|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 1, 2014 2:20:33 GMT 1
So a human can put a name to a face he has never seen before? I think not. We register patterns of light and compare them with internally stored images - it just happens that we don't fully understand the process in organic brains. Mood is no problem: whilst I don't recall meeting mood-sensing optical machines, good computer graphics systems can alter the mood of a face image without the intervention of an artist, and I have worked on health sensing cameras that are more predictive than the patient himself.
The reason that "security" organisations use biometric cameras is precisely because humans do not possess sufficient commonsense to identify someone who doesn't want to be recognised. We do however possess enough intelligence to realise that an undesirable will do all he can to look exactly like his passport photograph, so shaving off a beard and cutting your hair is probably a sign that you are innocent!
|
|
|
Post by jenn25 on Feb 1, 2014 10:00:30 GMT 1
Accuracy and precision can be the same depending on the sentence usage. It both means correctly and being precise. Just like in teaching, it is very important that a teacher knows or master the subject matter in order for the students to learn accurately. I am teaching the French language and I'm being precise on the pronunciation of French words and phrases. It helps me deliver an accurate knowledge to my students. For demo and video tutorials you check on their site learnperfectfrench.com/
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 1, 2014 12:44:58 GMT 1
So a human can put a name to a face he has never seen before? I think not. We register patterns of light and compare them with internally stored images - it just happens that we don't fully understand the process in organic brains. Mood is no problem: whilst I don't recall meeting mood-sensing optical machines, good computer graphics systems can alter the mood of a face image without the intervention of an artist, and I have worked on health sensing cameras that are more predictive than the patient himself. The reason that "security" organisations use biometric cameras is precisely because humans do not possess sufficient commonsense to identify someone who doesn't want to be recognised. We do however possess enough intelligence to realise that an undesirable will do all he can to look exactly like his passport photograph, so shaving off a beard and cutting your hair is probably a sign that you are innocent! A human being has real-world experiences on which to call on in judging peoples' demeanour and can think about what they have seen, A camera image processing unit cannot think and as long as what they register corresponds to what is stored in their memory they work well but it 's probably all too easy to fool them if somebody really wants to. What about intuition? You can't program a machine to have intuition, can you.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 1, 2014 21:22:53 GMT 1
Hi Jenn25 Accuracy and precision can be the same depending on the sentence usage. It both means correctly and being precise. Just like in teaching, it is very important that a teacher knows or master the subject matter in order for the students to learn accurately. If you haven't already dissappeared into the internet's aether you may wish to read this post. You'll find that those who contribute to this board are very aware of the importance of accuracy when using language. So, in order for your students to make the correct translation of Accuracy and Precision into French, may I suggest you include the following in your lesson? P PS: There are many engineering words that have precise meanings. You may, for example, have a great deal of difficulty fitting an "arbuste" into a location designed to take a bush! Just saying!
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 3, 2014 3:15:32 GMT 1
What about intuition? You can't program a machine to have intuition, can you. What most people mean by intuition is getting the answer right in the complete absence of relevant information, experience or programming. Well, if you can show me an animal that does that more than 50% of the time, I'll admit that it's quite a challenge to replicate mechanically. But where's the evidence? Take a simple example: find a blind man who can identify photographs of his friends by looking at them, or a musician who can name a piece of music by feeling the CD, and I'll believe in intuition.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 3, 2014 9:14:13 GMT 1
Principled, I don't know your source but that is not how I understand the definition of precision there. I agree with the definition of accuracy, but in my book precision is really quite different; it means the exactness of the results. (Accuracy means "rightness" whereas precision means "exactness"). Say for example a thermometer might have the scale on it with marks 1C apart. If a thermometer is created which can show the results in tenths of a degree, that is ten times more precise. You might say that the world's temperature has gone up by 1C in the past 100 years, or 1.4C to be more precise, or 1.38C to be more precise - whether those figures are accurate is another matter entirely.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 3, 2014 10:03:10 GMT 1
What about intuition? You can't program a machine to have intuition, can you. What most people mean by intuition is getting the answer right in the complete absence of relevant information, experience or programming. Well, if you can show me an animal that does that more than 50% of the time, I'll admit that it's quite a challenge to replicate mechanically. But where's the evidence? Take a simple example: find a blind man who can identify photographs of his friends by looking at them, or a musician who can name a piece of music by feeling the CD, and I'll believe in intuition. Intuition is the ability to jump to the correct answer without having to go through the necessary steps, one at a time, although intuition is not always correct and some people have better intuition than others. This is not something that can currently be programmed into AI systems simply because we have huge gaps in knowledge about how the human brain works and even if we did, the crudity of today's computer architecture would not support such abilities. But it's not just intuition but imagination, logic, thinking outside the box, creativity, etc., that human beings combine and synthesise into new approaches that today's computers lack . People are able to use parallel thinking in tackling problems, not to mention 'gut feelings', that have been developed over the course of evolution and that are poorly understood by cognitive scientists, let alone those in the AI field, so we are a long, long way in producing computers that even approach human mental functioning. Show me a computer that can compose a symphonic work, or write a novel and I will admit computers can rival us, but, of course, you can't.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 3, 2014 10:11:13 GMT 1
No, that's the definition of knowledge or experience.
Both have been done, about 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 3, 2014 10:24:51 GMT 1
No, that's the definition of knowledge or experience. Both have been done, about 40 years ago. in·tu·i·tion noun \ˌin-tü-ˈi-shən, -tyü-\ : a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why : something that is known or understood without proof or evidence www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuitionI'm not talking about randomly generated notes or word patterns based on crude algorithms of art but original, meaningful works. Anyone can average out aspects of existing works and create meaningless tripe, but this is not of any value. You keep overlooking the fact that computers do not think for themselves but need instructions from human beings in order to solve problems. If you can show me a computer that has truly independent thought processes then I will admit I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 3, 2014 14:07:09 GMT 1
Fascinating Principled, I don't know your source but that is not how I understand the definition of precision there. I agree with the definition of accuracy, but in my book precision is really quite different; it means the exactness of the results. (Accuracy means "rightness" whereas precision means "exactness"). Say for example a thermometer might have the scale on it with marks 1C apart. If a thermometer is created which can show the results in tenths of a degree, that is ten times more precise. You might say that the world's temperature has gone up by 1C in the past 100 years, or 1.4C to be more precise, or 1.38C to be more precise - whether those figures are accurate is another matter entirely. The quote was from Wiki, put that down to laziness. To explain the difference in my own words would have taken more time, and reading the post I thought the author probably wouldn't be back to read it anyway. No sense in wasting time. The problem is that in common parlance we often interchange precision and accuracy as they appear to be the same thing. However, in engineering the difference is pretty fundamental and can take some pages to explain in detail. Have a read below at my explanation and see if it is any clearer. Accuracy= This is a qualitative term that describes how CLOSE a set of measurements is to the ACTUAL (true) value Precision= Describes the SPREAD of the measurements when repeated. A measurement that has high repeatability has high precision but NOT necessarily high accuracy. An example. You are a dart player and need to score 3 treble 20s (ie 180). Instead, you get three double sixes. Your accuracy is low, but your precision (repeatability ) is high. You try again and get treble twenty, treble one and treble five (ie all trebles and on either side of twenty), this is higher accuracy but lower precision. If you then score then score three, treble 20s, this is both high accuracy and high precision. In a thermometer example. You have four themometers. "A" and "B" measure to two decimal places, "C" and "D" to one decimal place. You have three bowls of water, all at 20C. "A" gives 20.00, 20.01, 20.00: "C" gives 20.1, 20.0, 20.0. Both have around the same level of precision (two readings in each case the same, so there is repeatability) but A is more accurate because its value is closer to the actual value. Then we take thermometers "B" and "D" and repeat the experiment. "B" gives 20.02, 19.98, 20.04: "D" gives 20.1, 20.1,20.1. Now "D" is more precise than "B" as all its results are the same (repeatability), but "B" is more accurate because its value is closer to the actual value. Another example that springs to mind is hard and tough. We may say he was "a hard man" or he was " tough dude" and mean the same thing, but when talking about a material's characteristics they are completely different. P
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 3, 2014 17:15:22 GMT 1
in·tu·i·tion noun \ˌin-tü-ˈi-shən, -tyü-\ : a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why : something that is known or understood without proof or evidence www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuition which is a lot closer to my definition than to yours. Have you studied "The Art of Fugue"? Or any of the standard works on assonance and counterpoint? Most "classical" music was written to strict rules and every culture has its standard scales and patterns. Once you understand the structure of common forms you (or a machine) can orchestrate a sequence of notes. Whether you like the result or consider it a meaningless jumble of noise is a matter of taste, but most desktop PCs can produce a decent pastiche of Mozart or utter Stockhausen, even if the subtleties of Bach elude them. It's called modern television screenwriting. In what way is a novel "meaningful"? The £500 computer I am sitting in front of right now can solve a very complicated problem: I want to fly from A to B, so I input A and B, and the registration of the aircraft I will be using. The machine wanders off into the internet, finds the relevant weather forecasts and airspace restrictions, and gives me a complete flight plan including fuel consumption (corrected for forecast headwinds) and optimum cargo loading. The only way in which its output can be distinguished from a "manual" flight plan is that it is quicker and more authoritative because the machine has immediate access to sources of information beyond my easy reach. Of course it needs some instruction, but it takes several weeks for a person to learn the same task (we aren't born with vector algebra in our subconscious minds, or able to read maps) and I would be very concerned if a navigator offered me an "intuitive" flight plan without being told where I wanted to go or which plane I wanted to fly! Don't confuse problemsolving with independent thought processes - most problems are solved by the application of rules and information.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 3, 2014 17:40:20 GMT 1
Where did you get this definition of "precision" from? Repeatability is not in itself useful is it? Your thermometer D is repeatedly giving the wrong answer isn't it? In fact it is the most wrong of the lot. It is also less precise, using the standard definition, than A and B.
From dictionary.com Precision : in mathematics, the degree to which the correctness of a quantity is expressed.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 3, 2014 21:49:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 4, 2014 1:36:55 GMT 1
Precise bombing: landing six bombs on one building.
Accurate bombing: landing one bomb on the intended building.
There's a considerable difference.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 4, 2014 8:37:30 GMT 1
"NO, it is less accurate." Using the standard mathematical definition of "precise" (the only sensible one in my view) it is less precise, as it gives the results to only one decimal place, whereas A and B give it to 2 decimal places.
|
|