this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
-61 points (14.9% liked)

Technology

58072 readers
3061 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

sigh

The news:

So, in conclusion: If your face is large, you’re a conservative; if it’s skinny, you’re a liberal; and facial recognition is bad—we all know that. That seems to be all you need to know.

The paper:

Our results, suggesting that stable facial features convey a substantial amount of the signal, imply that individuals have less control over their privacy. The algorithm studied here, with a prediction accuracy of r = .22, does not allow conclusively determining one’s political views, in the same way as job interviews, with a predictive accuracy of r = .20, cannot conclusively determine future job performance.

r=0.22 is a weak to moderate correlation, btw. An actual predictor will need more data than just one's face in order to have a decent chance.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So the headline is 100% wrong.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Only the words between AI and find. The rest of the headline is fine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, like only 95% is bad? That's certainly not 100%!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I can say with a confidence interval of 95% that the headline is bad

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

It almost seems like someone did a linear regression, when a logistic regression model would be more appropriate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

What's amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn't say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Bullshit. Phrenology/Craniology was shown to be 100% false more than 100 years ago. It's pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Although it's not exactly the same, it is mostly similar.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sure, AI can do anything, but can it tell us why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch™️?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Sugar. It's the metric fucktons of sugar.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Or how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What's the accuracy? About 50% AKA random chance?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

about 98% 50% of the time

jokes aside, this is just another clickbaity headline that distorts the actual conclusion of the study

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

This is obviously a lie. The only thing you can tell about a person by looking at their face is whether they are a cop or not. More thumb shaped more likely they are a cop. /s

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

According to this analysis—and, I have to warn you, it’s kinda funny—liberals and conservatives have markedly different facial morphology. Liberals have “smaller lower faces” and “lips and noses [that] are shifted downward,” and chins that “are smaller” than conservatives, researchers write. Researchers repeat the key conclusion later on: “liberals tended to have smaller faces.” 

So, according to this theory, if you have a tiny face, you’re probably a progressive. Or, by contrast, if you have a big fat face, there’s a good chance you might be a Trump voter.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

“liberals tended to have smaller faces.” 

Charlie Kirk clearly wasn't in that training set.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

I don't believe it at all

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not giving gizmodo a click, but I'd be happy to read the study if anyone has a link. Mostly I want to know if they controlled for weight. There is a correlation between urban, liberal, and healthy, and between rural, conservative, and overweight.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Looks like they did control for those factors, but I didn't keep reading as far as the exact methodology. Fascinating nonetheless!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

We demonstrate that political orientation can be predicted from neutral facial images by both humans and algorithms, even when factors like age, gender, and ethnicity are accounted for. This indicates a connection between political leanings and inherent facial characteristics, which are largely beyond an individual’s control. Our findings underscore the urgency for scholars, the public, and policymakers to recognize and address the potential risks of facial recognition technology to personal privacy.

"peer-reviewed" bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I believe it, I'm correct about it like 98% of the time too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I can tell your political affiliation by looking out of my window: If the clouds are moving to the left...

/s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Lol, and people will gobble this up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I recall studies that have found correlations to...maybe it was the size of brain structures? (Specifically the amygdala)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were something confounding that resulted in both a larger amygdala and some sort of change in facial structure.

But given that this article misrepresents the findings of the article, I wouldn't put too much weight on it.