4 ms·

I will be utterly astounded if this "study" is replicated. I will not be remotely surprised if they sell it the gullible fools in public service who don't treat

• umanwizard 9y ago
  What is your skepticism based on?
  • StanislavPetrov 9y ago
    Based on the concept that you should always be skeptical of everything, and even more skeptical when it comes to fantastic claims.
    • throwaway613834 9y ago
      I'm skeptical that it's good to be skeptical of everything...
      • StanislavPetrov 9y ago
        That's not surprising. Unfortunately you are in the majority.
        • drdeca 9y ago
          If the idea is true, then wouldn't it actually be good? Or, I guess there may be a distinction between "it is good to, for every thing, to be skeptical of that thing" and "for every thing, it is good to be skeptical of that thing". I consider the statement that "for every statement, it is good to be skeptical of that statement, regardless of what other statements that one is or is not skeptical of" to be doubtful. It seems fairly clear that skepticism which is directed in a specific way can be harmful?
    • tluyben2 9y ago
      > Based on the concept that you should always be skeptical of everything I will put this on a plaque. It is unfortunately not a popular opinion.
• keville 9y ago
  There's plenty of science behind micro-expressions and detection of deception. Paul Ekman [0] is "ranked 59th out of the 100 most cited psychologists of the twentieth century" and I thought the TV show based on his research [1] was very entertaining. (I am surprised that the article used the phrase "micro-expression" without any reference to Ekman's work.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_to_Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_to_Me
  • QAPereo 9y ago
    Do you know what science actually is?
    • wadkar 9y ago
      Your question seems to be inconsistent with HN guidelines: comments should be constructive. Specifically, comments should encourage discussion and allow for multiple perspectives on topic. It appears to me that your comment is borderline name calling and is anything but constructive.
      • QAPereo 9y ago
        Thanks for your concern, but I disagree. Science means something, and really don’t confuse word count with value.
        • wadkar 9y ago
          I fail to see how asking someone if they know what science is would help with a constructive discussion. Did you mean to imply that the micro-expression related work the the GP cited is not scientific in your opinion? Or are you questioning the GPs knowledge about science?
          • QAPereo 9y ago
            It seemed like a legitimate question to ask someone referring to the content of those links as “plenty of science...”
• IIAOPSW 9y ago
  >What are currently the best tech buzzwords that might convince people you have magic pixie dust for sale? blockchain
  • AstralStorm 9y ago
    AI is second best though.
    • oceanghost 9y ago
      blockchAIn.
• dpweb 9y ago
  The problem I think is, lie detection software is kinda like jet plane software. Even at 99% percent effective can have terrible consequences when its 1% wrong.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• AstralStorm 9y ago
  The linked study does not support or address lie detection. It is about attacks on AI face recognition. (Making it misdetect or not detect the subject.) This is actual fake reporting. Unless author has made a critical mistake when pasting the link to the study. I suspect based on the image he meant DARE: https://doubaibai.github.io/DARE/ https://doubaibai.github.io/DARE/ Which is somewhat less than impressive. The quoted "accuracy" is AUC which weighs all errors the same. It is also not a binary detector. For use in courtroom false positives are much more costly. Remember this also says nothing about generalization power of the system. Nor how well humans could be trained to detect lies. (Untrained results were pretty impressive.) Very overblown claims as of now.