Flagged to fix the title. This is the letter that supposedly called it junk science: https://medium.com/@CoalitionForCriticalTechnology/abolish-the-techtopriso

Flagged to fix the title. This is the letter that supposedly called it junk science: https://medium.com/@CoalitionForCriticalTechnology/abolish-the-techtoprisonpipeline-9b5b14366b16 https://medium.com/@CoalitionForCriticalTechnology/abolish-t... The central claim that the title of the original paper would suggest is that criminality can be predicted by using image processing (original title: "A Deep Neural Network Model to Predict Criminality Using Image Processing"). This is the press release of the original paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20200506013352/https://harrisburgu.edu/hu-facial-recognition-software-identifies-potential-criminals/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200506013352/https://harrisbur... The response letter claims: > AI applications that claim to predict criminality based on physical characteristics are a part of a legacy of long-discredited pseudosciences such as physiognomy and phrenology, which were and are used by academics, law enforcement specialists, and politicians to advocate for oppressive policing and prosecutorial tactics in poor and racialized communities. The thing is though, either the claim of the paper is right or wrong, if they can predict criminality with 80% accuracy from faces based on image processing then it can do that. So either they can, or they cannot. If they cannot, then challenge them on that aspect of their paper, if they can, then no amount of "debunking" changes it. This seems a bit like some moral panic rather than a well founded scientific objection. If the claim is true, would it not be better to know the truth? Why should we hide claims about fact? If the claim about fact is wrong then it is wrong, no need to hide it, just say it is wrong. If it is right it is right, I really don't get the need for moral outrage here.