3 ms·

Congratulations, you've missed the point entirely. No one is trying to literally judge how trustworthy the people actually are. I'm not sure how you got confuse

by alar44 5y ago

Congratulations, you've missed the point entirely. No one is trying to literally judge how trustworthy the people actually are. I'm not sure how you got confused there.

jollybean 5y ago
Except they literally judging trustworthiness, so there's that. What part of 'they are judging trustworthiness' do you not get? It's not an abstraction, that's what they are doing.
- alar44 5y ago
  They literally aren't. They are asking which faces look more trustworthy. People think the AI faces look more trustworthy. Whether they are right or not (how could they be???) isn't the point.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    This conversation feels like there's just a slight disconnect between what "trustworthy" means. It's either an intrinsic quality that one possesses, or it's an external quality created by outside perception. It either means you are actually worthy of trust or that others find you worthy of trust. Or, at least, I had both definitions rattling around in my head, and had to think through which one I actually believed is correct. Sample size of 1 and all that.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      We know what 'trustworthy means', it's not an extant perception. We know exactly what we're doing when we estimate trustworthiness from a particular attribute. The particpants may or may not know some of the faces are AI, it's besides the point. 'Estimate how well a football player's career will go from a photo'. It doesn't matter if the photos are real or not - it's an understanding of which characteristics we use to estimate trustorthiness, assent knowing their actual trustworthiness.
      - Talanes 5y ago
        Asserting that everyone shares your semantic understanding and then only arguing based on that seems unproductive. Especially when it's unclear which of the definitions I used that you're arguing that "we know." You say it's not a perception, but then describe perception in the last sentence.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    They literally are, and you're completely misunderstanding the exercise. Judging if 'someone looks more trustworthy according to their looks' is asking them to 'judge their trustworthiness'. That's it. It's the point. Whether they are 'trustworthy' would definitely be interesting, but beyond the scope of the effort.
sva_ 5y ago
The title and the article is fairly ambiguous, if you don't pay attention. Several sentences just say the generated faces are more trustworthy, and only further down in the article it is pointed out, that the generated pictures are rated as being more authentic pictures, than the real pictures. It's poorly formulated and perhaps done so for clickbait, which makes it worse, since there are many ways to phrase it more clearly.
tqi 5y ago
> “Faces provide a rich source of information, with exposure of just milliseconds sufficient to make implicit inferences about individual traits such as trustworthiness. We wondered if synthetic faces activate the same judgements of trustworthiness. If not, then a perception of trustworthiness could help distinguish real from synthetic faces.” A third study asked 223 participants to rate the trustworthiness of 128 faces taken the same set of 800 faces on a scale of 1 (very untrustworthy) to 7 (very trustworthy). > The average rating for synthetic faces was 7.7% MORE trustworthy than the average rating for real faces which is statistically significant. What point am I missing?

by alar44 5y ago

Congratulations, you've missed the point entirely. No one is trying to literally judge how trustworthy the people actually are. I'm not sure how you got confused there.

jollybean 5y ago

Except they literally judging trustworthiness, so there's that. What part of 'they are judging trustworthiness' do you not get? It's not an abstraction, that's what they are doing.

alar44 5y ago
They literally aren't. They are asking which faces look more trustworthy. People think the AI faces look more trustworthy. Whether they are right or not (how could they be???) isn't the point.
- Talanes 5y ago
  This conversation feels like there's just a slight disconnect between what "trustworthy" means. It's either an intrinsic quality that one possesses, or it's an external quality created by outside perception. It either means you are actually worthy of trust or that others find you worthy of trust. Or, at least, I had both definitions rattling around in my head, and had to think through which one I actually believed is correct. Sample size of 1 and all that.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    We know what 'trustworthy means', it's not an extant perception. We know exactly what we're doing when we estimate trustworthiness from a particular attribute. The particpants may or may not know some of the faces are AI, it's besides the point. 'Estimate how well a football player's career will go from a photo'. It doesn't matter if the photos are real or not - it's an understanding of which characteristics we use to estimate trustorthiness, assent knowing their actual trustworthiness.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      Asserting that everyone shares your semantic understanding and then only arguing based on that seems unproductive. Especially when it's unclear which of the definitions I used that you're arguing that "we know." You say it's not a perception, but then describe perception in the last sentence.
- jollybean 5y ago
  They literally are, and you're completely misunderstanding the exercise. Judging if 'someone looks more trustworthy according to their looks' is asking them to 'judge their trustworthiness'. That's it. It's the point. Whether they are 'trustworthy' would definitely be interesting, but beyond the scope of the effort.

sva_ 5y ago

The title and the article is fairly ambiguous, if you don't pay attention. Several sentences just say the generated faces are more trustworthy, and only further down in the article it is pointed out, that the generated pictures are rated as being more authentic pictures, than the real pictures. It's poorly formulated and perhaps done so for clickbait, which makes it worse, since there are many ways to phrase it more clearly.

tqi 5y ago

> “Faces provide a rich source of information, with exposure of just milliseconds sufficient to make implicit inferences about individual traits such as trustworthiness. We wondered if synthetic faces activate the same judgements of trustworthiness. If not, then a perception of trustworthiness could help distinguish real from synthetic faces.” A third study asked 223 participants to rate the trustworthiness of 128 faces taken the same set of 800 faces on a scale of 1 (very untrustworthy) to 7 (very trustworthy). > The average rating for synthetic faces was 7.7% MORE trustworthy than the average rating for real faces which is statistically significant. What point am I missing?