Comment by CompleteSkeptic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CompleteSkeptic | Hacker News Reader

CompleteSkeptic

This isn't directly relevant to PP-YOLO, but I'm surprised roboflow is still promoting "YOLOv5" - despite that model not having an associated paper and it not being made by the authors of the previous YOLO's.[1]

The ML community has been asking the authors of that model to rename their project[2] because they are basically stealing publicity by making it seem like the next version of YOLO, despite its performance being worse than that of YOLOv4.[3]

Roboflow has deflected this in the past by claiming they don't know if "YOLOv5" is the correct name[4], but by continuing to promote it, they are directly supporting it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that their claim of not being affiliated with Ultralytics to be either false or a half truth, given that all the top pages about "YOLOv5" were done by roboflow, including the first official announcement.[5]

[1] https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920

[2] https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5/issues/2

[3] https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920#issuecomment...

[4] https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov4-versus-yolov5/

[5] https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov5-is-here/

To make it clear, the original YOLO author has said it's ok: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657

This comment is a bit misleading. He's OK with using YOLO, but agrees that using version numbers is misleading. YOLO-v5 is not a succession to YOLO-v4, it's just another version from someone else.

That's not correct. His tweet is:

> Just my opinion but I’m happy for anyone to keep using the YOLO name! Just try to avoid version number collisions....

"Avoid version number collisions" means "don't use the same version number". There is nothing in that or any other tweet to indicate he doesn't think that v5 is appropriate, and if you claim otherwise you should provide a citation.

Can one trademark algorithm names? Not sure if possible but would be the obvious solution

I don't think the original authors mind others using the word "YOLO". It's just ass-holish to call it YOLOv5 if you're not the original author, if at the very least because the original author is probably already working on something they plan to release eventually as "YOLOv5".

If they had called it FOO-YOLO, YOLO-BLAH, YOLO++, or literally anything else, it would probably be perfectly fine.

The original YOLO author publicly announced that he was no longer going to be working on computer vision models and has chimed in and said he has no problem with the name: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657

Manufactured controversy.

Legitimate confusion.

We’re also the top result when you google eg “How to train yolov4” and several of the top terms for training efficientdet. Hopefully we will be a great source of info on all computer vision models someday. Our mission is to make these things easier for people to use and understand.

Regardless of what you think about its name, YOLOv5 a great model for a lot of use cases. And hundreds of our customers are using it in production and are very satisfied with its performance. Just as many are using YOLOv4. And EfficientDet. And MobileNet SSD v2.

They’re tools, not sports teams. It’s kind of weird that they’ve developed fanbases.

Why are you attacking a "fanbase" mentality when there is none? YOLO stood for a series of networks and subsequent improvements by PJ Redmon, derivative work like PP-YOLO still signals that it's derivative work, but ones like "YOLOv5" signal that it's an updated/ improved version, which it is not.

This weird defence pretty much confirms that Ultralytics and Roboflow are related though.

We’re not affiliated with any of the researchers.

The many people taking issue with “v5” because it’s not by the same author as “v4” but not with “v4” even though it’s not the same author as “v3” are the “fanbases” I was referring to.

FWIW, the YOLOv4 author noted he's not opposed to Ultralytics's project (https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png) as long as model comparisons are fair.

And Redmon has shared he's happy for anyone to use the YOLO name https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657

I don’t think I’m going to convince you that we don’t have some kind of hidden agenda, but we’ll continue to provide support and information about all of the new models.

YOLOv4's authors were connected to previous ones to some extent at least, unlike YOLOv5's 'authors'. I don't particularly care either way, but attacking people put off by intentionally confusing naming is probably not the best move if you're trying to establish credibility.

Apologies if I appeared to be attacking anyone. That certainly wasn’t the intention.

The YOLOv5 author has a widely used YOLOv3 implementation too. Having said that, I don't think it's a naming choice I'd have made.

But the OP is blaming the unaffiliated blog post authors for something they are just reporting.

Just chiming in: I had the similar concerns about Roboflow initially, but to my surprise @josephofiowa from Roboflow reached out to me to discuss it. They set aside time to specifically address a lot of the concerns I raised – e.g. that they seemed to be hyping up a model without doing appropriate benchmarks (they later did a thorough benchmark: https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov4-versus-yolov5/).

They didn't need to do this. Part of my conversation was "I get it, you're a startup, you have to focus on business value rather than research concerns." But they made the time, and put in the effort, and I feel compelled to at least mention that that happened.

Also, @pjreddie has said that he's "happy for anyone to keep using the YOLO name! Just try to avoid version number collisions": https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657

Anyway, as a fellow researcher, I just wanted to put in a good word for Roboflow. Their priorities seem to be in order. I've also learned some interesting things from their yolo breakdowns, e.g. that training time on the newer models is significantly lower.

Thank you very much for the kind words.

>They’re tools, not sports teams. It’s kind of weird that they’ve developed fanbases.

Heads up but insulting critics by basically calling them weird obsessed fans is not a good PR strategy. Just saying. Personally I try to avoid companies that do that since I don't know when I may end up on the receiving end for some perceived slight.

edit: Also, odd to name it YOLOv5 presumably due to the strong brand appeal of that name, and then to go and insult people for that brand appeal.

Yes, noted and agreed. In retrospect that came off a bit strong and I can see why it fanned the flames.

Re the edit: we didn't name it, we just reported on it using the name that its creator chose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com