h a l f b a k e r yIs it soup yet?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Object oriented hotornot is a parallel version of hotornot.com but instead of people submitting photos of people the idea is to submit photos of anything, from household objects such as shoelaces or snazzy hairbrushes to holiday snaps depicting the beach of Ibiza or a hotelroom you stayed in or whatever.
Basically a generic version of the original hotornot.com idea in which anything goes. Users come to the site and rate each photo 1 to 10 as usual based on whether they think the object they are looking at is great to look at or really ugly-looking.
This may seem just as pointless as hotornot, if not more so, but in the future an advanced Artificial Intelligence project might be able to use the collected data to program itself with a visual sense of humanness by emulating the way humans respond to photographic images. Such an AI would be taught to respond in the same way as humans to various images and would have an subjective understanding of the Quality of various things.
Anyone reading this who hasnt read 'Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenaince' should , as it will clue you on the importance of the concept of 'Quality' and given you an insight into the motivation behind this idea.
Rate my "X"/ or Not polls
http://dir.yahoo.co...ls/Polls/X_or_Not_/
Buildings, pets, vomit, motorcycles, monkeys, bowel movements... we need more of this? [waugsqueke, Oct 04 2004]
What's Better?
http://www.whatsbetter.com
Contains objects. On my last page load, asked me to choose between Anthrax and Three Stooges Colorforms. [waugsqueke, Oct 04 2004]
Maybe there's a section on writing titles that mean something . . .
http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/
20 Jan 03 | A Jakob Neilsen article on writing for the Web. [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
The statistics of this kind would not represent the complex way people evaluate photos. Much more useful idea would be to evaluate the images by people sensibly describing them while viewing. Let's say there is a picture of some gadget. The picture doesn't have a name, but contains something recognizable so that it can be named. What a person has to do is to point or circle the area where s/he sees the object and write the objects' name and details (keywords) pertaining to it. This game-like activity would be very useful for collecting information about pictures for image search or directory (let's say, Google). This kind of information would also have more use for AI than merely "hot or not"... |
|
| |
This doesn't even need an advanced futuristic AI to make use of such statistics. If the pictures are analyzed by some fairly simple existing methods (color counts, edge detection) and those values tied to the gathered statistics, an AI might have a fair chance of evaluating with current methods the "something-ness" of the picture. |
|
| |
The trick is of course the analysis, but we may have a tendency to over-guess how complex the analysis needs to be. (compare to the case of spam filtering by attempting to interpret what spammers are saying versus simple word frequency analysis). |
|
| |
A similar idea: am-I-turing-or-not. Rate the interaction with various chatterbots to find which is the most likely to pass a turing test, combine the results in GA (genetic algorithm) fashion, and repeat. |
|
| |
I read that book, but don't remember thing one about it. I hope it worked. |
|
| |
Yes. I could spend hours there. Oh dear. |
|
| |
This is a nice idea. I am glad [wagster] pulled it back up after its long sleep. It needs a better title, as [bris] pointed out. |
|
| |
Every page on the web should have a "for" or "against"
button, as well as a "comments" field. There is so much
energy that goes to waste in this world because our
systems aren't responsive. It kind of funny that, despite
its potential, the web has started out as sort of a haven
for billboards. It's like an aftershock or an echo of the
unresponsiveness of the real world -- like we can't believe
we can talk back, so we might as well just not anyway.
"Wait, I didn't get enough of that not talking back, I want
some more." But I guess the newer versions of the web
will get more and more responsive with shorter and
shorter time inbetween, like skipping stone skips. |
|
| |