5 ms·

The invention of AI ‘gaydar’ could be the start of something much worse

9 points by netcyrax 9y ago

taithethai 9y ago
The AI was given a photo of one heterosexual person, and one of a non-heterosexual person, and they're only getting it right 81% of the time. As the article later says, I think they're really training the AI on stereotypes, as opposed to actual facial data-points that indicate someone's sexuality.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- andrew-lucker 9y ago
  I would imagine the selfie poses are stereotypically different.
mring33621 9y ago
I sure hope all of this turns out to be a joke. Or at least that sane people will realize that it's maybe fun for a parlor trick (do people say that anymore?), but not serious science. This specific attempt looks at images, but I'm reminded of some facebook analysis AI/ML thing, posted on HN in the last year, which concluded that I was gay, mostly, it stated, due to the fact that I had 'liked' both Target and Alice in Chains! Anyway, the article also mentions some FACEPTION company (OMG, please look at their site) that offers to bucket you somewhere in the range of [High IQ, Academic Researcher, Pro Poker Player, Terrorist], based on your face!
- gus_massa 9y ago
  It's not a joke. I call it "grantbait". Write a dubious research article with a very controversial result that is easy to explain, use some overhype, then ask for more money for research.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  > Or at least that sane people will realize that it's maybe fun for a parlor trick (do people say that anymore?), but not serious science. Indeed, I put this squarely in the same category as chess playing computers, and the idea the "machines that think" will ever be anything more than a niche curiosity. /s
alexandercrohde 9y ago
Worth considering: I think the reason this topic is so hot is not because of the study, but the "What if other people use this as a justification for X?" fear. For example, if it turns out that there are certain physical traits that predict sexuality, does this imply a physiological component (rather than a purely psychological one)? If there is a physiological component, I think some people worry this can be used to "pathologize" alternative sexualities. However, what if all the endocrine disrupters we're exposed to daily [1] that act as estrogens play some role in this? What if we make the topic so unspeakable that we fail to recognize environmental contamination causes both physical differences [2] and sexual differentiation differences [3]? This is part of the reason I think we can't reject information that may allow some socially-backward conclusion. Because we don't know all the other good things (i.e. medical) that information may be necessary for. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Uses 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anogenital_distance#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anogenital_distance#In_humans 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#DES_sons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#DES_sons
alexandercrohde 9y ago
I'd like to point out that there is solid science that suggests there are, on average, physiological differences between gay and straight men (possibly women too, but I'm less versed in this research). A great starting point is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio. Another example trait is the number of ridges on your thumb, for example. I'm not sure why people are so hostile to the idea that one of these traits might be in facial structure. I don't really see what the risk is.

9 points by netcyrax 9y ago

The AI was given a photo of one heterosexual person, and one of a non-heterosexual person, and they're only getting it right 81% of the time. As the article later says, I think they're really training the AI on stereotypes, as opposed to actual facial data-points that indicate someone's sexuality.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
andrew-lucker 9y ago
I would imagine the selfie poses are stereotypically different.

mring33621 9y ago

I sure hope all of this turns out to be a joke. Or at least that sane people will realize that it's maybe fun for a parlor trick (do people say that anymore?), but not serious science. This specific attempt looks at images, but I'm reminded of some facebook analysis AI/ML thing, posted on HN in the last year, which concluded that I was gay, mostly, it stated, due to the fact that I had 'liked' both Target and Alice in Chains! Anyway, the article also mentions some FACEPTION company (OMG, please look at their site) that offers to bucket you somewhere in the range of [High IQ, Academic Researcher, Pro Poker Player, Terrorist], based on your face!

gus_massa 9y ago
It's not a joke. I call it "grantbait". Write a dubious research article with a very controversial result that is easy to explain, use some overhype, then ask for more money for research.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> Or at least that sane people will realize that it's maybe fun for a parlor trick (do people say that anymore?), but not serious science. Indeed, I put this squarely in the same category as chess playing computers, and the idea the "machines that think" will ever be anything more than a niche curiosity. /s

alexandercrohde 9y ago

Worth considering: I think the reason this topic is so hot is not because of the study, but the "What if other people use this as a justification for X?" fear. For example, if it turns out that there are certain physical traits that predict sexuality, does this imply a physiological component (rather than a purely psychological one)? If there is a physiological component, I think some people worry this can be used to "pathologize" alternative sexualities. However, what if all the endocrine disrupters we're exposed to daily [1] that act as estrogens play some role in this? What if we make the topic so unspeakable that we fail to recognize environmental contamination causes both physical differences [2] and sexual differentiation differences [3]? This is part of the reason I think we can't reject information that may allow some socially-backward conclusion. Because we don't know all the other good things (i.e. medical) that information may be necessary for. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Uses 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anogenital_distance#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anogenital_distance#In_humans 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#DES_sons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#DES_sons

alexandercrohde 9y ago

I'd like to point out that there is solid science that suggests there are, on average, physiological differences between gay and straight men (possibly women too, but I'm less versed in this research). A great starting point is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio. Another example trait is the number of ridges on your thumb, for example. I'm not sure why people are so hostile to the idea that one of these traits might be in facial structure. I don't really see what the risk is.