I'm not surprised there is some sort of AI-recognisable trend on dating site profile pictures between gays and straights. If you put it in front of a random selection doing a passport face it wouldn't have a clue.
I'm not surprised there is some sort of AI-recognisable trend on dating site profile pictures between gays and straights. If you put it in front of a random selection doing a passport face it wouldn't have a clue.
A camera with the right software and data can already identify you by your walk so if we're going to be angry about identifying whether you're a bummer or not which is a lot easier, we're in trouble.
I saw something recently about someone having developed facial recognition software that recognises you even if your face is half covered.
We're sleepwalking into a terrible future.
They had a trial of that stuff at Tesco a while back, in petrol stations
More expensive petrol. Make them identify themselves on public transport cameras on their way to their glory holes. Political correctness gone away.
Erm ...
Fuck off. Your kid just pissed on national TV. You have a five year old that babbles. You all look fucking haunted. "Our dads died so we basically ruined all of our lives." The fucking state of it. Purge Brighton of these people.
You don't see a problem with kids pissing where they stand? You don't see a problem with leaving kids to just 'wait out' shit like Scarlet Fever and Chickenpox? You don't see a problem with a mother keeping the kid attached with the cord until it just kinda falls off? You don't see a problem with them crowdfunding their very existence?
https://www.facebook.com/FundMyTrave...27249380733446
Why is it even called off-grid parenting? They live in a flat. What's off-grid about that?
It's not the flat, more that they've bred a five year old who is still breastfeeding and decides himself what he wants to be taught.
If we all lived off nature and in yurts that'd be fine, but what the fuck is he meant to do at his first job interview when there's no bitty around?
It's hippy wank of the highest order.
It's noticeable that the bloke barely says anything. He probably doesn't even know he's there.
I was going to ask how a sock gets that dirty, then I saw the word 'Coventry'.
"It was around seven inches long and about two inches wide," Ms Hurr said.
Oi oi.
"It was protruding from the edge of the bed and it wasn't moving at all."
OI OI!
"I got out my torch to see better and that's when I realised it wasn't a lizard at all, it was a pink stripy sock."
Oh.
Looks like the brains trust are at it again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41278545
What a crap terrorist.
We need a name for them. Ineptorist?
Terrorbleists/terribleists. Excellent concept but not sure which spelling I prefer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41280150
Has Clarke Carlisle finally managed to disappear up his own arsehole?
That's a really awful thing to say about someone with severe depression that's had multiple suicide attempts.
Soz ard Mumsnet.
"Stanford should distance itself from such junk science rather than lending its name and credibility to research that is dangerously flawed and leaves the world - and this case, millions of people's lives - worse and less safe than before," said its director of research, Ashland Johnson.
It's amazing that being outed as gay is more dangerous to society than, say, having your location tracked 24/7 or the idea that you'll walk into a store, it'll recognize you, and give you taste recommendations based on previous purchases etc etc.
The tracking our every move and purchase? Nah that's fine. It might tell me if I'm #TheGay or not? THIS IS JUNK SCIENCE TO THE NTH DEGREE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41277540
What? Was it the Big Boss Man?
The worst part is the entire "Well, the government already has everything anyways" laissez faire attitude people have toward it. That's what caught me by surprise when I read that quote. Oh, NOW technology has gone too far? I'm pretty sure the US Government knows more about me than I do myself at this point but hey, thanks for caring.
I actually misread the study, 81% is quite good then but i wonder how much of that is down to the algorithm learning the filters that gay people use or the poses they strike
I'm not paying for the Washington Post but I feel like all the major points are in your post anyways.
Opening it in Incognito should work.
It has gone through the peer review process, so it has been deemed good enough for publication. Now, if people want to read the article and point out its flaws in methodology, or if the conclusions don't match the results or whatever, they are free to do so. But to be against it just because GAYS is 'left gone wrong' of the highest order.
Academia is fucked for many reasons and I haven't read the paper, but I am sure it is a lot more about facial recognition technology than where the pictures came from. I am assuming a dating website was used because it is a good place to find images that also include the sexual preference of the person.
If you're a researcher and want to train a CNN to identify gay faces you first get subjects, sit them in front of the same background, use the same camera with the same lighting, have them remove jewelry/make-up/hair stuff and have them all look straight faced at you. Maybe do a few angles. That's a study. You have to trust that the gay people you get are actually gay, but that's true with dating sites too
It might be the case that gay people have different facial features, it's possible. But this was a shit study and hasnt revealed anything.
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news...timothy-wilson
Should be fun this weekend.
I got a negative article review a while back that said my arguments had already been made elsewhere, but when I asked them FUCKING WHERE MATE? they withdrew it and agreed that it should be published. With that in mind, the people behind this (oi-oi recognise that) should smoke out their critics as having secret gayfaces.
When my advisor (an expert on his field) is asked to review a paper, he asks me or someone else in the lab (not yet experts in our fields) to do the review. The whole thing is a bit of a joke.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41282392
Should have left them to it.
I got one really detailed positive review, the one already mentioned, and another negative one effectively telling me that the consensus was the consensus for a reason (oh nice one mate cheers). I think they just expect you to bend to their will, because if you are a working academic you probably just want your name on something out there in a 'prestigious' journal more than you want to insist on getting a particular idea across on your exact terms; but I'm not one of those, so I just re-submitted it and told them they were wrong, and they BOTTLED IT.
My latest one was one good, mostly positive review suggesting a few changes, one no-show, and one 'it's shit lulz.' I just made some of the changes the first one suggested and the editor just went for it.
Another person in the lab submitted something but he was told it was not enough to be a full publication, so he should submit it as a 'short communication.' He shortened it and resubmitted it as such and now they say is too much and that it should be a full paper, but maybe in a shitter journal.
My old supervisor was once asked to review something, which he and somebody else he knew told them was crap, but then they published it anyway because the author was well-known in the field. If that is commonplace it would explain how super busy professors can still get so many things out there.