The war between wetware and hardware.
- Posts: 71708
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
- Title: Yes, that one.
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 3410 times
- Been thanked: 1257 times
New AI can guess whether you're gay or straight from a photograph
Artificial intelligence can accurately guess whether people are gay or straight based on photos of their faces, according to new research that suggests machines can have significantly better “gaydar” than humans.
The study from Stanford University – which found that a computer algorithm could correctly distinguish between gay and straight men 81% of the time, and 74% for women – has raised questions about the biological origins of sexual orientation, the ethics of facial-detection technology, and the potential for this kind of software to violate people’s privacy or be abused for anti-LGBT purposes.
The machine intelligence tested in the research, which was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and first reported in the Economist, was based on a sample of more than 35,000 facial images that men and women publicly posted on a US dating website. The researchers, Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang, extracted features from the images using “deep neural networks”, meaning a sophisticated mathematical system that learns to analyze visuals based on a large dataset.
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale
- Posts: 20014
- Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
- Title: Incipient toppler
- Location: Swimming in Lake Ed
- Has thanked: 606 times
- Been thanked: 604 times
It took me a while to get there but I input my photo and it said I was more hetero than ed. Apparently they had ed on file. Me at 99%. Him at 66%.
- Posts: 33641
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Been thanked: 1760 times
While interesting, I think this part "publicly posted on a US dating website" would indicate a skewing of results. So if ed didn't post on grinder so much and instead his passport photo was used that would be a more interesting study.
- Posts: 33411
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
- Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
- Has thanked: 458 times
- Been thanked: 787 times
Yeah, and I look a hell of a lot more butch without my eyeliner.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!
- Posts: 26053
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
- Title: Man in Black
- Location: Division 6
- Has thanked: 2727 times
- Been thanked: 2811 times
Why this forum exists.
https://qz.com/1078901/a-stanford-scien ... e-a-point/
Last week, The Economist published a story around Stanford Graduate School of Business researchers Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang’s claims that they had built artificial intelligence that could tell if we are gay or straight based on a few images of our faces. It seemed that Kosinski, an assistant professor at Stanford’s graduate business school who had previously gained some notoriety for establishing that AI could predict someone’s personality based on 50 Facebook Likes, had done it again; he’d brought some uncomfortable truth about technology to bear.
The study, which is slated to be published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, drew plenty of skepticism. It came from those who follow AI research, as well as from LGBTQ groups such as Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAAD).
Kosinski asserted in an interview with Quartz that regardless of the methods of his paper, his research was in service of gay and lesbian people that he sees under siege in modern society. By showing that it’s possible, Kosinski wants to sound the alarm bells for others to take privacy-infringing AI seriously. He says his work stands on the shoulders of research happening for decades—he’s not reinventing anything, just translating known differences about gay and straight people through new technology.
“This is the lamest algorithm you can use, trained on a small sample with small resolution with off-the-shelf tools that are actually not made for what we are asking them to do,” Kosinski said. He’s in an undeniably tough place: Defending the validity of his work because he’s trying to be taken seriously, while implying that his methodology isn’t even a good way to go about this research.
Essentially, Kosinski built a bomb to prove to the world he could. But unlike a nuke, the fundamental architecture of today’s best AI makes the margin between success and failure fuzzy and unknowable, and at the end of the day accuracy doesn’t matter if some autocrat likes the idea and takes it. But understanding why experts say that this particular instance is flawed can help us more fully appreciate the implications of this technology.
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.
- Posts: 67841
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
- Title: Collective Messiah
- Location: Your Mom
- Has thanked: 3466 times
- Been thanked: 2193 times
Where is the NBL
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome
WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!