Apple Publishes Its First AI Research Paper (engadget.com) 35
When Apple said it would publish its artificial intelligence research, it raised at least a couple of big questions. When would we see the first paper? And would the public data be important, or would the company keep potential trade secrets close to the vest? At last, we have answers. Apple researchers have published their first AI paper, and the findings could clearly be useful for computer vision technology. From a report on Engadget: The paper tackles the problem of teaching AI to recognize objects using simulated images, which are easier to use than photos (since you don't need a human to tag items) but poor for adapting to real-world situations. The trick, Apple says, is to use the increasingly popular technique of pitting neural networks against each other: one network trains itself to improve the realism of simulated images (in this case, using photo examples) until they're good enough to fool a rival "discriminator" network. Ideally, this pre-training would save massive amounts of time and account for hard-to-predict situations that don't always turn up in photos.
Weak (Score:1)
Machine vision is weak AI by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Machine vision is weak AI by definition.
Nobody is going to stand up and proclaim they are implementing a strong AI. The near future will be a steady match of commercially applicable narrow AI implementagins (digital assistants, autonomous cars, asteroid assayers and miners). Eventually we will find we have backed into strong AI at the overlaps among such systems.
Re: (Score:3)
The likes of Microsoft, IBM, Google, and more publish amazing research every week. Apple rolls in with one fucking paper and the tech blogs are all covering it like breathless teenagers. Sometimes I really hate my industry.
True that. On IBM Bluemix you can get face detection and train Watson for image classification, and it's free for up to 250 images per day (after that it's about $0.01 per 5 images).
IBM is not only years ahead of Apple on this, they already commoditized visual recognition and they're making money with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The likes of Microsoft, IBM, Google, and more publish amazing research every week. Apple rolls in with one fucking paper and the tech blogs are all covering it like breathless teenagers. Sometimes I really hate my industry.
True that. On IBM Bluemix you can get face detection and train Watson for image classification, and it's free for up to 250 images per day (after that it's about $0.01 per 5 images).
IBM is not only years ahead of Apple on this, they already commoditized visual recognition and they're making money with it.
And if Apple did the same thing, you'd be the first to call them Greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
The likes of Microsoft, IBM, Google, and more publish amazing research every week. Apple rolls in with one fucking paper and the tech blogs are all covering it like breathless teenagers. Sometimes I really hate my industry.
True that. On IBM Bluemix you can get face detection and train Watson for image classification, and it's free for up to 250 images per day (after that it's about $0.01 per 5 images).
IBM is not only years ahead of Apple on this, they already commoditized visual recognition and they're making money with it.
And if Apple did the same thing, you'd be the first to call them Greedy.
No.
Re: LOL here we go (Score:2, Troll)
In case you didn't know, Apple's biggest product is marketing. They sell it with everything and give it away all the time. Only for their products, obviously, bu that's more important to them than anything else.
It's the one thing that's not changed in their entire history, and people still fall for it and perpetuate it all the time.
Apple is a marketing company that happen to sell a couple of overhyped products. IBM et al are just people who build cities, systems and technologies.
Apple stick a colour scre
Re: (Score:2)
In case you didn't know, Apple's biggest product is marketing. They sell it with everything and give it away all the time. Only for their products, obviously, bu that's more important to them than anything else.
It's the one thing that's not changed in their entire history, and people still fall for it and perpetuate it all the time.
Apple is a marketing company that happen to sell a couple of overhyped products. IBM et al are just people who build cities, systems and technologies.
Apple stick a colour screen on top their keyboard, ala that expensive OLED keyboard that's been around for decades, and slap $500 on the price.
Bullshit.
Re:Blind leading the blind (Score:5, Informative)
Why exactly would this discriminator be more authoritative than the original neural net?
The goal is not image detection but rather improving the way computers can generate fake images that could be used to train other computers to recognize objects in images. Basically they want to generate images on-the-fly that are convincing enough to be used in machine learning, that way they can crank up the volume and velocity of training sets without having to deal with the constant issue of managing a gigantic image inventory.
That's why they use two neural nets: one provides images and the other one tries to guess if they're fake or not, that way they can adjust algorithms and whatnot until the second neural net can't tell real from fake images.
Re: (Score:2)
Why exactly would this discriminator be more authoritative than the original neural net?
It would be better by including human labeled data in the training set and the test set. The labeled images would be either "real" (photos of the real world) or fake (computer generated). Train the net until it can accurately tell them apart. Then start feeding in the images generated by the adversarial net. The generative net will get better and better at making fake images look real, while the analyzing net gets better and better at discriminating between fake and real.
Re: (Score:1)
Did they just download an old MSResearch paper and scratch out "By Microsoft" and crayon "By Apple" over it?
No. They just got a pair of scissors and rounded the page corners. They just hope that everyone looks at the stylish paper and ignores the "By Microsoft".
Yawn... (Score:3)
Did they just download an old MSResearch paper and scratch out "By Microsoft" and crayon "By Apple" over it?
No. They just got a pair of scissors and rounded the page corners. They just hope that everyone looks at the stylish paper and ignores the "By Microsoft".
I know humour is a big tradition around here but you guys should really consider getting some new jokes once in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they just download an old MSResearch paper and scratch out "By Microsoft" and crayon "By Apple" over it?
No. They just got a pair of scissors and rounded the page corners. They just hope that everyone looks at the stylish paper and ignores the "By Microsoft".
I know humour is a big tradition around here but you guys should really consider getting some new jokes once in a while.
Yeah, like say "cut off the corners and claim it came from Caprica". That would be a more recent joke.
Generative Adversarial Networks (Score:1)
so Generative Adversarial Networks but with an Apple logo pasted on. -> News!
Sue-A-Matic? (Score:1)
Apple wants to quickly identify products with rounded edges and no jacks so they can sue them for design infringement.
AI Publishes Its First Human Research Paper (Score:1)
close to the vest (Score:2)
Seriously? Is this another Indianism like always dropping definite article?