5 ms·

Won't stop snake oil salesmen from advertising such models and profit off of them. A substantial portion of the detrimental effects will be shared, regardless o

Won't stop snake oil salesmen from advertising such models and profit off of them. A substantial portion of the detrimental effects will be shared, regardless of the validity of the algorithm.

bsenftner 6y ago
As an industry of computer SCIENTISTS, we should make the statement that such systems are not possible and fraud.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  But such systems are possible and aren't necessarily fraud. You'd prefer that reality be other than what it is. I get it. You don't want these systems to work. But they do, and a noble lie saying they don't is still a lie. Do you really not think it's possible to read emotions from facial expressions? If humans can do it, a machine can do it better. The claim from the article that machines can't read emotions is pure motivated reasoning so distorted and disconnected from reality that it amounts to fraud. It's obviously the case that faces convey emotions. Look around.
  - bsenftner 6y ago
    As if none of you are aware of actors and method actors that will and do fool any system observing them externally. Identifying the inner emotional state of a 3rd person is not possible, no matter how much you want it to be.
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      Most people most of the time aren't acting. Facial expressions are great Bayesian indications of emotional state.
      - bsenftner 6y ago
        Really? I disagree. I believe most of the time people are acting. Most of the time people are in a role they would not care to hold if the choice were theirs. Facial expressions are a terrible indication of emotional state because humans are multi-layered: what's to say the person with a grimace does not have a tooth ache, or a bad back - yet otherwise is in completely normal state for them, if asked they'd say they are good. I perceive the majority of people considering this situation to only be considering 1st level effects. I have seriously considered this as a professional ambition, scientifically investigated the situation and discarded the concept as unreliable at best and a fraud engine in reality. Think about this a bit more, use your scientific method training. you'll come to the conclusion this is not science, this is pseudo-science and fraud.

Won't stop snake oil salesmen from advertising such models and profit off of them. A substantial portion of the detrimental effects will be shared, regardless of the validity of the algorithm.

bsenftner 6y ago

As an industry of computer SCIENTISTS, we should make the statement that such systems are not possible and fraud.

quotemstr 6y ago
But such systems are possible and aren't necessarily fraud. You'd prefer that reality be other than what it is. I get it. You don't want these systems to work. But they do, and a noble lie saying they don't is still a lie. Do you really not think it's possible to read emotions from facial expressions? If humans can do it, a machine can do it better. The claim from the article that machines can't read emotions is pure motivated reasoning so distorted and disconnected from reality that it amounts to fraud. It's obviously the case that faces convey emotions. Look around.
- bsenftner 6y ago
  As if none of you are aware of actors and method actors that will and do fool any system observing them externally. Identifying the inner emotional state of a 3rd person is not possible, no matter how much you want it to be.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    Most people most of the time aren't acting. Facial expressions are great Bayesian indications of emotional state.
    - bsenftner 6y ago
      Really? I disagree. I believe most of the time people are acting. Most of the time people are in a role they would not care to hold if the choice were theirs. Facial expressions are a terrible indication of emotional state because humans are multi-layered: what's to say the person with a grimace does not have a tooth ache, or a bad back - yet otherwise is in completely normal state for them, if asked they'd say they are good. I perceive the majority of people considering this situation to only be considering 1st level effects. I have seriously considered this as a professional ambition, scientifically investigated the situation and discarded the concept as unreliable at best and a fraud engine in reality. Think about this a bit more, use your scientific method training. you'll come to the conclusion this is not science, this is pseudo-science and fraud.