Researcher Trying To Teach Computer What Women He's Attracted To

bullshit, guys don't get dates by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

I call bullshit. Women don't date men, especially techies.

Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure if it was a woman looking to filter men this project would be lauded as 'empowering.'
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:30 · Score: 1

Why was this modded down, I have empirical evidence that this is quite true.
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Women will date anything as long as it has money.
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Black+LED · 2015-09-16 07:45 · Score: 1

Whores (of either gender) will date anything as long as it has money.
FTFY
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 08:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure if it was a woman looking to filter men this project would be lauded as 'empowering.'
Tinder and similar apps are already doing this, both for men and women, and nobody but passive-aggressive gamergaters are bringing the misogyny discussion into this. Calling it shallow is fair, both for men and women, but is something a significant portion of both genders do.
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by hawguy · 2015-09-16 08:17 · Score: 1

I call bullshit. Women don't date men, especially techies.
I think that depends on how much money the techie earns (and to a lesser extent, to where he works if it's somewhere "cool", like Apple or Google).
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by cayenne8 · 2015-09-16 08:23 · Score: 2

I'm sure if it was a woman looking to filter men this project would be lauded as 'empowering.'
Yep,if it were a filter for women, it wold be called a breakthrough....for men, it is "Troll-A-Vision"...or an anti-beer goggles simulator....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Oligonicella · 2015-09-16 08:45 · Score: 2

I love the trolling. AC posts comments then an AC accuses AC of being a GamerGater with no substance. What would be the odds it's the same person?
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by CanadianMacFan · 2015-09-16 09:38 · Score: 2

Some women will date anything that has a lot of money.
Men will date anything that puts out.
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Garridan · 2015-09-16 11:46 · Score: 1

AC gotta build up that Karma, yo.
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by Falconhell · 2015-09-16 15:48 · Score: 1

Yeh see the last part of this. The hot crazy matrix.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates by mike4ty4 · 2015-09-17 20:24 · Score: 1

Why? How do you know what "women" do? There are about 3.5 billion of them on the planet and I seriously, seriously doubt you've met even a thousandth of a percent of that.

Female and alive. by harrkev · 2015-09-16 07:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Let me guess: female and alive.

--
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."

Re:Female and alive. by damn_registrars · 2015-09-16 07:25 · Score: 1

Let me guess: female and alive.
I would presume that there wouldn't be that many with pictures on there who fail one or both of those criteria. This guy sounds like a real winner, if winners are shallow misogynists.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Female and alive. by HornWumpus · 2015-09-16 07:30 · Score: 1

Born female, alive and having no standards.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Female and alive. by LessThanObvious · 2015-09-16 08:31 · Score: 2

female and alive. Since the most attractive women on dating sites are fake profiles, that's harder to find than it sounds.
Re:Female and alive. by asylumx · 2015-09-16 08:34 · Score: 1

That would mean 32% of the time the system returned men or dead people. Or both.
Re: Female and alive. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 08:36 · Score: 1

Are you a mortician?
Re:Female and alive. by smooth+wombat · 2015-09-16 08:42 · Score: 1

Superprotip: The first thing you notice about someone is not their intelligence.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Female and alive. by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-09-16 08:48 · Score: 1

This guy sounds like a real winner, if winners are shallow misogynists.
Shallow indeed, but are the female characteristics that a person finds attractive automatically make them a misogynist?
My wife thinks Tom Sellick is hot. She thinks that Patrick Swayze and Elvis Stojko have nice butts.
Does this mean she hates men?
So this shallow shit might indeed be shallow, but drawing any opinion on his love or hatred of women is really telling us a lot about you - because you are the one wielding the "misogynist" card like a sledgehammer.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Female and alive. by damn_registrars · 2015-09-16 08:55 · Score: 1

Shallow indeed, but are the female characteristics that a person finds attractive automatically make them a misogynist?

If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Female and alive. by viperidaenz · 2015-09-16 08:59 · Score: 1

http://www.tshirthell.com/funn...
Re:Female and alive. by Grishnakh · 2015-09-16 09:09 · Score: 1

So you should go chat with people of the opposite (or I suppose "preferred") sex with the objective of seeing if you're both interested in exploring a relationship, even if you're completely repulsed by those people?
That makes no sense.
Re:Female and alive. by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-09-16 09:11 · Score: 1

Shallow indeed, but are the female characteristics that a person finds attractive automatically make them a misogynist?
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
But being shallow does not in any way mean he hates women. I have a lady friend who really likes pretty boys. She married two of them, both ended up badly. But she likes men, not hate them. But she's pretty shallow in respect to pairing up.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Female and alive. by Deep+Esophagus · 2015-09-16 09:19 · Score: 1

If his algorithm only looks at pictures, "female and alive" seems to be about the level of his priorities. Mrs. Esophagus and I were already talking about marriage and children after a week of online, text-only chats before we ever knew what the other looked like.
Re:Female and alive. by david_thornley · 2015-09-16 09:37 · Score: 1

If there's more women out there than you can talk to, and what you've got to go on is pictures, then you go by looks.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Female and alive. by serviscope_minor · 2015-09-16 10:04 · Score: 1

If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
He's not looking to make friends, he's looking for dates. Trying to pretend that looks don't matter in romantic/sexual relationships discounts oh about 99.9% of people. Going for nothing but looks is shallow, but it's quite reasonable for looks to be one of a number of factors you take into account up to and including ruling someone out completely.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Female and alive. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 10:07 · Score: 1

Experienced Protip: Evolution has bred girls to be attractive to males,
for evolutionary reasons, e.g., a mother to children, nurturing, and other
things that help the continuation of his line. It's just the way it is.
Re:Female and alive. by mrbester · 2015-09-16 10:36 · Score: 1

I prefer those like a steam room; hot and wet, but whatever floats your boat...

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:Female and alive. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 10:56 · Score: 1

If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow
Or a functional human being.
You fucking idiot. First impression based on appearance is part of our self-preservation instinct. Do girls try to avoid guys that "look creepy"? Is it a good idea for them to avoid guys that "look creepy"? Yes? THEN FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. Why don't you tell that girl that avoids the strange-looking dude in the alleyway because she doesn't want to get raped tonight that she's just being "shallow" you stupid fucking asshole.
It's harped on so frequently that ">50% of our communication is non-verbal" and then pathetic shit-wipes like you bitch and scream that a man won't give some butch-dyke-looking fatty with tats all over her arms the time of day. Guess what, shit-for-brains? A PERSON'S APPEARANCE IS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION. It is constant body language. It fucking matters. It's the first thing you say to any non-blind individual whether you want it to or not. If it says "I sit on the couch all day stuffing my face with junk food because I have no self control and I refuse to do situps and will spend the last 30 years of my life laboring to breathe because I don't give a fuck about my health" then I'm going to take that into consideration before approaching them as a potential mate. If it says "I make extremely poor decisions that have long-lasting, permanent visual effects on my person, such as getting a shitty tattoo" then I'm allowed to take their message into consideration before approaching them as a potential mate. If it says "Instead of developing a personality, I've resorted to coloring my hair a wacky color, at the expense that many people won't consider me professional or emotionally stable" then I'm going to take that into consideration before approaching them as a potential mate. If it says "I belong to the 51% of the population whose success and enjoyment of life hinges greatly on improving my appearance, and I'm not going to put any effort forward toward improving my appearance" then I'm going to take that into consideration before approaching them as a potential mate.
The only shallow person I see here is YOU, because you take a decision completely at face value and then consider "face value" as deep as it gets with your bullshit term "at the very least".
So eat shit.
Re:Female and alive. by jafiwam · 2015-09-16 12:29 · Score: 1

If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
He's not looking to make friends, he's looking for dates. Trying to pretend that looks don't matter in romantic/sexual relationships discounts oh about 99.9% of people. Going for nothing but looks is shallow, but it's quite reasonable for looks to be one of a number of factors you take into account up to and including ruling someone out completely.
Looking for "dates" is sort of a silly thing to do with this. While looks get both parties in the door for "dating" that quickly falls to a less important trait if it's a relationship. (Hook ups and generally shallow people, it might not. To each his own.)
He should finish the project using porn.
Then sell the functionality to porn sites that can quickly learn what any given user likes in order to serve up / find more of it.
Re:Female and alive. by asylumx · 2015-09-17 03:05 · Score: 1

Well the criteria was just alive & female so I suppose we'd have to have a debate whether the fictional character is alive ;-)
Re:Female and alive. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 08:22 · Score: 1

Another protip: Situations change the hotness of women. (men too)
I'm not talking about these situations where you have time to actually make a true assumption about someones intellect or other quality.
I mean actual feel in the pants first dumb thought of actual hotness.
eg,
Seeing a bookish nerd girl sitting reading a book.. might be a 5. (depends on book)
Same girl randomly wailing on a guitar increases hotness by 1 to 4 points. (Song, quality of play, and oddly, a look of disinterest while doing it all add to points.)
Seeing a nondescript midwest farm girl in shorts sitting at the beach.. also 5.
Same girl hauling a quarter keg on shoulder over to a tap while laughing.. Easy +3
Also odd pairings happen.
Somewhat hot blond with dumb ankle tattoo sitting at the bar. 7
Same girl, but now sitting and reading same book as first girl. +2
Midwest farm girl in shorts, laying in puke moaning next to now empty quarter keg. -3.
Somewhat hot blond holding midwest farm girls hair back and telling her to stop over doing while trying to keep book from getting puke on it. +3
Nerd girl now bitching about no more beer while letting guitar get sand in it. -4
The thing is..
This is all about subjective first impressions using a basic, primal pattern recognition system hardwired into the animal brain. (humans are animals)
Signs of physical fitness, along with plumage, dance, and music are used all throughout the animal kingdom for mating and pairing rituals.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowerbird
(fancy houses and 'art' displays)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtship_in_animals
General outline.
Are any of these animals 'sexist' or shallow?
No.. They are just horny.

It is by will alone I sent my mind in motion... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:24 · Score: 4, Funny

...wait, opps, wrong de vries....

Is this really a problem? by NotDrWho · 2015-09-16 07:25 · Score: 5, Funny

I usually just type in "blonde Thai ladyboy" into the search box and the results are almost 100% what I'm looking for.

Is that so hard?

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.

Shallow by SpankiMonki · 2015-09-16 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

News flash: pictures can lie. Here's an idea - try talking to a girl in order to see if you might like her.

Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:31 · Score: 1

Now there's an idea, chat bots that mimic your personality.
Re:Shallow by circletimessquare · 2015-09-16 07:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

actually the idea is to like the looks first, then talk to her. then reject the ones you dislike based on personality
so you get physical attraction and personality compatibility. both
if you just talk to girls and find someone you're compatible with on a personality level but you don't want to have sex with because they're physically unattractive to you, the term for that is "friend" (as an aside, many, many men posting on this site probably know this zone well)
what you call shallow is actually called mate selection. if you can't get an erection, you're not going to procreate. mate selection is not friend selection. friend selection is a different topic. to not realize the difference is... shallow, ironically

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Shallow by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2015-09-16 07:48 · Score: 2

Try this experiment, newsflash. Set up two profiles, one with a fake picture of an average looking guy with average credentials. Then set up another profile of a ripped young stud with less than average credentials. Get back to us when you find out which gets more attention.
It's neither bad nor good, it's just human nature.
Re:Shallow by mwvdlee · 2015-09-16 07:56 · Score: 1

A picture gives you a pretty good indication of the type of woman the girl WANTS to be perceived as.
High-angled boobshot? Insecure about rest of body.
Duckface? Dumb as fuck.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 08:28 · Score: 1

This goes back centuries. From the middle ages:

Amor est passio quaedam innata procedens ex visione et immoderata cogitatione formae alterius sexus, ob quam aliquis super omnia cupit alterius potiri amplexibus et omnia de utriusque voluntate in ipsius amplexu amoris praecepta compleri.
Love is an innate emotion that proceeds from vision and the immoderate thought of the beauty of the opposite sex, because of which one wants more than anything else to obtain the embraces of the other and fulfill all the precepts of love according to the will of each party and in the embrace of the other.

There is a medieval rule: Visus et alloquium, tactus, post oscula, factum, ("Sight and conversation, touch, after kisses, the deed"); or, as a Roman author earlier had put it, in quinque partes amoris fructus esse partitus dicitur visu, adloquio, tactu, osculo, concubitu ("The fruit of love is divided into five parts: sight, talking, touch, kiss, sex"). Men are supposed to start from sight, then strike up a conversation, then move on to touching her, then to kissing, then to sex.
Re:Shallow by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2015-09-16 08:34 · Score: 1

News flash: pictures can lie. Here's an idea - try talking to a girl in order to see if you might like her.
Yeah, when I saw the story my first thought was "I think it's pretty obvious why you have trouble meeting women...". Although, since he's looking at Tinder, he's likely not really looking for a relationship - just a quick doink.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Shallow by circletimessquare · 2015-09-16 08:40 · Score: 1

assuming all goes well
usually it goes from sight to talking and she either
1. looks at you like in disgust like you are a toad,
2. looks at you with a mixture of fear and anger like you are a rapist,
3. or, she actually responds. then YOU run in horror at the utterly stupid crude shit coming out of her mouth
only a tiny percent makes it from sight to talking, and a tiny tiny percent of that to touch

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Shallow by TheCarp · 2015-09-16 08:44 · Score: 1

This starts from an assumption that attractiveness is based solely on physical characteristics. I actually have not found that to be true. If you are all hung up on physical beauty then that is your own problem. I enjoy a nice pair of tits and a supple young body as much as most straight men, but couple that with a nasty personality and I can't even see her as something I want to have sex with.
By that same token, if a warm smile, pleasing conversation, and wildly dilated pupils are not enough to stir your flesh, then I guess I understand your position; and you have my sympathy.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Shallow by viperidaenz · 2015-09-16 09:11 · Score: 1

If you get 1 and 2 often, you may be doing something wrong.
Re:Shallow by Grishnakh · 2015-09-16 09:13 · Score: 1

if you just talk to girls and find someone you're compatible with on a personality level but you don't want to have sex with because they're physically unattractive to you, the term for that is "friend"
Unfortunately, the frequent problem here is that if one person is highly interested in the other, but the other is not and wants to "friendzone" him/her, it usually doesn't go over too well. Sooner or later things fall apart and they're no longer friends, because the "friendzoned" person resents this. We hear about it mostly happening to men, but it can and does happen to women too (I've done it myself; the women aren't my friends any more).
Staying friends only works if both parties are OK with that, which really only happens if they both decide they're not interested in that kind of relationship with the other (for instance, they both determine for themselves that the other one just isn't a personality match, they have too many annoying habits, etc).
Re:Shallow by thegarbz · 2015-09-16 09:28 · Score: 1

News flash: pictures can lie. Here's an idea - try talking to a girl in order to see if you might like her.
How? They are too busy staring at their phones to pay random strangers attention.
Tit-for-tat. It takes 2 people to have a conversation. If the world changes your option is to change with it or find like minded people against it.
Re:Shallow by serviscope_minor · 2015-09-16 10:16 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, the frequent problem here is that if one person is highly interested in the other, but the other is not and wants to "friendzone" him/her, it usually doesn't go over too well.
Indeed: the person who has been "friendzoned" is in fact dishonest. They claim to be OK with being friends and often act as a friend, but that is a dishonest ruse to actually get into the other person's pants hoping that sufficient proximity will do what a lack of chemistry couldn't achieve. If they're actually a friend, then they're a friend, not friend zoned.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Shallow by Grishnakh · 2015-09-16 10:55 · Score: 1

Maybe, maybe not.
First, a quibble about terminology: someone being "friendzoned" doesn't necessarily mean they've accepted this or claimed to. If a girl says, "I think we should just be friends", and you respond, "OK, I'll see you around" and never call her again, I think that can be said to be an instance of "friendzoning" even though you've basically blown her off and never pretended to be a friend.
Secondly, if someone does willingly accept this, they might think at that time that they're OK with that, and later realize they're not comfortable with that relationship. People aren't that simple, and do change their moods and minds a lot.
My contention isn't that "friendzoning" is wrong (I see nothing wrong with trying to be friends with someone), just that I don't think it works out very often in practice, unless perhaps the two people are simultaneously friendzoning each other.
Re:Shallow by circletimessquare · 2015-09-16 11:27 · Score: 1

nah
there's plenty of women who are in a bad mood/ not interested in general at the moment
no man does not get 1 and 2 on regular basis

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Shallow by circletimessquare · 2015-09-16 11:29 · Score: 1

you said nothing new, you actually restated what i said. you need both physical attraction and personality compatibility. and then you tried to turn it into a weird attempt at an insult at the guy who said the same thing. weird

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Shallow by circletimessquare · 2015-09-16 11:40 · Score: 1

the frequent problem here
frequent for you. not me or many if not most other people
what you should do is if you sense someone is not returning the physical interest you have, realize it will go nowhere but frustration and nip the situation in the bud. avoid them. you cannot be friends with them. that is a dishonest representation of your interest. i am friends with females, but if i am sexually interested in a woman and she does not reciprocate, i won't remain just friends with her, i'll make excuses and avoid her. you have to. unless you like living life frustrated. i don't. do you?
the resentment you talk about can be avoided. and you should avoid it. you're wasting your time. what you complain about is not frequent at all, it is peculiar only to you and a few other unfortunate souls who don't know how to manage their social and psychological well-being

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Shallow by Grishnakh · 2015-09-16 12:56 · Score: 1

Um, you're saying exactly the same things I said.
Re:Shallow by Pinky's+Brain · 2015-09-16 16:40 · Score: 1

Her smile and physical signs of excitement are still quite physical.
Your focus in what attracts you physically can shift. People in long relationships tend to be good at this, for obvious reasons, but it also reminds me somewhat of an interview with a male porn star I saw once. He could find beauty to be attracted to in almost any female body by simply focusing on one part.
Re:Shallow by AmiMoJo · 2015-09-16 23:56 · Score: 1

if you just talk to girls and find someone you're compatible with on a personality level but you don't want to have sex with because they're physically unattractive to you, the term for that is "friend"
Some people enjoy sex because it is intimate and shows affection and a deep bonding with a person, not just because they find them physically attractive. Erections are often due to the anticipation of a pleasurable experience, not just physical attributes.
If you are only able to form relationships with people whose appearance gives you an erection, you are limiting the available pool of partners quite significantly. In fact, from experience I have learned that physical attractiveness, the amount of enjoyment I get from sex with that person and how suitable they are for a long term relationship are all largely unrelated.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

A better algorithm by alvinrod · 2015-09-16 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

A better algorithm would be one that can spot which images of men or women are either fake or taken in such a way as to mislead as to the appearance of a person. It doesn't really matter if the computer can pick with 100% accuracy the people you're attracted to if none of them actually look like their pictures.

I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.

Re:A better algorithm by NotDrWho · 2015-09-16 07:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Here's a pro tip: The picture with the kid wearing a "Class of 1990" t-shirt in the background is probably not an honest reflection of what she really looks like.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:A better algorithm by Hognoxious · 2015-09-16 07:55 · Score: 2

A better algorithm would be one that can spot which images of men or women are either fake or taken in such a way as to mislead as to the appearance of a person.

Easy - URL contains the string "ashley madison".

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:A better algorithm by marciot · 2015-09-16 16:41 · Score: 1

It doesn't really matter if the computer can pick with 100% accuracy the people you're attracted to if none of them actually look like their pictures. I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.
I'd still like to be able to see what people look like, to rule out folks I don't find attractive. But yes, people do pick and choose their photos. Maybe the ideal dating site would ask you for your driver's license number and would scrape your photo off DMV records. This would level the playing field...

And what about... by hyperar · 2015-09-16 07:28 · Score: 2

The algorithm to find girls attracted to him can be represented by a simple: "return false;"

A Paradox, perhaps? by chesterw · 2015-09-16 07:29 · Score: 2

If I'm reading this correctly, our post-doc protagonist has created a deep learning algorithm to automate the process of being shallow? I have no words. . .

Re:A Paradox, perhaps? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2015-09-16 07:52 · Score: 1

Could be pretty valuable to the right companies...
Re:A Paradox, perhaps? by multimediavt · 2015-09-16 09:59 · Score: 1

If I'm reading this correctly, our post-doc protagonist has created a deep learning algorithm to automate the process of being shallow? I have no words. . .
Hence, the tag I put on this article #shallowlearning
Re:A Paradox, perhaps? by chesterw · 2015-09-16 10:22 · Score: 1

Missed the hashtag, but yes. I'm trending towards curmudgeon; I recall when it was only "hash" in unix, and "pound sign" everywhere else. Darn kids.

Wierd by Tailhook · 2015-09-16 07:29 · Score: 5, Funny

The guy is creating a profile selection algorithm to sift through mostly fake algorithmically generated profiles because the fake profile site's own selection algorithm is inadequate.....

Sexbots are going to be really, really popular.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!

Re:Wierd by ShanghaiBill · 2015-09-16 08:21 · Score: 2

Sexbots are going to be really, really popular.
Once sexbots are "good enough" the human population is going to crash. Populations are already declining in Japan, China, and much of Europe. This trend will soon accelerate.
Re:Wierd by Kiyyik · 2015-09-16 08:26 · Score: 1

Just think: before too long, online dating will have removed actual people from the process altogether! You'll just sign up, roll a character, and two weeks later get an email letting you know your algorithm has hooked up with another algorithm and they're having lots of little subroutines together. Think of the convenience!
Re:Wierd by Grishnakh · 2015-09-16 09:18 · Score: 1

I think our only hope here is to develop better medical technology, which does two things: 1) increases our lifespan considerably, so we have more time to work on careers and building nest eggs, and then to have families including taking years off for this, and 2) increases our attractiveness, making it so everyone looks like they're always 25-30 and are in ideal physical shape without having to actually exercise; this would massively increase the pool of dateable people. Scientifically, both of these should be completely possible, it's just a matter of developing the medical knowledge and technology.
Re:Wierd by viperidaenz · 2015-09-16 09:19 · Score: 1

Not really a bad thing, apart from the short term problem of a high proportion of elderly.
Re:Wierd by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 09:25 · Score: 1

That actually would be a good thing. Get down to a few million earth-wide and a lot of problems disappear.
Re:Wierd by roesti · 2015-09-16 11:42 · Score: 1

Sexbots are going to be really, really popular.
Yeah, but they'll just date each other.

--
Attack its weak point for massive damage!

Supply and demand by GeLeTo · 2015-09-16 07:30 · Score: 2

Tinder shows him pictures of women that have some chance of finding him attractive. It's a supply and demand thing - there are more men than women on Tinder, so he may have to tone down a bit his expectations.

Compellling... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 07:32 · Score: 1

But I wonder how long it'll be before someone comes along and labels this as misogyny?

Re:Compellling... by Grishnakh · 2015-09-16 09:20 · Score: 1

I'm sure they already have. It's wrong for men to reject women because they're too fat or ugly, but it's entirely acceptable for women to reject men because they're too "boring"....

That's easy by bjdevil66 · 2015-09-16 07:36 · Score: 2

If you think you're attractive, create an image-reading algorithm that picks girls that looks like yourself (facial features, shape, etc.)

Done.

Look at successful, power couples in the entertainment business sometime (especially athletes) and see if you can spot the narcissistic pattern...

If you don't think you're attractive, I guess you can put a NOT in front of the algorithm...

In other, completlely undrelated news: by queazocotal · 2015-09-16 07:47 · Score: 1

Researcher leaves academia and gets a job at Ashely Madison.

How incredibly cruel by Krishnoid · 2015-09-16 07:48 · Score: 2, Funny

I can't believe he's having something do that for him when there's something willing to tirelessly look out for his happiness right there. Maybe one day he'll realize he had love right in front of him, and he and Eliza/Alice v.2 or whatever he's calling his algorithm can live a happy, long life together.

How about a real challenge? by Kiyyik · 2015-09-16 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's see if he can use deep learning to filter only the women that would have anything to do with someone who would do this.

Re:How about a real challenge? by alvinrod · 2015-09-16 08:00 · Score: 1

He'd probably love it if he would only get results that showed women who he would both consider attractive and are also interested in machine learning. There are plenty of people who don't care how another person is if they have nothing in common or no interest beyond sexual attraction and a one-night stand. Maybe that's what people use Tinder for anyhow, but I suspect that some people are looking for something more long term, so any computer system that could give your a list of people who would be interested in you would be a good thing.
Re:How about a real challenge? by Kiyyik · 2015-09-16 08:24 · Score: 1

Well, therein lies the paradox, you know? I mean, I for one am interested in machine learning, though admittedly I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of it. In the abstract, I would love to see how the software actually works, how it improves over time, etc. In the concrete, however, the fact he's using it for this is mashing my "eugh" button pretty hard.
That being said, a "would probably be into you" filter would be awesome as hell. I wonder how that could be implemented.
Re:How about a real challenge? by Oligonicella · 2015-09-16 08:52 · Score: 1

That's what I was thinking. Probably be a relationship killer when she finds out he did it.
Someone... Quickly write a filter and post it free for female use. It simply filters out "Harm de Vries".
Re:How about a real challenge? by multimediavt · 2015-09-16 10:01 · Score: 1

That, my dear /.er is Insightful as well as Funny.

Prior Art by Tablizer · 2015-09-16 07:52 · Score: 2

Didn't we see this in Weird Science?

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re: She's gotta have a vagina. by queazocotal · 2015-09-16 08:02 · Score: 1

You do know that dolphins are mammals, and have vaginas?
Well, the female ones, anyway.

Help the dude. by AndyKron · 2015-09-16 08:07 · Score: 2

The dude needs help. Serious help.

Re:Help the dude. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-16 10:17 · Score: 1

That's no problem, he just needs to put the code on GitHub.

if at first you don't succeed, try the opposite by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2015-09-16 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Researcher Trying To Teach Computer What Women He's Attracted To

Well, at least he's trying something new. The usual, and completely wrongheaded, approach a computer nerd uses when trying to get laid is to try to teach women he's attracted to about computers.

Re:if at first you don't succeed, try the opposite by Thud457 · 2015-09-16 08:42 · Score: 1

PSHAW!.
tyro. The better strategy is to berate the prospective mate for their lack of knowledge of computers thereby motivating them to be come more knowledgeable, thus making them more compatible.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:if at first you don't succeed, try the opposite by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2015-09-16 08:50 · Score: 1

Negging, eh?
You might also try giving the object of your affection two very weak compliments whose implied assumptions about their ignorance actually add up to an insult. I call this "twos complimenting".
[ducks]
Re:if at first you don't succeed, try the opposite by Mandrel · 2015-09-16 11:17 · Score: 1

When trying to get laid, all men are wrongheaded.

Asimov did it! by rainwalker · 2015-09-16 08:25 · Score: 2

Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about this years ago ("True Love"), abeit in a much more entertaining fashion.

"I will say to her, 'I am Joe, and you are my true love.'"

Re:Asimov did it! by nvm_my_comment · 2015-09-16 09:43 · Score: 1

Yes!! I remember reading this, it was kind of good. I wasnt sure if it was from asimov. [spoiler alert] at the end, the computer program BECOME the man some IT arrange to met the girl instead.

Love is blind!!!! by Stan92057 · 2015-09-16 08:35 · Score: 1

I keep hearing love is blind,guess i herd wrong. lol

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

Re:Love is blind!!!! by penguinoid · 2015-09-16 12:59 · Score: 1

Also people trying to explain to some star-crossed lover that the target of their affections has all sorts of terrible flaws which they're totally ignoring because love is blind, and they will resent once the infatuation is over.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Re:Isaac Asimov by Frnknstn · 2015-09-16 08:39 · Score: 1

Indeed it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.

issues? by lophophore · 2015-09-16 08:40 · Score: 1

if your first criteria is what the lady looks like, then maybe you have some issues.

I always wanted to know if she was rich. What's wrong with this guy?

--
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't

Now everybody will be trying to get a grant... by rnturn · 2015-09-16 08:49 · Score: 1

... to feed their pr0n collection into some experimental software?

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M

You Can Use A Computer For That? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2015-09-16 09:03 · Score: 1

Imagine, using a computer for dating?

Doubtlessly the computer matches would be so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest. Ha-ho-ha-hey-hoo!

Alas, only the five richest kings in Europe will ever know for sure...

Needs more statistics by Idarubicin · 2015-09-16 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Neither the summary nor the linked article provide the necessary statistics to tell us how well this algorithm actually works. We're told it has a 68% success rate, which presumably means that 68% of the time it gives the same answer as de Vries (the human subject/programmer).

The problem is, we're not told anything about the sensitivity or specificity of the technique. What is the rate of false positives? False negatives?

Let's say that de Vries typically finds 1 out of 3 (33%) of the profile pictures "attractive". His computer could score 67% accuracy just by rejecting every single picture. (Such an algorithm would have zero sensitivity, but perfect specificity, and a terrible false negative rate. The "reject-everything" algorithm also scores better the more picky de Vries gets.)

This sort of story is only interesting if it includes specific information about where and how his algorithm fails (and succeeds).

--
~Idarubicin

Re:Needs more statistics by penguinoid · 2015-09-16 13:17 · Score: 2

That's all well and good, but you're running the test backwards. Unless you think de Vries is looking at the rejected women to make sure that he finds them unattractive, as opposed to looking at the selected women to make sure he finds them attractive. The false positive rate only matters if it doesn't significantly cut down on unattractive candidates. And so long as he doesn't run out of candidates to look over, the false negative rate is a meaningless bug.
Of course, good luck to him if his true love isn't in the habit of uploading her picture, or if lots of people upload photos of supermodels.
Also, one thing that would be really useful is if the algorithm could counter the bad lighting effect.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Re:Awesome! by Lab+Rat+Jason · 2015-09-16 10:13 · Score: 1

How do you know it was YOUR tax dollars? For all we know, it was MY tax dollars, and I'm fully in support of this research... </sarcasm>

--
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?

Re: She's gotta have a vagina. by queazocotal · 2015-09-16 11:41 · Score: 1

It's only wrong if you're not married.

Re:Not just looks by circletimessquare · 2015-09-16 11:56 · Score: 1

yup

there's also the histocompatibility complex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

basically the more someone smells different than you, the more attractive they seem. but if their histocompatibility complex smells similar to yours, this might mean your children will have a lack of immunological variability, which is a weakness when fighting off disease. so you won't be attracted to them

after all, this is the point of sex: mix your genes with someone as far away from you as possible to ensure as much genetic variability as possible and therefore greatest health

everyone should marry and breed outside their race. if i were a fascist tyrant, i'd enforce this by law (i'm joking... sort of)

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Slashdot Mirror

Researcher Trying To Teach Computer What Women He's Attracted To

104 of 181 comments (clear)