Skip to content
Better HN
Top
New
Best
Ask
Show
Jobs
Search
⌘K
undefined | Better HN
0 points
timbre
12y ago
0 comments
Share
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...
0 comments
default
newest
oldest
anaphor
12y ago
Presumably if they used 310 million faces instead of only 3.1 million it would be even more accurate, which is pretty impressive.
VladRussian2
12y ago
i'm confused - an .edu paper has been already mentioned while "Weird Science" hasn't been yet.
j
/
k
navigate · click thread line to collapse