171–180 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, the headline claim is about faces , how does it make sense to then insist that you must leave the background in?
That wasn't the claim. The claim here is that we should scrub certain faces from the dataset in order to change the dataset in a certain favorable way.
When I lived in Texas, I was considered a liberal. When I moved to Chicago, I was considered a conservative. When I moved to Seattle, I was considered a conservative. When I moved to the desert southwest, I was considered a liberal. Nothing about my face changed. Just my address.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But damn it's neat and maybe frightening. Imagine if your next hiring manager had a quiet little camera in the corner and chose you based on your predicted approval of unions. This is the dystopian vision of the future I come to HN for. Bravo! (It's also why I do ML, since I'll be on the front lines to notice if something like that is being deployed. Or at least somewhat more likely.)
> This is the dystopian vision of the future I come to HN for It's what I'm here for. Fascinating technology- how might I ruin the world with it?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Of course it's a highly emotional topic and justly so, but one of our intentions here is that we all work on self-regulation around this kind of thing (e.g. processing strong reactions internally before rushing to comments) - not really for ethical reasons, but just because it's the only way to avoid the failure modes of internet forums.
There's an avalanche of people commenting on this who didn't bother to check the article before raising their methodological objections, so let's get these out of the way here. - Yes, they controlled for objects appearing in the pictures that might indicate political affiliation. The images are tightly cropped around the face. See Methods. - Yes, this is significantly better than both a coin flip and a human classifi…
My political orientiations have changed a few times over the last 10 years but my face hasn’t. This can’t actually work...
You think your face hasn't changed over the last 10 years? You think there isn't a relationship between age and politics?
[flagged]
All I'm saying is :
- Faception is accusing people of terrorism from analysing the shape of their face.
- Faception is pretenting some people have "higher IQ" (== is a naturaly superior race) based on the shape of their face
I'm not making this up, just check their website :
--> https://www.faception.com/
Pretending that some race are naturally dangerous criminal while other race is "higher IQ" is straight Scientific Racism.
One of the main example of scientific racism on Wikipedia is WWII : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
If you prefer another example of Scientific Racism such as Colons measuring African's skull to justify the Caucasian superiority (on the same wiki page) then be my guest.
In any case I really in courage you to check the picture with "High IQ" and "Terrorist" on https://www.faception.com/ . Maybe you'll better understand crazy those people are and how dangerous it can be for society
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only the researchers were as smart as you apparently think you are and somehow remembered to control for these very obvious factors. Oh yeah, they did.
I was not commenting on the main article about the research, but instead on the comment by user karaterobot that I am responding to which -- if I am interpreting it correctly -- asks the question how good one can guess purely based on those 3 demographic axes. As you note, the researcher's predictor appears to do better than random even controlling for these obvious demographic skews, which is fascinating.