Re: absence of proof or proof of absence?
>If something is not labelled, then it doesn't form part of >the training
Wrong. It is part of it. The training says: look: There is no pedestrian here. There is nothing.
>If something is not labelled, then it doesn't form part of >the training
Wrong. It is part of it. The training says: look: There is no pedestrian here. There is nothing.