Comment by godelski
2 days ago
> although that's a reasonable assumption and it is at least _somewhat_ out of distribution, given the scarcity of your examples
This isn't what "out of distribution" means. There can be ZERO images and it wouldn't mean something is OOD. OOD means not within the underlying distribution. That's why I made the whole point about interpolation.
Is it scarce? Hard to tell. But I wouldn't make that assumption based on my examples. Search is poisoned now.
I think there's a lot of things that are assumed scarce which are not. There's entire datasets that are spoiled because people haven't bothered to check.
> edit: I truly despise HN comment's formatting rules.
Add 2 spaces
on a new
line and
you can do whatever you want because it is a quote block
That's also why I quote people this way
> This isn't what "out of distribution" means. There can be ZERO images and it wouldn't mean something is OOD. OOD means not within the underlying distribution. That's why I made the whole point about interpolation.
Sure. I'll concede to that, although it's a bit pedantic.
> Is it scarce? Hard to tell. But I wouldn't make that assumption based on my examples. Search is poisoned now.
I was more referring to why it originally was used, not why it would still be used. In any case, I maintain that it was _not_ used for being OOD, which I mentioned in my first comment.
> Add 2 spaces > on a new > line and > ...
Yeah, I still hate it. Sorry. Give me markdown support and I'll be happy.
edit: I'll leave my mistake here as an example of why it's non-intuitive.
If we're discussing research -- and I think this is fair since we're discussing a link to an arxiv paper -- then being pedantic matters. Things have definitions and we are supposed to know what they mean.
You and me both