Read it and here's what I would like to know. When they used human gaydar (which they carefully said this was not...) to create the statistics to compare against the AI sexual orientation detector, what was the best human gaydar and the worst human gaydar (were there any humans actually better than the algorithm)? Why didn't they increase the number of faces available to the human gaydar or did they do that and it didn't make a difference? Also, if they are letting the machine learning algorithm learn, shouldn't they have done it in a way that let the humans learn for a comparison?

I loved the authors notes on the paper and the idiotic arguments they have to deal with. A must read.