5 ms·

I suspect we're going to see the same thing we saw in the model that can detect sexual orientation with much better than chance odds. It was, apparently, detec

by retrac 6y ago

I suspect we're going to see the same thing we saw in the model that can detect sexual orientation with much better than chance odds. It was, apparently, detecting that gay men tend to take or select images of themselves for a dating profile using a different angle, better lighting, and possibly differences in things like hairstyle and beards. Very anecdotally, I've noticed a possible weak correlation between certain kinds of beard styles and political leanings in men.

SamBam 6y ago
Obviously it's looking at something. I feel like everyone is jumping to assuming the authors are implying it's somehow in the person's facial structure, but it doesn't say that. If it's looking at the quality of the photo, or the trim of the beard, that's still interesting. Among other things, it means that you know analyses like this might start cropping up everywhere you submit your photo (job application cover letter?), and also that humans might be doing this innately with photos and not even realizing it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sslayer 6y ago
  This must be how god feels.
- hntrader 6y ago
  Humans might try, but the same study says they're not good at it with only 55 percent accuracy.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Unfortunately people dont have to be good at something to advocate it or force it on others. Just look at all the 'detoxes, random diets, cultural remedies like trying to cure plague with wisky, bloodletting etc. Our deductive powers havent improved much, they just moved to areas of our lives that are more nebulous. Fundamentally bloodletting and 'looks like a hippie, and hippies shouldn't work for a bank" are about on the same footing
  - Tarsul 6y ago
    question would be if a trained human is better than a machine. AlphaGo was deemed stronger than humans only once it beat the best Go player.
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    The 55% accuracy is a from a cite about a different study with a different set of photos and a different question. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232255935_Accuracy_in_Categorizing_Perceptually_Ambiguous_Groups_A_Review_and_Meta-Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232255935_Accuracy_...
    - dmurray 6y ago
      Oh, that's really important. It's the only important comparison - I don't believe 72% means anything on its own. The study either needs to try the exact same methodology on humans, or to find a metastudy that consistently shows humans perform well below that on these tests. To be fair to the authors, the information isn't hidden. It's prominent in the introduction, just not in the abstract.
      - SamBam 6y ago
        Why does this need to be better than humans to be interesting? It's still extremely interesting to me that a program can determine with over 70% accuracy a person's political orientation from a cropped photo, without taking age sex or race into consideration. Among other things, it means it can do that to 10 million photos, which you'd have to pay a lot of humans to do if you wanted it done otherwise.
        dmurray 6y ago
        Because comparing against a "competent human" is enough of a control group to be sure that it's finding interesting signal in the data and not just exploiting something trivial like race or political clothing. It doesn't need to be better than humans to be interesting. Coming pretty close would do. But if you told me humans score 90% on the same pictures, I'd believe there's something unrepresentative about the sample pictures, because I don't expect humans to have that accuracy.
        gus_massa 6y ago
        There are a lot of other cues. Oversimplifying, here in Argentina you can have a few clues from facial hair in men: Beard like Che Guevara -> Left Moustache like Saddam Hussein -> Right There are exemptions, and most people shave all facial hair, so it's more complicated, but there are many easy clues in the face. Are the easy clues enough to explain a ~70% or they did something really interesting?
thechao 6y ago
This is all discussed in the paper. The answer is that liberals are more likely to show surprise, less likely to show disgust and faced the camera directly. Much less suggestive was the wearing of beards and glasses where were very nearly in the noise.
lwansbrough 6y ago
Perhaps it’s checking if the person took a selfie in a car with sunglasses on.
rednerrus 6y ago
People are desperately trying to tell you who they are with everything that they do.
TomSwirly 6y ago
Please consider that "conservatism" in 2021 isn't just a political leaning - it requires one to believe a very great number of hateful beliefs that are provably false, and therefore to be constantly disgusted and angry. Is it so unreasonable that these feelings of disgust and anger are simply readable by machines on people's faces?
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into political or ideological flamewar. The core value of this site is curiosity and flamewar is the single greatest poison to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
nullserver 6y ago
Got into Art a few years ago. Took classes and everything. People like when I take photos now because my come out better. I simply got a lot better at understanding lighting and angles.

by retrac 6y ago

SamBam 6y ago

Obviously it's looking at something. I feel like everyone is jumping to assuming the authors are implying it's somehow in the person's facial structure, but it doesn't say that. If it's looking at the quality of the photo, or the trim of the beard, that's still interesting. Among other things, it means that you know analyses like this might start cropping up everywhere you submit your photo (job application cover letter?), and also that humans might be doing this innately with photos and not even realizing it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sslayer 6y ago
This must be how god feels.
hntrader 6y ago
Humans might try, but the same study says they're not good at it with only 55 percent accuracy.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Unfortunately people dont have to be good at something to advocate it or force it on others. Just look at all the 'detoxes, random diets, cultural remedies like trying to cure plague with wisky, bloodletting etc. Our deductive powers havent improved much, they just moved to areas of our lives that are more nebulous. Fundamentally bloodletting and 'looks like a hippie, and hippies shouldn't work for a bank" are about on the same footing
- Tarsul 6y ago
  question would be if a trained human is better than a machine. AlphaGo was deemed stronger than humans only once it beat the best Go player.
- gus_massa 6y ago
  The 55% accuracy is a from a cite about a different study with a different set of photos and a different question. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232255935_Accuracy_in_Categorizing_Perceptually_Ambiguous_Groups_A_Review_and_Meta-Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232255935_Accuracy_...
  - dmurray 6y ago
    Oh, that's really important. It's the only important comparison - I don't believe 72% means anything on its own. The study either needs to try the exact same methodology on humans, or to find a metastudy that consistently shows humans perform well below that on these tests. To be fair to the authors, the information isn't hidden. It's prominent in the introduction, just not in the abstract.
    - SamBam 6y ago
      Why does this need to be better than humans to be interesting? It's still extremely interesting to me that a program can determine with over 70% accuracy a person's political orientation from a cropped photo, without taking age sex or race into consideration. Among other things, it means it can do that to 10 million photos, which you'd have to pay a lot of humans to do if you wanted it done otherwise.
      - dmurray 6y ago
        Because comparing against a "competent human" is enough of a control group to be sure that it's finding interesting signal in the data and not just exploiting something trivial like race or political clothing. It doesn't need to be better than humans to be interesting. Coming pretty close would do. But if you told me humans score 90% on the same pictures, I'd believe there's something unrepresentative about the sample pictures, because I don't expect humans to have that accuracy.
      - gus_massa 6y ago
        There are a lot of other cues. Oversimplifying, here in Argentina you can have a few clues from facial hair in men: Beard like Che Guevara -> Left Moustache like Saddam Hussein -> Right There are exemptions, and most people shave all facial hair, so it's more complicated, but there are many easy clues in the face. Are the easy clues enough to explain a ~70% or they did something really interesting?

thechao 6y ago

This is all discussed in the paper. The answer is that liberals are more likely to show surprise, less likely to show disgust and faced the camera directly. Much less suggestive was the wearing of beards and glasses where were very nearly in the noise.

lwansbrough 6y ago

Perhaps it’s checking if the person took a selfie in a car with sunglasses on.

rednerrus 6y ago

People are desperately trying to tell you who they are with everything that they do.

TomSwirly 6y ago

Please consider that "conservatism" in 2021 isn't just a political leaning - it requires one to believe a very great number of hateful beliefs that are provably false, and therefore to be constantly disgusted and angry. Is it so unreasonable that these feelings of disgust and anger are simply readable by machines on people's faces?

dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads into political or ideological flamewar. The core value of this site is curiosity and flamewar is the single greatest poison to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

nullserver 6y ago

Got into Art a few years ago. Took classes and everything. People like when I take photos now because my come out better. I simply got a lot better at understanding lighting and angles.