Neural nets more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation in images
psycnet.apa.org
psycnet.apa.org
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15198997
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15197287
The author of this paper has created a document that addresses:
(1) Summary of the findings
(2) You must be wrong – this is pseudoscience! (common criticism of this paper)
(3) Our response to an irresponsible press release by GLAAD and HRC; or, a much better response by LGBTQ Nation
You can find that here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11oGZ1Ke3wK9E3BtOFfGfUQuu...
The "average gay face" is similar to the "average straight face" with glasses on, a better angle, and a couple of pounds less.
https://medium.com/@blaisea/do-algorithms-reveal-sexual-orie...
I can guess if someone of gay or straight with 98% accuracy - just always guess they are straight.
Tha ratio of gay to straight in the test data set is perhaps the most important part in determining how well the algorithm actually performs.
Are we supposed to assume the computer was shown a 50/50 split of gay and hetero people? It appears that way. But please, tell us.
Skewed test data is the most common problem with research, reminds me of this great video by Veritasium (Is most published research wrong?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
> the data is bad in that it is perhaps not a representative sample of the population as a whole?
Yeah that's my thinking too
if you had a bad data set and let the computer train beforehand with the learning data, the human will need to "retrain" as they go (eventually realizing past stereotypes are failing in this atypical data set) and of course are going to do shit.
In a fair test both humans and computers would get to study the learning data.
I think the usual way in which these experiments fiddle things so that the AI wins is by giving the AI lots of training data but giving the humans no training whatsoever, which may seem grossly unfair, but apparently that's acceptable in AI research/journalism.
You: "Faster than people"?! That's a hopelessly vague and unhelpful comparison. No horse can ever go faster than a human if by "human" you mean a human equipped with whatever tools the human may choose to use, because those tools would include the horse against which you would have it compete. So the comparison only makes sense if you restrict the human in some way.
Me: Um..
:-) The other stuff you say makes perfect sense, but that first bit is more pedantic than fair, I think.
(see author notes on this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11oGZ1Ke3wK9E3BtOFfGfUQuu...)
All of the countries you name bar Yemen are easily capable of rooting out and destroying their gay communities if they really wanted to. They don’t. What they want is to make sure everyone involved is very discreet. Hypocrisy is the homage vice pats to virtue etc.