4 ms·
>Imagine talking to someone and using an app that assigns a probability the person is telling the truth based on language, tone, facial changes and reviews from
by Infinitesimus 12y ago
>Imagine talking to someone and using an app that assigns a probability the person is telling the truth based on language, tone, facial changes and reviews from other users of that app.
That would be no better than our current biological means of handling the problem though. They both rely on analyzing data from sources that may or may not be accurate and assigning probabilities. What happens to the person who is given a high probability of being a liar because we have biased data based on race, sex, gender etc?
The problem is indeed very complicated and I'm not convinced technology will do a better job at that. Tech doesn't know that this person who has a poor review on linkedIn or whatever was actually suffering through loss of a close friend, relationship issues, etc. which all affected his/her mood.
As much as I love offloading tasks to automated systems, I fear that we might go too far and offload some of the things that make up our core humanity too.
- 1123581321 12y agoI agree with your overall opinion about humanity, and I am too familiar with credit reports to think they are perfect arbiters. However, we have to ask what exactly we are wanting to trust when we meet people. Once we know what that is, then we can develop technology to receive the information earlier in the relationship. This already happens, just not in time to affect the first impression. When we meet people, we don't know anything about them, so if we have the goal of removing bias from first encounters with people, we either have to train people assume nothing about them, which is foolish and probably impossible, or provide (hopefully unbiased) information that is valued more than what the person perceives to be the benefit of the bias. (Again, I'm just speculating about this.)