7 ms·

This isn't directly relevant to PP-YOLO, but I'm surprised roboflow is still promoting "YOLOv5" - despite that model not having an associated paper and it not b

This isn't directly relevant to PP-YOLO, but I'm surprised roboflow is still promoting "YOLOv5" - despite that model not having an associated paper and it not being made by the authors of the previous YOLO's.[1] The ML community has been asking the authors of that model to rename their project[2] because they are basically stealing publicity by making it seem like the next version of YOLO, despite its performance being worse than that of YOLOv4.[3] Roboflow has deflected this in the past by claiming they don't know if "YOLOv5" is the correct name[4], but by continuing to promote it, they are directly supporting it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that their claim of not being affiliated with Ultralytics to be either false or a half truth, given that all the top pages about "YOLOv5" were done by roboflow, including the first official announcement.[5] [1] https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920 https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920 [2] https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5/issues/2 https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5/issues/2 [3] https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920#issuecomment-642812152 https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920#issuecomment... [4] https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov4-versus-yolov5/ https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov4-versus-yolov5/ [5] https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov5-is-here/ https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov5-is-here/

renewiltord 6y ago
Manufactured controversy.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  Legitimate confusion.
airstrike 6y ago
Can one trademark algorithm names? Not sure if possible but would be the obvious solution
- dheera 6y ago
  I don't think the original authors mind others using the word "YOLO". It's just ass-holish to call it YOLOv5 if you're not the original author, if at the very least because the original author is probably already working on something they plan to release eventually as "YOLOv5". If they had called it FOO-YOLO, YOLO-BLAH, YOLO++, or literally anything else, it would probably be perfectly fine.
  - yeldarb 6y ago
    The original YOLO author publicly announced that he was no longer going to be working on computer vision models and has chimed in and said he has no problem with the name: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657
yeldarb 6y ago
We’re also the top result when you google eg “How to train yolov4” and several of the top terms for training efficientdet. Hopefully we will be a great source of info on all computer vision models someday. Our mission is to make these things easier for people to use and understand. Regardless of what you think about its name, YOLOv5 a great model for a lot of use cases. And hundreds of our customers are using it in production and are very satisfied with its performance. Just as many are using YOLOv4. And EfficientDet. And MobileNet SSD v2. They’re tools, not sports teams. It’s kind of weird that they’ve developed fanbases.
- sk0g 6y ago
  Why are you attacking a "fanbase" mentality when there is none? YOLO stood for a series of networks and subsequent improvements by PJ Redmon, derivative work like PP-YOLO still signals that it's derivative work, but ones like "YOLOv5" signal that it's an updated/ improved version, which it is not. This weird defence pretty much confirms that Ultralytics and Roboflow are related though.
  - yeldarb 6y ago
    We’re not affiliated with any of the researchers. The many people taking issue with “v5” because it’s not by the same author as “v4” but not with “v4” even though it’s not the same author as “v3” are the “fanbases” I was referring to. FWIW, the YOLOv4 author noted he's not opposed to Ultralytics's project (https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png) as long as model comparisons are fair. And Redmon has shared he's happy for anyone to use the YOLO name https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 I don’t think I’m going to convince you that we don’t have some kind of hidden agenda, but we’ll continue to provide support and information about all of the new models.
    - sk0g 6y ago
      YOLOv4's authors were connected to previous ones to some extent at least, unlike YOLOv5's 'authors'. I don't particularly care either way, but attacking people put off by intentionally confusing naming is probably not the best move if you're trying to establish credibility.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nl 6y ago
To make it clear, the original YOLO author has said it's ok: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657
- m00x 6y ago
  This comment is a bit misleading. He's OK with using YOLO, but agrees that using version numbers is misleading. YOLO-v5 is not a succession to YOLO-v4, it's just another version from someone else.
  - nl 6y ago
    That's not correct. His tweet is: > Just my opinion but I’m happy for anyone to keep using the YOLO name! Just try to avoid version number collisions.... "Avoid version number collisions" means "don't use the same version number". There is nothing in that or any other tweet to indicate he doesn't think that v5 is appropriate, and if you claim otherwise you should provide a citation.

renewiltord 6y ago

Manufactured controversy.

quietbritishjim 6y ago
Legitimate confusion.

airstrike 6y ago

Can one trademark algorithm names? Not sure if possible but would be the obvious solution

dheera 6y ago
I don't think the original authors mind others using the word "YOLO". It's just ass-holish to call it YOLOv5 if you're not the original author, if at the very least because the original author is probably already working on something they plan to release eventually as "YOLOv5". If they had called it FOO-YOLO, YOLO-BLAH, YOLO++, or literally anything else, it would probably be perfectly fine.
- yeldarb 6y ago
  The original YOLO author publicly announced that he was no longer going to be working on computer vision models and has chimed in and said he has no problem with the name: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657

yeldarb 6y ago

We’re also the top result when you google eg “How to train yolov4” and several of the top terms for training efficientdet. Hopefully we will be a great source of info on all computer vision models someday. Our mission is to make these things easier for people to use and understand. Regardless of what you think about its name, YOLOv5 a great model for a lot of use cases. And hundreds of our customers are using it in production and are very satisfied with its performance. Just as many are using YOLOv4. And EfficientDet. And MobileNet SSD v2. They’re tools, not sports teams. It’s kind of weird that they’ve developed fanbases.

sk0g 6y ago
Why are you attacking a "fanbase" mentality when there is none? YOLO stood for a series of networks and subsequent improvements by PJ Redmon, derivative work like PP-YOLO still signals that it's derivative work, but ones like "YOLOv5" signal that it's an updated/ improved version, which it is not. This weird defence pretty much confirms that Ultralytics and Roboflow are related though.
- yeldarb 6y ago
  We’re not affiliated with any of the researchers. The many people taking issue with “v5” because it’s not by the same author as “v4” but not with “v4” even though it’s not the same author as “v3” are the “fanbases” I was referring to. FWIW, the YOLOv4 author noted he's not opposed to Ultralytics's project (https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png https://i.imgur.com/G00DyrX.png) as long as model comparisons are fair. And Redmon has shared he's happy for anyone to use the YOLO name https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 I don’t think I’m going to convince you that we don’t have some kind of hidden agenda, but we’ll continue to provide support and information about all of the new models.
  - sk0g 6y ago
    YOLOv4's authors were connected to previous ones to some extent at least, unlike YOLOv5's 'authors'. I don't particularly care either way, but attacking people put off by intentionally confusing naming is probably not the best move if you're trying to establish credibility.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nl 6y ago

To make it clear, the original YOLO author has said it's ok: https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657 https://twitter.com/pjreddie/status/1272618558254534657

m00x 6y ago
This comment is a bit misleading. He's OK with using YOLO, but agrees that using version numbers is misleading. YOLO-v5 is not a succession to YOLO-v4, it's just another version from someone else.
- nl 6y ago
  That's not correct. His tweet is: > Just my opinion but I’m happy for anyone to keep using the YOLO name! Just try to avoid version number collisions.... "Avoid version number collisions" means "don't use the same version number". There is nothing in that or any other tweet to indicate he doesn't think that v5 is appropriate, and if you claim otherwise you should provide a citation.