Slashdot Mirror


AI Can Detect Sexual Orientation Based On Person's Photo (cnbc.com)

ugen shares a report from CNBC: Artificial Intelligence (AI) can now accurately identify a person's sexual orientation by analyzing photos of their face, according to new research. The Stanford University study, which is set to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and was first reported in The Economist, found that machines had a far superior "gaydar" when compared to humans. Slashdot reader randomlygeneratename adds: Researchers built classifiers trained on photos from dating websites to predict the sexual orientation of users. The best classifier used logistic regression over features extracted from a VGG-Face conv-net. The latter was done to prevent overfitting to background, non-facial information. Classical facial feature extraction also worked with a slight drop in accuracy. From multiple photos, they achieved an accuracy of 91% for men and 83% for women (and 81% / 71% for a single photo). Humans were only able to get 61% and 54%, respectively. One caveat is the paper mentions it only used Caucasian faces. The paper went on to discuss how this capability can be an invasion of privacy, and conjectured that other types of personal information might be detectable from photos. The source paper can be found here.

350 comments

  1. Alternatively... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they're getting interference from a gay weather balloon.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Proof people are born with teh gay?

    2. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is the frogs man, frogs

    3. Re:Alternatively... by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      All the knowledge of the geniuses involved that created this application, and the question they searched for was, "can you tell from this photo of a persons sexual orientation?" Really?

    4. Re: Alternatively... by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 2
      No, the models are much more sophisticated than this. Gender/sex/affectation are way more complex than you can imagine.

      Sex is pretty simple - (XY vs XX) x (metabolic response to (testosterone family, endocrine family) x (environmental exposure to various chemicals) x Gender x Affectation

      Gender is equally simple - Biological presentation (see Sex) x (cultural presentation) x (physical features) x Sex x Affectation

      Affectation is also pretty simple - (How the person perceives their sexuality/gender) x (How the society perceives their affectation) x Sex x Gender

      Of course, all of these are f(t)'s, so go ahead and apply a simple logistic regression to predict (Sex(t), Gender(t), Affectation(t)), then get back to me.

      --
      "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
    5. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somth like that...

      AI detecting sexuality? please..

      It looks more like all that random facebook shit...

      your soulmate is

      at best its stereotypical as hell..

      pretty guy -> MUST be gay right?
      medium guy -> MUST be BI right?
      ugly guy -> MUST be straight right?

      pretty girl -> MUST be straight right?
      medium girl -> MUST be BI right?
      ugly girl -> MUST be lesbian right?

  2. Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...definitely applies to this situation. This has some pretty negative implications in particularly homophobic regions. All the more reason not to visit the pacific northwestern US or the middle eastern region in general if this thing gets to be widespread.

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
    1. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It might have the opposite effect. It is easy to hate a faceless "other". It is harder to be homophobic when you know your friends and relatives are gay.

      One of the reasons that gay acceptance happened so fast is positive feedback. As gays felt more comfortable "coming out", more people realized that "normal" people they knew were gay, leading to even wider acceptance.

    2. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All the more reason not to visit the pacific northwestern US

      Wait, is the Pacific Northwest homophobic? I have some friends that live up in Oregon and they're extremely gay and I never heard them complain about the region being particularly difficult for them. One just sent me a photo taken from his backyard of a mountain being consumed by fire. I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with that, though, despite the fact that he's flaming.

      (I used this joke with him, too, and he didn't seem to mind. He would have told me if it had offended him.)

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they're driving around with an electronic-billboard-truck using facial recognition to analyze the sexual preference of strangers on the street. So, you know, chill out.

    4. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is because shitlibs believe there is some sort of serious white supremacy movement in the Pacific northwest.

      He might have at least tried the South. They're about as homophobic as good fellas from New York.

    5. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The "pretty negative implications" in rural areas of the US already apply to people of color, or women in the middle east. The hateful uneducated in those regions (and a lot of others) is the problem, not that one specific group might possibly lose its stealth ability to avoid discrimination or violence.

    6. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by deesine · · Score: 1

      Best not to visit anyplace your computer tells you is dangerous.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    7. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know openly gay people in Seattle. I know openly gay public figures here. We had two people running for office against each other that were both openly gay, and it wasn't even hidden in the crap they mailed out promoting themselves. Washington was one of the first 3 states to allow same sex marriage by popular vote. I was under the impression that the pacific northwest was one of the most accepting areas for gay people in the US.

    8. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by skam240 · · Score: 2

      I'll certainly say that I don't know where the parent gets off mentioning the Northwest and not the Southeast but the Northwest does in fact turn very conservative once you get off the coast.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Wait, is the Pacific Northwest homophobic?

      There is a thin strip of liberalism along the Pacific coast of America. Then there is a mountain range. On the arid leeward side of the mountains there is the much bigger and much more conservative inland area. Gays are welcome in Seattle and Portland. In Boise, not so much. Just ask Larry Craig.

    10. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      The entire PNW is entirely too white, especially the coastal "liberal" (actually leftist) areas. They need refugees, hundreds of thousands of them straight from Somalia and Syria, to correct this problem.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

      t'hell with that man, what about the poor fucker who finds out he's gay when the AI tells him? That poor guy's mind is going to snap!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    12. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We get plenty of refugees from Kansas and Oklahoma....

    13. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      All the more reason not to visit the pacific northwestern US.

      Damn, you saw through us! All those Gay Pride parades in Seattle, electing a gay Mayor, and rainbow crosswalks were just a clever trap. We're only pretending to be all chill and tolerant, but that's only until all those people finally out themselves, and then we'll have them! Muahahahahah!

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    14. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Islamophobia - the irrational fear of islam. Except there's nothing irrational about fearing a group that is bombing you, running you over, and has sworn to destroy you because of your sinful western way of life.

    15. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 1

      what does this mean? that they are better at being gay than other gay people? "I have some friends that live up in Oregon and they're extremely gay"

    16. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spend a lot of time in Boise and while it has its cretins like anyplace, i have not noticed that much anti-gay going on. The issue with Craig was not that he might be/is gay. It was that he was caught trying to solicit (a crime) and then likely lied about it (wide stance bullshit, anyone who has used a mens room knows). He came away as a liar even if he wasn't (i wouldn't bet on it)

    17. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by hord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It won't have this affect on government regimes that use this for population control. It won't have this affect on algorithms trained with this inherent bias in them.

    18. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It might have the opposite effect. It is easy to hate a faceless "other". It is harder to be homophobic when you know your friends and relatives are gay.

      One of the reasons that gay acceptance happened so fast is positive feedback. As gays felt more comfortable "coming out", more people realized that "normal" people they knew were gay, leading to even wider acceptance.

      That's funny, because I've known a few gay people. For at least half of them, it's obvious that there's something deeply wrong with them, and it's tied into their homosexuality (ie, the behavior is either a cause of the obvious dysfunction or an expression of it).

      So in terms of 'homophobia', do I irrationally fear any of them? No. Do I hate any of them? No. But it's obvious at least half of them are screwed up. And that leads me to the conclusion that it's best not to encourage or approve of homosexual conduct, because it's self-destructive behavior. The adverse health consequences statistically attached to homosexuality bear this out.

    19. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not yet, and since this now exists you know smarmy corporations will use it in HR. "Sorry but we are going to give you a pass, the next guy is more (hetro) qualified then you."

    20. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing is this won't be very useful for that kind of thing - far too many false positives.

      It's estimated that about 5% of the population is gay. With this thing only having an 81% accuracy rate, this means there will be many more false positives than actual gay people - if you took a room with 100 people in, it would misidentify approximately 19 of the people as the sexual orientation they are not - meaning there would be roughly three times as many people mis-identified as gay than actual gay people. In other words, it's not actually very useful.

    21. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are they screwed up purely because of being gay or are they screwed up from a lifetime of anti gay conditioning and gay persecution causing them to live in fear?

    22. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by hey! · · Score: 1

      One of the perqs of friendship is license to do things that would otherwise be offensive. In fact C.S. Lewis once noted that once you reach a certain level of intimacy with someone, politeness becomes offensive.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because that's not a thing

    24. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      It won't have this affect on algorithms trained with this inherent bias in them.

      What?

    25. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by hord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What is the need to distinguish gay from straight? It's a false categorization that has limited use in academic studies. It has no use in any social context that respects freedom of the individual. Even asking the question implies some need to put people into slots that we can then later act on. And no, I don't believe that the first question you ask a potential life partner is their sexual orientation. Human behavior is far more subtle and varied.

      My comment also reflects the fact that ML/AI algorithms may have embedded biases in them that are overlooked because their internals are not very well understood. You are taking a very complex human issue and trying to reduce it to a single number. People without the will to think critically (80% of humans?) won't prevent this bias from propagating regardless of their own intentions.

    26. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      hundreds of thousands of them straight from Somalia and Syria

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So in terms of 'homophobia', do I irrationally fear any of them? No. Do I hate any of them? No. But it's obvious at least half of them are screwed up.

      Knowing that people hate you for your sexuality and getting abuse for it from strangers and (depending on your background) former friends and family? Or alternately that they'd hate you if you were truthful about an unchangeable and fundamental part of yourself that you have to keep covered up every day of your life? (#)

      Hmm, yeah. I guess that sort of thing might screw some people up.

      Oddly, this would suggest that the actual issue is how homosexuals have traditionally been treated...

      And that leads me to the conclusion that it's best not to encourage or approve of homosexual conduct, because it's self-destructive behavior.

      ...making people like you the problem, not homosexuality itself.

      (#) Both of which were the case in most Western societies until recently, and *still* aren't as bad as the hostility homosexuals in many countries continue to face today- e.g. fear of being tortured or killed.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    28. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's obvious at least half of them are screwed up.

      So a third less than the screwed up heterosexuals then?

    29. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "effect", not affect.

    30. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I've known a few straight people. For at least half of them, it's obvious that there's something deeply wrong with them, and it's tied into their identity (ie, the behavior is either a cause of the obvious dysfunction or an expression of it).

      FTFY.

    31. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Except there's nothing irrational about fearing a group that is bombing you,

      Which, funnily enough, is what we consistently do to the Middle East....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    32. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketing. Gay and straight people don't necessarily buy the same things (brands, styles, etc).
      This plus targeted ads can save an ad campaign a ton, and help make what ads you do see more relevant to you.

      Although it would get pretty annoying if you're one of the ones it reads wrong.

    33. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      what does this mean? that they are better at being gay than other gay people?

      Well, when I said, "extremely gay", I meant the kind of gay that dances in a jockstrap on a float in the gay pride parade. Freddie Mercury's mustache gay. It's not that he's better at being gay than other gay people, but he's the exact opposite of a closeted gay person. In fact, I'm not even sure his apartment has closets.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just avoid wherever creeps like PopeRatzo live an you should be fine.

    35. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Which, funnily enough, is what we consistently do to the Middle East....

      Perhaps not as much as the Caliphate does. We don't really have it that badly in the West (and especially the US) when it comes to this stuff. The VAST majority of Islamist terrorism is directed at other Muslims.

      What Europe sees is a tiny fraction of what goes on in Muslim countries. What the US sees is a smaller fraction of that.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    36. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is the need to distinguish gay from straight?

      It's important if you are looking for a mate.

    37. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's estimated that about 5% of the population is gay

      10% in places that don't have Rednecks running around murdering people for being gay.

    38. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Maxthod · · Score: 1

      This has some pretty negative implications in particularly homophobic regions.

      Can't agree if you ask to remove these advancements in AI. Its old civilisation stupidity (they didn't know then) here.

      Well, in Toronto we suddenly discover an abnormally high rate of abortions of girls to discover that some recent canadians-Indian parents not very accurate with our occidental contemporary moral used the detection of gender by ultrasound to select the sex of the child.

      So? We stop AI and hide ultrasound scans results because of morons people and countries?

      It is the same thing. But at the level of sex (ADN) instead of behaviors (Recreational).

      Please Homo Sapiens, follow up!

    39. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's funny, because I've known a few gay people. For at least half of them, it's obvious that there's something deeply wrong with them, and it's tied into their homosexuality (ie, the behavior is either a cause of the obvious dysfunction or an expression of it).

      And I know dozens or maybe even hundreds of gay people (my wife's profession in the arts has led to us meeting many more gay people than "average", I suspect) ... and in my experience there is no higher a percentage of screwed up folks than in the straight community.

      I know its a cliche, but literally some of my best friends are gay & you could not hope to meet nicer, more compassionate, thoughtful, intelligent & stable folks.

      So, your experience is not universal & you should not extrapolate from it.

    40. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hateful uneducated

      I think it's actually more about the hateful not being able to form their own opinions instead of following their opinion leaders in a sheep like herd. Not all forms and places of education provide this capability equally to those who haven't received the gift from their upbringing.

    41. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, funnily enough, is what we consistently do to the Middle East....

      So you justify terrorism as a response to war - when in fact it was terrorism that started the wars. Please enlighten me as to when NATO countries "consistently bombed" the middle east prior to say, the Pan Am 101 bombing or the Air India bombing. Oh wait, let's drag up Israel and Palestine now as a justification. The middle east is full of tribal wars and disagreements since the middle east has existed.

      Blaming "colonialism", "imperialism", "greedy oil companies run by the western white man", "the jews", etc is merely justification for a business model. Said business model works by duping idiots like yourself into sending money to support very wealthy people who send out stupid people to get themselves killed by blowing something up. Blowing up a high profile target increases recruitment of suckers willing to die for the cause, and increases funding from suckers willing to pay idiots to die for the cause. But the real cause is that someone is getting very rich.

    42. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Are there a lot of Muslims living in the pacific northwestern US? I just assumed we were talking about dumb hicks. Was wondering why GP specified that instead of the south, the midwest, or any of the other non-civilized-city areas of the US that are similarly anti-gay.

    43. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 2

      I was assaulted in the MAX line in the tube under Washington Park for holding hands with my boyfriend on the Blue train; had my glasses punched through my right ear and a tooth knocked loose. Police response, even though they got the guy, was "don't be gay, then". This was in 2008.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    44. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      In this case, the mountain range is not the Cascades, but the Coast.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    45. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 2

      Which is weird, considering Tulsa's a more gay friendly city than Portland. Portland talks the talk on civil rights, but doesn't walk the walk. It does this on a lot of things, really, like livability, cost of living, employment, wage and hour issues...it's amazing it's nothing more than a cattle, ship and railroad yard anymore, but hey... guess Stormfront has to have one win for themselves, eh?

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    46. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Probably because the midwest has mellowed out and the northwest has spent the last 20 years concentrating hate groups? I moved from my birth city of Portland to Tulsa to get away from the northwest's xenophobic bullshit. And I was successful.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    47. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Ron White talking about how everyone's a little bit gay, it's just a matter of what degree.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    48. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's estimated that about 5% of the population is gay.

      Sure, if you take The 700 Club's word for it instead of, say, Kinsey. But hey, both gay and straight people try to ignore that bisexuality exists, or that most people are some degree of bisexual.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    49. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      I've noticed there's a trend to vote opposite of the situation on the street. Having spent the last 30 years in Oregon and Oklahoma, I can safely say that both states could trade state governments tonight and both states would be far more accurately represented.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    50. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a citation for 5%? I've always read that it was around 2%.

    51. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Beeftopia · · Score: 1
    52. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not as much as the Caliphate does.

      True, but the caliphate's a very new thing. The terrorist violence against the west was fueled by a perception that we were aggressors, and it's not without reason.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    53. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      So you justify terrorism as a response to war

      No, I don't. But if we treat trying to understand reasons as justifying, then all we'll have is a world full of people shooting each other in muddy moral trenches while believing that they're occupying the high ground.

      - when in fact it was terrorism that started the wars. Please enlighten me as to when NATO countries "consistently bombed" the middle east prior to say, the Pan Am 101 bombing or the Air India bombing.

      Pan Am 101 -- 17th August 1989; Pan Am 103 -- 21st December 1988; Iran airways flight 655 -- 3rd July 1988. I'm not saying that 655 wasn't an accident, but that they

      perceived

      it as an act of aggression. But well before that, we were involved in interventions in the Middle East. I mean, we backed Saddam Hussein, who'd been in power for almost a decade by then. We supported Saddam because Iran had overthrown the regime we'd installed that favoured western oil firms.

      Blaming "colonialism", "imperialism", "greedy oil companies run by the western white man", "the jews", etc is merely justification for a business model. Said business model works by duping idiots like yourself into sending money to support very wealthy people who send out stupid people to get themselves killed by blowing something up.

      What are you on about? I don't give anyone any money to fight. Why on Earth did you think I would???

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    54. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean muslims

    55. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ram ranch, it rocks! Cowboys love big hard throbbing cocks!

    56. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      It might have the opposite effect. It is easy to hate a faceless "other". It is harder to be homophobic when you know your friends and relatives are gay.

      My one brother in law manages -- wrt his own sister.

      Re the GP, why on earth would he/she think the PNW is homophobic??

    57. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the preprint: "Gay and heterosexual people were represented in equal numbers". (This is in the data they used for their DNN study).
      So random chance would give you 50-50 success rate.
      I assume the same was true of the human accuracy rates they referred to, which were in citations.

    58. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cito · · Score: 0

      I'd love to use this for fetuses so I can choose abortion or not

    59. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      What is the need to distinguish gay from straight?

      It's important if you are looking for a mate.

      Which doesn't escape from the fact that those orientations are, well, social constructs--and I'm curious but unwilling to give the article a clickthrough to find out if those were the only two orientations they used, because how you define the categories will throw things off even more than only using Caucasian faces. The odds are pretty good that they did engage in erasure of bisexuals, since that's normal for such research, and I'd be amazed if they even considered the existence of asexuals for this--never mind that asexual=/=aromantic so you definitely should be finding some on dating sites.

    60. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      A quick check of recent research done using the Kinsey scale supports the ~5% rate--not all bisexuals get counted as straight when people are trying to ignore that bisexuality exists.

      I can dig out the citation if you really want, but it's relatively easily found and some of its flaws would require an extensive discussion of...well...all the various problems of using self-report. (Things like how you ask the question can have an impact on the numbers--and yes, sometimes this is set up deliberately because what's being studied are things like how many people will only answer yes when you ask indirectly.) The thing that concerns me about this is that it really sounds like the AI is being trained with the assumption that bisexuality doesn't exist--which means that regardless of which state you consider to be a false positive, it'll be wrong with every single bisexual regardless of if it deems them homosexual or heterosexual.

    61. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by piojo · · Score: 1

      Bah, that's just moralizing. First of all, curiosity and the state of the art need not hold itself back because you think the questions aren't legitimate. Next, sexuality is such an important trait that you really need to know it if you're going to have really successful interactions with people. When you make an analogy referencing dating or sexual desire, you need to meet your audience where they're at. When I talk to a straight friend, I'll normalize heterosexuality, since this is our world. With a gay friend, I will not, since that world perception is not accurate anymore. Is this category only for exclusion? Nonsense. It's used for inclusion as well. (I see no reason to assume everybody is individually male/female/neither/prefer not to say, and everybody's sexual preference is straight/gay/bisexual/none/other, though some people would probably like to see a culture where I can't think in more specific categories.)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    62. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you calling out the PNW for homophobia? I've lived out here for thirty years and the area is extremely inclusive up and down the west coast. The inland side of the PNW states has AT MOST 1/5 of the population density compared to the populated areas on the coast. In fact most of these areas have less than 10 people per square mile, >25x less than the populous areas. Why not call out the south if you want to generalize, I spent a decade down there and it's not too inclusive in many areas. I ran into piles of bumpkins talking about hating sodomites and negroes. Bottom line, there are shitty people all over but by and large they are becoming the minority. The best thing for these backward hateful people is to actually meet the people they hate, it's easy to hate a demographic but it's different when you actually meet the person.

    63. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a thing I'd like to do that will make my genitals feel good for a few seconds--only downside is that it propagates a pandemic having killed 35 million people so far, with millions more yet to die.

      I trust I can prioritize my cock feeling good over mass death without any negative feedback from you?

    64. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      AIDS does not work that way. It doesn't really give a flying fuck what orientation you are.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    65. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Wow, obviously photoshopped from when that originally referred to Portland versus the Oregon outback.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    66. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Really not helping the situation in the Portland area is the idea that bisexuality isn't a thing, among both gay and straight people. And there's no middle ground, either; gay people are in the closet or trying to rub your face in it. Was really glad to find out there is a middle ground. Had to move to my tribe's reservation in Oklahoma to find it, but here it is.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    67. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      gay people are in the closet or trying to rub your face in it.

      How do gay people "rub your face in it"?

      In a lot of the most homophobic parts of the US, "rubbing your face in it" means, "gay people exist", so I'm wondering exactly what you mean.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    68. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Which doesn't escape from the fact that those orientations are, well, social constructs

      You say that as if it invalidates the concept. It doesn't. Nationality, authority, prestige, liberty, justice, progress, and money, are all social constructs, but they certainly matter. Same goes for sexuality.

      You can say that race too is 'just' a social construct, but it still matters in certain medical contexts.

      More generally: the reason we use imperfect labels (with 'rounding errors' as it were) is that they're useful in practice.

      how you define the categories will throw things off even more than only using Caucasian faces

      This sounds a lot like a continuum fallacy. That the classifications are imperfect doesn't mean the whole project is completely invalidated. Subjects' self-reports are easily good enough to serve as a starting-point.

      (I can see major issues with the study though, like that they used photos from dating sites, which as others have said likely aren't going to be representative of most photos.)

      The odds are pretty good that they did engage in erasure of bisexuals, since that's normal for such research, and I'd be amazed if they even considered the existence of asexuals for this

      That wouldn't make these researchers bigots, as you seem to be implying, it would just make them pragmatists. Fewer categories simplifies the classification problem.

      There is nothing to apologise for when machine-learning researchers decide to make a binary classifier rather than a multiclass classifier.

      never mind that asexual=/=aromantic so you definitely should be finding some on dating sites.

      Oh come on. You realise this kind of minutia-obsession alienates ordinary people, right? The numbers there are so tiny that it just isn't a problem worth worrying about, either for the researchers or for users of dating sites.

    69. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't escape from the fact that those orientations are, well, social constructs

      You say that as if it invalidates the concept. It doesn't. Nationality, authority, prestige, liberty, justice, progress, and money, are all social constructs, but they certainly matter. Same goes for sexuality.

      You can say that race too is 'just' a social construct, but it still matters in certain medical contexts.

      More generally: the reason we use imperfect labels (with 'rounding errors' as it were) is that they're useful in practice.

      Fun fact: I studied precisely the part of science that means I'd know more in detail about those medical contexts than you do, and I know this because I know we're shifting to DNA testing because it's a godsfuckingdamned social construct--it's not a good shorthand for ancestry, it's got a very high error rate because the definitions change and in fact there's a lot of people here who are old enough that the definitions changed in their lifetimes. In fact, in the past century, there's been at least two major changes in how the definitions were, each of which would change how somebody got counted--and some people lied and forgot to let their kids in on things, and some people will find themselves being counted differently depending on if they're in England, the US, or Australia...

      But there is a lag in getting doctors to actually switch off of this bad lazy approximation, which is...pretty much normal.

      how you define the categories will throw things off even more than only using Caucasian faces

      This sounds a lot like a continuum fallacy. That the classifications are imperfect doesn't mean the whole project is completely invalidated. Subjects' self-reports are easily good enough to serve as a starting-point.

      (I can see major issues with the study though, like that they used photos from dating sites, which as others have said likely aren't going to be representative of most photos.)

      10% of people who check the 'White' tickbox when asked what their race is aren't actually White, according to current common US definitions of the term. (Yes, all of those specifics are needed.) I suppose a 90% accuracy rate is acceptable for some purposes. The question is, is this one of them?

      The odds are pretty good that they did engage in erasure of bisexuals, since that's normal for such research, and I'd be amazed if they even considered the existence of asexuals for this

      That wouldn't make these researchers bigots, as you seem to be implying, it would just make them pragmatists. Fewer categories simplifies the classification problem.

      There is nothing to apologise for when machine-learning researchers decide to make a binary classifier rather than a multiclass classifier.

      The implication exists entirely in your head, and it doesn't actually make them pragmatists. If they were pragmatists wanting to use a binary classifier, they needed to choose something wherein a binary classifier would be sufficient--and definitely not one where either option of your binary is equally right (or wrong, depending on how you're scoring it) as an answer.

      I'm not calling them bigots, I'm calling them bad scientists, using bad conceptualizations in their machine-learning research.

    70. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I studied precisely the part of science that means I'd know more in detail about those medical contexts than you do, and I know this because I know we're shifting to DNA testing because it's a godsfuckingdamned social construct

      Sure, that's a good point: 'race' can mean whatever politically-charged categorisation people want it to mean, and it's important to be clear what we mean by terms like 'white'. The actual biology of the matter (I think we're meant to call it 'ethnicity') is somewhat separate from the identity politics, but it does exist.

      (The oft-touted idea that biologically, there's no such thing as race is utter nonsense. Dawkins, among others, has railed against this silliness.)

      The question is, is this one of them?

      Yes, it is. It's a first-effort research paper, and they're claiming to have achieved very good success with their classifier (ignoring the aforementioned issues with the paper). A 10% nitpick makes for a valid footnote, but doesn't undermine the basic ideas.

      they needed to choose something wherein a binary classifier would be sufficient--and definitely not one where either option of your binary is equally right (or wrong, depending on how you're scoring it) as an answer.

      What are you talking about, 'equally wrong'? The hard numbers of the classifier's effectiveness, are right there in the summary.

      The fact that you can come up with a more detailed taxonomy of human sexuality doesn't invalidate the effectiveness of their coarse-grain, first-effort classifier. In the real world, almost nothing falls into neat categories, and no number of highly detailed categories can ever capture all detail of the individual.

      Categories are all about making useful generalisations. That's why we use them.

      Where does that kind of thinking end, anyway? The classifier fails to distinguish bisexuals from pansexuals, therefore the whole project is incoherent?

    71. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I studied precisely the part of science that means I'd know more in detail about those medical contexts than you do, and I know this because I know we're shifting to DNA testing because it's a godsfuckingdamned social construct

      Sure, that's a good point: 'race' can mean whatever politically-charged categorisation people want it to mean, and it's important to be clear what we mean by terms like 'white'. The actual biology of the matter (I think we're meant to call it 'ethnicity') is somewhat separate from the identity politics, but it does exist.

      (The oft-touted idea that biologically, there's no such thing as race is utter nonsense. Dawkins, among others, has railed against this silliness.)

      The concept most people talk about when they say race does not exist biologically--if you want biological race, you need to talk to physical anthropologists. Ethnicity is a more usable concept.

      That said, Dawkins is not god, and not really the person I'd want to go with here, anyway. I've been mostly in the 'munch popcorn' section of the argument, since the issue of the biology resembles a primate house which has had a diarrhea outbreak fail to curb their enthusiasm for flinging. The politically-charged and historically bad work on race--check into 'scientific racism' for some of the history here--pretty much mean that if there's something going on biologically, new terms pretty much are going to have to be found simply to keep from adding to the problem.

      The question is, is this one of them?

      Yes, it is. It's a first-effort research paper, and they're claiming to have achieved very good success with their classifier (ignoring the aforementioned issues with the paper). A 10% nitpick makes for a valid footnote, but doesn't undermine the basic ideas.

      Actually, that'd also mean that training it to identify somebody's ethnicity and origins would also be distinctly more useful--especially since that's actually something you can do using headshots, as bone structure is more reliable than skin tone and most of the variation can be found in the face. The gold standard is genetic markers, but these two things are part of how we know the definitions have changed, sometimes in ways to us moderns would be absurd. (Guess what kinds of things get noticed when you've got graveyards needing digging up when the records tell you who is buried where? There's still archeological work done--you can learn a lot about history, some of which we can't really do otherwise because there's a reason science is careful to be clear about names of things now.)

      they needed to choose something wherein a binary classifier would be sufficient--and definitely not one where either option of your binary is equally right (or wrong, depending on how you're scoring it) as an answer.

      What are you talking about, 'equally wrong'? The hard numbers of the classifier's effectiveness, are right there in the summary.

      The fact that you can come up with a more detailed taxonomy of human sexuality doesn't invalidate the effectiveness of their coarse-grain, first-effort classifier. In the real world, almost nothing falls into neat categories, and no number of highly detailed categories can ever capture all detail of the individual.

      Categories are all about making useful generalisations. That's why we use them.

      Where does that kind of thinking end, anyway? The classifier fails to distinguish bisexuals from pansexuals, therefore the whole project is incoherent?

      The minimum set needed to actually make a good operational definition for 'human sexuality' is to have a four-option system of 'same sex,' 'opposite sex,' 'both sexes,' and 'no.' You can generally get away with lumping everybody who is pretty meh on their partner's sex into

    72. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      new terms pretty much are going to have to be found simply to keep from adding to the problem

      Until then, doctors who care about things like sickle-cell disease, will have to pick a word and go with it.

      training it to identify somebody's ethnicity and origins would also be distinctly more useful--especially since that's actually something you can do using headshots, as bone structure is more reliable than skin tone and most of the variation can be found in the face.

      I don't know about 'distinctly more useful', but sure, that would be a valid research project.

      The minimum set needed to actually make a good operational definition

      Who cares?

      They weren't setting out to precisely and exactly categorise each person's sexuality, they were setting out to make a comparatively simple, but still meaningful, binary classifier.

      Again, all you're really saying is that you can come up with a more precise taxonomy than the gay-or-straight binary model. Well of course you can, but this has no bearing on the basic idea of the research.

      If I come up with a classifier that can tell cats from dogs, it would be absurd to try to dismiss the project on the grounds that it can't tell a Labrador from a spaniel.

      You're only going to have problems when you try lumping the last two into either, unless you deliberately make sure your sample is made up entirely of the first two groups--and even then, you really should note that up front when defining your sample.

      Sure, clarity and completeness in a research paper is always desirable. (In true Slashdot fashion, I've not read it.)

    73. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      new terms pretty much are going to have to be found simply to keep from adding to the problem

      Until then, doctors who care about things like sickle-cell disease, will have to pick a word and go with it.

      No, if they care about things they'll be willing to test everybody and anybody if there's reason to suspect it--sickle-cell is in fact one of the specific reasons why we're having to push doctors to stop being using bad, lazy approximations. About the only thing your obvious ancestry does is modify the odds of you having the gene, though it will remain a non-zero number.

      training it to identify somebody's ethnicity and origins would also be distinctly more useful--especially since that's actually something you can do using headshots, as bone structure is more reliable than skin tone and most of the variation can be found in the face.

      I don't know about 'distinctly more useful', but sure, that would be a valid research project.

      It'd also have much fewer ethical issues and be using concepts with good validity--and, well, humans have an error rate there because they do tend to be lazy assholes and using bad shortcuts. All you'd really need to do is remember that Asians and Native Americans exist, which is not so much of a problem

      The minimum set needed to actually make a good operational definition

      Who cares?

      They weren't setting out to precisely and exactly categorise each person's sexuality, they were setting out to make a comparatively simple, but still meaningful, binary classifier.

      Again, all you're really saying is that you can come up with a more precise taxonomy than the gay-or-straight binary model. Well of course you can, but this has no bearing on the basic idea of the research.

      If I come up with a classifier that can tell cats from dogs, it would be absurd to try to dismiss the project on the grounds that it can't tell a Labrador from a spaniel.

      Okay, I've been trying to be nice and assume you're not a bigot, but I give up here. You're a bigot.

      You keep insisting that you can totally get away with saying that you can fucking make a good study by treating a system that includes a set that contains both options and the null set work. No. This is not good. This is a really fucking bad thing to reduce to a binary, and I really don't know what the fucking hell you're doing here on /. if you cannot grasp sufficiently well what the damned problem is from simply a mathematical perspective.

      I couldn't give two fucks what the categorization they used were, aside from the ethical issues other people pointed out. The problem I'm trying to point out where is that how you deem the accuracy of the AI's guess on cases where it's not 0 or 1 but {0,1} is completely arbitrary when you don't allow {0,1} as a response, and that kind of thing is considered abuse when done to a human--and I generally want to avoid doing shit that would be considered abusive if done to a human to an AI.

      No, we probably haven't managed to get any of them to the point where it'll actually cause a problem, I just somehow doubt we're going to get that much warning. The time to start good practices is now.

      You're only going to have problems when you try lumping the last two into either, unless you deliberately make sure your sample is made up entirely of the first two groups--and even then, you really should note that up front when defining your sample.

      Sure, clarity and completeness in a research paper is always desirable. (In true Slashdot fashion, I've not read it.)

      I generally make a point of skipping reading research papers where the abstract leaves me with questions about the journal's peer review process. I've limited time, about the only thing of note here is that machine learning research may need to be required to start going through ethics review boards--it usually takes something that just makes everybody rather offended.

    74. Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      About the only thing your obvious ancestry does is modify the odds of you having the gene, though it will remain a non-zero number.

      Right, but that was my whole point - it does correlate with ethnicity, which is enough to show it's not just something we made up, as some people like to try to argue.

      All you'd really need to do is remember that Asians and Native Americans exist, which is not so much of a problem

      No, you don't need to 'remember' that any particular group exists.

      Whether we're talking gender, race, sexuality, or anything else, it doesn't matter whether the classifier's taxonomy aligns perfectly with the one used by today's liberals. Unless the researchers are lying about what they built, there is no ethical issue here.

      You could make a classifier that distinguishes people of Han Chinese ethnicity from ethnically Nigerian people. That wouldn't make it racist against any other ethnicities, it would just make it a more limited classifier.

      Okay, I've been trying to be nice and assume you're not a bigot, but I give up here. You're a bigot.

      Ah, modern liberalism: where anyone who doesn't completely agree with you is to be denounced as a bigot.

      This is a really fucking bad thing to reduce to a binary

      It's a machine-learning classifier with limitations, it's not a model for a new world order. Are you unable to tell the difference?

      I really don't know what the fucking hell you're doing here on /. if you cannot grasp sufficiently well what the damned problem is from simply a mathematical perspective.

      There isn't any problem here from a mathematical perspective. Again, it's a rather imperfect machine-learning classifier, it's not a template for a new, reductionist, society.

      The problem I'm trying to point out where is that how you deem the accuracy of the AI's guess on cases where it's not 0 or 1 but {0,1} is completely arbitrary when you don't allow {0,1} as a response

      No, it's not 'completely arbitrary', it's an imperfect but not unreasonable approximation. It's essentially a clamping function, no?

      They could make a follow-up paper where they add bisexuals to the mix. And another where they add asexuals. And another, and another. At which point would you stop your accusations?

      that kind of thing is considered abuse when done to a human

      We're discussing a machine-learning paper, for heaven's sake. No harm is being done to anyone. I don't care what sort of rounding errors it suffers from.

  3. Can it guess if I like chubby chicks? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    If the AI shows me a picture of Super Pochaco, can it reliably detect my preference? Or maybe it needs a picture of something else on my body?

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:Can it guess if I like chubby chicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI kicks ass over autistic geeks on many things, and it's only getting better. You're the leftover freaks, goodbye.

    2. Re: Can it guess if I like chubby chicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait 'til you see what the AI thinks if silverspoon nepotists. ;-)

  4. Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If sexual orientation correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that sexual orientation is not a "decision."

    * Unless this is picking up on subtle cues like gay men wearing eyeliner and gay women not wearing makeup. (Similar to lots of how gay men speak with an "affliction" and drive Saabs, while gay women drive Subarus.)

    1. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subaru Forester is chariot of the lesbians.

    2. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well your latter hypothesis is possible, and others can suggest that being gay can change your jaw structure (enter dirty joke here), it certainly should suggest that it s biological...for those few who still need convincing. The question will be whether right extremists will then try to classify it not as a disease of morality but a disease of physical development. The line between disease and diversity is a gray zone. For example, let us suppose that increasing pollution by endocrine disruptors has led to increasing frequency of homosexuality (I don't know if this is true). How do we view this pollution? A bad thing A good thing? It is what you make of it I guess, and diversity is good, and clean water is good, and people should be treated with respect.

    3. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aka the Lezbaru or the Lezmobile.

    4. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try telling this to social constructionists.

    5. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My new girlfriend that I met and the church over the week-end drives a Subaru Forester. Should I worry about anything?

      -cdreimer

    6. Re:Nature vs Nurture by richardellisjr · · Score: 2

      First off I have a high suspicion this study won't be reproducible. Secondly the TFA has this very interesting paragraph:

      The Stanford University researchers found that gay men and women typically had "gender-atypical" features and expressions. While a person's "grooming style" also factored in to the computer algorithm, essentially suggesting gay women appeared more masculine and vice versa.

      This begs the questions, how much did "grooming style" factor into the apps gaydar, and where did the list of gay and straight "grooming styles" come from?

      On top of all this, TFA doesn't give any details on sample size and I find it difficult to believe they managed to get a large number of pictures of random people... along with the sexual preference of the person.

    7. Re: Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not rocket science to grab pictures from Grindr....

    8. Re: Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminals can also be recognized by physical appearance

    9. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If sexual orientation correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that sexual orientation is not a "decision."

      * Unless this is picking up on subtle cues like gay men wearing eyeliner and gay women not wearing makeup. (Similar to lots of how gay men speak with an "affliction" and drive Saabs, while gay women drive Subarus.)

      No, it could be picking up something subtle about a person's facial expression.

      For something that strongly suggests that it isn't just a decision, google homosexual fraternal birth order.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Unless this is picking up on subtle cues like gay men wearing eyeliner and gay women not wearing makeup. (Similar to lots of how gay men speak with an "affliction" and drive Saabs, while gay women drive Subarus.)

      Of the several dozen gay men I have known in my lifetime there were only one a few that I've seen wearing eyeliner. I don't think eyeliner can account for an 80+% accuracy.

    11. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sexual orientation is not orientation on which hole you stick your dick in. It's about who you find attractive. Contrary to the stereotypes there are quite a large number of gay men wo don't like anal sex and never do it. There are also hetero couples who do have anal sex. Sexual techniques and sexual orieantation are different things.

    12. Re: Nature vs Nurture by bestweasel · · Score: 2

      The study says that although grooming styles differ, gay men and women also tend to have different facial shapes from their heterosexual counterparts. It looks increasingly likely that God is making gay babies.

    13. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Unless this is picking up on subtle cues

      The algorithm determines whether it's a picture of a guy with a dick in his mouth.

    14. Re: Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it's Satan?

    15. Re: Nature vs Nurture by gtall · · Score: 1

      But that would also make it part of G-d's plan. Has this plan ever been peered reviewed? How do we know it is a good plan?

    16. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean "affectation" or "inflection"? An affliction is like a disease.

    17. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Speaking only for myself, the churchgoing bit would put me off.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Nature vs Nurture by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If sexual orientation correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that sexual orientation is not a "decision."

      Your statement is based on the assumption that all homosexuality is caused by the same thing. (Or all male homosexuality is based on one thing, and all female homosexuality is based on another single thing.) There's also an assumption that sexuality is all-or-nothing, that there aren't people who want sex with anyone, regardless of gender. The second assumption is false by counterexample. The first is unproven, and in my opinion unlikely.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This begs the questions, how much did "grooming style" factor into the apps gaydar, and where did the list of gay and straight "grooming styles" come from?

      On top of all this, TFA doesn't give any details on sample size and I find it difficult to believe they managed to get a large number of pictures of random people... along with the sexual preference of the person.

      They used a dating site. It's not the same as selecting random pics from Facebook, but they're sure to know whether a given male is seeking to hook up with men or with women.

      Who knows how much grooming style factored into the app? But given this is claimed to be an AI, chances are they trained a neural net on a collection of known-sexuality pictures and then tested it based on a second set. Also comparing the "AI" with human guesswork on that set.

    20. Re:Nature vs Nurture by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      If sexual orientation correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that sexual orientation is not a "decision."

      Let's try that with some other attribute: "If physical strength correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that physical strength is not a "decision."" Nope, sorry, doesn't work.

      I also don't see what difference it makes anyway whether sexual orientation is inherited or whether it is a "choice".

    21. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

      * Unless this is picking up on subtle cues like gay men wearing eyeliner and gay women not wearing makeup. (Similar to lots of how gay men speak with an "affliction" and drive Saabs, while gay women drive Subarus.)

      That is by far the most plausible explanation, the net has been trained to spot differences in gay and straight culture.

      There is evidence that maternal stress is a significant factor. Therefore from a natural selection viewpoint there must be an evolutionary survival advantage that outweighs the obvious numerical dis-advantage. A stressful environment leading to more gay siblings is natural.

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

    22. Re:Nature vs Nurture by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Could have been at 'The Church of Our Lady of Copious Lubricants'.

      But I would have spotted him from the pulpit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth was the above post modded up? Try to put old salami in your face overnight and on the next day color the pimples with felt-tip pens. Voila! You've just changed your appearance based on a decision.Stop making up arguments without seeking any kind of empirical confirmation.

    24. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If sexual orientation correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that sexual orientation is not a "decision."

      No. It shows the gay is so powerful it even modifies your facial traits once you choose it.

    25. Re:Nature vs Nurture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most anal sex is performed by straight people.

  5. See? Gaydar is prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to patent here, move along.

  6. Sample data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is the sample data biased toward gay individuals or something? 91% and 83% just doesn't seem that impressive compared with the error rate you would get by just "guessing" straight every time for the general population, and 61% and 54% are way off.

    1. Re:Sample data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFS says the sample data is dating photos. Likely the entire algorithm is confusing sexual orientation and gender, i.e. femme expressions on a male face or masc expressions on a female face.

      Does it detect pansexuals? oh wait, nearly the whole world is pansexual they are just in denial because of social custom.

    2. Re:Sample data by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

      Ah ha -- it detects self-described non-heterosexuality in a sample set.

      Nothing to see here. Won't tell you if you need to ritually murder your son, or something.

  7. The real gaydar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  8. Sexual orientation of participants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gay people can distinguish other gay people with MUCH greater frequency than straight people can.

    1. Re:Sexual orientation of participants? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Gay people can distinguish other gay people with MUCH greater frequency than straight people can.

      I have no doubt. After being in the Army I can "smell" military experience on people. People in general can see things in others that they have experienced themselves.

      Little things can tell people a lot. I learned from living in Texas that the plural of "you" is not "y'all". The proper way to address a group is "all y'all". The people that don't get that right are not from Texas. Maybe they are from Arizona, or Mississippi, I don't know because I haven't been to those states.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Sexual orientation of participants? by RobRyland · · Score: 1

      I learned from living in Texas that the plural of "you" is not "y'all". The proper way to address a group is "all y'all". The people that don't get that right are not from Texas.

      Actually, saying "all y'all" is incorrect, and the rest of the South laughs at Texas for getting it so wrong.

    3. Re:Sexual orientation of participants? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal evidence is just that. I once was teaching a grad. level logic course and two fellows were in the military taking the course. About half-way through, they confronted me saying I must have been in the military once. Nope, that wasn't me. Vibrations are weird, just remember the Summer of Love.

    4. Re: Sexual orientation of participants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one in texas says all y'all, ya ignorant dick beater

  9. How can this continue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technology is faster than societies... Can technology help making societies go with the times a bit faster?

  10. Gaydar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's finally here.

  11. What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1, Funny

    Or David Duke or Rick Santorum or "Pastor" Jack Graham or Rick Perry. Them Texas boys are all hidin' something. Mitch McConnel and "Randy" Paul. How about Orrin Hatch?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty well known around Austin that the former governor frequented gay bars, not really that big of a secret.

    2. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Duke was a Democrat for most of his life so we shouldn't talk about him.

    3. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about him because Trump won't say a bad word about him.

    4. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I remember a Marine drill sergeant saying something about people from Texas. Do they have horns? No? Then they are gay.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never thought I would actually see someone soberly perpetrating the "steers or queers" slur against Texans. I thought it was a joke, just meant to rile people up. But here it is. Can someone explain the principle to me, where homophobia is unacceptable, but suddenly here's an anti-gay comment modded up to +4?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh... Because it is OK to say mean things about conservatives and somehow calling them gay is still mean. That's right isn't? That liberals are actually deep down inside super racist and homophobic but pretend they aren't?

    7. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never even heard the phrase before.

    8. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do they have horns?" -- are you sure that's not an anti-semitic joke?

    9. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I encountered it in a film..
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

    10. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The saying is old as the hills. Where do you think R. Lee Ermey found out about it in the first place? Jeez people think it didn't exist until it was in a movie. So parochial.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This may surprise you but a lot of original dialogue is written for films.

      Plus of course, whether it existed or not, I hadn't fucking heard it and neither had the person to whom I replied.

      That's not being parochial. Do learn how to use these words before splurting them out like an 8 year old with a dictionary.

    12. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's parochial when you're not aware of common phrases in use. Steers and queers is old as hell. Original dialogue? R. Lee Ermey wrote most of his own dialogue in that movie. It's famous! Kubrick was such a control freak but he let him run wild because he was so good at it. You're not really aware of the world outside your bubble, are you?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:What's it say about J. Edgar Hoover? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's parochial when you're not aware of common phrases in use.

      It's not a common phrase anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in three different countries.

      You're not really aware of the world outside your bubble, are you?

      Astonishingly aware, but that doesn't mean that I know every local fucking insult everywhere in the world.

      You however appear to think that everybody should know all of the mores for the tiny part of the world you inhabit. Now that's fucking parochial.

  12. Wow do I want a copy of this! by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would LOVE to get a copy of this program and, not only try it out on myself and my friends, (I think we're relatively secure in our sexuality) but try it on famous people.

    Specifically: Republican lawmakers and perhaps even Christian preachers! (How about Mr. Macho himself, Putin?)

    I really, really know I'm going to be down-modded for this but please hear me out. Haven't you wondered why those people who are so against homosexuality often turn out to be gay themselves? (Dennis Hastert and that lawmaker caught in the men's restroom soliciting a cop come to mind). Maybe it's because they are so ashamed that the only way they can bury their feelings is to actively suppress it. That's fine if you don't want to face the truth but the problem is being lawmakers, representatives of God, they infringe on many, many other peoples lives. So let's drag them out of the closet and into the photo booth! (Actually I don't think that'll be necessary, from what little I've read about this algorithm it doesn't require any particular lighting or "orientation" (ha ha) for the photo so many of the pictures of these famous people should be just fine.)

    On a more serious note: This is just the latest in a trend of events which a friend of mine has said is "the end of privacy". With technologies like these (soon I'm sure they'll be able to analyze videos to see, by looking at imperceptible* subtle face color flushing and breathing patterns, who is attracted to whom), social media and the hack of personal databases like Equifax, NOTHING will be able to be kept secret. I wouldn't doubt that the CIA is already using some of this stuff to determine, remotely, if someone is lying on camera when they say something. It will be hard to legislature laws to keep it out of business and impossible to keep out of statecraft.

    *imperceptible to humans

    1. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by sheramil · · Score: 1

      I would LOVE to get a copy of this program and, not only try it out on myself and my friends, (I think we're relatively secure in our sexuality) but try it on famous people.

      Just wait a few days, and it'll be up on a website, along with a social media platform with a stupid made-up single word for a name, followed by a buy-out offer from one of the big boys, a leak of their database, a scandal and a tag on fark.

    2. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work.

      91% accuracy? That's enough for plausible denyability.

    3. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      91% accuracy? That's enough for plausible denyability.

      91% accuracy...let's assume that gay men are 10% of all men. So this program will correctly identify 82% of men as straight, and misidentify 8% of straight men as gay. Similarly, it'll identify ~9% of men as gay correctly, and 1% of them as straight (incorrectly)

      So, it'll show ~83% of men as straight and 17% as gay. And half of the gays it identifies will be straight.

      And considerably worse for Lesbians. Much less Bi's...

      In other words, not terribly useful.

      90% accurate sounds like it's really good. But it's only meaningful if the distribution is pretty much even (half straight and half gay gives a pretty solid indicator with this program, but 90+% straight and 10-% gay, not so much). Since it's not an even split between gay and straight, this is a waste of time at this point. Maybe when they get accuracy to 99.9%, they'll have something worth reporting....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      91% accuracy...let's assume that gay men are 10% of all men. So this program will correctly identify 82% of men as straight, and misidentify 8% of straight men as gay.

      If 10% of all men are gay, it could just say "straight" every time and you're up to 90% accuracy already.

      In other words, not terribly useful.

      I fail to see how it could be "useful" in any way - any moral way, anyway - even if it was 100% accurate.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by hey! · · Score: 2

      "91% accuracy" is vague. Is that a 9% false *positive* or the false *negative* rate?
      Let' assume 9% is the false positive AND negative rate.

      The percentage of people in the population who self-identify as gay is 3.8%. Yes, this sounds small but gays have an outsized cultural footprint. If you tested a thousand people, there'd be 38 gays in your sample, and your test would correctly identify 36 of them. Of the 962 straight people in your sample, the test would misidentify 87 as gay.

      The probability that someone flagged by a 91% accurate test as gay actually is gay is 29%, not 91%. That's because non-gays are 25x more common than gays in the general population, allowing the false positives to swamp the true ones.

      This is why screening tests for things like drugs (or in this case gayness) are generally a bad idea. People view test results as a cheap alternative to gathering evidence, but without supporting evidence most test results are wore than useless.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to research, about 2-3% of the population is homosexual.

    7. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by swb · · Score: 2

      Years ago I had a rooommate who worked for a local AIDS advocacy group and he said they spent a significant effort targeting a group they identified as "men who have sex with other men but aren't gay". Their logic was that the actual gay community was already getting the message about AIDS, but this group was "outside the envelope" and wasn't exposed to the messages about AIDS *and* a huge potential vector for infection because of promiscuity, denial and so on.

      They were men who identified as straight (and were often married) but also liked or even preferred a male-male sexual experience. My rooommate figured some were just repressed/closeted and some just liked any kind of sex and male-male sex was easy to get, anonymous and disposable. Bisexual in practice, but heterosexual in identification and the rest of their lifestyle.

      As for the right-wingers and others, I'd imagine there's a whole other subtype of men who have sex with men for whom it may be as much about power as any kind of sexual identity. Suborning other men, especially non-gay men, into gay sex is a power and control thing as much as it is about sex, and it has a thrill-seeking/risk component to it, engaging in behavior in secret that they openly disparage.

    8. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Here's a use: marketing.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Mozai · · Score: 1
      Many algorithms are utterly convinced I live in the city Toronto. So much so, they will not show me information outside of Toronto nor give me the option of telling them where I actually live.

      Now what if such an algorithm was utterly convinced I'm homosexual, or heterosexual, and people using that algorithm denied me information because of it?

    10. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Specifically: Republican lawmakers and perhaps even Christian preachers! (How about Mr. Macho himself, Putin?) I really, really know I'm going to be down-modded for this but please hear me out. Haven't you wondered why those people who are so against homosexuality often turn out to be gay themselves?

      Many conservative Christians and Catholics explicitly teach that they don't condemn you for feeling attracted to other men ("being gay"), they consider the act of homosexual intercourse itself sinful ("against homosexuality"). It is neither surprising nor inconsistent for the most ardent opponents of homosexual acts to feel homosexual attractions themselves.

      So, if you confront someone like that with "our software shows that you are gay", their response isn't going to be "I see the error of my ways and I now approve of gay sex", their response is going to be "now you see what kind of struggle I'm facing daily avoiding the temptation of gay sex, which is why I'm fighting to try to reduce those temptations".

      I don't agree with that view, but there is no "gotcha" there.

    11. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Kjella · · Score: 2

      You're assuming accuracy is the only useful measure here. If you hate gays and don't want to hire gays you can reduce the risk of hiring someone gay from 3.8% to 0.09*0.038 = 0.34% simply by not hiring anyone who looks gay. You'll also wrongfully exclude 0.09*0.962 = 8.66% of straight people but you got like 88% of the pool left. That might be entirely acceptable to a bigot.

      That said, dating pictures might reflect different courting rituals between heterosexuals and homosexuals that probably won't show up in a similar degree in say cover letter or passport photos, so I doubt it's useful as a general "gaydar". But it's pretty impressive that computers are able to pick up on such subtle differences and humans not. Then again, how often have humans actually looked at dating pics of people who aren't interested in you? Even bisexuals would look at both men and women interested in their own sex, not the other way around.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creating such AI is easy if you have access to training material. Takes an hour with tensor flow.

    13. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trans, I'm stealth, and I'm a lesbian. I've already been sexually assaulted and stalked by people that don't know... drag me out of the closet for your amusement and there's a reasonable chance that you're going to invite more violence and misery into my life. Forcibly outing people, even if you disagree with them, is an overt act of violence in itself and it doesn't help the cause at all.

      If you're so worried about other people telling everyone to conform to their set of beliefs, why are you trying to force the same scenario on them? Pot, meet kettle. We all need to just mind our own business and leave people alone.

    14. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Haven't you wondered why those people who are so against homosexuality often turn out to be gay themselves?

      Reporting bias. Someone who is for homosexuality or has no publicly stated opinion isn't going to make the news if they turn out to be gay.

    15. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, we're treated to the "logic" that those who speak out the loudest against something are the most guilty of doing it. This has a nice ironic, self-righteous, pop-psychological feel to it, of course supported only by anecdotal evidence. Would anyone care to dig up any actual research that shows people who outwardly fight against something are those _most likely_ to be taking part in it behind the scenes?

    16. Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why only try it once?
      If it takes only a Picture .. just feed this App with like 50 (different) pictures of the same person.
      Should be enough to get a much better result ... (should not be a problem on celebs or politicans ..they all are selfie-bitches)

  13. Well let's see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Males: Do you have a lisp? Do you like show tunes? Do you have a bent wrist? Are you an interior decorator? Have a Cher poster? Wear a bandanna around your neck? Answer "yes" to any of these, I'm pretty sure you're a gaysexual.

    Females: Do you wear Birkenstocks? Are you a dog groomer? Own every Melissa Etheridge album? Drive a Subaru? Think train engineer's caps are stylish? Answer "yes" to any of these, I'm pretty sure you're a lesbo.

    1. Re:Well let's see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My kid bro gave Mom a Subaru...what has he done?

    2. Re: Well let's see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Got you an extra Mom?

    3. Re:Well let's see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory 40 Year Old Virgin scene.

  14. GNAA version when? by Khyber · · Score: 0

    After all, this was only tested on white people.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:GNAA version when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm working on a similar project to detect thieves. Unlike Stanford, I only used n i g g e r faces and it's 100% accurate!

  15. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ive always said the danger with AI isn't killer robots but killer humans. Machine learning is being used to perpetrate a huge invasion of privacy in the form of "big data" data matching. It's like countless companies , and governments, have deployed armies of robot detectives to sift out or repeat secrets , and not to solve crimes or whatever but to manipulate us into compliant consumers. This particularly feat is even more worrying however because I'm certain theres any number of theocratic fascists regimes , Christian , Muslim and beyond who would be very interested in this. Gay pre-crime , so to speak. Welcome to the future

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  16. Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Most Republicans are scare to death with this technology.

  17. Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So AI can say someone looks gay but when I do it I get punched :(.

    1. Re:Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since gay people can't punch, you must have been wrong, whereas this AI is right. Hence the difference.

    2. Re:Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since gay people can't punch, you must have been wrong, whereas this AI is right.

      But they do whisky, wine and dance the AC. Als don't care about such things. Als like their smooth and smoky Scotch in a quiet bar.

    3. Re:Right by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

      Als like their smooth and smoky Scotch in a quiet bar.

      Not all of them. I once met an AI which really enjoyed electronic music and tap water. Its significant other was a quite outgoing toaster with a weirdly deep knowledge about fly-crocodile mating. Curiously, I firstly met that colorful couple in a let's-ban-all-AI meeting organised by a hating-itself robot which I brought to life just for fun. LOL.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    4. Re:Right by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Modded +1 Interesting! Pffff. Adding one "LOL" (= laughing out loud = I am joking) + answering to an evident joke by evidently extending the ideas in said joke is still too confusing for some people. And I am writing all this despite having fully accepted absolute (online) stupidity!

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    5. Re:Right by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      After seeing the last stupidity about LSD (to improve productivity!!), I do feel like writing a tiny clarification here to somehow account for the specific aspect of stupidity/ignorance which most likely justifies the aforementioned +1 interesting.

      Although I don't take any kind of drugs (including soft ones like alcohol or tobacco) since some years ago (never ever at work and I usually post on Slashdot from my office) and was never a heavy user neither tried many/hard ones, I did tried some drugs in the past mainly while being a student; always sporadically, when partying/having nothing relevant to do and by enjoying the experiences (= never felt anything even remotely close to any kind of addition). I did try some hallucinogens and did like them.

      Despite my not-too-relevant experience with drugs, I think that my ideas about their most likely effects are quite clear. With hallucinogens, for example, you might get the point of seeing weird shapes/colours, even kind-of-imagining a small inexistent pseudo-reality, but mainly in that specific moment. When the effects disappear you should realise about pretty much everything, like waking up from a dream. Also your willingness to (not) see is also quite important. So, I don't think that it is possible that someone could ever think that some unrealistic craziness on drugs is real; unless that person wants to think/say that it is the case or under extreme conditions like a heavy user.

      I am completely against any kind of drug in the work environment, simply because of being completely incompatible with what I consider work (= what I do): performing a demanding-enough engineering/programming work is pretty much the opposite to the relax-prone environment where certain substances are expected to be used. On the other hand, people performing artistic-/ideation-focused tasks might take some advantage from the stress-reduction which might be associated with the consumption of certain substance; but, objectively speaking, the capabilities of that person will be certainly reduced. Anyway, all that isn't applicable to me or to the kind of technical-intensive work environment in which I am looking to be involved; the only drugs which can affect my behaviour are illness, tiredness or similar :)

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  18. So can I. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big deal.

  19. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In New York we love our gay
    community. Have you seen New York pride? It's more celebrated that the birth of dear baby Jesus.

  20. We don't need this program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to know a person's sexual orientation, JUST ASK. Straight people will want you to know that they're straight. Gay people are now so out-of-the-closet that they practically BROADCAST that fact day and night whether you want to know or not.

    In this world, what we need is a program that can identify a person's gender, regardless of identity. That would be a programming challenge.

  21. oxymoron by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    "The paper went on to discuss how this capability can be an invasion of privacy, and conjectured that other types of personal information might be detectable from photos."

    Any information that can be gleaned from a public photo is public, and has no expectation of privacy.

    1. Re:oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have a fair point. Also, they used data photos for this. So, essentially, a male who is trying to attract a male, is going to try to look a certain way, to be what a man considers beautiful. This is what the algorithm (it's not AI, TFS even explains it as using a couple of standard algorithms) is detecting, the signals the participant is deliberately sending out.

    2. Re:oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *dating

  22. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, no good will come of this.

    As for how gaydar works, 90% of it is hair length and tattoo/piercing. Gay people are very likely to not have "straight" hair styles and almost certainly have piercings if they are submissive. Lesbians are much easier to ID because they will have men's hair styles and no makeup if they are the dominant.

    But those identification factors only work for the most extremes of gay identity, and can false-positive for transgender individuals. Hence a perfect 100% would not be possible since the algorithm is trained to look for Gay Men, not Transmen or potential Transwomen who would be in the training set without being identified as such.

  23. "on dating websites" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From photos on dating websites. These would be self selected photos of people that they felt conveyed who they were to the sex they were interested in.
    I would be more interested in how it did with street photos of the same people.

  24. Pulling the String by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a person's sexuality can be determined from facial features, then it stands to reason that sexual orientation is purely biological, not psychological. At that point, it is either genetic (baked in the DNA, "born this way") or hormonal (environmentally induced), but it would have to have occurred at least at puberty such that an effect could also be embedded in facial structures (since humans don't appreciably grow after age 18-22). This stands that there could eventually be a chemical test to detect sexual orientation, and then a counter-chemical remedy to treat it.

    1. Re:Pulling the String by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The current theory is prenatal hormones. The same ones that cause actual gender differentiation are also currently believed to effect sexual orientation later in life, which as well as being backed by science is also logical.

      But we all know that the social constructionists abandoned this science the instant gay marriage was approved... so here way are..

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  25. This just confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always loved lesbians.

    1. Re:This just confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always loved lesbians.

      You are a lesbian trapped in a mans body? Typical.

  26. Not as impressive as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I always guess straight, and I'm right ~96% of the time!

    As usual, the summery isn't accurate. Accuracy at determining sexual orientation is not what was measured. They measured the ability when given two photos, one of a gay person, and the other straight to pick which is which.

    Also, the photos were from dating sites and showing people who likely put in an effort to appear they way they classified themselves.

    So really, they have an AI that can tell the difference between gay dating profile pictures and straight ones when given multiple images, and a single gay and a single straight candidate to pick from. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the lighting and pose and camera positioning were enough to do that well.

    Overall its an impressive result, but it doesn't mean you will be able to point your phone at someone to know if they are gay any time soon. It is a suggestion that we may get there eventually though.

  27. Privacy invasion? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    The paper went on to discuss how this capability can be an invasion of privacy, and conjectured that other types of personal information might be detectable from photos.

    While walking about yesterday I remember seeing two people that stuck out to me. The dude in the parking lot with the wild hair, wearing eyeliner, a tight black crop top, and purple pants? Probably gay. The short lady that I shared an elevator with, wearing brown jeans, a buttoned up long sleeve shirt, short hair, and comfortable shoes? Probably gay.

    We say a lot about ourselves with how we dress and act. All it takes is someone to notice. There are people trained in this for lots of reasons. I remember seeing a note in my medical records that said something like, "patient was well dressed, and well groomed." I thought that was something odd for a physician to make a note of in a medical record. That is until I thought about it some more. The guy wasn't just evaluating my physical health but my mental health. Someone that shows up for an annual physical exam with bed head, still wearing the clothes they slept in, and stinking like they haven't bathed in days could mean they have mental problems, mobility problems, etc.

    Even people not formally trained in looking at such details will notice these things. I'll go to a hardware store wearing some new jeans (carpenter style even, with hammer loops), a button up shirt, and clean running shoes and I get treated one way. I go the next day wearing paint stained jeans (also carpenter style), a faded t-shirt, and work boots and I get treated differently. I've learned to dress for the part I'm playing that day.

    There's no "invasion of privacy" here. People are advertising who they are everyday.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Privacy invasion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was that dude in the parking lot. Not gay, just mind-fucking you.

  28. Not Significant Accuracy by kenwd0elq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the AI were to simply assign scores of "Straight" to EVERYONE, it would achieve 90% accuracy for men and 85% accuracy for women, since about 90% of men are straight and about 85% of women are straight. So scores of 91% and 85% accuracy are not statistically significant.

    1. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They measured the ability to determine which is gay and which is straight among a pair of people (one of each) based on their dating profile pics.

      You did not misread the summery though: the summery is simply wrong, and the article is misleading. The paper makes it clear though.

    2. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've lived in some very unrepresentative neighborhoods if you think 12.5% of the human population is gay. Outside of TV shows and movies, mayyybe 4% of the real world population is gay or bisexual.

    3. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're numbers are way to low. Just because *sexuals are over represented in the media doesn't mean reality follows suit.

    4. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's saying 10% of men are gay and that's gay propaganda.

    5. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      If the AI were to simply assign scores of "Straight" to EVERYONE, it would achieve 90% accuracy for men and 85% accuracy for women, since about 90% of men are straight and about 85% of women are straight.

      And I'm sure nobody gave a false answer (whether knowingly, or because they have not come to terms with themselves) to whatever your source is for that 90% M / 85% F info.

    6. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you have 5 pieces of wood identical in every way but 1 is much lighter, and you said "they're all the heavier ones" you would be 80% right. If, however, by looking at them you could, 80% of the time pick out the 1/5 (20%) which is lighter, that would be statistically significant. You cannot simply "Invert" the statistics because giving one answer has a high chance of being right because you chose the majority result.

    7. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I think you need to take a lesson on statistics.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      No, it's 10%. Trust me. I'm gay. You just think otherwise because there are a lot of closeted people. It might be higher than 10% really. I'm not exactly in a homo-friendly family and I know there are at least 3 in 30 on my moms side. My significant other would be 2 in maybe 20 that we know of. And his family is VERY homophobic and his mom refuses to talk to him even now that he's out so who knows how many other people in the family might just be keeping their lifestyle a secret. And most homosexuals are not flaming homosexuals so you'd never even know it. I am out and nobody even knows it. None of my neighbours would. I've thought of flying a rainbow flag- but we're just not that type. However I'm a fairly important person and co-host a radio show. Every time I mention my partner in passing on the show another co-host clarifies who I am talking about (ie my partner). It's fine with me cause I'm out, but the point is it's just weird to introduce yourself or your significant other based on their sexuality. Do you go around introducing yourself as straight? Probably not. Well, neither do I (as gay). However I might introduce my partner as my significant other or as my partner. Though the later can get confusing because I'm in business for myself. My significant other had to get a license once and for whatever reason he had to bring me up. Well, he said significant other, and even THAT didn't work. It just went right over the state employees head. I finally kissed him on the lips. I think telling someone twice is enough. If they don't get the hint so be it. My partner is the shy type and was not at all happy. It was quite the scene. Also probably didn't help that I accused her of partaking in a system of violence. Forcing someone to get a permission slip or face violence, kidnapping, and theft that is. You have a right to travel and no matter what the means of the day are. "Safety" is never an acceptable excuse to violate people's freedoms or rights.

    9. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The images came from a dating site, it's highly unlikely that someone who is straight would sign up for gay dating...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like they used balanced dataset, with equal number of gay and heterosexual people -- from the paper (page 10):
      "Facial images.We obtained facial images from public profiles posted on a U.S. dating website. We recorded 130,741 images of 36,630 men and 170,360 images of 38,593 women between the ages of 18 and 40, who reported their location as the U.S. Gay and heterosexual people were represented in equal numbers."

      However, the ground truth may be debatable... since labels have been assigned by the system looking at "interest" of these people. So the point may be that gay people here may be posting pictures in which they "exaggerated" some trait...

      "Their sexual orientation was established based on the gender of the partners that they were looking for (according to their profiles)."

    11. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Kinsey Report indicates a rate of 10% to 20% gay orientation in the population (for the Kinsey Report, orientation is a scale, not a binary assessment).

      On the other hand, the Kinsey Report also says that 8% of men and 3.6% of women have had sex with animals... one of its less popular findings, you could say...

    12. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure nobody gave a false answer

      It's possible to measure one's sexual preferences by measuring the physical arousal responses of the body.

    13. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      No, but people who are still in the closet can have a dating profile advertising themselves as straight.

      My point being assigning everyone as "straight" and expecting that to give high accuracy based on some figures doesn't make it true, because what you're comparing the AI's results to can be incorrect just as easily.

    14. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by ykong · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is true, because just 50% of the men and 50% of the women in the sample they used were heterosexual (not 90% and 85%), and their accuracy statistics represent "the likelihood of a classifier being correct when presented with the faces of two randomly selected participants--one gay and one heterosexual" (from lines 241 and 299 - 300 of the linked paper).

    15. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If the AI were to simply assign scores of "Straight" to EVERYONE, it would achieve 90% accuracy for men and 85% accuracy for women, since about 90% of men are straight and about 85% of women are straight. So scores of 91% and 85% accuracy are not statistically significant.

      I can see how you would come to that conclusion. Ignorant of science. Don't understand statistics. Didn't read the paper. Don't trust that people actually know what they are doing.

      In the mean time if we employed *YOUR* algorithm you would have hit a perfect 50% given that "Gay and heterosexual people were represented in equal numbers."

    16. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by blindseer · · Score: 2

      No, but people who are still in the closet can have a dating profile advertising themselves as straight.

      Why would a closeted gay man bother to go to a dating website and put "hetero" in their profile? I'm confused. These dating sites cost money, right? So, why would they spend money for something they don't even want?

      I'm sure that there are some closeted homosexuals that get hetero dating profiles to "prove" they aren't gay to someone, but that's got to be a number so small that it can be ignored.

      Let's flip this around, would a straight man or woman put homosexual on their dating profile? Would they pay money to advertise this fiction? Maybe. Perhaps they would do this as some sort of "joke". Although I'm not sure who the joke would be on. Some might say this isn't a fair comparison since hetero people aren't as discriminated against as homosexuals have been. What we are talking about though is a world where people are comfortable enough with gay people about that there are websites that allow gay people to date each other. I'm pretty sure we are past any kind of real discrimination here that it'd have any real effect on the testing.

      My point being assigning everyone as "straight" and expecting that to give high accuracy based on some figures doesn't make it true, because what you're comparing the AI's results to can be incorrect just as easily.

      We're comparing a computer algorithm on being gay or straight based on what people put in a dating profile. If they are lying to the computer then they are lying to themselves. In which case this is a distinction without a difference. If they say they are gay, and looking for other gay men and women to date, then that's about as close to "gay" as a definitive answer as you'll ever going to find.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    17. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Troll

      Gays are less than 2% of the population. They have an outsized influence because they are over-represented on the performing arts and Hollywood, and they provide a useful cudgel for the the cultural left to attack Christianity. Muslims also provide a cudgel to attack traditional Christianity (logically inconsistent with using gays for the same purpose but logic doesn't count for much in culture wars), and exercise a heckler's veto over the public debate. So they also, despite being less than 2% of the population in the US, have outsized influence.

      "The long-established wisdom has it that 10% of the American public is gay or lesbian. But when asked, the majority of Americans estimate that almost 25% of their fellow citizens are homosexual to one extent or another."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between someone who knows they're gay and not out, and someone who refuses to believe they are gay. It exists, it happens. I mean, the gay guy with a wife and kids thing is common enough to be a trope.

    19. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up

    20. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Gay/straight isn't a binary choice anyway. As well as bi people, what is the definition of gay and straight?

      Studies have found that guys who said they were straight often still got aroused looking at gay porn. Other studies that questioned people found that many had had a "gay experience" at some point in their lives and not necessarily hated it.

      This is backed up by real world experience in environments where only one gender is present for long periods of time. Prison, the navy, that sort of thing. Straight people engage in gay sex sometimes.

      I somehow doubt that this thing can detect that you got a handjob and enjoyed it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the mean time if we employed *YOUR* algorithm you would have hit a perfect 50% given that "Gay and heterosexual people were represented in equal numbers."

      Excellent. 100% accurate given the goal to detect all instances of one outcome in a pre-chosen binomial distribution. Your choice!

      Don't trust that people actually know what they are doing.

      And you do?

      Ignorant of science. Don't understand statistics. Didn't read the paper.

      The paper isn't peer reviewed. The study has not been replicated. The methodology is lacking. The statistical significance can be explained by many outside factors.

      To describe this in a phrase: Junk Science.

      To describe people that follow science as you do: Religious.

      Science is not a thing, it is a process. Science is not a religion. Scientists are not clergy. Science does not demand or expect trust, it relies on skepticism. That is half of what makes it more accurate than religion.

    22. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Excellent. 100% accurate given the goal to detect all instances of one outcome in a pre-chosen binomial distribution. Your choice!

      Cool. 9/9/2017 12:30pm. Noted in my calendar as a new record for the dumbest comment I've seen on the internet.

      Don't trust that people actually know what they are doing.

      And you do?

      Yes I do actually. I tend to trust that people who devote their time to become experts in a topic are generally more reliable and trust worthy sources than blind uneducated opinions.

      The paper isn't peer reviewed. The study has not been replicated. The methodology is lacking. The statistical significance can be explained by many outside factors.

      So why don't you help. That's what science is all about.

      To describe this in a phrase: Junk Science.

      Sure when you put arbitrary labels on science but don't understand the process I see how you could come to that idiot conclusion.

      To describe people that follow science as you do: Religious.

      Cool. 9/9/2017 12:32pm. Noted in my calendar as a new record for the dumbest comment I've seen on the internet. Honestly I didn't think that record would be broken within 2 minutes but but clearly you're an expert at this.

    23. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. There are lots of gay guys who are non-political, shy, or find flaming gays unattractive. They're not even in the closet. They are men who like men who like men. It's just none of your business.

      No offense to the flamers.

      It's funny when your super-conservative straight-laced exec introduces his "partner" and it takes a while to sink-in because he's so intensely flaming.

    24. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a closeted gay man bother to go to a dating website and put "hetero" in their profile? I'm confused. These dating sites cost money, right? So, why would they spend money for something they don't even want?

      Perhaps they think they want it? You can want to start a family without sexual attraction being the motivation.

    25. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means we can start discriminating on people that look faggy as soon as they are born. No longer do we need to wait till they make the first pass at someone who is not of a societally acceptable compatibility profile before we hang them. We can hang them right away and save the people tons of money.!!!

      As soon as our female plop their kids out we need to put them in front of a web cam. If the AI determines that the carbon unit is either a racist, a homo, or a child molester we need to harvest their organs to give them to some social justice warrior. We should however label those SJW's who receive racist kidneys with a big WPK (White Priveleged Kidney), so we know their kidneys are all gay and racists and shit.

      Trust in computers. They are our rightful masters.

    26. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Kinsey Report indicates a rate of 10% to 20% gay orientation in the population (for the Kinsey Report, orientation is a scale, not a binary assessment).

      On the other hand, the Kinsey Report also says that 8% of men and 3.6% of women have had sex with animals... one of its less popular findings, you could say...

      The Kinsey Report when reviewed later was found to have assumed a much higher rate of lieing by those who were gay than really happens in "anonymous" surveys. Allowing for this exaggeration the number came down to about 3-4 % with the same data.

    27. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      You've lived in some very unrepresentative neighborhoods if you think 12.5% of the human population is gay. Outside of TV shows and movies, mayyybe 4% of the real world population is gay or bisexual.

      Do you have anything to back that up or are you just pulling a figure out of your arse?

    28. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by k.a.f. · · Score: 1

      I should hope very much that they took that into account and created an artificially balanced test set, otherwise the study could indeed not be very informative in principle. But the article doesn't say and the paper is yet to appear, so we can really only reserve judgment and wait.

    29. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least 3 in 30 on my moms side.

      Xq28. Since it's on the X chromosome, it's inherited from the mother.

    30. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Why would a closeted gay man bother to go to a dating website and put "hetero" in their profile?

      So that they can search for gay men without exposing themselves publicly as being gay.

      Let's flip this around, would a straight [...] woman put homosexual on their dating profile?

      Yes. In fact, it's pretty commonly done so that they don't get constantly spammed by straight men but instead can choose who they contact.

      If they are lying to the computer then they are lying to themselves.

      No, they're just lying to people who look at their profile. They are using dating sites so they can find people they like, not so that other people can find them.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    31. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hit a nerve. I am a scientist. I live in academia. I am sick of people like you thinking you know what my life's work is and is not.

      You are ignorant, believe in the "cult of science", and use childish, petty insults instead of facts.

    32. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      This is an irritating habit of machine learning researchers who aren't in much contact with the field they're applying algorithms to.

      The most elementary error is to not balance your classes and report accuracy. As pointed out by the OP, this is meaningless and often extremely misleading.

      Better is to balance your classes. This tells you about the performance of the algorithm, but only on a population with equal prevalence... i.e. not the real world.

      Best is to give sensitivity and specificity and/or predictive values, or equivalent (ROC curve, likelihood ratios, etc.) on a sample that reflects real-world prevalence.

      A classifier trained on a sample with 50/50 gay/straight split will almost certainly overestimate gay people in a natural dataset, compared to its performance in the unnatural one.

    33. Re:Not Significant Accuracy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I hit a nerve. I am a scientist. I live in academia. I am sick of people like you thinking you know what my life's work is and is not.

      Actually what you are is an anonymous coward unable to provide any proper feedback. Unlike say....

      The paper isn't peer reviewed.

      The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which is going through the peer review process right now.

      There's a lot of junk science out there. I'm going to assume that you're part of it.

  29. I have a solution by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    It's an invasion of privacy? Bro, you're broadcasting it. Just stop looking so gay. This is not a serious post.

  30. What about LGBTQN privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if transsexuals get their rectum searched before using a public bathroom? There could be a TSA agent and every gay/transsexual will be pulled aside, and have their rectum examined. See if they have any child rape tendency.

    1. Re:What about LGBTQN privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See if they have any child rape tendency.

      there's already a good test for that - check if they're wearing a catholic priest collar.

  31. Coming Advertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do you son or daughter look gay? The Dr. John's Medical Pandemonium is here to help you! Jaw and cheek implants, extensions, eye jobs and the works at reasonable prices. Your precious one never has to ask the uncomfortable questions from you at the family table, again. Call now for free assessment!"

  32. Worst idea ever. by DMJC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This technology should be destroyed and the research should be buried. It could easily end up in Middle Eastern countries where they would use it to kill people based on the algorithm. Usually I don't support suppressing technology, but this is seriously a bad idea.

    1. Re:Worst idea ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But consider the potential as a military tool: configure the training data to lie. Respond "gay" when shown a photo of any high-ranking operative in a terrorist organization, and make them turn on each other.

    2. Re:Worst idea ever. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      It could easily end up in Middle Eastern countries where they would use it to kill people based on the algorithm.

      Well, the white people anyway:

      One caveat is the paper mentions it only used Caucasian faces.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Worst idea ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You say this technology should be destroyed as though it is possible to destroy technology. If such an algorithm exists, the cat is out of the bag. I don't think this tech is as impressive as the summary made it out to be, however. I don't think tech can pick gay faces from a random collection of people, at least not yet.

    4. Re:Worst idea ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The didn't build a technology. They took measurements from the photos and automated the calculations. Like a spreadsheet. They didn't invent any technology. What they did is, the discovered that any AI in the world can easily learn this.

  33. 91% accuracy?! Color me skeptical. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    People don't even have 91% accuracy judging themselves on this.

  34. EXCUSE ME? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so a fucking computer program looks at your face and says you're gay and it's okay.

    *I* do it and I'm a fucking homophobe.

  35. So the non-PC revelation is... by ckatko · · Score: 0, Troll

    stereotypes are used because they actually work.

    1. Re:So the non-PC revelation is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stereotype people, you're a Nazi. If a computer stereotypes people, it's science. There's big difference here.

    2. Re:So the non-PC revelation is... by ckatko · · Score: 1

      -1 Modded Truthful

  36. The RCMP is going to be happy by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... they finally got their fruit machine...

  37. Can we run it on some Republicans? by BLToday · · Score: 0

    In my experience the biggest homophobes have been closeted gays. Remember Senator "I have a wide squat position, I wasn't trying to pick up men" Larry Craig?

  38. GAYDAR IS REAL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoa

  39. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Run his face in that gay detecting AI (ANN?)

  40. No it can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are distinct accepted styles of presenting oneself on a dating website according to the website's culture and your target gender. You wouldn't put the same photo on Grindr and on Tinder. So what this program does is discriminate between presentation styles on gay vs hetero dating sites, not between people's sexual orientation. That would be the much more interesting challenge.

  41. Sorting hat by heson · · Score: 1

    This is the sorting hat for a future dystopian Harry Potter remake.

  42. Hmmm by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    AI can, in principle, do anything a computing machine can do in principle. As for sexual orientation, there is yet to be devised a sensible theory and classification which doesn't massively oversimplify human sexuality well past the point of taking the piss.

    As such, they're playing the game of keeping definitions fuzzy enough that they can wing it when they write up the paper.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  43. detection method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soooo handsome men er gay and ugly women are lesbians and all others are straight?

  44. Re:91% accuracy?! Color me skeptical. by thegarbz · · Score: 0

    No they don't. They have a 61% accuracy (for men, from the study). But then humans also don't sit down study and classify very specific facial features of 340,000 images of 70,000 people with perfect memory. Is it such a surprise that a computer can process data faster than you can?

    By the way what colour is sceptical? Is it like an envious shade of green?

  45. oh joy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wait for the predictable Daily Mail / Express / Mirror articels about this....

  46. Stupid products for an stupid audience by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    When I see ridiculous nonsense like this (just read the title and don't need anything else), the first thing coming to my mind is the surprisingly big number of clueless individuals, completely unaware about that fact, with stupid fears, concerns, expectations, etc. and usually affecting others in the most stupidly arbitrary and unfair way possible. People whose behaviours can be defined with "I don't know about this, but here you have my opinion", "if I see X, it would mean Y, otherwise Z; 100% accurate; will always trust it", "I am not being paid for knowing, but for making decisions", "this cannot be true, otherwise it would have already been done", etc.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  47. This is unethical by xenog · · Score: 1

    Sometimes AI can do a lot of damage. In many countries homosexual people are prosecuted and cruelly executed. I can’t understand why someone at Stanford thought it was a good to write this.

  48. "this capability can be an invasion of privacy" by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "this capability can be an invasion of privacy"

    As such, licensing fees instead of starting in 5 digits, now start in 6 digits.

  49. How Ironic by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Not only is gender determined biologically, gender identity can be detected with biological markers.

    If a computer told a person the gender pronoun that their sexual preference aligned with, it would be the punchline of a joke so ironic you would have to take it as evidence there a god.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  50. Re:91% accuracy?! Color me skeptical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not what OP was talking about. "themselves" as in their very own selves, knowing their own sexuality.

  51. Massively Flawed by ewhac · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This study saw some traffic on the Book of Faces last night. I'm not trained in the field of sociology, but between me and my sweetie we were able to spot massive flaws in what will almost certainly be revealed to be a complete piece of shit.

    First off, what they claim to have created is tantamount to computer-assisted phrenology -- long since debunked and tossed on the scrapheap of superstition.

    The most obvious flaw appears here, starting on line 208:

    Facial images. We obtained facial images from public profiles posted on a U.S. dating website. We recorded 130,741 images of 36,630 men and 170,360 images of 38,593 women between the ages of 18 and 40, who reported their location as the U.S. Gay and heterosexual people were represented in equal numbers. Their sexual orientation was established based on the gender of the partners that they were looking for (according to their profiles). [emphasis mine]

    *headdesk*

    Leaving aside the gigantic issues presented by self-reporting and self-selecting samples, these idiots failed to account for a common practice among hetero women on dating sites, which is to falsely claim to be seeking other women as a means to reduce or eliminate an onslaught of tacky propositions from clueless het-boys.

    Other glaring flaws include:

    • All subjects caucasian.
    • No attempt made to account for (or even acknowledge the existence of) bisexuality, transgendered individuals, or asexuals, the latter of whom likely wouldn't be on a dating site.
    • No attempt made to account for economic status and history (wealthier people ~= healthier, affecting physiognomy).
    • No attempt made to account for cosmetic surgery or other such treatments.

    An actual sociologist could probably identify dozens of other flaws, any one of which would be fatal to the work.

    I would undertake to create a similar piece of software that tries to identify criminals from photographs, and use police mugshots to train it. Surprise! Black people are more likely to be criminals! GIGO.

    Frankly, I think they should have taken their theme from the closing paragraphs of their paper: "We created a digital phrenologist out of deep neural networks and other off-the-shelf parts that coughs up results that seem relevant and meaningful to the layman, when in fact they're utter garbage." That would have been a good paper.

    Perhaps we can indeed learn new things by letting a DNN stare at human faces. But IMHO this paper is utterly valueless in identifying what those might be. GIGO.

    1. Re:Massively Flawed by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      these idiots failed to account for a common practice among hetero women on dating sites

      I'm sure this is a big concern on their statistics on male pictures.

      All subjects caucasian.

      Not a flaw, just a variable reduction for the purpose of the study.

      No attempt made to account for (or even acknowledge the existence of) bisexuality, transgendered individuals, or asexuals, the latter of whom likely wouldn't be on a dating site.

      So no attempt to account for something which likely reduces the results of their accuracy (which wasn't perfect) combined with a trait that would automatically have been excluded based on the source material? Whoop de fucking do.

      No attempt made to account for economic status and history

      Errr so gay people only look gay if they are rich?

      No attempt made to account for cosmetic surgery or other such treatments.

      Something that would likely emphasise the exact traits they were looking for?

      Honestly they had one criteria: judge if people look gay based on self reporting in a way likely to achieve the correct response rate of the target group, and the computer did it better than a person.

      You're looking for things to complain about by making the study something that it isn't. In other news the damn IPCC study on climate change can't answer why my finger hurts when I cut it with a knife. Clearly the climate science is flawed.

    2. Re:Massively Flawed by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Imagine the following training set:

      Input -> Output
      A -> 1
      A -> 2
      A -> 3
      B -> 4
      B -> 5
      B -> 6

      I can think about the following possible answers to the question "by just looking at this information, can you develop an approach able to predict output from input?":

      ANSWER #1. No. There is no way to come up with any methodology delivering even likely-to-be accurate conclusions. If further information is provided, it might be proven that the underlying behaviour might be suitable to be predicted, but certainly not under these conditions.

      ANSWER #2. Sure. I can apply methodology X and will certainly know the right answer within a Y range of accuracy.

      ANSWER #3. There has to be a way to come up with the solution. I don't have too much knowledge about all this myself, but experts should be able to build something by relying on advanced maths or perhaps AI.

      ADDITIONAL CONCERN. This example has nothing to do with what is discussed in the linked article.

      I can tell you my position: answer #1 without a single doubt. I would say it right away after having looked at those inputs (which I do consider descriptive enough of what is being discussed here) for some seconds; exactly the same than what I did after just reading the title here. What about you? What would have been your answer or your concerns regarding the relationship of this example with the linked article?

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:Massively Flawed by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 0

      It's refreshing to see Tumblr-esque histrionics on Slashdot. I thought it had gone completely over to bitter unemployed alt-righters.

    4. Re:Massively Flawed by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      these idiots failed to account for a common practice among hetero women on dating sites, which is to falsely claim to be seeking other women as a means to reduce or eliminate an onslaught of tacky propositions from clueless het-boys.

      So how exactly does that gambit work for hetero women seeking men? Is this a thing that clued-in men know about? Some secret signaling that says "my profile says woman seeking woman, but I really want guys?" Do they not get an even tackier group of responses from bros hoping they'll hit a jackpot with a lesbian with a secret yen for yang and possibly a FFM threesome? What about fending off the lesbians who take it seriously?

      And then there's the whole potential for lack of response, eliminating non-gross men who think cruising the women seeking women section is tacky and a waste of effort.

      I mean, I'm genuinely curious here, if this is really a thing.

    5. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it did not take into account CRIMINAL traits. From 1890 the British had photographic traits of criminals, thieves and murderers. Looking at earlobes and attentiveness is one way.. Combine both techniques, then we get good un's and bad ones. As the DMV has all your photos - mining that would give valuable AI. .

    6. Re:Massively Flawed by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Your violent thrashing has one minor flaw: they created a computer program that will, apparently, correctly predict sexuality from pictures. You can give us a thousand reasons why it cannot possibly work, but none of those are worth shit if it does.

      You say phrenology was debunked. Maybe that was wishful thinking too, and it turns out there was something to it after all. That would be an interesting experiment: let's train this program on mugshots of criminals, see if it can pick those out from normal people...

      Science is ultimately not about how you would like the world to be; it's about how the world actually is, even if you don't particularly like it. Of course one could wonder if sociology was ever a science to begin with...

    7. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      phrenology
      frnälj/
      nounhistorical
      noun: phrenology

              the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities.

    8. Re:Massively Flawed by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Really. As an analogy, this Dilbert strip.

    9. Re:Massively Flawed by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how exactly does that gambit work for hetero women seeking men? Is this a thing that clued-in men know about? Some secret signaling that says "my profile says woman seeking woman, but I really want guys?"

      Dating websites generally require you to fill out a profile before you're allowed to approach other members. Women seeking men who fill out women seeking women on the website are among the 80% of women chasing 20% of the men. Those 20% know the deal, because they get approached on an hourly basis, and every single woman disclaims her orientation tag in her approach. Those women don't want to be approached at all. They want to do the approaching.

    10. Re:Massively Flawed by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      I don't see what your problem is. They can predict the gender of the preferred dating partner with surprisingly high accuracy (better than human) based on images alone. That's an interesting result, no matter what the cause. The fact that their images are Caucasian only and that they don't control for other variables doesn't change that.

      They then formulate a hypothesis as to the causes of this observation. Proving or disproving that hypothesis requires further experiments. You're welcome to formulate alternative hypotheses. Some of those alternative hypotheses may be less interesting than the hypothesis the authors came up with.

      Right now, you're just throwing shit at the paper hoping that something sticks. That makes your criticism "utter garbage", not the paper. I hope you don't work in any scientific discipline.

    11. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: 2 +-1

      B: 5+-1

    12. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I mostly agree but in the case of criminology experiments, the flaw is that the intial data set is flawed due to biases in incarciration/arrest/etc.

    13. Re:Massively Flawed by johannesg · · Score: 1

      While I mostly agree but in the case of criminology experiments, the flaw is that the intial data set is flawed due to biases in incarciration/arrest/etc.

      The algorithm would simply agree with what the justice system considers to be a criminal. You are of course free to disagree with that definition, but that problem needs to be tackled on another level.

    14. Re:Massively Flawed by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      So, you choose answer #2. This seems also the case with the people who developed this AI: uneducated guesses whose reliability is conditioned by either randomness (0.333 probability of your guesses to be right in each scenario; logically, you can only tell one possible output every time: 1 out of 3) or the highly-constrained essence of the underlying reality (as suggested in other comments, most of people are straight and choosing that option has a higher probability of success than any other alternative). These "solutions" have pretty much the same accuracy than flipping a coin or randomly choosing any of the available alternatives. This is everything but properly understanding the situation and delivering a reliable prediction. There is simply not enough information to understand what is going on and you can do nothing to change that reality.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    15. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod this motherfucker up, retards

    16. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the just used the photos to see which side the earring was in?

    17. Re:Massively Flawed by swb · · Score: 2

      OK, I get where that works if your use of a dating site is strictly for sex -- good looking women hunting good looking men mostly for sex can get away with a W4W profile. It either makes them look zestier to good looking guys or the guys just disregard it completely.

      But I'd have to think that there's some kind of selection bias that would result here, like they would be inclined to just attract men who only care about good looking women, which again is fine if sex is your desired outcome. But ultimately wouldn't it wind up resulting in some pretty empty actual dating situations?

      While I buy in general the 80% of women seeking 20% of men concept, my sense is there is a kind of rough statistical parity between men and women in terms of attractiveness. 80% of women *aren't* as uniformly attractive as the top 20% of men are, and half or more of those women in the 80% group will either be unsuccessful or have bad experiences.

      And then there's the idea that the elite 20% of women by attractiveness -- why bother with online dating at all? They are the eponymous "head turners" who probably have no problem in finding appealing partners in normal social activities. Which maybe means that the "80% of women" idea is really not 80% of all women, it's like the women who are between 4-8 on the 10 scale. The 6-8s are generally good looking, but not competitive with the 8-10s but so much more competitive than the 4-6s that they can really choose to be picky.

      The 4-6s seem like the ones who are kidding themselves. They overrate themselves greatly and really ought to be shopping on personality and secondary qualities with attractiveness of their partner as something they're willing to compromise on. They're confusing men's general desire for sex with their own ego.

    18. Re:Massively Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think hetero women seeking men have much of a problem getting solicitations, getting them to stop is usually the problem, not getting them to start

  52. Maybe the remaining 9% and 17%.... by ElRabbit · · Score: 1

    ... which are detected as gay but are straight are just lying to themselves

    1. Re:Maybe the remaining 9% and 17%.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just keep telling yourself that you're not one of those individuals...

  53. It's just the current fashion state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all the AI recognizes. Just give the same AI photos from a different time (e.g. 30 years ago) and the hit rate will be suberranean.

    Of course you can retrain it again with 340.00 for each reagion / time / whatever, but still just from a single photo it's probably only gambling.

  54. I can do better by gweihir · · Score: 1

    About 10% of all people are homosexual (very roughly). Hence a static classifier of value="hetero" has an accuracy rating of around 90%. Given that, the published numbers are not impressive at all.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:I can do better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except TFA reports the study tested on a set of roughly 50/50 gay/straight people according to their dating profiles. Not a random test set of 10/90 gay/straight.

    2. Re:I can do better by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I know that. The preselection makes the study just even more meaningless. The problem is that the natural distribution into gay/straight is already very hard to determine and apparently varies between 3.5% gay and something like more than 20%, depending on study and definition. Definitions also vary widely, for example, some studies lump anybody bisexual in with gay. Trying to create an artificial mix just adds another, likely large, error on top of that and makes it basically impossible to predict how this method would do on a randomly selected sample.

      The whole thing is a stunt, scientifically meaningless and potentially dangerous.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:I can do better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you figured out a way to improve their AI program! Have it be heteronormative.

  55. Weak AI. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This AI needs more work. A friend of my grandfather, who is dead now bless his soul, could establish not only sexual orientation of certain individuals, but as a bonus provide deep analysis of their family tree orientation and how liberal their inclinations were.

  56. I see a new instagram filter by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 1

    instagram will never be the same once facebook buys this software

  57. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It was only 60 years ago that being homosexual was outlawed in most "civilized western nations" and "treated" with drugs and electroshock. Society doesn't have a direction of continued permissiveness and can slip back at any time. Imagine what this ability would then be used for.

  58. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Nidi62 · · Score: 0

    Huh. None of the Muslims I know have ever tried to do any of that to me. Try being less of a douche and maybe they will stop trying to kill you.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  59. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you realize that you're in a logic-free zone?

  60. Old news... by StickyKeys · · Score: 1

    Am I missing something? This kind of software has existed for years in Google's Play Store and provides nearly instantaneous results instantly after analyzing a picture or a fingerprint.

  61. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since when did being a common everyday douche earn a death sentence?

    I think you're a dochue... so it's ok to kill you now?

  62. Re:Massively Flawed - unlike your critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > which is to falsely claim to be seeking other women as a means to reduce or eliminate an onslaught of tacky propositions from clueless het-boys
    How the hell is that going to get them any men at all? I've never heard of this practice and don't believe it - please show evidence this is routinely done

    > All subjects caucasian
    As the study says

    > No attempt made to account for (or even acknowledge the existence of)
    So they used self-identified gay/straight to try to keep a clear 'signal' in the noise. Sounds sensible.

    > No attempt made to account for economic status and history
    So physiognomy is affected by wealth - is sexuality too?

    > No attempt made to account for cosmetic surgery or other such treatments
    Possibly your only fair point IMO. Your trashing of a study is on an even worse basis than the study itself, it appears.

  63. weaponizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we run this test on pictures of preachers and Congresscritters?

  64. 9% error on 1.5-6% population sample is really bad by abies · · Score: 2

    I would hardly call heavy makeup for a man a 'subtle' clue...

    Anyway, 91% accuracy is complete disaster. While there is a common feeling that 10% of population is gay, more realistic studies (like ones referenced at https://www.theguardian.com/po...), claim between 1.5% and 6%. Even taking highest percentage into account (one provided by pro-gay organization), of 6%, I can write simple gaydar app which will tell 'straight' 100% of time and it will be right 96% of time.

    You cannot take a single measure with x% of error to gain meaningful information about things which occur x% of time. It can be a screening test, but not a final answer. Simple example is machine which detects some rare disease and is wrong only 1% of the time. If disease happens for 1 person in million, when machine says you are ill, you have only 0.1% chance of being actually ill and 99.9% of chances that machine was wrong. What you can later do, is to put these 10000 people for more expensive/detailed/invasive tests, but not to start treating them for that disease outright.

  65. Catfishing and fake profiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did they account for the fact that 99.5% of female profiles are fakes to generate revenue from male customers, and that 50% of male profiles are catfishers trying to score blackmail material or nudes?

  66. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by sound+vision · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The algorithm was trained on pictures from dating sites, which isn't exactly a representative data set. A large portion of the pictures have been manipulated or at least carefully selected by the person who uploaded them. There are a portion of gays who try to signal their gayness through things like styling and mannerisms, which would be easy for an algorithm to pick up on. These types are going to be overrepresented in the data set.

  67. Information does want to be free by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    ... that makes guarantee that it is correct.

  68. I have no problem with gay men but the predators.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with gay men but the predators are annoying as all fucking hell.

    I look young. OK, I look really young for my age. I can pass for a teen-age child despite the fact that I'm 45 and 6 feet tall. I have really young features.

    Some of these teachers creep me the fuck out. I mean I'm OK with a hot horny female teacher fucking my brains out. I'm NOT OK with some creepy horny homosexual pulling my brains out with an icepick! These people appear more common than you think. What the actual fuck is wrong with society?!

  69. But what we really need is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to tell us when they got crazy eyes.

  70. Simple algorithm by PPH · · Score: 1

    Which side is earring on? Left is right and right is wrong.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  71. Signaling by PPH · · Score: 1

    Many gays adopt certain dress styles and behaviors as a matter of self preservation (not getting the shit beat out of them for making passes at the 'wrong' person). From TFA:

    The Stanford University researchers found that gay men and women typically had "gender-atypical" features and expressions. While a person's "grooming style" also factored in to the computer algorithm, essentially suggesting gay women appeared more masculine and vice versa.

    It really isn't inconceivable that AI could be trained to recognize these features.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  72. Re:9% error on 1.5-6% population sample is really by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    Anyway, 91% accuracy is complete disaster. While there is a common feeling that 10% of population is gay,

    The training and test samples are probably a 1:1 mix.

    Simple example is machine which detects some rare disease and is wrong only 1% of the time.

    That kind of argument shows that a test is useless for large scale screening, but the test still gives you "meaningful information", otherwise we wouldn't be using HIV tests.

  73. Can it detect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are straight but enjoy eating horse asses while being fellated by a llama? Asking for a friend.

  74. It Is Not Private by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    That which can be seen is public, not private. It really is that simple. Feelings are another issue. Many people want to be covert for a host of reasons and feel that even a license plate on their car somehow robs them of their privacy. It is 100% nonsense. The very real question is whether humans can exist in an honest world. I suspect that they can not. there is so much secretive nonsense in so may peoples' lives that society might become completely unhinged if we really know each other.

    1. Re:It Is Not Private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. The difference is automation. In fact, there was a court case a while ago about putting a GPS tracker on a suspect's car. When the police, or your boss, or a store owner can watch you, that's one thing. When a computer or video camera can zoom in on all the details, 24-7, and store the data indefinitely for future reference, then it's a violation of privacy. Because the first requires a significant investment of resources - say, the time of the detectives trailing you. Automation can make an even more detailed log trivial to collect for a much broader range of "victims", so the bar is greatly lowered for invading your privacy, whether it's a GPS tracker, or a license plate reader at every major intersection. Similarly, a store owner may monitor for theft with cameras, but cannot justify creating their own version of peopleofwalmart.com page with the pictures without some legal repercussion.

      I'm reminded of the recurring news stories about various agencies trying out facial recognition software and scoring mainly false positives identifying felons. One flaw of automation is that its results are only as good as the program and its basic assumptions. In this case, subjecting people to possible classification and resultant pigeon-holing on a computer's say-so is only marginally better than doing so based on some persuasive charlatan's mumbo-jumbo science... with the risk that life-altering decisions may be made about you by groups who lack critical thinking about what techniques they use.

  75. I could do it as good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See male face, guess male. See female face guess Female. I would be right 99% of the time. Test shows the AI is a utter fail since the % is so low. Or it could be people were saying they were the other gender just to mess up study. Gender is a choice, so nothing can prove what you say is wrong.

    What is the point of the AI? Trying to shame people for trying to the opposite gender? They like acting opposite gender in private but would never want to act that way in public.You don't live out your fantasy in public. Well, most people don't.

    Why do people act as gender isn't a choice? That people are born the wrong gender. Too many parents told their kids "you can be anything you want to be" and the kids thought they meant they could grow up to be a women when they are a boy.

  76. I don't believe it by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    Social psychology is essentially a pseudo-science. I don't expect future studies to confirm this at all.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  77. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised the GP needs to be told this. If I am looking for a date, I would prefer to know that I am looking in the right direction. Asking, what difference does it make?, Seems bizzarely naive.

  78. great, wait til they put it into google glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and start issuing the glasses to homophobic cops. They could also make them for Jewdar, Libdar, Scidar (detects atheists), etc. Yuck.

  79. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rightm it's not a "false categorization"... sexual orientation is real. Or have people been fighting all this time over nothing?

  80. Apply your algorithms to cartoon characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always wondered aboot South Park characters. (trolling)

  81. Phrenology ROCKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is an IDIOT! She is a WHORE! That guy is a thief! Just look at their face! (And I have hard science backing my assumptions)

  82. This sort of stupidity never ends well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People thought it was cool we could determine sex and other things before birth. No, it is used to eliminate "undesirable" (aka daughters) because sons are "better to have." There are myriad other excuses for eliminating children that aren't quite what the parents want. This AI gay thing will be abused, guaranteed, by both gay or straight folk.

  83. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by Joviex · · Score: 1

    Rightm it's not a "false categorization"... sexual orientation is real. Or have people been fighting all this time over nothing?

    Fighting over the definition, not the groups gathering on each of the "voting points" i.e. Male-Female, Male-Male, Female-Male, Female-Female.

    If you are a Female, looking for a Male, do you really need this? A gay man wont date you. No shit. No need for a "facial scan" to tell me to avoid someone who is going to say NO anyway.

    The fuck does an invasion of privacy have to do with anything else, other than that. If you want to date someone, ask them out. If they say no, is it cause they are gay? Maybe, that is for them to let you know, not use a system of biased opinion to invade someone's privacy and assume.

    And lets be real: Unless this thing is 100% accurate, why even bother? Any "bias" it injects is tantamount to social stereotyping, which, congrats morons! You just successfully programmed a COMPUTER TO DO SOCIAL STEREOTYPING. News at 11.

    Cheers.

  84. Why would they even create this? by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

    How is this fixing any sort of problems?

    Is this just a party trick?

    It seems like a pretty irrelevant issue. The moment you launch the software you are stamping a great big "B-I-G-O-T on your forward and losing any respect people had for you.

    1. Re:Why would they even create this? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      So you're assuming that the people who run this world wouldn't want to create that kind of problem in many situations?

      Issue not irrelevant to them.

      How many gays do you suppose are in the Trump administration? What if it was found out a straight married person in that admin was "getting some on the down-low"?

  85. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    The northwest is tolerant. But you're a bunch of cunts.

    We love you too, man.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  86. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I highly doubt it's anything close to accurate. There are as many different variations on how orientation appears as there are people.

  87. Sex is complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uncomfortable silence when kids download Gaydar on their iphones and point it at the dinner table.

    DAD?!?!!!?!?!?!?!

  88. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 2

    If you are a Female, looking for a Male, do you really need this? A gay man wont date you. No shit. No need for a "facial scan" to tell me to avoid someone who is going to say NO anyway

    No, but if you're a guy, looking for a guy, getting this wrong in the new deep south like Portland or Seattle will cost you teeth. Guess how I know?

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
  89. Biased training set by illtud · · Score: 1

    This is poor science. The training set was from photos on a dating site from people who self-identified their sexuality. Presumably the photos weren't passport photos, but ones chosen by the individual to appeal to their targets. That's biased right there.

    Also, there's an ethical question about using the photographs, as others have pointed out. I'm assuming that the subjects did not consent to have their images used for this purpose. They may be public images, but there's an ethical question about the use for such an experiment.

  90. When will AI Detect Sexual Predators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My disapproval is for the kind of people who go for non-consensual sex (you know, rapists, child molestors, that kind of thing) regardless of their sexual orientation.

    Still, even for that, the idea of an AI that can just tell makes me a bit uneasy. I mean, where does this kind of thing stop?

  91. bwahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm calling bullshit. This is just a way for the fags trannies to push their agenda. Give it a couple years, then they'll b scanning ur kids a school and u will get a letter stating that ur kids is a fag and u will b legally bound by a bunch of fucking sjw libtard madness. Mark my words. The world u deserve

  92. Memo to Stanford A.I. Educators by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Is holding an Ig Nobel the goal? Get back to work.

  93. Can this be expanded? by Eric+Freyhart · · Score: 1

    If a picture can be used to determine sexuality, could a picture also be used to determine birth gender? If that came on the market just think of the LGBT?+ community would do!

  94. So by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    ...all the people who claimed they had a gaydar were right?

  95. Well now...EUREKA. by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

    If they can only shrink it to a hand-held size, everyone can carry their own personal GayDar. And refine it to the point where it even classifies the level of the gay "Not gay, but has seen one up close". What a useful use of artificial intelligence. (/sarcasm)

    --
    There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
  96. I see lawsuits flying ... by doccus · · Score: 1

    ...If they use this. Expect a whole lot of extremely angry and litigious individuals if they ever attempt to use this AI anhywhere.

  97. How old do I look? by NewYork · · Score: 1
  98. need earlier samples before conditioning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If gay folks tend to look gay, is that because they are gay or because they have been conditioned to look gay over many years? perhaps a better approach would be to take childhood, pre-puberty, and post-puberty pictures of the sampled subjects and submit those against the AI algorithms and see if it is predictive in nature or the "gay look" is because of self/external conditioning. Same goes for the "gay brain" studies.... identifying before conditioning can occur would be far better evidence of it being an innate characteristic of a person or if choice/conditioning does play a part.

  99. Re: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet it is still most common in n1ggers and fagg0ts, wonder why. Maybe because the are unable to control where they stick their filthy peens.