18 ms·

Curious that they have a column "attractive" in the person's features which seems to correlate with age ...

by MeteorMarc 7y ago

crehn 7y ago
Curious about the other variables affecting it. Perhaps facial feature ratios compared to some gold standard?
- Angostura 7y ago
  Could well be a simple symmetry measure.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- bonoboTP 7y ago
  It is probably just trained on labeled data.
- HNLurker2 7y ago
  The in... in me: good jaw not weak chin, great forehead size, eyecolor with eyebrows, and overall Cha... Good face structure with low body fat 12%-13%
yorwba 7y ago
They're likely using a commercial facial recognition system which includes that feature for demos at trade shows. People love getting external validation, which also explains why the scores are all greater than 70. Edit: E.g. this article mentions a system being demoed with that feature: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/03/598012923/facial-recognition-in-china-is-big-business-as-local-governments-boost-surveilla https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/03/598012923/...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Numbers don’t really say much unless you pin them to what they’re measuring: they might not be calibrated against a percentile. For example, on a linear scale with 0 being “horrendous” and 100 being “insanely attractive”, I’d rate most of the people I know much closer to 70 than a 50: the average person could stand to look a lot worse.
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    >Numbers don’t really say much unless you pin them to what they’re measuring That's why it has the label "attractive"
    - simonh 7y ago
      Sigh, there's always one. The point is that's not a sufficiently clear definition of what's being measured. Someone I find attractive you might find unattractive, because it's a subjective attribute, so 'attractiveness' isn't an unambiguous description of what the algorithm is actually measuring.
      - johncolanduoni 7y ago
        If it’s a feature for making people who try your system at a trade show feel good about themselves as they said, it works best if it’s not measuring anything at all.
      - bluntfang 7y ago
        have you read the thread you're participating in? I digress, surely naming is really hard. there's a sweet spot to hit short and sufficiently explanative. Perhaps this didn't hit it for you, but it probably did for the target audience, and if it didn't, they could call support for the product they paid for.

Curious that they have a column "attractive" in the person's features which seems to correlate with age ...

crehn 7y ago

Curious about the other variables affecting it. Perhaps facial feature ratios compared to some gold standard?

Angostura 7y ago
Could well be a simple symmetry measure.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bonoboTP 7y ago
It is probably just trained on labeled data.
HNLurker2 7y ago
The in... in me: good jaw not weak chin, great forehead size, eyecolor with eyebrows, and overall Cha... Good face structure with low body fat 12%-13%

yorwba 7y ago

They're likely using a commercial facial recognition system which includes that feature for demos at trade shows. People love getting external validation, which also explains why the scores are all greater than 70. Edit: E.g. this article mentions a system being demoed with that feature: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/03/598012923/facial-recognition-in-china-is-big-business-as-local-governments-boost-surveilla https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/03/598012923/...

saagarjha 7y ago
Numbers don’t really say much unless you pin them to what they’re measuring: they might not be calibrated against a percentile. For example, on a linear scale with 0 being “horrendous” and 100 being “insanely attractive”, I’d rate most of the people I know much closer to 70 than a 50: the average person could stand to look a lot worse.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  >Numbers don’t really say much unless you pin them to what they’re measuring That's why it has the label "attractive"
  - simonh 7y ago
    Sigh, there's always one. The point is that's not a sufficiently clear definition of what's being measured. Someone I find attractive you might find unattractive, because it's a subjective attribute, so 'attractiveness' isn't an unambiguous description of what the algorithm is actually measuring.
    - johncolanduoni 7y ago
      If it’s a feature for making people who try your system at a trade show feel good about themselves as they said, it works best if it’s not measuring anything at all.
    - bluntfang 7y ago
      have you read the thread you're participating in? I digress, surely naming is really hard. there's a sweet spot to hit short and sufficiently explanative. Perhaps this didn't hit it for you, but it probably did for the target audience, and if it didn't, they could call support for the product they paid for.