Wow that's awful. There might be some very general common characteristics of body language and facial movements the very roughly correlate to certain general si

Wow that's awful. There might be some very general common characteristics of body language and facial movements the very roughly correlate to certain general situations. (Panic comes to mind) but those are still going to vary incredibly widely over the population based on so many factors, not the least of which are culture, peer groups, and general personal quirks. A person with a history of panic attacks, for example, may have learned to cope well enough not to completely lose it in a meeting at work. The list of other examples would be endless. And how do you get a reliable data set for this to begin with? Most schools allow for a formal appeal or inquiry process precisely because anything but very blatant cheating can be a murky area. Even if you had videos and a tagged set of the outcomes of inquiries like that, you still wouldn't have intercoder ratings for reliability and therefore an no verified data set. I know some methods that can be used against untagged data, but at the very least you actually have to know if there was cheating or not. And talk about black box-- this isn't even something that human review of specific incidents could validate. If a human couldn't reliably come to the correct conclusion based on available data, an AI using pattern matching with a questionable data set sure won't. When the article mentioned companies using it I figured it was just early stages of testing it. Or used for some low stakes marketing/advertisement targeting. That would still be bad, but this is world's worse. Life ruining worse.