336
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by dbilitated@aussie.zone to c/programming@programming.dev

We can get a computer to tag the birds, answer questions about them, and generate new pictures of them.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Well research teams have been working on it 10 years

[-] dbilitated@aussie.zone 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

they did good

edit: tbh honest i think it was around 5 years ago i started being able to identify things with google lens on my phone. they worked fast!

[-] hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They'd already been on it for a few decades 5 years ago...

[-] Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

And crazy how not only can tools recognize birds but generate novel new images of them.

[-] zepplenzap@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago
[-] DannyMac@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago

Did you miss the part that said "I'll need a research team and 5 years?" The XKCD character did it! SUCCESS!

[-] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

More than 5 years then. The comic was right, with the difference that it took more than 1 single team of researchers to solve it

[-] Zetaphor@zemmy.cc 69 points 1 year ago

I have a book on learning Pytorch, this XKCD is in the first chapter and implementing this is the first code practice. It's amazing how things progress.

[-] oldfart@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Do you recommend that book? Title?

[-] Zetaphor@zemmy.cc 5 points 1 year ago

Yes I do! It's a pretty great overview that isn't extremely math heavy

The book is "Deep Learning for Coders with Fastai and PyTorch: AI Applications Without a PhD"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492045527

[-] oldfart@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks! Not math heavy is good.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

Not obsolete? More like prophetic.

[-] GamesRevolution@programming.dev 44 points 1 year ago

It's actually even more correct because it underestimated the time needed by 5 years

[-] modulojs@programming.dev 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I remember this one. It seems as spot on now as it was then, IMO. It's not trying to say that object detection is magic or impossible, since it was totally possible then as well. It just requires a dedicated team + time + money to pay them, which is what this comic was trying to express. It is true there are more off-the-shelf software available for newer programmers now than there was before, so dev time is shorter, but that's more just degrees of comfort / budget as opposed to anything fundamentally different.

[-] tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

It could have been the other way around if global positioning systems were either not developed or used only by the military. In that case, detecting scenery of a park could be easier than trying to figure out the position on the map.

Or it could just be that maps data are not shared. You'll need to hire boats and hire people to go and draw the map.

[-] satrunalia44@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That's true, even if the specific example doesn't hold, the core concept does. If I needed to implement a bird detector today, I'd make an API call to AWS Rekognition or an equivalent service. It would take me a day or two to learn the API and then maybe 4 hours to actually implement. But if you asked me to implement a bird species detector, I'm pretty sure there is no off the shelf API capable of that, and I would indeed need months or years.

[-] obosob@feddit.uk 40 points 1 year ago

Even with AI models that can identify that there are birds in the picture. Having it decide with accuracy that the picture is of a bird is still a hard problem.

[-] zifnab25@hexbear.net 39 points 1 year ago

The original problem was posited... 60 years ago?

It's a bit like saying "I wonder how the dinosaurs died?" in the early '00s, a few years before meteor theory really got nailed down. Like, ignore the last century of postulation. We just knocked this out real quick.

[-] RustySharp@programming.dev 31 points 1 year ago

Like, ignore the last century of postulation. We just knocked this out real quick.

Oh wow thanks, TIL. I was a kid in the 90s, and always taught and read "there's many guesses, but the most likely theory is a massive impact causing global changes". And only today I learnt that it was a relatively new theory at the time, and the crater wasn't even identified until the early 90s!

[-] jochem@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

The one that blew my mind is that plate tectonics is only a widely accepted theory since the 70s.

[-] dbilitated@aussie.zone 13 points 1 year ago

yeah, the comic describes it as "the virtually impossible" and directly notes we've spent 50 years trying. it's just a really interesting perspective that it was a recent truism that this stuff is virtually impossible, and we've solved it and a huge number of other very difficult problems in less than a decade.

I'm not saying we aren't building on centuries of work, i'm saying the rate of recent progress is remarkable. I feel like you missed the point on purpose in order to have a hot take.

[-] zifnab25@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

yeah, the comic describes it as "the virtually impossible"

We are a lot better at it now than we were, say, ten years ago. But it is nearly trivial to outwit a "bird detecting algorithm" by holding up a vague facsimile of a bird. That gets us back to the old TrashFuture line about AI just being "some dude at a computer filling out captchas".

I'm not saying we aren't building on centuries of work, i'm saying the rate of recent progress is remarkable.

The recent progress is heavily overstated. More often than not, what a computer does today to recognize a bird is to pull on a large library of data labeled "birds" and ask if there's a close-enough match. But that large library is not AI driven. Its the consequence of a bunch of manual labeling done by humans with eyes and brains. A novel or rare species of bird, or a bird that's camouflaged, or even just a bird that's out-of-focus or badly rendered, will still consistently fail the "Is this a bird?" test.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

In short: post title is dumb.

[-] transigence@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

Computer vision was just popping off five years after that, so I would say that it is prescient.

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 38 points 1 year ago

yeah and it has been 5 years since the comic and there was a research team that did it

[-] Andrezito@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

They probably got 2 research teams

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 year ago

I used to put this in my object detection presentations 5 years ago and it never failed to draw chuckles from the audience.

Shit has been going really really fast.

[-] uskok@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Why do you think it's obsolete? I suppose nowadays we can use AI generative models to explain the difference between the easy and the virtually impossible, but it still can be hard.

[-] vox@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago

... it's still true...

[-] Nationalgoatism@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

I haven't used a computer to id birds before, so I'll take your word for it. That being said I know that programs I've tried are entirely incapable of identifying mushrooms (or even getting in the correct family sometimes). This may just be an issue of lack data, bc a lot of what I do to id is fairly simple and formulaic. On the other hand I use a lot of context clues which may not be readily apparent ig

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago

What could possibly go wrong with mushroom misidentification?

[-] asyncrosaurus@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Wild swings between the greatest trip you've ever had, and excruciatingly slow death.

[-] Nationalgoatism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Nothing I can think of.

[-] predmijat@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

One of the coolest things I've seen this month: https://www.lerf.io/

[-] technom@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Epilogue: She got what she asked for and completed the work 5 years ago.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I talk about this a lot. It's a conspiracy theory of mine that this comic spurred the AI image tech we have today.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or just do what iNaturalist does and have the community identify the photo

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
336 points (88.2% liked)

Programming

17342 readers
353 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS