Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

crockpotveggies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 182 posts

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#121

Post by ibebrett »

jareds wrote: post #75

If I were single I would be using this. I'm totally blind so Tinder has never been useful to me. I don't know how well it would work but I could see having my friends help me train it by describing pictures to me. I was never a big fan of the like absolutely everyone option, I felt like it would be hard to start a conversation. "Why did you like me?" "The algorithm I use to make up for the fact that I can't see your…

Its just as arbitrary as "why do you like me?" "we happened to be in the same bar, which is randomness+a bit of factors based on our personalities" just because a computer is not causing you to randomly meetup at say a party, bar, concert doesn't mean its more or less based on randomness + a few factors based on your personality, location, age, etc (more or less what dating sites use)

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#123

Post by warfangle »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #104
warfangle wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also, lawsuit over similar: http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Chinese-man-divorces-and-sues-wi...

This is not a real story: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/uglybaby.asp

I stand corrected.

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#124

Post by eropple »

your_ai_manager wrote: post #47
deong wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't going to be the overlords -- they're going to have overlords. The algorithm isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better AI may make them better able to…

Algorithmic middle managers then?

That would be what Uber's dispatcher system is.

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#125

Post by waspleg »

ac166 wrote: post #8

I can't quite articulate why fully, but to me this article sums up everything that's wrong with programmers and the community in general (of which I consider myself a part). :(

From Jurassic Park:

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now

[bangs on the table]

Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well...

John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#126

Post by [deleted] »

Ixiaus wrote: post #92
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it sexist? Surely if female attraction to particular forms of female bodies is sexist then the vast majority of women are sexist? Crudely termed, granted. Of course the GP could be male too I suppose; not sure if that makes a difference.

It's a sexist statement because personal taste is implied rather than stated, the question is totally valid but should be phrased in a socially friendlier way. This is the only way for men to overcome the wave of sexism finger-pointing. "What about other body parts I find attractive?" isn't sexist. Or even, "I like boobs, what about those?" also isn't sexist (since it's explicitly conveying personal taste). As it is,…

[deleted]

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#127

Post by istorical »

Ixiaus wrote: post #92
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it sexist? Surely if female attraction to particular forms of female bodies is sexist then the vast majority of women are sexist? Crudely termed, granted. Of course the GP could be male too I suppose; not sure if that makes a difference.

It's a sexist statement because personal taste is implied rather than stated, the question is totally valid but should be phrased in a socially friendlier way. This is the only way for men to overcome the wave of sexism finger-pointing. "What about other body parts I find attractive?" isn't sexist. Or even, "I like boobs, what about those?" also isn't sexist (since it's explicitly conveying personal taste). As it is,…

You bring the interesting question into the mix:

Would we rather have an environment which attempts to make everyone comfortable, safe, and - unoffended and untriggered?

Or would we rather have an environment which attempts to give everyone the right to say what they wish, in the way they wish, without having to self-censor, and - quite possibly end up saying things that are hurtful or uncomfortable to others?

This question is at the heart of many disagreements in online communities. To me, in the past HN started off as a place where censorship and tone-policing was more rare, but as time progresses it becomes more and more an environment that is about tone-policing and preventing discomfort or offense.

I can't claim that either dynamic is preferable to the other.

Re: Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces

#128

Post by ijk »

Padding wrote: post #45
deong wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't going to be the overlords -- they're going to have overlords. The algorithm isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better AI may make them better able to…

> if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. > And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations (1) You're implying they/it'll have "motivations" in the first place. My whole argument was about a lack of motives. (2) Ther…

> Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny.

The problem is that we don't have that transparency now, and aren't particularly likely to in the future. [1] Particularly for software-as-a-service: I can't audit Facebook's algorithms, despite their effects on what my friends and family see and discuss. And I can't easily audit the black box models used to make public policy, despite the value of transparency there, either.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-ca...

Post reply on HN