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

Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#21

Post by carapace »

quotemstr wrote: post #15

As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit the use of an algorithm, and any attempt to do so will cause more harm than anything that algorithm might possibly do. That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us true things about the world indicates that the level of internal contradiction in the standard worldview has reached an unacceptable level. Only a bankrupt and illegitimate philosophy ne…

> That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us real things about the world indicates that society's internal contradictions on certain subjects have reached a breaking point and that we need to reevaluate certain previously-inviolable assumptions.

I agree with your general point, but TFA quotes a co-founder of "leading research centre" saying,

> "At the same time as these technologies are being rolled out, large numbers of studies are showing that there is... no substantial evidence that people have this consistent relationship between the emotion that you are feeling and the way that your face looks."

So a large part of the problem is that we're rolling out cargo-cult crap without adequate self-reflection. (That's a different problem than our tech forcing us to confront real things we would rather leave latent.)

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#22

Post by currymj »

quotemstr wrote: post #15

As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit the use of an algorithm, and any attempt to do so will cause more harm than anything that algorithm might possibly do. That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us true things about the world indicates that the level of internal contradiction in the standard worldview has reached an unacceptable level. Only a bankrupt and illegitimate philosophy ne…

you can definitely tell people not to do certain things or use certain technologies and it mostly works.

as a simple example, sometimes when getting access to a dataset, you have to sign a contract agreeing not to try to de-anonymize or identify any individuals included. both sides on the contract know it is possible and perhaps easy, but they're making a legally-enforceable agreement to prevent it.

this sort of thing, or regulations enforcing similar restrictions on certain industries and institutions, is not the same thing as trying to outright ban any spread of a new technology or stop its use completely everywhere.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#23

Post by chillacy »

jdc wrote: post #16

Emotion-detecting technology is software and distribution of source code is speech, ergo banning it infringes on free speech. However it might make sense to ban its use in certain cases — like say in order to manipulate public opinion for instance.

The article mentions police investigations as one use case.

Mass surveillance technology is software and speech too, but we also might want to live in a world where it is restricted in application.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#24

Post by jakelazaroff »

randyrand wrote: post #20
dandanqu82 wrote: post #12

As someone from a less represented group in tech, I would want to know exactly who is classifying emotions present on the dataset. I don’t want to be mistaken as feeling angry anytime I don’t look happy or sad. There’s definitely unconscious bias to how certain people’s feelings are interpreted that lead to inaccurate perceptions.

Note: as long as you are well represented in the dataset your representation in tech won’t matter.

Historically, these two things have been correlated.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#25

Post by quotemstr »

carapace wrote: post #21
quotemstr wrote: post #15

As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit the use of an algorithm, and any attempt to do so will cause more harm than anything that algorithm might possibly do. That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us true things about the world indicates that the level of internal contradiction in the standard worldview has reached an unacceptable level. Only a bankrupt and illegitimate philosophy ne…

> That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us real things about the world indicates that society's internal contradictions on certain subjects have reached a breaking point and that we need to reevaluate certain previously-inviolable assumptions. I agree with your general point, but TFA quotes a co-founder of "leading research centre" saying, > "At the same time as these technologies are being rolled…

> large numbers of studies are showing that there is... no substantial evidence that people have this consistent relationship between the emotion that you are feeling and the way that your face looks.

Total, absolute bullshit --- which is exactly what I'd expect from AI Now. Everyday experience shows that we can read people's feelings via their faces. (Yes, deception is possible, but the possibility of putting on a fake face validates the thesis!) Happy people look happy. Sad people look sad. Millennia of literature and art confirm. "Large numbers of studies" confirm lots of things that would be convenient if true, but aren't. The social sciences are totally and catastrophically broken.

These expressions are older than people. Even dogs and humans can read each others' emotions. Anyone who's met a dog understands that you can tell that a happy dog is happy. I'm amazed that the person quoted in the article was able to make the above claim with a straight face.

> So a large part of the problem is that we're rolling out cargo-cult crap without adequate self-reflection.

So what? Astrology doesn't work either and we don't have to go around banning that. If this technology didn't actually work, activist groups wouldn't be trying to ban it.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#26

Post by dang »

dbsmith83 wrote: post #6
mrob wrote: post #4

And we should ban prosthetic limbs because amputees might use them to smuggle drugs. Emotion-detection tech is a prosthetic for autistic people, and if it's banned I want consistent treatment for all disabilities.

Give me a break. People don't use prosthetic limbs as a tool to decide if someone is lying to the police or if they should get the job. Your analogy is less than adequate.

Can you please edit swipes like "Give me a break" out of your posts to HN? Your comment would be fine with just the other two sentences.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#27

Post by detaro »

mrob wrote: post #4

And we should ban prosthetic limbs because amputees might use them to smuggle drugs. Emotion-detection tech is a prosthetic for autistic people, and if it's banned I want consistent treatment for all disabilities.

> Emotion-detection tech is a prosthetic for autistic people

Never heard of it being used that way. Not sure how current tools would work for that. Examples?

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#28

Post by reaperducer »

When I first read that some retailers (Walgreens) were putting face-scanning emotion profiling tech in their stores, I couldn't help but think about how many false readings would come from people who have resting bitch face.†

Then I thought it would be awesome to go to Dallas or some other place where this is common and flood the stores with these people, making the technology useless.

† https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_bitch_face

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#29

Post by mrob »

detaro wrote: post #27
mrob wrote: post #4

And we should ban prosthetic limbs because amputees might use them to smuggle drugs. Emotion-detection tech is a prosthetic for autistic people, and if it's banned I want consistent treatment for all disabilities.

> Emotion-detection tech is a prosthetic for autistic people Never heard of it being used that way. Not sure how current tools would work for that. Examples?

AFAIK it is not yet used this way in practice, but I see no reason it couldn't be integrated into AR glasses. This would allow autistic people to interact socially on an equal footing with neurotypical people.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#30

Post by criddell »

quotemstr wrote: post #15

As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit the use of an algorithm, and any attempt to do so will cause more harm than anything that algorithm might possibly do. That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us true things about the world indicates that the level of internal contradiction in the standard worldview has reached an unacceptable level. Only a bankrupt and illegitimate philosophy ne…

It's also not possible to prohibit speeding yet there are still laws that are occasional enforced.

The law generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, and sometimes age. Why can't that list be expanded?

Post reply on HN