But the authors do point out what are intrinsic biases and failures of experimental design in most of the examples they mention * Inferring sexual orientation:

But the authors do point out what are intrinsic biases and failures of experimental design in most of the examples they mention * Inferring sexual orientation: Linking «self-reported sexual orientation labels» with «[...]scraped their data from social media profiles, claiming that training their classifiers on “self-taken, easily accessible digital facial images increases the ecological validity of our results.”[...]». Social media profile photos are by their very nature socially influenced, with open sexual orientation being an important cue to display. * Personality psychology: Training and test datasets came from the same pool of «participants [who] self-reported personality characteristics by completing an online questionnaire and then uploaded several photographs». This heavily suggests that the participants were aware when choosing the photos that this was a "personality type" experiment, and may even have made their own awareness of their personality more salient by doing the test first and then uploading the photographs. * “Abnormality” classification: General critique of lack of transparency as to how the true labels were determined. * Lie detection: The ability to detect the facial differences between people following two different experimental instructions does not equate to lie detection. * Criminality detection: At least they used official ID photographs instead of self-selection-biased photos like the first example... but consider this: what conclusions would their same model reach if it used official ID photos of US populations? The confounding factors of class and ethnicity are obvious.