Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by woah 2171 days ago
This detects any face, it does not identify people. It’s for stuff like autofocus, etc.
4 comments

Detecting where is a face in a picture is the first step that's necessary before detecting whose face is that.
Taking a picture is a step before that.
Having people with faces is a step before that.
Having people is a step before that.
This isn’t Reddit
This isn't Digg
And purchasing a knife is the step before stabbing someone. Your argument is ridiculous.
How is it ridiculous? The fact that purchasing a gun is the first step of shooting people is a good enough reason for most countries to ban the purchase of guns...
Yet they don't ban kitchen knives because there's legitimate uses for kitchen knives. Thus the point that you utterly missed.
I don't think "because there's legitimate uses" is the differentiating factor, since that implies only kitchen knives have them. Self-defense is a legitimate use for owning a gun, for example.
In many countries self-defense is NOT a legitimate use for owning a gun.
Guns also have legitimate uses.
iirc the UK does ban kitchen knives from being carried publicly.
It seems the tradition of bringing your own dining knife passes. [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/medieval-knives]
There is no argument, why are people jumping to extrapolation? I'm pointing out that this DNN can be (and is being) used to identify people based on the ("any") detected faces. The possible usage is certainly related to the Parent comment issue.
Autofocus can be for anything - Phone cameras, Surveillance cameras, Drone missile targeting systems, etc.
Cars can be used for anything - moving people from home to work, robbing banks, running people over, etc.
Yes, and pjreddie seems to have concluded computer vision is mostly (or too often for their liking) used for the digital equivalent of those bad things.
I think prjeddie's concerns are extremely relevant. However he's not the only one working on things like this, thus it's unlikely that research and development will stop, although I certainly think such development is ethically questionable. In some ways this thing seems similar to the ethical problems facing the scientists working on the nuclear bomb. I just hope to God that this tech will be used for good rather than bad, but the way things are going with political censorship (government sponsored or otherwise) and people of opposing camps doing their best to dox political opponents–let's just say I'm not too optimistic...
> it's unlikely that research and development will stop

I know you didn't make this argument here, but I still want to point out that that's ethically irrelevant for his decision.

Or the other way around: "Someone else would have done it" is not a defense when you've built something that was clearly gonna be used for Bad Things(TM).

> Yes, and pjreddie seems to have concluded computer vision is mostly (or too often for their liking) used for the digital equivalent of those bad things.

Indeed, there are many nefarious applications of computer vision. But applications to the medical industry are plentiful too.

I see weighing up the net benefit as a tricky and a personal matter.

That's fine - that's a personal choice he is free to make. But I completely disagree with it. I also don't think that unencumbered AI research is going to lead to the overthrow of the human race by machines like Elon does.
Making cheap computer vision is just as dangerous to the "tyrant" as his supposed victims. You can already make a plausible anti-president suicide drone, A Ticket To Tranai style.
It's not really for autofocus. For autofocus, you need a model that can detect blurred images. You also need to operate on 36-42 bit data.

Furthermore, autofocus has already progressed from face detection to eye detection.

Autofocus, autotarget, aimbots...