This title ('The infamous “AI gaydar” study was repeated – couln't be reproduced') is very incorrect; it does not correctly summarize either the linked article

This title ('The infamous “AI gaydar” study was repeated – couln't be reproduced') is very incorrect; it does not correctly summarize either the linked article or the actual paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10739.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10739.pdf) that the article is discussing. From the abstract on the actual paper: > Using a new dataset of 20,910 photographs from dating websites, the ability to predict sexual orientation is confirmed... While demonstrating that dating profile images carry rich information about sexual orientation these results leave open the question of how much is determined by facial morphology and how much by differences in grooming, presentation and lifestyle. The advent of new technology that is able to detect sexual orientation in this way may have serious implications for the privacy and safety of gay men and women. So, the study was repeated, and could be reproduced. However, it's still not clear if there's any merit to the facial morphology hypothesis, vs. the (less worrying) hypothesis that the models are just picking up on differences in grooming and presentation.