4 ms·

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 co

by 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.

by 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.