Editing Talk:1425: Tasks

the source of title text maybe is Szeliski, ''Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications'' (2010), p. 10. --[[User:Valepert|valepert]] ([[User talk:Valepert|talk]]) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[[http://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/|Google’s Artificial Brain Learns to Find Cat Videos]] might be useful as a description of the problem [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.219|108.162.250.219]] 08:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice Superman joke there, Pudder! --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:It had been removed in an edit, so I shoehorned in back in :P --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't there an xkcd where the estimate of 5 years of work is equivalent to "might take forever?" [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure you're refering to 678. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.132|173.245.52.132]] 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The link in the description is to a document by {{w|Seymour Papert}} and the [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Summer_Vision_Project.html?id=qOh7NwAACAAJ book] on the project is also by Papert.  Is there any contemporary evidence that it was actually Minsky who assigned the project?  I think he just got interested in it later. 14:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[http://xkcd.com/678/ 678: Researcher Translation] is probably what you're thinking of, Rtanenbaum. [[User:Ndgeek|Ndgeek]] ([[User talk:Ndgeek|talk]]) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that Randall's selection of bird rather than another naturally occurring object is a subtle reference to the Birdsnap app (http://engineering.columbia.edu/it-crow-or-raven-new-birdsnap-app-will-tell-you-0) which has solved some of the aspects of this problem?  [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.137|173.245.48.137]] 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I can add that this also seems to make reference to the U.S. Forest Service intention to make everyone have a permit to take pics, etc., in national parks.  https://www.yahoo.com/travel/dont-take-that-picture-the-u-s-forest-service-might-98484656432.html {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.21}}

Post the picture to an online forum, say it's a bird, if it's not everyone will correct you as per http://xkcd.com/386/, so scrape forum and if there's a lot of attention it's not a bird, if there isn't much attention it probably is a bird. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.78|141.101.99.78]] 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A dev team at Flickr took this comic as a challenge, and set up a PoC at http://parkorbird.flickr.com/ (that seems to work fairly well). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:I was duly impressed. It doesn't recognize big bird very well, though. ;) [[User:Suspender guy|Suspender guy]] ([[User talk:Suspender guy|talk]]) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A 'picture of a bird' from a CS perspective is a reverse engineering problem.  The picture is a 2 dimensional rendering of a 3-dimensional world and a 'bird' is a 3-dimensional object.  It takes years for the mind of a newborn human to be able to recognize a majority of objects based on their 'first look' at a stereoscopic (two-eyes) image presented by their visual cortex.  The software equivalency of this would be to create a 3 dimensional representation of objects and create a linear-algebra algorithm that can define the statistical probability that any given shape is within a certain degree of exclusion a matrix representation of the target shape (area) of the 3 dimensional object (bird) based on distance (using spacial reconstruction).  It's not impossible, it's just really really hard.  - nerd answer {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.166}}
:To be honest I don't think it is impossible to replicate any function of human intelligence and mental capacity on a computer system. It just requires sufficient processing ability, appropriate hardware, and of course, an understanding of how humans do it in the first place. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 03:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Or just give Google a little less than two years, and they'll make [https://cloud.google.com/vision/ Google Cloud Vision API] for you [[User:Gpk|Gpk]] ([[User talk:Gpk|talk]]) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I read somewhere that when you ask CS/IT specialist for a probable ETA for solving an interesting problem, you need to multiply the given time to the ETA by 4 and take the next larger unit (a minute becomes 4 hours, an hour becomes 4 days etc.). Can't find the source of that though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.229|141.101.70.229]] 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

== GIS being "easy" ==

All these years later, I still struggle with the classification of "are we in a national park" as "easy"..

It 'only' requires a functioning GPS-system. A military super-project, whose [https://nation.time.com/2012/05/21/how-much-does-gps-cost/ initial setup cost 12 billion], still costs ~2 million a day, and whose principles of operation depend on [https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/20230/does-gps-use-general-relativity both special '''and''' general relativity] for correctness.
And that's ''before'' we add the record-keeping and (internet?)logistics involved with providing each phone an accurate GIS-database. The OpenStreetMap (most likely free/gratis source of this type of data, for a cheap app) is a massive undertaking!

(sarcasm on) GIS-lookup sure is easy! Only took a minor Manhattan-project, a literal Einstein, and an army of internet volunteers to solve!(sarcasm off)

(I'm leaving out mobile internet access while in said National Parks (Telecom operators are among the wealthiest companies in the world, and those phone-towers-disguised-like-trees don't come cheap...), because the App would probably be shipped with a hardcoded park-database, not do live queries.)

-- Jules @ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.77|162.158.91.77]] 08:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

:This is about implementation of something existing, not inventing it from scratch. The use of the word "app" implies, that this comic is happening in the smartphone area, so GPS on phones should be a regular thing. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

:: "app" sets the real-world context, but the punchline is about the comparative hardness '''in CS'''.
:: For the pragmatic app-developer, "previously solved" equals "easy"; for a doctorate in computational theory, it doesn't :-)
:: -- Jules @ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.77|162.158.91.77]] 12:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That might be true, but this comic is definitely about developing an app, so it doesn't matter if GPS involves complicated hard- and software setups outside of the app or not. And unless you focus on the theoretical work also for a computer scientist, it is easy to use established GPS methods. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

now deep learning is common you not need research team and five years anymore

:And it took about five years since the comic was posted to get to that point...

This comic is referring to doing a GIS lookup which is a glorified sql Query which has nothing to do with GPS and the the USGS spatial data a GIS database is commonly populated with is not derived from GPS information anyway. A GIS Lookup IS easy. Gathering the spatial data is difficult, though as previously mentioned its already widely and freely available for use. --[[User:PlatterMonkous|PlatterMonkous]]
:The GIS data is being looked at to determine if GPS-derived metadata lies within one of its boundaries, surely?  Without GPS, the query has no sensible question to ask.
:(Then again, none of my own pictures have that sort of EXIF information. Either they're taken on a 'dumb' digital camera, that doesn't have inbuilt GPS, or even ''if'' they're done via my GPS+Camera-equipped tablet (rare) I've likely not allowed the one to be fed data that the other one knows. If it's even turned on. But the comic scenario clearly assumes otherwise.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.62|172.70.86.62]] 20:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that, like in a number of other comic explanations, the explanation of the humour has given way to the technical exposition of the situation. What made me chuckle about this comic is the old adage in the software industry that: ''It takes 5% of the time to implement the first 95%, but 95% of time to complete the last 5%''. Even when experienced programmers correctly identify the difficult element of a problem and attempt to compensate for that difficulty in their implementation schedules, they can still be ''wildly'' off the mark. In this case, 60 years and counting... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.28|172.71.94.28]] 10:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The year is 2024, and there is an ArsTechnica article about the problem in this comic now being solved. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/01/famous-xkcd-comic-comes-full-circle-with-ai-bird-identifying-binoculars/ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.41|172.70.210.41]] 22:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
:Updated to add credit where credit is due, the research team in our reality that created the technology is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in the Center for Avian Population Studies and Macaulay Library: https://ebird.org/about/staff -- No doubt if Ponytail was the lead the staff could've done it in half the time! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.24|162.158.90.24]] 22:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The rewrite of the explanation is really long overdue! If it's hard to start from scratch, someone could request GPT-4 to make a plan on how to update the article, and then use the ideas for inspiration {{unsigned ip|162.158.151.152|20:44, 13 March 2024}}
:If you think it could do with a rewrite, rewrite it yourself. (Stay away from GPT, though, still likely to give an unsatisfactory explanation. If not downright hallucinating.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.179|172.70.86.179]] 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)