Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
papers.ssrn.com
Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#2> The reanimation of the pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology at scale through computer vision and machine learning is a matter of urgent concern.
When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality, criminal proclivity etc through facial features then what exactly is 'pseudoscience' about it?
Sure it can and will be abused but that doesn't mean to ignore it or label it as 'pseudo' simply because it hurts your fee-fees.
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#3> The reanimation of the pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology at scale through computer vision and machine learning is a matter of urgent concern. When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality, criminal proclivity etc through facial features then what exactly is 'pseudoscience' about it? Sure it can and will be abused but that doesn't mean to ignore it or label it as 'pseudo' simply because it hurts…
> When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality
Oh you mean the thing where it still "works" with faces blurred out because it's not picking up face shape?
https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/05/ai_gaydar/
> criminal proclivity
You mean the smile detector?
https://www.callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_crim...
This stuff is bullshit and it can't work. The idea that it could work is magical thinking with no basis in reality.
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#4> The reanimation of the pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology at scale through computer vision and machine learning is a matter of urgent concern. When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality, criminal proclivity etc through facial features then what exactly is 'pseudoscience' about it? Sure it can and will be abused but that doesn't mean to ignore it or label it as 'pseudo' simply because it hurts…
> When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality Oh you mean the thing where it still "works" with faces blurred out because it's not picking up face shape? https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/05/ai_gaydar/ > criminal proclivity You mean the smile detector? https://www.callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_crim... This stuff is bullshit and it can't work. The idea that it could work is magical thinking…
Of course it could work. How do you know there is no signal there? Whether it does or not is an open question in my mind.
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality Oh you mean the thing where it still "works" with faces blurred out because it's not picking up face shape? https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/05/ai_gaydar/ > criminal proclivity You mean the smile detector? https://www.callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_crim... This stuff is bullshit and it can't work. The idea that it could work is magical thinking…
Of course it could work. How do you know there is no signal there? Whether it does or not is an open question in my mind.
I also can't disprove the existence of unicorns, but I can cite a preponderance of the evidence.
Why is the shape of your face different than the lumps on your head? Even if you find a correlation in the data why would there be a causative relation? If I'm innocent one day but steal a loaf of bread do you expect the shape of my face to change? The idea makes no sense.
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#6> The reanimation of the pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology at scale through computer vision and machine learning is a matter of urgent concern. When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality, criminal proclivity etc through facial features then what exactly is 'pseudoscience' about it? Sure it can and will be abused but that doesn't mean to ignore it or label it as 'pseudo' simply because it hurts…
Research, also of correlations (as a starting point), is to some of us "in general definitely a good thing". But.
Your use of 'accurately' probably does not consider actual sensible practices in the assessment of data, where you assess the occurrances of false positives and false negatives in more revealing considerations. One of the first online articles found through a quick search seems to be very good already as an introduction: https://towardsdatascience.com/accuracy-precision-recall-or-... (Koo Ping Shung, Accuracy, Precision, Recall or F1?, 2018).
Politically, there is a problem in fairly dealing with the matter of inclinations, especially considering that guilt is after actions, not inclinations, or considering that it amounts to "prejudice".
The use of 'pseudoscience' in the article was more political than theoretical - imprecise but left to the reader's margins of "getting the idea". It meant that "we have been there and the actual scientific results were poor (e.g. we could not predict local brain function under that bulge that may have meant inclination i)".
Science is much more complex than the simple correlation you seem to be supposing. Science is about understanding phenomena with objective grounds and methods (understanding is then corroborated with predictions, but predictions are not understanding). In your example you are limiting the matter to observations: they are the first step in science, not the last. (A statement like 'people with quality q tend towards inclination i' would be an observation, not a law.)
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When a computer can accurately predict (90%~) sexuality Oh you mean the thing where it still "works" with faces blurred out because it's not picking up face shape? https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/05/ai_gaydar/ > criminal proclivity You mean the smile detector? https://www.callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_crim... This stuff is bullshit and it can't work. The idea that it could work is magical thinking…
Of course it could work. How do you know there is no signal there? Whether it does or not is an open question in my mind.
Because it would be the equivalent of a natural built-in evil bit and an extremely bizarre thing - for the same reason that the evil bit is unlikely to be used.
Any system that claims to work on that sort of input is almost certainly picking up socio-economic status of different races, or something similar, with no causal predictive power.
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it could work. How do you know there is no signal there? Whether it does or not is an open question in my mind.
I also can't disprove the existence of unicorns, but I can cite a preponderance of the evidence. Why is the shape of your face different than the lumps on your head? Even if you find a correlation in the data why would there be a causative relation? If I'm innocent one day but steal a loaf of bread do you expect the shape of my face to change? The idea makes no sense.
No, it won't change, but certain facial metrics may indicate proclivity.
This is statistics, so an n = 1 doesn't really help your argument.
I agree though, that physiognomic "accuracy" based on self-assessments is of little value, like most self-assessments, and not very different from tarot readings or online IQ or MBTI tests.
Now when there are external assessments, these types of correlations are to be handled carefully in social sciences, because they can be self-fulfilling prophecies (people don't trust you because you look untrustworthy, so you end up behaving the way that gets you treated that way anyway) or straight up spurious, so the independent variable(s), if any, can be extremely non-evident: nutrition, environmental, cultural... This is, again, not unlike intelligence tests.
The best hard data we have is on a less delicate subject: aggression in hockey, where certain facial features correlate with quantifiable aggressive behaviors [0].
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#9If there were some truth to physiognomy, wouldn't these systems be the best way to defeat injustice?
Re: Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
#10If there were some truth to physiognomy, wouldn't these systems be the best way to defeat injustice?
These systems often create injustice at a breathtaking scale.