4 ms·

If that's the case, then the decision to assign it to an intern and give them 3 days, and then not to test it with a diverse set of subjects was somebody's faul

by gshdg 7y ago

If that's the case, then the decision to assign it to an intern and give them 3 days, and then not to test it with a diverse set of subjects was somebody's fault and failure. If they were not an intern (or even if they were, frankly), the engineer who built it also had a responsibility to think beyond their own demographic; and if the timeline was too short to develop a properly robust system, to at least point that out to management.

gregoriol 7y ago
As a side point, it could also be like: would someone pay 100$ for a picture in such a machine? This is sad, but that's how you get fastfoods too
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  The better question is, why replace a simple photo booth that has worked flawlessly for decades for a few quarters with a machine that requires a massive investment to work properly and do the same thing? It reminds me very much of "smart toasters" and other gadgets that are extremely expensive and arguably don't work nearly as well and aren't nearly as reliable as the old appliances they are supposed to replace.
- micheljansen 7y ago
  This is why we need regulation and can’t leave this kind of stuff up to the market. If it costs too much to make a machine that is trained on not just a set of white faces so it is not discriminatory, that machine should not be allowed to exist. The only alternative is that if you happen to be part of the privileged majority, you can get a cheap picture from an automated booth, whereas everyone else will have no choice but to pay for a more expensive alternative. This will work to amplify any differences that are already ingrained in society (that probably led to the homogenous training set to begin with).
- bingtop 7y ago
  Passport photos have been issued for over a century without needing this crap. Yes, it meant more rejections, and it meant inspectors allowing photos that had minor rule violations, but convenience isn’t the paramount goal of everything.

by gshdg 7y ago

gregoriol 7y ago

As a side point, it could also be like: would someone pay 100$ for a picture in such a machine? This is sad, but that's how you get fastfoods too

StanislavPetrov 7y ago
The better question is, why replace a simple photo booth that has worked flawlessly for decades for a few quarters with a machine that requires a massive investment to work properly and do the same thing? It reminds me very much of "smart toasters" and other gadgets that are extremely expensive and arguably don't work nearly as well and aren't nearly as reliable as the old appliances they are supposed to replace.
micheljansen 7y ago
This is why we need regulation and can’t leave this kind of stuff up to the market. If it costs too much to make a machine that is trained on not just a set of white faces so it is not discriminatory, that machine should not be allowed to exist. The only alternative is that if you happen to be part of the privileged majority, you can get a cheap picture from an automated booth, whereas everyone else will have no choice but to pay for a more expensive alternative. This will work to amplify any differences that are already ingrained in society (that probably led to the homogenous training set to begin with).
bingtop 7y ago
Passport photos have been issued for over a century without needing this crap. Yes, it meant more rejections, and it meant inspectors allowing photos that had minor rule violations, but convenience isn’t the paramount goal of everything.