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

  • DannyMac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    edit-2
    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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    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.

  • obosob@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • dbilitatedOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

  • modulojs@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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.

  • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.