Clarity is underrated. There's a confusion here: No AI - no human for that matter - can recognise emotions. At best, they can recognise an expression - a physio

Clarity is underrated. There's a confusion here: No AI - no human for that matter - can recognise emotions. At best, they can recognise an expression - a physiological response - associated with an emotion. This distinction is essential because: //> every conference had those emotional recognition tv screens/camera gizmos and people had so much fun playing with those, mainly because how easy is to fool them //> the same stimulus can trigger every single possible emotion, depending on context and personal patterns //> emotional responses are both instinctual and learned (inuits seldom show anger, while other cultures make a spectacle out of it) This whole AI story is a cold path. Without context AI is an idiot savant. Wanna' see what is actually going on? I do behavioural research and inform messaging. For this, I need to understand what makes people behave one way or another. Turns out, every emotion is like a little app that tells you what to do. People churn from your app on-boarding process? They encounter an unexpected barrier and their emotional response is mediated by anger, making them ragequit. My intervention is too manage expectations better and the emotional response is diminished. On-boarding rate improves 21% All I need is a small randomised sample (200 for every 100k users), I recognise emotional patterns and grade them with something similar to Bayes factors. I share the feeling of others here: this AI story is just another application of surveillance for the purpose of manipulation. So if it's not stupid, it's evil. And of course our collective response is to avoid or deceive. How about empathy? Things would be much better if we would feel actually understood not manipulated.