4 ms·
It's still not far off. My dad had a pretty severe lazy eye, and I have no doubt eye tracking software would think that he was looking down at his desk constan
by TheDong 6y ago
It's still not far off.
My dad had a pretty severe lazy eye, and I have no doubt eye tracking software would think that he was looking down at his desk constantly.
I stare off into the distance (usually sideways) when I'm thinking.
Those sorts of things are common and barely conscious.
So, what's left for the AI? Trying to detect if people seem nervous? Well, I've got friends who have nervous twitches under normal conditions.
What is normal behavior varies wildly person-to-person. Trying to figure out "is someone glancing somewhere before answering" vs "does someone nod to themselves when they think they got an answer in their head" doesn't sound like something AI can do.
Figuring out "is this person cheating" from a recording of their face sounds pretty close to phrenology. Determining personality from skull-size, determining cheating from facial-motion... they both sound bogus, and like someone's trying to create a correlation that cannot account for the variety of human behaviors and shapes.
- throwaway5752 6y agoI read the article. The specific cases mentioned involved missed instructions, interruptions where the test taker let their seat, or the test taker talking. This seems invasive, an invasion of privacy, and unreasonable. I object to the use of this software. But I really don't think they are doing or even being accused of anything like phrenology. I think it weakens the case against this type of software to make inaccurate accusations like that.