|
|
|
|
|
|
by tripzilch
5052 days ago
|
|
|
David Icke would get better accuracy than that. My university background is in Machine Learning. Sounds like this person did not understand ML. Was he new at this? You should learn about false positives, false negatives and plotting ROC curves from the first experiments with simple artificial random point cloud datasets (toy problems) before you even bother stepping up to image recognition. When a ML researcher gets a 100% accuracy rate, they go look for the bug in their program, not think "oh awesome, it must be very good then"--it's a bit of an embarassing mistake if it turns out it's because your training set only contains examples for one of your two classes ("has a lizard" vs "does not have a lizard"). |
|
|
I mentioned he was a student for a reason. What do you think? This was a project for a class and even still he immediately recognised the error when he tested it.
Similar to as I mentioned in reply to a child comment, you kind of sound like someone chastising a physicist for dropping a negative somewhere in their calculations. It doesn't betray a fundamental lack of understanding such that they should be lectured to go back to first grade and learn how to do arithmetic; it just demonstrates that at some point they were acting somewhat careless in what they were doing.
And, yes, it is a bit of an embarrassing mistake. That's what makes it such a fun story!