There was an article about the UK doing this https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/04/uk-met-facial-recognitio... I can't find the hacker news link, but its worth a read. |
|
The accuracy from most methods is between 99.2% - 99.8%, but the problem is that the training samples are too easy and controlled. It's sensitive to lighting. Google's most recent paper [1] on Facenet found 99.63% on the easy Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) dataset, and an impressive 95.12% on the Youtube faces dataset, presumably a much more difficult dataset.
[0] https://github.com/ageitgey/face_recognition
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.03832