Stanford Researchers tried to create a "Gaydar Machine" using neural networks

[Taf the Ghost]

23 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

What if pedophiles and sociopaths were actually more common than we think, and a lot of them were able to refrain from committing crimes ? We would get an endless watchlist of probably-but-not-undoubtedly-innocent people. It would be a mess.

Depends on the framework for what they're likely to do. (But, yes, we're getting close to Gattaca.) 

 

With something like sociopaths & psychopaths, there would be background checks. If they've generally not started torturing animals, they'll not normally move into killing humans and don't normally pose too much risk. (It's also something of a spectrum. It's when it lines up with other mental issues that it becomes a problem. Everyone has certain levels of both traits. It's a "too much" point, which would be interesting to find.)

 

For pedophiles, considering pretty much an agreed "incurable" state (at least by current, limited, medical approaches), the outcome isn't good for them. We're not at the point where "systematic extermination" is an acceptable option, but any chance at a normal life is over. Who wants to deal with a person that's "93% likely" to be a child rapist? 

[InertiaSelling]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Depends on the framework for what they're likely to do. (But, yes, we're getting close to Gattaca.) 

 

With something like sociopaths & psychopaths, there would be background checks. If they've generally not started torturing animals, they'll not normally move into killing humans and don't normally pose too much risk. (It's also something of a spectrum. It's when it lines up with other mental issues that it becomes a problem. Everyone has certain levels of both traits. It's a "too much" point, which would be interesting to find.)

 

For pedophiles, considering pretty much an agreed "incurable" state (at least by current, limited, medical approaches), the outcome isn't good for them. We're not at the point where "systematic extermination" is an acceptable option, but any chance at a normal life is over. Who wants to deal with a person that's "93% likely" to be a child rapist? 

Well, maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, but I think it would be exactly the same with sociopaths & psychopaths. Why would anyone hire a person that's "93% likely" to be a murderer ?

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, InertiaSelling said:

Well, maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, but I think it would be exactly the same with sociopaths & psychopaths. Why would anyone hire a person that's "93% likely" to be a murderer ?

Have you ever met an executive at a Pharmaceutical company? They'd hire the lower-% chance for murder ones. They'd also have a high chance of government Black Ops work.

 

Though when it comes to those traits, they need to be aligned with some other mental issue. You want your surgeon to be rather disconnected from the pain he's causing you, seeing as you're paying him to cut you open & do it properly. Sociopaths & psychopaths actually excel at quite a number of fields because they lack certain traits that hold others back from moving forward. A lot of high-pressure careers, because they don't feel the same amount of stress, let them have a leg up over the competition.

 

Pedophiles have completely broken sexual desires and a strong urge to act on them, and considering the target is the most vulnerable population & their actions have destructive, life-long consequences to the targets, there's not a lot of easy answers. And the line about "systematic extermination" wasn't a throw away or a joke. At a future time, I could easily see a society make the decision if the precision was accurate enough, though I imagine they'd just force them into the most dangerous jobs available first. So, a de facto death sentence.

[WkdPaul]

11 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Who wants to deal with a person that's "93% likely" to be a child rapist? 

That would be a greatly inaccurate system, what about false positives?

 

Things like this "gaydar" are highly inappropriate and potentially dangerous.

 

Canada had a "gaydar" system back in the McArthur era because gays were supposed to be a threat to the nation, was called the "fruit machine" ... Not a great idea to say the least.

 

It's the same problem in this case, and "extending" this technology to other things would be a big mistake (IMO).

[InertiaSelling]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

[...]

They'd hire the lower-% chance for murder ones. They'd also have a high chance of government Black Ops work.

[...]

And the line about "systematic extermination" wasn't a throw away or a joke. At a future time, I could easily see a society make the decision if the precision was accurate enough, though I imagine they'd just force them into the most dangerous jobs available first. So, a de facto death sentence.

 

EDIT: For real though, when I said "what if pedophiles and sociopaths were actually more common than we think, and a lot of them were able to refrain from committing crimes", I meant it. If only 1 or 5 or even 10% of them actually kill people or rape children, then we wouldn't need many false positives to kill thousands of innocents.

[Bananasplit_00]

6 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

The folks in Saudi Arabia will be very happy with this! 

i want to press funny but in reality is super not. i am just a horrible person arent i?  

[Bananasplit_00]

57 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

What if pedophiles and sociopaths were actually more common than we think, and a lot of them were able to refrain from committing crimes ? We would get an endless watchlist of probably-but-not-undoubtedly-innocent people. It would be a mess.

wellcome to Psyco Pass. screw that future, screw that future REALLY hard. if you dont know what it is then go watch the anime, or if you are one of those people that cant stand anime, go read a plot summary or something of it.

[InertiaSelling]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

wellcome to Psyco Pass. screw that future, screw that future REALLY hard. if you dont know what it is then go watch the anime, or if you are one of those people that cant stand anime, go read a plot summary or something of it.

According to wikipedia, the sibyl system is actually able to tell whether or not you'd be willing to commit a crime, unlike this hypothetical sociopathdar or pedophiledar, which would only be able to tell if you're insensitive to the suffering of others or if you're attracted to children. Not that the sibyl looks like a great idea, but it seems a bit less terrible.

[suicidalfranco]

People complaining about this going the route of Psycho Pass: the Sybil system is actually the best thing that could happen to humanity. The amount of societal improvement it brings far outweighs the bad behind the scene evil it performs to keep itself in power 

[Taf the Ghost]

34 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

That would be a greatly inaccurate system, what about false positives?

 

Things like this "gaydar" are highly inappropriate and potentially dangerous.

 

Canada had a "gaydar" system back in the McArthur era because gays were supposed to be a threat to the nation, was called the "fruit machine" ... Not a great idea to say the least.

 

It's the same problem in this case, and "extending" this technology to other things would be a big mistake (IMO).

 

19 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

According to wikipedia, the sibyl system is actually able to tell whether or not you'd be willing to commit a crime, unlike this hypothetical sociopathdar or pedophiledar, which would only be able to tell if you're insensitive to the suffering of others or if you're attracted to children. Not that the sibyl looks like a great idea, but it seems a bit less terrible.

I try not to get into this stuff for a few reasons, but partially because this is my tech ID and the other is that it cuts against what's considered acceptable this week.

 

How you "live your life" doesn't just show on your face, it actually is encoded into it. It happens over the course of years by extremely subtle micro changes due to differential expression of repair & building receptors. Along with micro-nutrient overabundance or deficiencies. Further, subtle aspects of core physiology will also display.

 

You understand this when I say "there is a face type for Down's Syndrome". If you've seen more than about 3, you can almost instantly pick someone out with it. That's fairly easy. However, that's true of almost everything that you're generally classified into. If the first 15 seconds you've met a person, you've already assessed their general fitness, health, demeanor and intelligence just by shaking their hand and looking at their face. (Intelligence is noticeable in the eyes.)  When you go to see a doctor, the doctor has made 50% of the diagnosis in the first 15s from just looking at you. What the doctor is mostly doing is confirming what he's already recognized without knowing it consciously yet.

 

It gets better. You can actually sort out differentials between religious groups within the same population, and not for obvious marking that they might use. 

 

The question is not if this stuff is appropriate. It's already here. There's some strong applications (chronic disease risks will be able to be sorted out as we feed the NNs higher res imagery), but there's also pretty obvious ones. The issue is "Who's in charge and what do they do?". That's a question you should ponder deeply and start to adjust accordingly.

[captain_to_fire]

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It gets better. You can actually sort out differentials between religious groups within the same population, and not for obvious marking that they might use

yes you can but you don't use AI to do that. You look into the civil registry or census records to do just that.

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

How you "live your life" doesn't just show on your face, it actually is encoded into it. It happens over the course of years by extremely subtle micro changes due to differential expression of repair & building receptors. Along with micro-nutrient overabundance or deficiencies. Further, subtle aspects of core physiology will also display.

Well that would be a discussion on "epigenetics" and the debate whether people actually have "free will" or it's "determined". While I tend to lean on the determinism argument, I also do not dismiss we might have free will, which such debate in the context of sexual orientation opens a whole new can of worms. 

 

But yes, abundance and deficiencies of certain nutrients can have consequences in the gene pool of the future. 

 

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

When you go to see a doctor, the doctor has made 50% of the diagnosis in the first 15s from just looking at you. What the doctor is mostly doing is confirming what he's already recognized without knowing it consciously yet.

It depends on the disease. If it's a swollen wound in the leg with pus oozing, the doctor can say it's likely a bacterial infection that needs draining, Augmentin and will probably check for blood glucose if the person is diabetic. But to say that a doctor already knows 50% of his/her diagnosis based on just looking is not how differential diagnosis work.

 

If I complain of abdominal pain, do you think the doctor already knows what I have just by looking at me? No. It has to go on a series of physical tests. Where does it hurt? Is it upper (epigastric), lower, or the sides? What did you last ate? Does it hurt if I push my finger here? How about here? What are the last medications you take? Do you have a fever? And so on. From those questions, a doctor can figure out what tests to order and what meds or procedures to do like an ultrasound to rule out gall stones and tumors, or might need an EEG to diagnose abdominal epilepsy, endoscopy to look for ulcers, etc.

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

[BuckGup]

I am all for AI no matter what it is

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

I am all for AI no matter what it is

You sir, will be an ideal citizen for our future AI overlords

[BuckGup]

Just now, tjcater said:

You sir, will be an ideal citizen for our future AI overlords

It will be great

[RyomaSJibenG]

great, having AI to dictate our lives

[Calt]

As a someone who is still in the closet, I have to say hell no.

[Brooksie359]

18 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Hormonal expression effects facial features, along with musculature and neurological response pathways.

 

It also works in a lot of other chronic disorders, as the body responds to issues forced upon itself. The most stark one is always Down's Syndrome, but it applies to most genetic disorders. Though it's normally a lot more subtle, so in normal interaction you don't notice it. There's a big, future market for diagnosing genetic disorders this way. (Or at least flagging off there is something wrong.) 

 

The other application will be things like pedophiles and sociopaths. That type of dysfunction also shows up in the face as well.

Yeah but what happens if you flag someone as a sociopath or a pedophile? I mean sociopath doesn't mean you are a killer it just means you lack empathy. As for pedophile if your saying that being one is not a choice but rather genetic in nature then it seems kinda shitty to be someone with those genes. I mean obviously it's wrong to be an actual pedophile but just because your genes say you are doesn't mean you have to be? I would hate to think that there is no freewill in what we do and are destined to be criminals because of our genes.

[Carclis]

1 hour ago, Calt said:

As a someone who is still in the closet, I have to say hell no.

Trust me, it's not even about whether or not you're comfortable with people knowing. As someone who is heterosexual I just think it's nobodies business and the moment that this technology makes its way to phones I think privacy will have completely gone out the window because I'm extremely doubtful that it will be limited to just someones sexual orientation.

[Bananasplit_00]

8 hours ago, InertiaSelling said:

According to wikipedia, the sibyl system is actually able to tell whether or not you'd be willing to commit a crime, unlike this hypothetical sociopathdar or pedophiledar, which would only be able to tell if you're insensitive to the suffering of others or if you're attracted to children. Not that the sibyl looks like a great idea, but it seems a bit less terrible.

The problem becomes that your life gets decided for you, knowing you are 80% likely to commit a crime would bring a psychological aspect into it, before you have even done anything you are judged. Even if you were not going to commit that crime, now that you know you might because you "know" you will. People will discriminate you for something you haven't done even. 

 

8 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

People complaining about this going the route of Psycho Pass: the Sybil system is actually the best thing that could happen to humanity. The amount of societal improvement it brings far outweighs the bad behind the scene evil it performs to keep itself in power 

I can't say I think people should be judged by an automated system that claims to be accurate. If you haven't committed a crime you are not a criminal. Sure it would be nice to know, but this system sees pickpocketing as as bad as terrorism. What if you are 80% likely to commit a crime, but would never actually do anything worse then pirate a movie. Should you still get screwed? I don't think so. 

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah but what happens if you flag someone as a sociopath or a pedophile? I mean sociopath doesn't mean you are a killer it just means you lack empathy. As for pedophile if your saying that being one is not a choice but rather genetic in nature then it seems kinda shitty to be someone with those genes. I mean obviously it's wrong to be an actual pedophile but just because your genes say you are doesn't mean you have to be? I would hate to think that there is no freewill in what we do and are destined to be criminals because of our genes.

Sociopaths would be monitored and pushed into certain fields. Psychopaths would be picked up for a huge slate of careers because they actually excel at them. Though both would monitored because it's not the sociopathy or psychopathy that are actually the problem. It's the other mental disorder that sends them spiraling. 

 

Someone tagged as a "pedophile potential" just had their life destroyed. Which is partially why the information would be hidden and used as blackmail, generally. They'd then also seed the information with intentional false positives so they could use it on other targets. The problem with where you put your sociopaths is that they'll show up in spots like this to cause all sorts of problems, as it's a means to power.

 

Do remember, this isn't an argument for this as a moral philosophy. These are simply things that are possible with current technology and it's simply a matter of time before someone does it. USA, India or China have large enough ID photo databases to go wild with the NN training. Someone eventually will.

 

2 hours ago, Carclis said:

Trust me, it's not even about whether or not you're comfortable with people knowing. As someone who is heterosexual I just think it's nobodies business and the moment that this technology makes its way to phones I think privacy will have completely gone out the window because I'm extremely doubtful that it will be limited to just someones sexual orientation.

Our privacy got toasted a while ago and we never got much of a say in it. Heck, at this point, just a digital product that doesn't phone home constantly is a struggle to find.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

yes you can but you don't use AI to do that. You look into the civil registry or census records to do just that.

On the religious affiliation, generally it's never been too hard to in most societies. However, with this type of tech, you have to roll into the future. It'll be used as subtle discrimination by certain groups, as this applies all over the place. It's also information one can leverage if you have it but others don't.

 

6 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

Well that would be a discussion on "epigenetics" and the debate whether people actually have "free will" or it's "determined". While I tend to lean on the determinism argument, I also do not dismiss we might have free will, which such debate in the context of sexual orientation opens a whole new can of worms. 

 

But yes, abundance and deficiencies of certain nutrients can have consequences in the gene pool of the future. 

Epigenetics is quite real, though the field is still early in its development. You can most definitely encode certain aspects into the genetics you pass on, but it is much more about suppressing factors rather than creating new ones. It also gets wonky when you have to deal with the fact that, over time, there's slight variation between genetic expression in different parts of the body. Micro-level differences add up over years.

 

On the Nature vs Nurture stuff, 70% of personality traits are in-born, 30% are random. 80% vs 20%; you'll keep your parents rough political views vs have different ones. Nature vs Nurture was dead a long time ago as an argument, it's just Progressive Thought can't accept it. It's always been "mostly Nature". What is, however, adjustable is your response matrix to a significant number of stimuli. You will have generally inherited responses, but they can be trained & focused. This is almost exactly what modern Militaries operate upon. And it's not like Mathematics & Reading aren't historically recent and cause significant changes when implemented, however aptitude for them starts at conception.

 

You don't have the ability to choose instinctive reactions. You have the ability train & control them. You do not, however, have the ability to stop a train with your fists. Free Will! But Sir Issac Newton always wins.

 

6 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

It depends on the disease. If it's a swollen wound in the leg with pus oozing, the doctor can say it's likely a bacterial infection that needs draining, Augmentin and will probably check for blood glucose if the person is diabetic. But to say that a doctor already knows 50% of his/her diagnosis based on just looking is not how differential diagnosis work.

 

If I complain of abdominal pain, do you think the doctor already knows what I have just by looking at me? No. It has to go on a series of physical tests. Where does it hurt? Is it upper (epigastric), lower, or the sides? What did you last ate? Does it hurt if I push my finger here? How about here? What are the last medications you take? Do you have a fever? And so on. From those questions, a doctor can figure out what tests to order and what meds or procedures to do like an ultrasound to rule out gall stones and tumors, or might need an EEG to diagnose abdominal epilepsy, endoscopy to look for ulcers, etc.

 

What I mean by they have 50% of their diagnosis in the first few seconds of seeing the patient isn't that they've thought through the situation. No. This is all instinctive & practiced pattern recognition. What their mind is actually doing is culling out most of the non-possibilities before they've even thought about it. They're in the mode of "hello, good to see you" & handshake & hand washing, yet their mind has already done most of the diagnosis work. The human mind's ability to do pattern recognition is truly amazing.

 

But, if you want an example of what I mean. Think about this question: "I want to buy a new computer, can you suggest to me a few CPUs to buy?".

 

Now, ask yourself why you culled out 60 years of previous processors from that list. Why isn't a 486 a good suggestion? You've already culled 50 years of processors from the logical possibilities before you've even run any aspect of the question through further analysis. Humans do this constantly. It's a good thing, but it also causes certain issues where people just can't accept something right in front of them.

[captain_to_fire]

17 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

What I mean by they have 50% of their diagnosis in the first few seconds of seeing the patient isn't that they've thought through the situation. No. This is all instinctive & practiced pattern recognition. What their mind is actually doing is culling out most of the non-possibilities before they've even thought about it. They're in the mode of "hello, good to see you" & handshake & hand washing, yet their mind has already done most of the diagnosis work. The human mind's ability to do pattern recognition is truly amazing.

I don't know who is that doctor you're talking about unless it's the fictional Dr. Gregory House from Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital. Because I'm pretty sure a doctor won't suspect breast cancer immediately just by having a woman entering their clinic as a lot of the times, breast cancer is asymptomatic.

 

24 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Epigenetics is quite real, though the field is still early in its developmen

All what epigenetics mean is the change in gene expression by external factors without changing the gene itself

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, hey_yo_ said:

I don't know who is that doctor you're talking about unless it's the fictional Dr. Gregory House from Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital. Because I'm pretty sure a doctor won't suspect breast cancer immediately just by having a woman entering their clinic as a lot of the times, breast cancer is asymptomatic.

I'm used to this point being lost on most people, so I'll explain it further. You're human. You are constantly doing pattern recognition. You've culled most possible choices, when given specific information, before you've actually thought through the situation. Many of these responses can be trained. This is what a Medical, Military or Technical education is about. You train yourself to see specific things and already be operating the response before you've actually thought about it.

 

Into this, humans build up a recognition of specific patterns that are far more subtle than most want to accept. Thus, when you see a specialist, while they will come into an appointment generally having seen your file (which prejudges the situation), most of the diagnosis they'll arrive at was done in the first 10 seconds they've seen you. Not because they're a good, great or bad doctor. No, because their mind has already culled most of the outlier possibilities away and they know from repetition what to expect. They're also noticing the lack of certain, subtle, features of specific diagnosis criteria, so they're unlikely to peruse in that direction.

 

Now, a good doctor will run through the full diagnostic criteria and, if they come to a dead end, roll back some of their initial assumptions. However, that can take time/effort. If you're within the normal 95% of "normal" issues, you'll be okay. That remainder? You're in for a world of going around in circles until you find a doctor that's actually seen the problem. Not read about. "Seen". They'll recognize the specific features again.

 

You're free to disagree with this, but this is part of the way things work. 

[Jito463]

On 10/10/2017 at 4:44 AM, Taf the Ghost said:

Ovulating Women are most sensitive to it, as a homosexual male will generally not be showing interesting a Woman.

Well, that could explain why I mistakenly get accused of being gay from time to time.  As a single, heterosexual male, I suppose it's expected that I'll be interested in/chasing after women.  However, I've never been one to conform to norms.

 

I can't imagine what this AI would make of me .