Slashdot Mirror
Algorithms Can Make You Pretty
caffeinemessiah writes "The New York Times has an interesting story on a new algorithm by researchers from Tel Aviv University that modifies a facial picture of a person to conform to standards of attractiveness. Based on a digital library of pictures of people who have been judged 'attractive,' the algorithm finds the nearest match and modifies an input picture so it conforms to the 'attractive' person's proportions. The trick, however, is that the resultant pictures are still recognizable as the original person. Here's a quick link to a representative picture of the process. Note that this is a machine-learning approach to picture modification, not a characterization of beauty, and could just as easily be used to make a person less attractive." Note: As reader Trent Waddington points out, the underlying research was mentioned in an earlier story as well.
A way for people to fake their online photos in a way that when you finally meet them IRL you go ... AAAGH! What ... happened.. .to you... Car accident?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I actually think... that the girl on the right is better looking. But the girl on the left would be more likely to hook up with most slashdotters. Therefore to most slashdotters, she will be more attractive.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
yea, this research is completely useless. the only potential application i can see for this is to sell software to insecure individuals with low self-esteem so that they can hide behind altered photos of themselves online, further reinforcing their negative self image.
honestly, this program embodies what is most wrong with modern western culture--superficiality, vanity, and an abhorrence of eccentricity or individuality.
While I agree that making guesses at someone's interests based on a headshot is superficial, we disagree on the definition of sexism. The poster was comparing two women, and not contemplating offering a job to either one (as far as I can tell).
Either that, or we disagree on the definition of women.
Although there is something intellectually repellant about it, you are very naive if you think that you don't, or can't, make certain judgments about people based upon appearance.
For one thing (and generalising horribly), from a biological point of view how attractive you find someone is likely to have some correlation to whether they are likely to be a good (i.e. successful) match for you, or for propagating your genes.
From a social point of view, the way someone looks and presents themself also communicates a large amount of information to you non-verbally. To me, the 'after' picture has the subtle look of someone who is attempting to present themself in conformity to a certain standard, which is not a standard I find particularly compelling.
Finally, is it impossible to think that someone who is conventionally pretty might be exposed to a different set of experiences to someone who is not regarded as such? This might natually have some impact on personality.
All of the above are generalisations. I totally agree that ideally one should not make snap judgments about people based on appearance. Nevertheless, I maintain that everyone does it, and that it is not entirely invalid (from a logical, not moral, point of view).
As for 'sexism', it is nothing of the sort. If it's anything, it's reverse discrimination against blandly pretty people, which is probably not all that high on the list of terrible things happening in the world today.
Read Pynchon.