Google: Our New System For Recognizing Faces Is the Best

schwit1 writes Last week, a trio of Google researchers published a paper on a new artificial intelligence system dubbed FaceNet that it claims represents the most accurate approach yet to recognizing human faces. FaceNet achieved nearly 100-percent accuracy on a popular facial-recognition dataset called Labeled Faces in the Wild, which includes more than 13,000 pictures of faces from across the web. Trained on a massive 260-million-image dataset, FaceNet performed with better than 86 percent accuracy.

The approach Google's researchers took goes beyond simply verifying whether two faces are the same. Its system can also put a name to a face—classic facial recognition—and even present collections of faces that look the most similar or the most distinct. Every advance in facial recognition makes me think of Paul Theroux's dystopian Ozone.

Comments

Confusion

[clam666]

FaceNet achieved nearly 100-percent accuracy...

" performed with better than 86 percent accuracy. "

I'm not able to parse these numbers, or I have a misunderstanding as to what nearly means.

Re:Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

100-percent accuracy and recognizing the presence of a face in a photo
86-percent accuracy in determining the identity of the face in the photo

Re:Confusion

[clam666]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe I screwed up by being on reddit to long earlier, but unless it detects cats I see no use for this technology.

why do we continue to do research..

[TheGratefulNet]

on really BAD ideas and freedom-killing ideas?

you don't think this will be mostly used against us, one way or another?

do no evil? yeah, right. I have this bridge here I can sell you...

yet another example of 'lets plow ahead and not care about social blowback from our research'. scientists and engineers really need to go back to school and take an ETHICS course or two. maybe they'd realize that 'because you can, does not mean you should'.

I see nothing good coming from this. nothing at all. just pure evil to be used against people.

it takes a wise person to realize that some things should not be done. of course, google has geniuses but those geniuses have no idea at all how they are being played and how their work will be used to reduce freedom and privacy. sad that smart people can be conned into working against their own best interests ;(

Re:why do we continue to do research..

[Anonymous Coward]

why do we continue to do research..
on really BAD ideas and freedom-killing ideas?

Same reason we continue to write posts with the first sentence in the title:

Because we are fucking self-centered assholes who think we are clever and
don't give a damn whether or not our actions make life harder for other people.

Re:why do we continue to do research..

[TFlan91]

Scientists and engineers are by definition not supposed to be ethical.

You and I, as private citizens, take what they produce, determine if it's ethical/profitable/whatever, and act accordingly. Whether that is enacting a law banning said product, regulating it, or saying let the market do with it as it pleases.

As a programmer, I applaud their skill, and even more so that they were able to complete what they set out to do. As a programmer, I understand why we celebrate these type of stories.

As a private citizen, I do fear for my privacy.

But do not confuse the two perspectives.

Re:why do we continue to do research..

[McGruber]

Scientists and engineers are by definition not supposed to be ethical.

Professional Engineers (PEs) disagree:

Ethics - National Society of Professional Engineers

and

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers