[HN Gopher] YOLOv4: Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Object Detection
___________________________________________________________________
YOLOv4: Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Object Detection
Author : groar
Score : 186 points
Date : 2020-04-27 13:05 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| rgovostes wrote:
| The original author of YOLO stopped working on it[1]. Alexey
| Bochkovskiy, aka AlexeyAB, created a fork on GitHub and wrote an
| extensive guide to customizing YOLO's network architecture, added
| new features, and has answered zillions of questions.
|
| 1: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1230524770350817280
| DagAgren wrote:
| So the author goes, "wait, this actually causes more evil than
| good, I will not work on it any longer", and the other guy goes
| "don't worry, I will keep doing the evil for you!"
|
| Sigh.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Do you commonly defer your moral judgements to a third party?
|
| Or do you sigh only because in this instance you agree with
| the original author, but you don't actually think it should
| be a rule that others are constrained by the moral thoughts
| of their predecessors?
|
| I know of a promising treatment for types of hypothyroidism,
| but the original discoverer doesn't want to continue work on
| it because she doesn't agree with animal testing.
|
| If my moral calculus says that the quality of life of
| millions of humans is more important than the quality of
| lives of thousands of rats and dogs, am I not allowed to pick
| up where she left off?
| deadmutex wrote:
| It's tricky thing... where do you draw the line? If someone
| works on the linux kernel, and someone uses the OS to do bad
| things.. should one stop?
|
| Also consider that object detection has a lot of impact in
| positive ways as well. It doesn't seem so black and white.
| qchris wrote:
| I'm going to jump in here as someone who is using object
| detection, and currently working on getting a Darknet
| detector in particular up and running, in what I'd like to
| think is a positive way.
|
| I'm a researcher working on a system for monitoring
| offshore kelp farms for renewable aquaculture with an
| autonomous underwater vehicle. I can't use GPS underwater,
| Dopper velocity logs and sensitive inertial navigation
| systems are either too expensive and/or export-controlled,
| and doing manual filtering of visual data is tricky and
| inconsistent. Adding good object detection for kelp to
| helps to make that kind of system much more reliable, which
| can help provide useful metrics to groups working on
| creating new biofuel sources and marine ecosystem
| monitoring. I think that's valuable work, and it's enabled
| by YOLO.
|
| Joe Redmon has paid attention to where and how his work is
| being used, and I respect him for disengaging with
| something that he finds not to line up with his values. But
| it's worth pointing out that there are people (not just me)
| who are using that work in ways that might be worthwhile.
| pstuart wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that kelp farms could be a huge
| benefit to humanity if we could scale them up enough.
|
| Your work seems worthy of an AMA if you ever have the
| time.
| MiroF wrote:
| I agree - but I imagine even personally it might be a hard
| thing to hear that something you created is being used to
| kill people, even with the knowledge that it is doing a lot
| of good.
|
| I'm curious if this is something that some sort of modified
| license could help resolve. Do I have the option to license
| my software so that it can't be used in war?
| bangonkeyboard wrote:
| _> I 'm curious if this is something that some sort of
| modified license could help resolve. Do I have the option
| to license my software so that it can't be used in war?_
|
| "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" - https:/
| /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
| rcw4256 wrote:
| Yes, but you need to be prepared to take it to court when
| someone uses your software in war.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| and when the answer is "hey, it's GPL'd, here's our
| source download link, fuck off we're exactly following
| the rules"?
|
| Licenses are not a viable solution to this sort of
| ethical quandry.
| rcw4256 wrote:
| That answer should be unsatisfactory to the court, since
| it wasn't licensed under the GPL. The rules, in this
| case, say no use in war.
| wolco wrote:
| Wouldn't object detection save people over the current
| method of dropping a huge bomb at a wedding?
| quotemstr wrote:
| Technology by itself is never "evil". There is no such thing
| as improving welfare by prolonging our ignorance of the
| natural world.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _Chris: So, I talked to him.
|
| Mitch: You did?
|
| Chris: Yeah, and he used to be the number one stud around here
| in the 70's. (whispers) Smarter than you and me put together.
|
| Mitch: So what happened? Did he crack?
|
| Chris: Yes, Mitch. He cracked, severely.
|
| Mitch: Why?
|
| Chris: He loved his work.
|
| Mitch: Well what's wrong with that.
|
| Chris: There's nothing wrong with that, but that's all he did.
| He loved solving problems, he loved coming up with the answers.
| But, he thought that the answers were the answer for
| everything. Wrong. All Science no Philosophy. So then one day
| someone tells him that the stuff he's making was killing
| people.
|
| Mitch: So what's your point? Are you saying I'm going to end up
| in a steam tunnel?
|
| Chris: Yeah.
|
| Mitch: What?_
| tehsauce wrote:
| What is this from?
| antiuniverse wrote:
| Real Genius: https://imdb.com/title/tt0089886/
| [deleted]
| 01100011 wrote:
| The only thing stopping the robot apocalypse is the power
| problem. We have every technology necessary to enable mass
| casualties from commodity robots _except_ long battery life. We
| don 't need AI. We need decent enough pattern recognition that
| can pinpoint a weakness in the human body.
|
| I often use my 'Stabby the Robot' diatribe to convey this to
| people. Imagine a robot that moves too fast to evade, that
| doesn't rely on expendable, limited ammunition(i.e. a blade or
| sharp surface), and can locate the jugular vein of a human. You
| could make one now out of a commodity drone, but it wouldn't
| last very long because of the power problem. AI would obviously
| make it more dangerous, but it isn't necessary.
|
| We've already placed very dangerous tools into the hands of
| humans. Maybe it helps AlexeyAB sleep at night to stop working
| on YOLO, but his idle hands are not holding back the future.
| airstrike wrote:
| Reminded me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw
| jefft255 wrote:
| My roboticist opinion is that you need extremely developed AI
| to do what you're saying. It requires navigational
| capabilities that don't exist yet except in very open spaces
| like fields. Also, lightweight drones which could do these
| fast maneuvers aren't very robust; you can literally slap
| them down with some pain. I get that even with a low success
| rate it could be a disaster if you have a huge amount of them
| deployed somewhat.
| IdiocyInAction wrote:
| While your robots do sound like they could kill a lot of
| people, I feel like this is a bit overblown. For a start, for
| "apocalypse", they would have to be produced in massive
| numbers, i.e. by a nation state-level actor. State-level
| actors can already make nukes or bioweapons.
| 01100011 wrote:
| What's so hard about manufacturing a few million drones?
| With a relatively modest amount of money(relative to, say,
| developing a nuclear program or chemical weapons program),
| you could hire a contract manufacturer to spin out a few
| million drones. They probably wouldn't even ask what the
| blade/needle was for, although it would be easy to craft a
| cover story(i.e. "They're for mass inoculation/slaughter of
| livestock"). Update the SW and congrats, you now have a
| weapon of mass destruction. You can target people by face,
| race, location, etc.
|
| There's a reason the US military has been playing with
| drone clouds for years.
| philipkglass wrote:
| It's not hard for a nation to manufacture or order
| millions of drones. It's also not hard to obtain enough
| rounds of ammunition to shoot millions of people. It was
| decades if not a century ago when the primary obstacle to
| a nation killing millions of people ceased to be
| "inherent technical difficulty."
| 01100011 wrote:
| It's not hard to shoot millions of people, but it is hard
| to raise the army required to do so. It is hard to do so
| without raising suspicions. It is hard to do so without
| damaging infrastructure.
|
| I rogue state, or even a non-state actor, can leverage
| cheap drones(assuming, of course, a solution to the power
| problem) to obtain a weapon of mass destruction. Drones
| are fundamentally different from bullets.
| chrischen wrote:
| But don't we need people doing the research to solve the
| problems that need to be solved but in the _right way_. Take
| covid contact tracing as an example. If Apple and Google didn't
| step in and preempt with their own tech, we may have had a
| problem with privacy eroding tech being forced through.
| longtom wrote:
| The linked tweet:
|
| _> I stopped doing CV research because I saw the impact my
| work was having. I loved the work but the military applications
| and privacy concerns eventually became impossible to ignore._
| [deleted]
| Iv wrote:
| The YOLOv3 paper is a blast to read
|
| https://pjreddie.com/media/files/papers/YOLOv3.pdf
|
| And its conclusion is gold:
|
| But maybe a better question is: "What are we going to do with
| these detectors now that we have them?" A lot of the people
| doing this research are at Google and Facebook.I guess at
| least we know the technology is in good hands and definitely
| won't be used to harvest your personal infor-mation and sell
| it to.... wait, you're saying that's exactly what it will be
| used for?? Oh. Well the other people heavily funding vision
| research are the military and they've never done anything
| horrible like killing lots of people with new technology oh
| wait..... [1] I have a lot of hope that most of the people
| using com-puter vision are just doing happy, good stuff with
| it, like counting the number of zebras in a national park, or
| tracking their cat as it wanders around their house. But
| computer vision is already being put to questionable use and
| as researchers we have a responsibility to at least consider
| the harm our work might be doing and think of ways to
| mitigate it. We owe the world that much.In closing, do not @
| me. (Because I finally quit Twitter).
|
| [1] The author is funded by the Office of Naval Research and
| Google.
| DagAgren wrote:
| I've seen people try to use YOLO for homebrewing a self-
| driving car.
|
| There's not even any need to go as far as assume evil
| intent on the users of the software, just plain
| recklessness can easily cause people to die.
| [deleted]
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| Very few grad students have a chance of showing their first
| result on TED and getting 19k citations. Consequently, they
| usually can't get away with criticizing their sponsors and
| peers' ethics post-factum, regardless of what they think of
| them.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Yup. He is an inspiration.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Also, best cv: https://pjreddie.com/resume/
| whymauri wrote:
| Some context:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/comments/47n
| b4e...
| [deleted]
| mchusma wrote:
| I have had a lot of fun working with YOLO v3 for robotics
| applications, very excited to try these updates. Thanks to the
| authors for the updates and good documentation. Good object
| recognition is the backbone of a huge range of future
| applications, and YOLO has been a good option for a while.
| punnerud wrote:
| And code on Github: https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet
|
| PyTorch version: https://github.com/Tianxiaomo/pytorch-YOLOv4
| gjstein wrote:
| I object to the use of the word "optimal" for a task like object
| detection; it feels counterproductive to claim that this is the
| "optimal" way of solving such a broad and complex problem. Great
| results, but their language needs some tempering.
| bawana wrote:
| EVERY 'good' thing starts out with 'good' intentions. And while
| it is small scale remains good. But as it scales up, it becomes
| evil. Even google, remember their motto? Now harvesting data
| like human bodies for its matrix. Even Facebook was a blast
| when it started, but now it's a merch store. Even the internet
| was beautiful when it started, now it's a sewer. It seems the
| only thing that can scale well without getting perverted is
| deep learning. But as long as humans are in that loop, it will
| fail. Cloud computing is a mistake. Bring back the pc, you
| know, 'personal computer'
| wolco wrote:
| These companies were always doing those things. Google always
| collected and connected information on you. Facebook was
| always using users content/data to experiment with. Cloud
| computing was always a mistake for most (pay more, get less
| control, get locked in). Deep learning opens up so many
| taboos our society is not ready to deal with them. As it
| scales it will open up more cans of worms.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-27 23:00 UTC)