18 ms·

Why are lie detectors legal and why were they ever used for anything? We know they don't work. And we know this one won't work any better, because now they've j

• bufferoverflow 8y ago
  How do you know AI lie detectors don't work?
  • rspeer 8y ago
    Because there is no plausible existing technology by which it would. And it's a similar promise to a lot of other over-promising AI technologies that don't work, like "fake news detectors".
    • bufferoverflow 8y ago
      "Because there is no plausible existing technology by which it would" And how do you know that?
      • frankharv 8y ago
        Because I read HackerNews https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18155548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18155548
      • frankharv 8y ago
        The polygraph is as useful at catching lies as the Scientologist E-Meter (1) is to testing religion conviction. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/
        • aptwebapps 8y ago
          This isn't a polygraph. The article calls it a lie detector and we call polygraph tests lie detectors but the claimed mechanism here is a bit different. I'm not for it, but it's not a polygraph as described.
        • bufferoverflow 8y ago
          Except this is new tech, and your only argument is that the old tech doesn't work, which I agree with.
          • realusername 8y ago
            This isn't new tech, it's going to use micro-gestures which is a questionable science. AI does not mean anything, you need inputs.
            • monkeynotes 8y ago
              This is an interesting article[1], the opinion of the author is that no reliable studies have been conducted as to if humans can detect deceit at all. He is skeptical that machines can deduce deceit using micro expressions. Quote: "Looking for cues to deception merely from ephemeral facial micro-expressions is questionable and likely fruitless. Micro gestures may be indicative of internal emotional turmoil that is being suppressed, but that is it. The distinguished Paul Ekman, who in fact coined the term micro - expression has stated in his book Telling Lies that micro expressions are rare and they "don't occur that often" (Ekman 1985, 131, 165). Plus as others have said, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Matsumoto et. al., 2011, 1-4). I am concerned that machines that focus solely on the face will no doubt miss other information from the body (sweating, jittery hand, etc.) or generate lots of false positives because negative emotions abound especially where such machines are intended such as airports (stress of travel, stress of being subjected to searches, or inconvenient interviews, etc) or in a police setting." [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/spycatcher/201203/th...
            • lucb1e 8y ago
              After this poor person getting downvoted six levels deep while asking reasonable questions, finally a comment that answers the question. I was wondering the same thing as u/bufferoverflow: sure, polygraphs don't work, but I've never heard of microexpressions being pseudoscience before. Everyone acts as if it's a given that whatever possible lie detector you come up with, it has to be snakeoil.
      • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        As always, the burden of proof lies (knee slap!) with those who claim a lie detector does work.
        • bufferoverflow 8y ago
          I didn't make any claims, but the comment I replied to did.
  • realusername 8y ago
    Because there's no reliable way which you can tell if people lie or not, putting AI in front of it won't change any of that.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • denzil_correa 8y ago
    The "Burden of Proof" lies on the entity making a claim [0]. Besides, we do know that polygraphs don't work [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) [1] https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-black-mirror/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-b...
    • lucb1e 8y ago
      We know that a polygraph does not work, but how do we know that this won't work without real-world data? And nobody is being accused of anything, there is no burden of proof involved yet. If you mean that we can't subject someone to a lie detector while asking questions, i.e. we cannot subject anyone to anything without a reasonable suspicion, then we couldn't have airport security at all unless someone tweeted "today's plane is gonna be da bomb!" Which would be a lot better than the current state of things in the USA, but that's not how this works.
  • Jmcdd 8y ago
    Because _we know_ that AI lie detectors can't currently prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is lying. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
• darawk 8y ago
  Why do you think these won't work? I would think they have a dataset that they're validating them on if they're calling it "AI". I think it's unlikely that they'll be perfect, but they may very well be good enough to filter people for further, more intensive screening.
  • coldtea 8y ago
    >Why do you think these won't work? I would think they have a dataset that they're validating them on if they're calling it "AI". You'd be surprised. AI is just a catch-all marketing term, see for example IBM's Watson umbrella brand, that's sold like advanced AI but has had tons of fiascos, and is shown to be different sets of often simplistic implementations. E.g: https://www.massdevice.com/report-ibm-watson-delivered-unsafe-and-inaccurate-cancer-recommendations/ https://www.massdevice.com/report-ibm-watson-delivered-unsaf... https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/robotics/artificial-intelligence/layoffs-at-watson-health-reveal-ibms-problem-with-ai https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/robotics/artificial-i... https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/26/17619382/ibms-watson-cancer-ai-healthcare-science https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/26/17619382/ibms-watson-canc...
    • darawk 8y ago
      You're saying these things won't work because IBM misused the word 'AI'?
      • notahacker 8y ago
        No, he's saying that we've seen all kinds of absolute garbage marketed using the words 'AI' (Watson is at the relatively complex and useful end of the spectrum) so your suggestion that this project's use of 'AI' as a marketing term implies anything about whether they have an adequate dataset to validate it on is frankly hilarious. In this case, there's excellent reason to be sceptical about whether the service has a remotely adequate dataset, because even if lie detection were a simple problem, how on earth are you going to get calibration data involving hundreds of data points of real airline passengers lying about having weapons in their luggage or intending to overstay their visa? Never mind calibration data by gender, ethnicity and nationality...
• sschueller 8y ago
  Because movies show them as working and the general public is uniformed. Same goes for forensic tools that are actually possible compared to what TV shows like CSI show. Iraq and other countries purchases millions of dollars worth of phony bomb detectors. Something anyone with a bit of science education can debunk. Look at all the things on Kickstarter that are obvious pipedreams or scams yet people invest.
  • dsego 8y ago
    Reminds of local towns buying expensive “smart benches” that really no one uses. Easy way to spend some tax-payer money and give the appearance of investing into sophisticated technology, when it's all cheap off the shelf components from China.
  • biglenny 8y ago
    >Iraq and other countries purchases millions of dollars worth of phony bomb detectors. Something anyone with a bit of science education can debunk. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/fake-bomb-detectors-iraq https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/fake-bomb-detectors-... This is a hilarious read.
    • TeMPOraL 8y ago
      This is not hilarious, it's appaling. The person selling this and people buying this are intentionally putting a lot of other people's lives at risk. I fully believe all involved parties should be tried for something at the level of attempted homicide.
• Krasnol 8y ago
  They make a good headline. In this case the Goverments of those countries love headlines that are related to their borders. AI guarding your border sells.
• TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Five years of reading HN and I’ve seen comments from all sorts of people. Former inmates, drug addicts, surgeons, lawyers, mechanics, welders, astrophysicist, particle physicists, pilots. Need I go on? Not once have I read anyone here who’s admitted to being a high level politician.
  • hartator 8y ago
    Never thought about it but you’re right.
  • ngcazz 8y ago
    Forgive me for being thick, but is your point that we'd need to have a politician's insight to understand the decision?
    • roenxi 8y ago
      To paraphrase, the question was "why is this legal when we all know it won't work?" and the answer was "we aren't the people who write the laws".
      • ngcazz 8y ago
        Makes sense! Thanks.
      • sbhn 8y ago
        Its legal when a whole bunch of suits standing behind the politician who uses there media priveledge to amplify an issue, are able to syphon without scrutiny, as many tax paying dollars as possible.
        • stochastic_monk 8y ago
          It’s not so much about the fact that taxes are levied as that there is a lack of accountability for how it’s used.
• 131012 8y ago
  Hey, the first iteration "was only tested on 30 people". It must work for sure. (Seriously, wtf, 30 people?!?)
  • mannykannot 8y ago
    I hope the test set included politicians - you need to have some subjects who are verifiably liars.
• unethical_ban 8y ago
  Even if they did work, it would be awful. Our society was built on large amounts of discretion being exercised by law enforcement and the ability to convincingly lie to law enforcement. Society is going to get flipped on its head if we are able to detect total truth, and enforce all laws with 100% effectiveness. Even worse when these tools will be mostly in the hands of the government, and not the people.
  • del82 8y ago
    > Our society was built on large amounts of discretion being exercised by law enforcement This I get. > and the ability to convincingly lie to law enforcement. This less so. Can you elaborate?
    • unethical_ban 8y ago
      Sometimes, law enforcement can only be lenient (the first part of my original post can only hold) if it's "on the record" that you say something excusable. The LEO might know it's probably a lie, but either they understand a circumstance doesn't merit citation, or they know it's a crappy law. If everything were some day 100% honest, the polite niceties of "oh sorry didn't see the speed limit change" or "Forgot I left my pocket knife in carryon, sorry" would go away. Of course these are only two of countless examples.
      • thfuran 8y ago
        Eliminating the shit laws is a much better solution than ignoring them or working around them with lies.
        • perl4ever 8y ago
          It seems to me that the concept is basically analogous to the idea people have that we should eliminate the human element from contract enforcement. Or suppose we tried to eliminate all tolerances and slippage in engineering. It's utopian/dystopian and even seriously attempting it would be disastrous, in my opinion. I don't see why people need to touch the hot stove to understand that.
• guy98238710 8y ago
  I have seen my algorithm outperform me by a large margin at something I am an expert in. The task was a highly ambiguous visual analysis. The trick is that humans focus too much on strong signals. Algorithms are much better at correctly aggregating lots of weak signals.
  • TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Did the evaluation of algorithm's superior performance included both false positives and false negatives? Personally, I don't like the concept of deploying algorithms for which we don't understand how they work, in scenarios of high health or social impact. It's cute to deploy DNNs to classify cat pictures, as when - not if - it spectacularly fails, nothing of value is lost. But if you can't point at the verified model the algorithm follows, or at least trace the algorithm after the fact, understanding and assessing every step it took, then that algorithm has no place in making decisions about people's lives.
• brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Another thing that occurs to me, especially given recent publicity, is how this affects privacy. There are some/many things that are private and which you do not want the government or corporations to know. It is outside criminal actions and therefore none of their business, but if lie detectors become omnipresent, then it will become more and more tempting to use them everywhere to make things "more efficient" and to start everyone and their dog to asking more and more things that are none of their business.
• samirm 8y ago
  Repeated lie detector tests do work for most people. It's silly to think that your average joe is trained to control his/her biological responses to that extent. 1 lie detector test never works, a lot of them do.
• lucb1e 8y ago
  I can see the point of trials: as the article says, people told to lie will act very differently from people who want to lie, and a bunch of real-world data versus some lab data is surely going to improve it. I am not convinced that there is nothing about a person that gives away, at least in a good number of cases, whether someone is lying. I'm just wondering if it's too much to hope that they'll base the decision whether to implement it beyond the trial on data and not on marketing. And there is of course the argument that it should be possible, albeit with a lot of effort and/or a reasonable punishment, to break the law. (If this was impossible, we'd never get out of regimes we don't agree with, and with the advance of technology I'm afraid we're heading somewhere where a small group is actually able to oppress a huge number of people.)
• sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Though they are not perfectly accurate, they are generally indicative, so it's useful in a statistical game. Border agents are trained to look for all sorts of things, none of which make you guilty, but a few of which may make you suitable for more questions or a quick search. So I'd imagine it'll get used in the same context.