The infamous AI gaydar study was repeated – and, no, code can't tell if you're straight or not just from your face The controversial study that examined whether or not machine-learning code could determine a person’s sexual orientation just from their face has been retried – and produced eyebrow-raising results. John Leuner, a master’s student studying information technology at South Africa's University of Pretoria, attempted to reproduce …
But that would have to challenge existing science that employs twin studies. There are already multiple recorded instances where monozygotic (as genetically identical as possible) twins ended up with different sexual orientations as they grew up, even as they grew up in practically-identical environments in the same household. It's already known that fingerprints are epigenetic (which is why monozygotic twins have different fingerprints); the suggestion is that sexual orientation could also be epigenetic, if not something not set at birth and instead shaped during upbringing.
If somebody claims computers can be pointed at photographs and determine characteristics about that person better than humans can, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Equally if somebody claims to have some clever new computer system that can determine things from photographs that humans looking at those photographs, I'd appreciate someone double-checking to see if the claims are BS or not. Just because the characteristic in question is a bit clickbaity is a bit of a side-issue.
The wonderful thing about the LGBTQ flag is that it’s a rainbow. A spectrum. I’m not convinced that there’s any such thing as 100% straight or 100% gay (well, perhaps an absolute minority). If you’ve ever ‘jokingly’ said if I were gay I’d definitely sleep with (insert name of same gender person) then you’re on the spectrum.
So given the wonderful range of sexualities that humanity has on offer, I’d be astonished if any computer program could predict whether someone is ‘gay’ or ‘straight’.
Only some of those in that alphabet soup are actually gay. It's a dishonest catchall especially adding those born Intersex on the end as some do. Also there are various kinds of T.
Indeed whatever the studies are showing, is it actually gayness or based on structure? Is there even one universal definition of "gay"? Is the accuracy claimed based on self identification on the photo posting only? What is the definition used by photo poster and are they honest?
I'm sceptical as to how reliable the sources are and the results are. Also what age ranges?
Hi Mage, yes. I agree. The alphabet soup is a mess - but that wasn’t the point. The point is the flag, a spectrum. Seen from a certain perspective that’s very inclusive. It covers all possibilities - there’s an infinite number of colours in the spectrum (although not, being pedantic, in the flag - which is merely the representation of a spectrum), and there are an infinite number of sexualities.
Which, let’s face it, makes homophobia, transphobia, misogyny etc etc all the more silly.
The groups in 'diversity' are all 'deviant', in that they deviant away from the default setting. The default setting is white straight young-to-middle-aged able-bodied male. Therefore diversity means beign not all of these or one of these in some way. A woman is a deviant man. A person in a wheelchair or blind deviates from able-bodied. Being over 70 is a deviant age. Being gay is deviant from straight. Being a lesbian combines two, as does being disabled male and gay. And LGBTQ+ is merely a catch-all for 'all those deviant sexualities if you aren't straight and male'. They have, as other commentards have said, very little to do with each other. We who are in that group have accepted the default and define ourselves by it.
The term Man, as in Mankind, is the default. It was set up by white straight young-to-middle-aged able-bodied males, as they are the dominant group in western socity.
The term Man, as in Mankind, is the default. It was set up by white straight young-to-middle-aged able-bodied males, as they are the dominant group in western socity.
That's news to me. I think I'm in that group, but I don't feel dominant. I have a red ass, but that's just ezcema.
unless you actually meant 'socity', and it's a planned town in Nevada, U.S.A managed by Disney corp.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's society's obsessions that wants to classify sexuality, and then make all kinds of meaningless claims like lifestyle choices, moral equivalence.
Plato's Symposium makes more sense to me: he shows many kinds of love, all valid, but he doesn't try to claim an equivalence, nor deterministic categorisation of peoples preferences. Though Alcibiades' speech, where he clearly regards it as an adolescent lad's right to be mentored by an older man, wouldn't go down well today.
What can you tell from a person's face? Evidently something, but the nature of that something is probably too controversial to be meaningfully researched.
This post has been deleted by its author
"You don't know whether the ticket inspector on your train was gay"
Neither does this AI. But i'd wager mannerisms, behaviour, dress sense, even speech and choice of words are all better indicators than a photo. An AI to analyse sexuality from a photograph would only ever be abused by repressive nations. Is there another use for it that isn't abusive or dangerous?
This is all part of the general problem of poor reproducibility of social science studies, which is apparently causing a bit of a crisis. Lots of experiments turn out to give very different results when conducted by different groups.
It would seem social sciences are roughly where the physical sciences were in the 18th century. Phlogiston lasted as long as it did because different workers got different weight gains - or loss - on heating of substances due to factors ranging from impure materials through retorts losing weight on heating to researchers actually not realising they needed to capture the smoke.
Some people still believe in that. And in that other 19th invention, "Flat Earth", which seems to have been a satirical invention. Some Evolutionists claimed Creationists believed it. Actually before circumnavigation most people and the Church never thought about it at all. Both ancients and Christian Era experts actually knew the Earth is round and quite a few had good estimates about the size. Even Galileo vs Church wasn't really about science, he put theology in his treatise. Others had more accurately written about Earth & Sun and had Catholic Patrons, or were Catholic and had no problem. It's not as if they tortured him or burnt him at the stake either. He was put under house arrest. He didn't like leaving the villa anyway.
Why this digression? Because some arguments are not about what they claim to be, but about politics. Maybe the real issue is that Neural Networks, Machine Learning and "AI" is all a bit rubbish. Some people would like big successes where it's much better than people.
The more controversial and headline grabbing the better!
And how did they determine if the machine was correct or not, were they using the self-reported sexuality that these people had on their profiles? Are they sure that everyone was being honest on them?
How did he exclude the spambots using random photos to try and get money out of the real users?
Did they cleanse the data and remove photos that were not related in anyway to the profile associated with them?
Were particular declared orientations more/less photogenic?
Was there a statistical link between "enhanced" photos and declared orientation?
Does anyone question their own work anymore?
They culled all the training data from dating sites, i.e. each photograph was selected by the subject.
They culled all the testing data from publicity photographs, i.e. each photograph was selected by the subject.
So, this is as worthless as any other self-reporting study.
I've spent quite a bit of time on Adult FriendFinder for many years since it started about 20 years ago and I've met a lot of people - you need to actually experience this because academics doesn't work. Since AFF is an adult site and you end up enjoying "adult" activities with the other sex (at least initially) when you are sitting there with no clothes on conversations are generally quite honest ... most couples that I meet are very happy to start off with M-F sex but very quickly slide over to M-M, F-F, M-F-M and F-M-F sex.
Are they "gay" or are they "straight"? Fact is, when you get down to it, pleasure comes first, orientation is secondary - most guys enjoy watching and playing with people involved in F-F sex and virtually every woman I've ever met has been very keen on watching and encouraging M-M sex and helping.
Of course nobody would ever admit this in a survey.
... that if any information regarding a persons sexual orientation could be gleaned from a photograph of their face, it would depend heavily on the context in which that picture was taken. Like who the photographer was, for example.
“Moreover, this entire line of thought is premised on the idea that there is value to be gained in working out why 'gay face' classifiers might work – value in further describing, defining and setting out the methodology for any tinpot dictator or bigot with a computer who might want to oppress queer people.”
Scientist doesn't like attempted reproducing of results of papers?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
