So, don't get me wrong. This is a fun project and a neat little device. I don't mean to take away from it in any way. However it is really important to consider why baby monitors are so primitive: because the cost of a false negative is huge. I didn't see any mention of this in the author's experiments (only a '>98% accuracy' note). So let's talk about this a little bit: is "accuracy" what we want? Probably not---I d…
Presumably this is 98% accuracy per sample or something, not per session of crying. I wouldn't want to leave my kid completely unanswered 1/50th of the time if he actually needed me, but I think with the model as trained, regular crying would eventually get noticed and that's fine with me.
Somewhere else on the thread though somebody else called out the real downside of this model: it overfits on regular crying. Kids make all kinds of noises. Mine made a completely different, eldritch noise one time when he noticed a spider, for instance.