There is nothing incorrect about the use of the term AI.
Use of CV is just a preference stated by staff.
In reality, both concepts are integral to the system.
The system uses computer vision(CV) to analyse the images in tandem with a form of artificial intelligence(AI) to learn the difference between images and make a suggestion to the user.
Specifically, iNaturalist uses neural networks / deep learning…which are a subset of machine learning(ML)… which is a subset of artificial intelligence(AI).
The use of AI in iNaturalist is a form of artificial “narrow” intelligence whilst (arguably) public usage of the term AI often leans towards ideas of artificial “general” intelligence (an AI which will theoretically supersede the intellectual abilities of human beings). Perhaps I’m off-base, but I’ve always imagined the preference here for using CV over AI is partly to do with these broader super-intelligence connotations - which could be misleading to some in this context.
Use of CV alone is also misleading / misused though at times.
The longer term “CV model” encompasses the two concepts a little better.
You write down the terms before using abbreviations (CV, AI).
Since my mother tongue is not English, the abbreviations that may be familiar to you are mostly incomprehensible to me. Even the online translation programs do not provide an explanation. Certain contributions to the discussion then remain incomprehensible to me or only approximately. I think that’s a pity.
Therefore, many thanks to all those who do not use abbreviations if possible.
I like pics with hands, it makes photos much more real and yes, more helpful, though if ti’s not windy, you can use them to focus and then take the hand away, anyway writing such statement on someone else’s observation is too much.
I’m pretty sure hands are common enough in a variety of organism photos that they shouldn’t confuse the AI anymore than rocks or vegetation in photos should confuse it.
It seems like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t . Often people will complain about the lack of a scale to indicate the size of an observation. I carry a small ruler if I feel scale is appropriate, and actually doable (doesn’t work well with birds!). I wouldn’t give it much credence. @jasiminalinkutifolia Welcome to the forum! I also like to see hands in photos. The condition of the hands always fascinates me. Especially those who have been digging in the soil.
Besides a quick way to scale, there’s now a more compelling reason to include fingers in photos: FOCUS. Every iPhone model upgrade gets a better camera but becomes increasingly difficult to focus on things that aren’t human faces. A finger next to an important feature in the observation helps get that feature in focus since the iPhone AI is all about skin.
I’m guessing the person who requested, “No fingers please,” is an art photographer using an SLR camera of some sort, not an iPhone. At any rate, I include a finger in one of my photos for almost all of my invertebrate and botanical observations, both for scale and focus.
The focus technology does use contrast to focus, you are correct. But when there are twenty contrasty things in the photo, including for example twigs which are finger-sized, which one to pick??? Answer: the one that at least looks some shade of human skin if it’s the newer iPhone models.
I would like to make it clear that I was not upset or annoyed about the ‘no fingers’ comment, just surprised. No harm done!
From the perspective of enjoying nature and individual taste, this is clearly something about which people have different preferences. I do appreciate some not wanting to have nature images ‘adulterated’ but, interestingly, others see a hand as providing a connection with nature.
Equally, from a scientific perspective (and I’m not necessarily suggesting the two cannot be reconciled) it seems clear that incorporating something in a photo to give an indication of size can be useful and, while fingers may not necessarily provide the BEST indication, they are usually the easiest and most readily available.
It is also true that a size indication is not always needed, or can be garnered from other objects in close proximity. However, the problem for the uninformed (a group with which I frequently associate) is that they don’t know when it IS important. So, my general practice (for plants and invertebrates, it’s true, it doesn’t work as well for birds) is to have at least one photo with a hand, finger, or foot just to cover the case when, for example, it is crucial to know whether the length of a particular flower petal is > or < 15mm.
I never used iPhone, but I still doubt it works like that, phones perfetly focus with sheet of paper behind the object, light background (if we talk about light-skinned people) is what’s needed for darker objects, phones do learn on faces, but skin alone is not enough for a face (likely similar to babies – arrangement matters). Background and object should be close together, focus is going somewhere else because it gets objects that are further from camera, so, eliminate them and push background to the object, and now camera have no options.
I use hands, fingers , feet, lens caps, pens etc to show scale when taking pictures that I think need a scale of sorts. Very often along footprints. At the same time I also upload pictures that don’t have “the scale” in it. Sometimes one also needs to maybe hold the plant still due to wind, or get a close up of a creature (like a leech ).
I don’t see an issue with such , i guess with the proviso that the organism is not being harmed.
Fingers that have poor manicure, dirty fingernails, cuts, bruises, infections, and worst of all, advertising statements written on the left index finger should not be used for scale.
I feel like natural variations that people are born with, scars, amputations, age spots, hair, and wrinkles are fine. Painted nails can add a certain flair to observations. Displaying tattoos in iNat photos can be just flexing, unless the tattoo is of a ruler, metric only please.