Surprise! Computer Scientists Model the Exclamation Point

Red Orbit ^ | 28 NOVEMBER 2005 | Unattributed

[rdb3]

Surprise, they say, outperformed entropy and saliency, "exhibiting a stronger human bias toward surprising locations than towards entropic or salient regions." The pair say they have confirmed these results with a larger study.

No comment.

[SlowBoat407]

I was expecting this.

[Gondring]

Not surprising.

[TheGhostOfTomPaine]

Exactly as I'd predicted.

[Buck W.]

These guys apparently haven't done a literature review. "Surprise" has been modeled using catastrophe theory for over 25 years. Paulos uses it effectively in his book "Mathematics and Humor".

[glock rocks]

Itti and Baldi would make a great name for a cartoon.

just an observation.

nevermind.

[SteveMcKing]

But the same noisy environmental buzz of activity that communicators must package their messages to survive in itself contains information crucial to individuals -- information that is not in message form. These include potential threats or opportunities. Individuals clearly develop mechanisms by which they devote attention to certain stimuli, while ignoring others, in the flood of information that they receive from their senses.

As Itti and Baldi write, "efficient and rapid attentional allocation is key to predation, escape, and mating -- in short, to survival."

---

I soooo used to respect science. It's become nothing but unlearned pricks who finally get up to speed on common sense, record data until they like what they see, and then put it into words and publish it.

Then they go have a party to congradulate themselves and maybe lobby some politicians for money and laws based on their absurd conclusions, and sneer down at us like we didn't already know what they finally figured out after 20 years.

[laker_dad]

I tried to follow this, but my brain started to hurt...

[Red Badger]

Well, that explains MTV and VH1.........

[Obadiah]

My hair started to hurt.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I was expecting this.

No surprise, huh? :-)

Seems to me they have written an algorithm about known phenomena. I see no new information here, but hey, I am a mind-numbed robot.

[rdb3]

I tried to follow this, but my brain started to hurt...

Believe me, I know what you mean. I just thought this was just too rich to pass up.

[SlowBoat407]

SURPRISE!

[Eagle Eye]

Itti and Baldi say that in present research, the definition of both saliency and novelty are empirical, based on analysis of visual streams, rather than predictions about them based on basic principles,

But in a few months we'll have another study that says that it really is ok to eat cheetos and peanut butter.

[mc5cents]

WOW!!!!!!! Whoda thunk it??????????

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

This reads like it was generated by Scigen, a program that generates BS papers in computer science.

[mikegi]

Surprise, they say, outperformed entropy and saliency, "exhibiting a stronger human bias toward surprising locations than towards entropic or salient regions." The pair say they have confirmed these results with a larger study.

Imagine my surprise when Gisele dropped her robe and got in the shower with me. My salient region became obvious. Chaos ensued...

[LexBaird]

...will present their results [regarding the mechanics of surprise] December 7,

How appropriate.

[randog]

This reads like it was generated by Scigen, a program that generates BS papers in computer science.

My first thought.

[Milhous]

Surprise, they say, outperformed entropy and saliency

Prediction: relevancy outperforms surprise.

SteveMcKing. I soooo used to respect science.

Leftists seem to use Science^TM as a surrogate religion to take the place of orthodox religion.