you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 months ago (15 children)

Aren't all humans 99.9% similar already?

If 93% is enough you could just take any ape at that point.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    That's DNA, not facial structure

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yes. You take something out of context to make it look stupid. A 93% DNA match is extremely stupid, just like a 93% AI facial match.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You take something out of context to make it look stupid

    TIL that I'm a joke

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    There’s no objective measure for quantifying similarity. We can measure relative similarity, though—but that scale will vary depending on what it’s relative to.

    We could measure genetic similarity relative to a typical unrelated person, or relative to the nearest non-human animal, or relative to the most distantly-related living organism, or relative to random noise. (And you can do the same for facial similarity.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments