General Discussion

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)

51. Yes, they are using tags

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:18 PM

Mar 2016

Google simply searches links for images that are tagged in relation to dogs. The more common the subject, the more tags to the image, the more accurate the result.

For example, type in "Miguelito Loveless", the villain from the 60s show The Wild, Wild, West, You will get a lot of photos of Michael Dunn, the actor who played him in character. However, as you look through the results you will find photos that are not Michael Dunn, or the character Miguelito Loveless, such as these:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RaOrchOImw8/TAw6hije6fI/AAAAAAAAj7I/1DXkvMy497E/s1600/Linda+Hunt.jpg
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjAyNjI0NTkyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDcwNzU1MTE@._V1_UY1200_CR485,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg

http://www.famousfix.com/post/stephen-hawking-wants-to-play-a-james-bond-movie-villain-39292915

I think we can agree that Ted Cassidy, Ida Lupino, Julie Newmar, Roy Thinnes and Peter Sellers are NOT either Michael Dunn or Miguelito Loveless.

The reason they get returned is that they happen to be on a page that also refers to the search term.

If Google actually could "recognize" images, it would know that Julie Newmar is NOT Miguelito Loveless.

You can use image search to try and identify an object and Google will search for images similar to the one you provide and show you what the image has been tagged as. Again, the more common the image, the more accurate the result. However, when I load personal photos, especially of ones that have never been on line, accuracy drops. I have a number of photos of Leonard Nimoy and George Takei (taken at various cons in the 70s), people easily identified by humans, but Google image search can't nail them down because my photos are candid shots that have never been online before.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is why we are not about to be replaced by robots [View all] Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 OP

But they're getting closer everyday... PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #1

Yes, and Google is now selling that company Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #4

It seems Google is having difficulty integrating its AI with its physical robots... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #34

There are a number of problems that must be overcome Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #35

People in the future are going to laugh at our attempts in creating AI lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #43

And while it is easy to point to a 777 aircraft and say Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #45

Cool but google photos does that quite handily Egnever Mar 2016 #2

Yes, but Google relies on image TAGS Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #5

No it doesn't Egnever Mar 2016 #48

Yes, they are using tags Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #51

You are confusing a google image search with google photos Egnever Mar 2016 #52

It is still using pattern matching based on images linked to on the web Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #56

Again I don't think you are correct see the post below Egnever Mar 2016 #57

From a link inside your own popular mechanics article Egnever Mar 2016 #54

Key sentences from the article Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #62

Now you are quibbling Egnever Mar 2016 #76

Point is they CLAIM Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #77

Just take a step back to the progress between 1950 and now Albertoo Mar 2016 #3

Again, we underestimate what the human brain can do Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #6

Like often in discussion, it's all in the qualifiers Albertoo Mar 2016 #7

Absolutely true, Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #46

I fear you picked a bad example Albertoo Mar 2016 #49

I disagree. Google translate can simply convert words from one language to another Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #53

My dear Holmes, Watson proves you wrong Albertoo Mar 2016 #55

Actually, I addressed Watson Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #59

tsk, tsk, tsk, you keep moving the goalposts Albertoo Mar 2016 #61

My point in my original post was that Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #63

practical robots that will start taking people's jobs??? It started happening ages ago. Albertoo Mar 2016 #64

And yet, there are still travel agents Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #67

Yes, but far less Albertoo Mar 2016 #68

From my original post Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #69

Robots replaced humans in manufacturing even earlier Albertoo Mar 2016 #70

Do you see the robots in the video Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #71

We probably do not have a signiificant disagreement. It's just about words. Albertoo Mar 2016 #75

There is a reason Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking are warning us about AI. killbotfactory Mar 2016 #11

Yes, Musk and Hawking are right to be woried about AIs, Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #13

It doesn't need to replace all human jobs, just some of them. Calista241 Mar 2016 #60

Really? Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #65

Yeah, I can see the future and it says Robots will get better faster Johonny Mar 2016 #18

"Faster" is a relative term Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #72

Good thing humans aren't affected by EMP. Deadshot Mar 2016 #29

Excellent pic Albertoo Mar 2016 #50

Robots won't replace human workers, but automation will. procon Mar 2016 #8

But automation can only do certain tasks within very well defined parameters Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #14

Just a wild guess, but your company's output has increased too perhaps? whatthehey Mar 2016 #31

Absolutely, Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #73

Automation is dramatically reducing the human labor required for many kinds of manufacturing. cheapdate Mar 2016 #9

Yes, it is happening, and will continue to happen Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #15

Automation is going to hit white collar workers next killbotfactory Mar 2016 #10

True, but of late Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #17

Humans don't have a halting issue. Rex Mar 2016 #12

Robots require power Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #16

True, it is curious how some simple tasks for humans are NPhard for a computer. Rex Mar 2016 #32

What computers can do is simple tasks at close to the speed of light. Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #36

Yes that is the crux of the problem, their ability to interpret important information Rex Mar 2016 #47

Tell that to Lee Sedol MowCowWhoHow III Mar 2016 #19

Golly, a computer they spent over a decade designing Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #23

It's pretty obvious you don't have a good grasp of the subject area MowCowWhoHow III Mar 2016 #24

Yes, I do. Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #38

Yes, much of our "knowledge" is embedded in our perceptual apparatus. bemildred Mar 2016 #20

I'm inclined to agree with you and I work in an industry that seems to be trying to replace me! A HERETIC I AM Mar 2016 #21

Precisely! Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #22

One thing about "Automatic braking"..... A HERETIC I AM Mar 2016 #25

You outline the other problem of innovation and automation Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #39

"the miracle of the human body" meme is mostly magical thinking phantom power Mar 2016 #26

I don't recall using the word "miracle" Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #40

You are being too literal. Humans have already been replaced "in vast quantities" by robots. ieoeja Mar 2016 #27

Actually what you are seeing there is more the result of outsourcing Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #74

For what it is worth, usedtobedemgurl Mar 2016 #28

Yes, you bring up the economics of the issue Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #44

The list of jobs not requiring visual identification of different objects is not small whatthehey Mar 2016 #30

Visual identification is just one aspect of a task Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #42

That's one area that human being excel in, but just because we excel at one doesn't mean... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #33

A would distinguish between warehouses Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #41

As long as they don't replace art teachers...n/t PasadenaTrudy Mar 2016 #37

FFS, you sound like the people in 1905 who said man flying was a century away..... Logical Mar 2016 #58

And as I point out Kelvin Mace Mar 2016 #66