Hacker News Reader

They probably have some statistics in the background which tells them some form of Trustlevel.

You also need to assume that there are potentially control pictures in it as well.

I think this is a very liable approach.

I think you meant "viable", not "liable". Given the discussion, your typo is ironically amusing, though.

Yeah, it's not like they will label something a train just because a single person says so. But if you have 10k responses with 95% confidence saying it's a train, it's very likely to be the case.

But GP is describing exactly the opposite: there might be a train that's not immediately visible at a glance, leading most people to not label it.

For unambiguous images almost all humans will label them the same way. For ambiguous ones humans will differ. Presumably they'll accumulate stats on each image and will be able to detect cases like this.

unless a properly obfusicated bot net has seeded the data set with -everything is a train- responses to the tune of >>10k responses with 95% confidence saying it's a train<<

Reply on news.ycombinator.com