I agree with your general point, but TFA quotes a co-founder of "leading research centre" saying,
> "At the same time as these technologies are being rolled out, large numbers of studies are showing that there is... no substantial evidence that people have this consistent relationship between the emotion that you are feeling and the way that your face looks."
So a large part of the problem is that we're rolling out cargo-cult crap without adequate self-reflection. (That's a different problem than our tech forcing us to confront real things we would rather leave latent.)
Total, absolute bullshit --- which is exactly what I'd expect from AI Now. Everyday experience shows that we can read people's feelings via their faces. (Yes, deception is possible, but the possibility of putting on a fake face validates the thesis!) Happy people look happy. Sad people look sad. Millennia of literature and art confirm. "Large numbers of studies" confirm lots of things that would be convenient if true, but aren't. The social sciences are totally and catastrophically broken.
These expressions are older than people. Even dogs and humans can read each others' emotions. Anyone who's met a dog understands that you can tell that a happy dog is happy. I'm amazed that the person quoted in the article was able to make the above claim with a straight face.
> So a large part of the problem is that we're rolling out cargo-cult crap without adequate self-reflection.
So what? Astrology doesn't work either and we don't have to go around banning that. If this technology didn't actually work, activist groups wouldn't be trying to ban it.
I am frequently asked by people, even folks who are close to me, if I’m feeling alright. At which point I realize I must be frowning and immediately smile and reassure them that I’m fine.
And you know when my face is always frowning? If I’m running errands alone and walk into a store in my “on a mission” mindset. I might be buying myself a bunch of supplies for an exciting upcoming project, but I will probably still be outwardly frowning as I walk into a store.
I don't know anything about them before today.
Did you see https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/talks/MIT-STS-AI-snake... which they link to in their report? It seems pretty solid to me.
> Everyday experience shows that we can read people's feelings via their faces.
Yeah, humans can, sometimes, but that doesn't mean these systems can.
> Astrology doesn't work either and we don't have to go around banning that.
First off, astrology does work, depending on the astrologer.
Second, yes, if people were selling astrology to HR departments to screen candidates I think we should ban that.
Is anyone supposed to take seriously anything else you say now that you've claimed that astrology works? You might as well be claiming we can predict the future by looking at bird entrails.
That's really entirely up to each person, and none of my business really.
I will say that, although I make mistakes, I never lie, and rarely exaggerate. I don't participate in HN to talk nonsense.
Now then, yes, some people can predict the future by divination of entrails. Thankfully this particular mode has become quite rare.
All forms of divination work, BTW, and have the same underlying motive.
- - - -
Anyway, did you look at that PDF? If so, what did you think?
The law generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, and sometimes age. Why can't that list be expanded?
as a simple example, sometimes when getting access to a dataset, you have to sign a contract agreeing not to try to de-anonymize or identify any individuals included. both sides on the contract know it is possible and perhaps easy, but they're making a legally-enforceable agreement to prevent it.
this sort of thing, or regulations enforcing similar restrictions on certain industries and institutions, is not the same thing as trying to outright ban any spread of a new technology or stop its use completely everywhere.
That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us true things about the world indicates that the level of internal contradiction in the standard worldview has reached an unacceptable level. Only a bankrupt and illegitimate philosophy needs to prop itself up with censorship and bans on true statements.
You can't hold back progress, but you do have a choice between sticking your head in the sand and facing the technological change head-on and making the most of it.
> AI Now
Oh, this is AI Now. The article makes sense now. This organization isn't a research group. It's a political advocacy organization dressed up as a research group. All they do is put an "AI" spin on the standard tech-activist political agenda. You don't have to actually read any of their papers, since the conclusion is always the same: they get to decide what technology you can use.