The Wolfram Language Image Identification Project

https://www.imageidentify.com/

by Kipper100 • 11 years ago

91 36 11 years ago

imageidentify.com

pdevr• 11 years ago

I tried with the sample pictures on my computer, and it recognized all of them - some with uncanny accuracy.

I uploaded some photos which I took recently. It recognized them to fairly well.

Changing the orientation of an image, even if the orientation is provided in the metadata, seems to trip it up though.

Overall, amazing. Considering that it is from the Wolfram stable, not much of a surprise!

taliesinb3• 11 years ago

Yup, we're aware of and working on the orientation issue! Thanks for trying it!

taliesinb3• 11 years ago

Some of the underlying details (mostly non-technical): https://www.imageidentify.com/about/how-it-works

The function in the Wolfram Language is called ImageIdentify (obviously): http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/ImageIdentify.html

A blogpost from Stephen Wolfram about this site and related topics: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/05/wolfram-language-arti...

wlievens• 11 years ago

A photo of my wife and toddler daughter yields "instrumentation". I'm not sure what to think about that.

wyldfire• 11 years ago

An image I found of a heartbleed logo with the word "heartbleed" superimposed indicated the same response -- "instrumentation."

Stoo• 11 years ago

I tried the infamous blue dress image and also got "instrumentation". Some sort of default fall back keyword, perhaps?

Geep• 11 years ago

Whoa that's awesome! NKS!

pmelendez• 11 years ago

It seems like it doesn't work with illustrations (i.e cartoons, logos, etc). Also, lights seems to confuse the model; for instance, a picture of my son with candle on a birthday cake was identified as "instrumentation" and a picture of me with a light source in the back was tagged as light bulb.

noreasonw2• 11 years ago

I have tried with two images, one a book in Spanish entitle: Lo mejor de "Fantasy & Science Fiction", another with my watch. In the first one it classified as a machine or something like that, the second is a device. Nothing fancy and very far from what they say in the blog.

a1b2c3• 11 years ago

Help Mr. Wolfram train his engine for free.

noreasonw2• 11 years ago

R, Python and open software applications are going to be a very fierce contender in machine learning, image recognition, data mining and statistics. I wonder if close source is going to compete with the 5000 packages available in R and in the future more and more people are going to be able to improve on the shoulder of giants.

tormeh2• 11 years ago

Well, the philosophy for the Wolfram language is different. Basically, their approach seems to be "put everything imaginable in the standard library", which is kinda awesome, actually.

Should be more coherent and discoverable.

blt• 11 years ago

I like the idea. programming today takes way too much effort wiring up libraries. I wish they would find a way to make it cheaper though.

rhodin• 11 years ago

Discoverability of functionality in the system, and common ways to put things together, is an important topic. We (I'm an employee) are constantly improving our documentation system to make it easier to see what's there. With over a hundred thousand examples there's a lot of ground covered but more initiatives in this area are rolling out.

jameshart• 11 years ago

Impressed to see that it doesn't necessarily get all the sample images provided on the site right - obviously would be tempting in a tool like this to pick images there that are guaranteed to be correct, but for example the image of a bicycle wheel disc brake gets classified as a 'bicycle chain', and the typewriter as a 'computer keyboard'. Good to demonstrate the failure modes, rather than attempt to project complete infallibility.

I also like the secondary classification it does of people, looking for a 'notable person' match.

tormeh2• 11 years ago

Inserting absurd images seem to throw it off: https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/blogs/39...

I mean, how could I not try this?

taliesinb3• 11 years ago

https://www.imageidentify.com/result/1f5oz7ogn6g8g

vlasev2• 11 years ago

Well, it's not ENTIRELY wrong https://www.imageidentify.com/result/0j627xm37r6yl

treeform• 11 years ago

I used the same image and it did not guess it at all. It said "oblate"...

vlasev2• 11 years ago

Interesting. Did you use the original high-res image?

slavik81• 11 years ago

I find it pretty cool to see sensible failures. I gave it a Charizard, and if you squint you can sort of see why it came up with jack-o'-lantern.

https://www.imageidentify.com/result/12gdvqqz1w0vd

ComputerGuru• 11 years ago

You know the old saying "can't see the forest for the trees?" [1] [2]

1: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+see+the+forest+for+t...

2: https://www.imageidentify.com/result/1whslg106cfcp

Flimm• 11 years ago

It supposed to identify one item, so the fact that it got "tree" seems to be a correct response to me.

Geekette2• 11 years ago

Interesting. Tried out a few pics from my desktop and it got some right and a couple wrong but I could see why in one case (ottoman cushions identified as "containers", probably based on shape).

It would be really cool to see a refined use case for artifacts, i.e. detailed scanning and identification of sculpture by style and origin.

ahamino• 11 years ago

It couldn't identify smoke https://t.co/jlK6yswXGT

voltagex_• 11 years ago

It got Bill Gates though -https://www.imageidentify.com/result/06eboar58u4rw

ridgeguy• 11 years ago

Interesting.

I gave it a pic of me, and it returned "person" - good.

I gave it a pic of my wife at a White House dinner, and it returned "construction" - a definite "What the heck?". I suppose this could have been a subtle political comment, but whoosh, I don't get it...

I gave it a pic I took of an F22 in a 9g turn (in afterburner) and it returned "afterburner" - surprised me that it ID'ed the aircraft's propulsion regime rather than calling it an aircraft, but nonetheless impressive. How do they get it to key on Mach diamonds?

Bookmarked. I'll check in occasionally to see how it's doing in its ascent to sentience.

icanhackit• 11 years ago

I'll check in occasionally to see how it's doing in its ascent to sentience.

Turing Test: Pair it up with a chat-bot algorithm on Skype and see if it can start conversations with random users based on their home decor. "Nice red leather couch you've got there."

bane• 11 years ago

Really cool, I tried with a few photos and it did surprisingly well. I provided training info on the ones it got wrong, hopefully it keeps getting better.

Very impressive and I don't mind helping train it.

stevenh• 11 years ago

Everything I uploaded resulted in a ridiculously inaccurate response.

Here is a much better example of this type of classification engine: http://www.clarifai.com/#demo

Geekette2• 11 years ago

Just tried it out with the same pics I used for Wolfram. For one of the previously wrongly identified pics, Clarifai produced better results. For another, it miscategorized it with the same tags as Wolfram.

fernly• 11 years ago

Gave it a pic of tip-off of a basketball game. It offered "Instrumentation".

cromwellian• 11 years ago

I hate to be negative, but I found the announcement post suspiciously devoid of any acknowledgement of the huge work that has been done in this field over the last few years. Wolfram's post seems to be written in the tone as if he's suddenly discovered a way to do this, when it's old hat. No mention of the results and ILSVRC (Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge) contests held every year. Or ImageNet and all of the associated projects.

seanp2k2• 11 years ago

Here's a [biased] bit on Wolfram, the person: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/SkepticsOnWo...

TL;DR [quote] Although it is clear that Wolfram is no crank, not someone skeptics would label a pseudoscientist, skeptics will notice that, despite his flawless credentials, staggering intelligence, and depth of knowledge, Wolfram possesses many attributes of a pseudoscientist: (1) he makes grandiose claims, (2) works in isolation, (3) did not go through the normal peer-review process, (4) published his own book, (5) does not adequately acknowledge his predecessors, and (6) rejects a well-established theory of at least one famous scientist. [/quote]

jgalt212• 11 years ago

While not applicable for this post, I really like: > (5) does not adequately acknowledge his predecessors

as a huge indicator of PR-driven news article rather than a news-driven news article.

bobwaycott• 11 years ago

needs to improve before i'll be asking it to automatically order my dessert ...

https://www.imageidentify.com/result/0fmiowetw4u07

The Wolfram Language Image Identification Project

Related Stories