<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>CIFAR10 to Compare Visual Recognition Performance between Deep Neural Networks and Humans · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1811.07270/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1811.07270/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>CIFAR10 to Compare Visual Recognition Performance between Deep Neural Networks and Humans — mentioned by tysam_and</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34577896</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1811.07270:34577896</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:12:29 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;93.91%+-1.52! Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07270 (Table 1 or so I think? :D :)))) Upper limit with (I think very large scale?) training on different data, then transferring to CIFAR10 I believe is 99.5%, but that is extremely unreasonable for commodity algorithms and hardware, unfortunately, I believe D: Hope this helps, thank you for your comment, I really appreciate it! :D&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1811.07270/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
