Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

you bet! i was automatically thinking about how did he manage to get sufficiently good resolution, how did he cope with lighting/background changes, and so on....


It's really the wrong approach. Supervised learning is the way to go. For example a paper by Kumar et al.[1] shows how to build an "attractive woman" classifier that is 83% accurate.

[1] http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~neeraj/publications/base/pap...


Presumably if they used 310 million faces instead of only 3.1 million it would be even more accurate, which is pretty impressive.


i'm confused - an .edu paper has been already mentioned while "Weird Science" hasn't been yet.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: