211–220 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of scraped dating website datasets lying around.
Yes, but I suppose you can't use them in a publication on Nature if they are scrapped illegally. This dataset directly from the dating website
I've never encountered this term. I can see how scrapping might be a violation of some websites terms of use, but I've never seen "scrapped illegally" used. Do you have any examples?
How would we collectively react if ML proves accurate in classifying anti-social traits or worse ? Mythomania, narcissic perversion, pedofilia, etc ? Employers, condos, schools, many communities will want to ML-screen candidates, be it officially or not..
Perhaps we’ll require AI to do the same. Otherwise AI will be an excuse to be racist, saying “It’s the stats!”.
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…
I suspect we're going to see the same thing we saw in the model that can detect sexual orientation with much better than chance odds. It was, apparently, detecting that gay men tend to take or select images of themselves for a dating profile using a different angle, better lighting, and possibly differences in things like hairstyle and beards. Very anecdotally, I've noticed a possible weak correlation between certain…
I think the key line is how much better this system is than humans attempting the same task: > Political orientation was correctly classified in 72% of liberal–conservative face pairs, remarkably better than chance (50%), human accuracy (55%), or one afforded by a 100-item personality questionnaire (66%). This isn't a matter of "recognize that old white people are conservative", because people will do that already, a…
I think your giving too much credit to humans, and ignoring the fact that most people would lose a lot of point due to a bias towards expectation that people who are attractive or look well off or happy would share their own political beliefs.
I only skimmed the paper, so I'm not claiming to know much about it, but one thing to keep in mind here is that a fair coin has a 50% accuracy using the same terminology as the headline. I'm not saying 72% is not an interesting achievement, its just that "you can do about 50% better than random chance" describes my gut feeling about how much you could actually see in someones face.
72% is a very significant deviation from 50% though, I wasn't expecting such a result. >The highest predictive power was afforded by head orientation (58%), followed by emotional expression (57%). Liberals tended to face the camera more directly, were more likely to express surprise, and less likely to express disgust. Emotional expression makes some sense in hindsight but I wouldn't have though that head orientation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the total population sampling is the same, I would expect the accuracies to remain the same. E.g. if I can get 72% accuracy in the total population just by looking at age/race/gender, doesn’t that exactly mean the accuracies in each individual category are on average 72%?
Not necessarily because each age/race/gender tuple can be present in the test dataset different amounts, and either be a stronger or weaker indicator to the model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"VGGFace224 was used to convert facial images into face descriptors, or 2,048-value-long vectors subsuming their core features." So they had more than age, race, and gender, but it doesn't really say how things were weighted.
I don't really buy this study. If humans can't get a better accuracy than 55%, I'm convinced this vector is leaking some obvious (maybe high-frequency) information that doesn't have anything to do with the face. E.g location of the person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's evidence of inheritability of political orientation, since it is tied to personality traits. Given that, it makes sense that it is possible to predict political orientation through looks alone. After all, looks are also inherited traits. The article gets into this a little bit. They are able to predict traits like intelligence and honesty by looks alone.
I think this is a very dangerous line of study. I can easily see these results getting used to forward racism and other appearance based discrimination.
What this is really telling us is that we should not be judging others on their political, sexual, ideological, whatever-ical affiliations. A person is a person and we should value them for that and only that. These other qualities may be more or less useful in some sense, but not in the sense that counts - that they are a thinking feeling person who deserves our respect.
I want a facial recognition tool that tells me what information I am leaking. We need a haveibeenpwned for facial recognition.