4 ms·

Of course it's not good, it's magic disguised as science. It's theoretically possible, but we're nowhere near the level of tech to be able to pull it off. It'

Of course it's not good, it's magic disguised as science. It's theoretically possible, but we're nowhere near the level of tech to be able to pull it off. It's basically a money grab.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
While that's quite likely true, I wonder if you have any solid reason to say this, or any background in the subject of the genetics of faces.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  that's the wrong attitude. That would be like a layman hearing someone say "general AI isn't possible, their claims are bollocks" and someone responding with "maybe that's true, but do you have a background in general AI?". And this attitude causes things like police to arrest the wrong person because they don't understand the limits of machine learning. I don't need to be an expert to simply say this is problematic and shouldn't be used. YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. We need more skepticism, not less. But to answer your question, I understand biology well enough to understand the challenges involved here. But you don't even need that to understand the problem. In their marketing photo's, they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That by itself is all you need to understand how low the applicability of this is. Just imagine a police officer arresting someone who was bald and sort of looked like the criminal because this algorithm chose to render them as bald. People aren't NEARLY good enough at being able to identify a _STRANGER_ with a radically different hairstyle to be trusted with this.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    If you say something, be it positive or negative, you need to be able to back it up, so no it's not the wrong attitude. > YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. Trying to offload onto ME the validating of YOUR claim is wrong. You claim, you back it up. Not me. > We need more skepticism, not less. Oh sure! But skepticisim isn't denial. You denied, calling it 'magic'. You back it up, with stats and science, not namecalling. > they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That I'm not stupid, I noticed that too. And I'm not stupid, I'm not going to put any faith into this until some value is shown, scientifically not via the marketing department. Don't assume I do.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      Are you SURE you're not stupid? Fine, maybe you're not stupid, but the alternative is immoral. One of those is under your control the other is not. Which do you want to choose?
roudaki 6y ago
I understand why would you think that but you underestimate how little data cases can have and just getting basic sketch of race, gender and average facial features that you can use in the field and modify as new information gets available is big deal. But I can see movies presenting this as magic device with 100% exact face. I see big benefit in increasing speed of dna sample analysis and reducing price even more.

Of course it's not good, it's magic disguised as science. It's theoretically possible, but we're nowhere near the level of tech to be able to pull it off. It's basically a money grab.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

While that's quite likely true, I wonder if you have any solid reason to say this, or any background in the subject of the genetics of faces.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
that's the wrong attitude. That would be like a layman hearing someone say "general AI isn't possible, their claims are bollocks" and someone responding with "maybe that's true, but do you have a background in general AI?". And this attitude causes things like police to arrest the wrong person because they don't understand the limits of machine learning. I don't need to be an expert to simply say this is problematic and shouldn't be used. YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. We need more skepticism, not less. But to answer your question, I understand biology well enough to understand the challenges involved here. But you don't even need that to understand the problem. In their marketing photo's, they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That by itself is all you need to understand how low the applicability of this is. Just imagine a police officer arresting someone who was bald and sort of looked like the criminal because this algorithm chose to render them as bald. People aren't NEARLY good enough at being able to identify a _STRANGER_ with a radically different hairstyle to be trusted with this.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  If you say something, be it positive or negative, you need to be able to back it up, so no it's not the wrong attitude. > YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. Trying to offload onto ME the validating of YOUR claim is wrong. You claim, you back it up. Not me. > We need more skepticism, not less. Oh sure! But skepticisim isn't denial. You denied, calling it 'magic'. You back it up, with stats and science, not namecalling. > they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That I'm not stupid, I noticed that too. And I'm not stupid, I'm not going to put any faith into this until some value is shown, scientifically not via the marketing department. Don't assume I do.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    Are you SURE you're not stupid? Fine, maybe you're not stupid, but the alternative is immoral. One of those is under your control the other is not. Which do you want to choose?

roudaki 6y ago

I understand why would you think that but you underestimate how little data cases can have and just getting basic sketch of race, gender and average facial features that you can use in the field and modify as new information gets available is big deal. But I can see movies presenting this as magic device with 100% exact face. I see big benefit in increasing speed of dna sample analysis and reducing price even more.