SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-check-if-they-are-horizontal dept.
PsychCentral has a decent summary of a recent software-based effort from University of Michigan to discover who's lying and who's not.
By carefully observing people telling lies during high-stakes court cases, researchers at the University of Michigan are developing unique lie-detecting software based on real-world data.
Their lie-detecting model considers both the person's words and gestures, and unlike a polygraph, it doesn't need to touch the speaker in order to work.
In experiments, the prototype was up to 75 percent accurate in identifying who was telling a lie (as defined by trial outcomes), compared with humans' scores of just above 50 percent. The tool might be helpful one day for security agents, juries, and even mental health professionals.
To develop the software, the researchers used machine-learning techniques to train it on a set of 120 video clips from media coverage of actual trials. Some of the clips they used were from the website of The Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted.
[More after the break.]
Researchers found that the people who were lying had a number of distinctive tells. They moved their hands more, scowled or grimaced, said "um" more frequently, and attempted to create a sense of distance between themselves and their alleged crime or civil misbehavior by using words like "he" or "she" rather than "I" or "we." Even more interesting, liars tended to make a greater effort at sounding sure of themselves — not only would they feign confidence, but they would also look the questioner in the eye, perhaps attempting to establish believability.
"In laboratory experiments, it's difficult to create a setting that motivates people to truly lie. The stakes are not high enough,...We can offer a reward if people can lie well — pay them to convince another person that something false is true. But in the real world there is true motivation to deceive. People are poor lie detectors. This isn't the kind of task we're naturally good at. There are clues that humans give naturally when they are being deceptive, but we're not paying close enough attention to pick them up."
"It was 75 percent accurate in identifying who was lying. That's much better than humans, who did just better than a coin-flip."
"The system might one day be a helpful tool for security agents, juries and even mental health professionals."
I have to imagine this is a child's game compared to what Three Letter Agencies have developed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @01:21AM
I get it, you are called runaway because you lurve to runaway with the goal posts!
Really? So he can't add anything more to the discussion because you say so?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday December 14 2015, @04:54AM
No, really you cannot. The "saying so" is not the cause, it is only the recognition of an obvious truth. Runaway usually runs away from almost everything, but mostly from the truth. Now he, or you if you are not he in AC garb, could attempt to contribute something to the discussion, but you see it up to the discussion to decide if you actually are contributing, or are not in fact just trolling. If you actually have something to say, I imagine others will recognize that. But here's the point: if not, that does not mean that you are a Hairyfeet and nobody likes you and nobody listens to what you say, it just means that you really have nothing to say! Yes, we have heard it all before, the President is a Muslim (AKA: Black), and abortion is Murder!!!, and SJWs are infiltrating your pants as we speak. Please, spare us. Not contributing, and we do not have to hear much more to make the determination. At least I make more sense than this when I go all Ranty on the Soylentis!!