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

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#41

Post by quotemstr »

carapace wrote: post #38
quotemstr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

> ...which is exactly what I'd expect from AI Now. I don't know anything about them before today. Did you see https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/talks/MIT-STS-AI-snake... which they link to in their report? It seems pretty solid to me. > Everyday experience shows that we can read people's feelings via their faces. Yeah, humans can, sometimes, but that doesn't mean these systems can. > Astrology doesn't work either…

> astrology does work

Is anyone supposed to take seriously anything else you say now that you've claimed that astrology works? You might as well be claiming we can predict the future by looking at bird entrails.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#42

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

dandanqu82 wrote: post #32
randyrand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I can be well represented in the data set, but here people can unwittingly classify my emotions incorrectly due to unconscious bias. What good will the data do if every time, I appear confused, I am labeled and angry?

The biases of labelers are tricky, because that work gets outsourced to low-wage countries.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#43

Post by carapace »

quotemstr wrote: post #41
carapace wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...which is exactly what I'd expect from AI Now. I don't know anything about them before today. Did you see https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/talks/MIT-STS-AI-snake... which they link to in their report? It seems pretty solid to me. > Everyday experience shows that we can read people's feelings via their faces. Yeah, humans can, sometimes, but that doesn't mean these systems can. > Astrology doesn't work either…

> astrology does work Is anyone supposed to take seriously anything else you say now that you've claimed that astrology works? You might as well be claiming we can predict the future by looking at bird entrails.

> Is anyone supposed to take seriously anything ... you say ...

That's really entirely up to each person, and none of my business really.

I will say that, although I make mistakes, I never lie, and rarely exaggerate. I don't participate in HN to talk nonsense.

Now then, yes, some people can predict the future by divination of entrails. Thankfully this particular mode has become quite rare.

All forms of divination work, BTW, and have the same underlying motive.

- - - -

Anyway, did you look at that PDF? If so, what did you think?

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#45

Post by Uehreka »

quotemstr wrote: post #25
carapace wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

Since we’re talking about “everyday experience”, mine is different. I routinely have a slight frown on my face if I’m not thinking about how my face looks. This, combined with my thick mustache and beard, makes me look angry or even menacing at times. If I start to think about something abstract and my mind drifts off, I might be having a grand old time thinking about how to solve a problem or build something, but my face (since I’m not paying attention to it) will assume a frown.

I am frequently asked by people, even folks who are close to me, if I’m feeling alright. At which point I realize I must be frowning and immediately smile and reassure them that I’m fine.

And you know when my face is always frowning? If I’m running errands alone and walk into a store in my “on a mission” mindset. I might be buying myself a bunch of supplies for an exciting upcoming project, but I will probably still be outwardly frowning as I walk into a store.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#46

Post by mrob »

conistonwater wrote: post #40
mrob wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This sounds like a misunderstanding of the problems faced by autistic people.

Difficulty "reading" emotions is an common and medically accepted symptom of autism spectrum disorders, and there is objectively measured evidence that it is in fact a real symptom. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15843104

This presents a serious problem to people with such disorders, because they may accidentally make people hate them by failing to understand their emotional state. If AR glasses could continually run face detection and emotion detection algorithms, they could be configured to show a warning if a conversation partner is showing signs of boredom or annoyance. Neurotypical people do this subconsciously, so it is a matter of fairness that people without the ability be allowed to use prosthetics.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#47

Post by pubutil »

conistonwater wrote: post #39
watt3rpig wrote: post #34

So I guess with my anxiety disorder even computers will think “I have something to hide” because I look nervous. Jesus christ this world is a dystopia.

If it makes you feel any better, before computers it was the security guards that thought you had something to hide instead.

However, we tend to see a computer’s analysis as absolute while a security guard’s analysis is more of an opinion.

You can also reason with a security guard. The trust we have in the computer’s analysis prevents a perceived shoplifter from reasoning against the accusation, for better or worse.

Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law

#49

Post by caseymarquis »

DonHopkins wrote: post #14
kingkawn wrote: post #7

How we express our emotions will change and this will be useless

You have a point. First there were words and punctuation, then the punctuation agglutinated into emoticons, now we have Unicode emojis, but peaches and eggplants are obscene, white space is significant, periods are rude, ellipses are ominous, and at-signs are sphincters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weing... >“Why would anyone use a period in an IM or text? Using periods in informal communic…

I'm in the cohort described in the article, and I call BS on using periods being rude. Omitting periods when sending multiple sentences makes your message jumbled garbage.
Post reply on HN