A controversial company using DNA to sketch the faces of criminals
nature.com
nature.com
https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/examples (TV/Media volunteers)
https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/posters (Actual cases from the looks of it)
These seems to be for the most part on the same level as some good police sketches, what surprised me is that the few renders where they showed a tooth gap that matched the photo quite well, the seem also to be pretty good at predicting some facial features like the nose but overall fail quite poorly at eyebrows (i'm not sure if it's because of the neutral expression or the algo itself).
Dystopian indeed but if these examples are actually representative I'm almost astounded by the resutls.
I thought we might be able to do it with the telomeres or something?
But there is probably some way to do it, there might be age-related "clocks" in the metagenomics as well.
I guess that's all the cops need though. It can output "black man" and the cops can go lynch somebody and call it a job well done
The only question here is does this actually work in reality and does it provide sufficient benefits without tramping on civil liberties and rights.
When you rely on a sketch you don't rely on it being a photocopy of the subject but on specific features matching the actual appearance of the subject.
For example eye distance, brow height, nose shape, chin shape matching up 2-3 sketch features with a suspected target tend to lead to fairly high likelihood of a correct match.
So seeing this I had a thought and went back to look. It looks like the renders either have a tooth gap or a closed mouth (and in one case the actual photo had a closed mouth) - could their model just add a tooth gap regardless, or did I just miss one without?
Granted, they had to use some database to build their algorithm.
Also: I looked at the examples linked to in another comment, and I don't think the algorithm is very good.
It's theoretically possible, but we're nowhere near the level of tech to be able to pull it off.
It's basically a money grab.
That would be like a layman hearing someone say "general AI isn't possible, their claims are bollocks" and someone responding with "maybe that's true, but do you have a background in general AI?".
And this attitude causes things like police to arrest the wrong person because they don't understand the limits of machine learning.
I don't need to be an expert to simply say this is problematic and shouldn't be used. YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used.
We need more skepticism, not less.
But to answer your question, I understand biology well enough to understand the challenges involved here. But you don't even need that to understand the problem. In their marketing photo's, they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That by itself is all you need to understand how low the applicability of this is.
Just imagine a police officer arresting someone who was bald and sort of looked like the criminal because this algorithm chose to render them as bald. People aren't NEARLY good enough at being able to identify a _STRANGER_ with a radically different hairstyle to be trusted with this.
> YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used.
Trying to offload onto ME the validating of YOUR claim is wrong. You claim, you back it up. Not me.
> We need more skepticism, not less.
Oh sure! But skepticisim isn't denial. You denied, calling it 'magic'. You back it up, with stats and science, not namecalling.
> they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That
I'm not stupid, I noticed that too. And I'm not stupid, I'm not going to put any faith into this until some value is shown, scientifically not via the marketing department. Don't assume I do.
In England sexual assault requires deliberate physical contact; the contact has to be sexual; and there has to be no consent or belief of consent. Common assault doesn't require any of that, and you can be convicted of assault without physically touching the victim.
You are spot on about the definition of "crimes" being altered in the last decade. It will only get worse by the looks of it.
Do you have any examples?
I can certainly see how your basic head size/shape and position of nose/mouth/eyes, etc is baked in there somehow.
But I'd love to know, the fundamentals of why you look like your parents, what is that? Certain (75%?) placement of facial features locked in by genes, so of course you look like them, but then the last 25% up to developmental noise? (Example -- fingerprints, almost completely determined by developmental noise, right?)
To draw a strong example, take fetal alcohol syndrome, which often causes facial changes. Two identical twins with FAS will share similar facial changes, but these changes will not actually be encoded in their dna, but instead will be the result of developmental history.
For example, this scientific article published in Nature opens with this:
"The human face is a complex trait under strong genetic control, as evidenced by the striking visual similarity between twins."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45885
These researchers who are _specialists_ on this field have no doubt. Why do you keep casting doubt on this?
I am skeptical of reconstructing faces from DNA using current knowledge and technology though. It seems theoretically feasible, but I wouldn't bet on this company being able to do it well.
I think later life matters like obesity probably make a bigger difference. Being fat or gaunt can dramatically change somebody's appearance. Grooming habits as well. Spies deliberately adopting disguises can make themselves look quite different by modifying these sort of things.
Obviously it's not a perfect match, but it's going to be wildly better than a sketch artist's attempt at a usable drawing.
Unfortunately the article doesn't have any comparison images of any sort, so it's hard to evaluate. But the skeptical/cynical part of me suspects the article would contain such comparisons if it worked well.
Identical twins have very similar, but distinguishable fingerprints.
The only experimental way I can think of checking this is how similar cloned animals are.
A quick googling seems to say clones are quite similar, but not really identical. Which I think somewhat contradicts my claim.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10617-y
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/business/china-dna-uighur...