Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday September 11 2017, @05:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-a-silly-name-for-an-AI dept.

Stanford University researchers have used software in an attempt to determine sexual orientation from photos:

"Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images" is the title of an article by Stanford University's Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang, to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The abstract:

We show that faces contain much more information about sexual orientation than can be perceived and interpreted by the human brain. We used deep neural networks to extract features from 35,326 facial images. These features were entered into a logistic regression aimed at classifying sexual orientation. Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women. Human judges achieved much lower accuracy: 61% for men and 54% for women. The accuracy of the algorithm increased to 91% and 83%, respectively, given five facial images per person. Facial features employed by the classifier included both fixed (e.g., nose shape) and transient facial features (e.g., grooming style).

Consistent with the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, gay men and women tended to have gender-atypical facial morphology, expression, and grooming styles. Prediction models aimed at gender alone allowed for detecting gay males with 57% accuracy and gay females with 58% accuracy. Those findings advance our understanding of the origins of sexual orientation and the limits of human perception. Additionally, given that companies and governments are increasingly using computer vision algorithms to detect people's intimate traits, our findings expose a threat to the privacy and safety of gay men and women.

The images and the sexual orientation information were drawn from an online dating site. Note that the study was limited to white people from the United States, because of the relative lack of images of nonwhite gays and lesbians on the site.

Also at TechCrunch, The Advocate, and The Guardian.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @07:49PM (16 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday September 11 2017, @07:49PM (#566345) Journal
    "The same isn't true of homosexuals. What they do in the bedroom is their own business (many straight people have some... interesting... practices there too), but otherwise they're just as functional as anyone else, as long as they aren't being actively oppressed by religious idiots"

    Well not quite. They're considerably less likely to produce grandkids, and that's one particular function that people all around the world seem to care a lot about.

    "There's even a good evolutionary biology argument for homosexuality: that you don't want the entire population having children (leads to overpopulation), and that it's good for the tribe to have some child-less relatives who contribute in other ways."

    That argument works fine, if the parents already have tons of kids anyway. If you're talking about their first and only? Not so much.

    "Most of them still think it's a "choice" after all, so even if the genetic basis (if any) is discovered, these people probably won't believe it anyway."

    If you genuinely believe there are no choices involved in homosexual behavior and homosexual identity, you really believe it's all just a genetic switch that goes one way or the other and you have no choice but to follow... well I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @08:01PM (12 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:01PM (#566351)

    Well not quite. They're considerably less likely to produce grandkids, and that's one particular function that people all around the world seem to care a lot about.

    How many kids you create isn't anyone's business but your own (and your spouse's).

    That argument works fine, if the parents already have tons of kids anyway.

    In ages before contraception was invented, parents having tons of kids was the norm.

    If you genuinely believe there are no choices involved in homosexual behavior and homosexual identity, you really believe it's all just a genetic switch that goes one way or the other and you have no choice but to follow... well I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed.

    Citation needed. Are you one of those religious nuts that really thinks people can "choose" to be straight?

    Sure, the behavior is a choice, just like being celibate is a choice. But that doesn't explain *why* someone should make that choice. Again, what people do in their bedrooms is their business alone. Do you not agree? Or are you an insane religious fool?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @08:17PM (2 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:17PM (#566362) Journal
      "How many kids you create isn't anyone's business but your own (and your spouse's)."

      Your parents might have something to say about that as well, particularly in the context where we're talking about the potential for parents to screen at the fetus stage for genes that might lead to homosex ahead of time.

      "In ages before contraception was invented, parents having tons of kids was the norm."

      Yes, but we live in a different time now.

      "Citation needed."

      Citation needed the other way as well. There have been at least dozens if not hundreds of related studies and they don't always agree. But the naïve genetic determinicism you seem to be endorsing is certainly incorrect. There's no gene that makes you "identify" as a "homosexual." That's every bit as nutty as any religious tract you want to point to. Humans in our current form have been around for about a quarter of a million years, 'identifying as homosexual' is a very new meme, perhaps a century or so old.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:37PM (#566773)

        There are homosexual animals, that should be a major clue for you. Generally every person is on the spectrum between pure homosexuality and heterosexuality. You can argue all you want but you'll still be wrong, and likely your subconscious is causing you grief since you won't acknowledge the times when you feel some mild attraction toward a man. Its ok, humans die off at pretty reliable intervals so with any luck we won't be burdened with ignorance forever.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:05PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:05PM (#566795)

          Its ok, humans die off at pretty reliable intervals so with any luck we won't be burdened with ignorance forever.

          Wrong, at least if by "forever" you mean "as long as the human race exists". We keep breeding new idiots. Just look at the idiocy in Charlottesville: many of the neo-Nazis were fairly young, and the murderer was only about 20. It's a fallacy to think that young people are so much more enlightened than old people; after all, who's having all the kids these days? Mostly religious conservatives.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Monday September 11 2017, @08:21PM

      by looorg (578) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:21PM (#566363)

      "In ages before contraception was invented, parents having tons of kids was the norm."

      That is how you create free labor for your farm or business. Not to mention that you make X babies and hope that at least a few of them survive until adulthood so they can support you when you grow old. So it's wasn't all about how they loved children back in the day and couldn't get enough of them. It's a poor persons survival strategy.

    • (Score: 2) by tfried on Monday September 11 2017, @08:24PM (6 children)

      by tfried (5534) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:24PM (#566365)

      I'm not sure not of the GP's intentions, but he does have a point: What will modern-day western parents answer when confronted with a dialog of "Your child is going to be homosexual. Are you okay with that? Continue - Cancel (Abort)" And further the question isn't what should they do, but what will they do. Here GP's points are very valid: This is likely to be one of a select few kids of the parents, the parents are looking for immortality aka grandchildren, too - and the parents are the ones in control.

      That said, I do appreciate your objection against GP's use of the word "choice". But I'll re-word GP's sentence for you: "you really believe it's all just a genetic switch that goes one way or the other and your child will be guaranteed to follow... well I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed." Very likely, genetically, homosexuality is not a binary switch indeed, but more like a bias of - yet - unknown magnitude. The nurture side, I firmly believe, is not much about "choice", either, but much about coincidence, and messy interactions (such as: the kid is genetically disposed to think outside the box and distrust conventional knowledge - he/she is prone to become homosexual if - and only if - subjected to a society where gender roles are strictly defined).

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @08:52PM (5 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:52PM (#566380) Journal
        "I'm not sure not of the GP's intentions, but he does have a point: What will modern-day western parents answer when confronted with a dialog of "Your child is going to be homosexual. Are you okay with that? Continue - Cancel (Abort)" And further the question isn't what should they do, but what will they do. Here GP's points are very valid: This is likely to be one of a select few kids of the parents, the parents are looking for immortality aka grandchildren, too - and the parents are the ones in control."

        Well said, that is indeed exactly the line of thought I was advancing.

        "Very likely, genetically, homosexuality is not a binary switch indeed, but more like a bias of - yet - unknown magnitude."

        I think it's more than likely there are actually *numerous* genes that, for one reason or another, are going to be statistically correlated here. That doesn't mean there's a causal relationship. In fact, it seems quite unlikely that there could even in theory be a gene that has a direct causal relationship over which social constructs individuals choose to identify with.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:46PM (4 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday September 11 2017, @09:46PM (#566421) Journal

          It seems like there is a significant acculturation factor, too, no matter what the ultimate determination of genetic causality is shown to be. Western society has become much more accepting of female-female relationships in the last 20 years, with lesbian assignations having become a staple of popular culture. The same might become true of gay relationships as well.

          It may be that in the not too-distant future people born with genetic pre-disposition for exclusive same-sex relationships will obtain, but many other people might become much more sexually fluid given that society no longer thinks it's a big deal who you sleep with.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @11:41PM (3 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Monday September 11 2017, @11:41PM (#566469) Journal
            I'm really not sure that your fundamental premise here is correct. Or maybe I'm not sure exactly what your fundamental premise is.

            Western society has become much more accepting of same sex relationships, but I'm not sure that the last 20 years is a good time frame to show that - in fact depending how you measure it very well might show the reverse.

            I think it makes more sense from a slightly longer timeline though. If we go back to the roots of western civilization, looking particularly at Greek antiquity for example, homosexual acts were well known, and often discussed, sometimes lauded, sometimes derided, depending on the writer, but certainly the acts were well known, they happened and probably no less often than today. But one huge piece of our modern world view is completely missing - this notion of a *homosexual person* rather than person who sometimes performs homosexual acts.

            The acts were well known in antiquity and ever since. In some times and places they were horrible crimes, in others normal and expected, but in no case were they considered evidence of a new and different sort of person.

            The modern innovation was to turn this into an identity. And doing that is actually contradictory to our liberal ideal of 'it's not a big deal.' If this is a core of your identity it most certainly IS a big deal! It's probably the biggest deal, now isn't it?

            So I think we can have one or the other but not both. If it's not a big deal, we as a society need to quit acting like it is.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:57AM (1 child)

              by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:57AM (#566516)

              Well put. Anything that you put your identity to is obviously a big deal to you, and is used by yourself as an indication of 'tribe membership' or a point of difference to others.

              I had never really thought of it that way, but it does seem incongruous to say that it's not a big deal when you're basing your whole identity on it. Having said that, most of the gay people I know usually only bring up their sexuality in a contextual conversation, not as a form of introduction. I think I would tire of someone that continually advertises their sexual preference, political affiliation, or veganism in all conversations.

              By the way, the above post in no way means to compare homosexuals to vegans. I would never insult homosexuals like that.

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:52AM

                by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:52AM (#566530) Journal
                "Having said that, most of the gay people I know usually only bring up their sexuality in a contextual conversation, not as a form of introduction"

                That's my experience as well - for the most part. People that I know personally, friends? Yeah, they just want to be treated like everyone else, get a fair shake at work, get a paycheck and go home and enjoy it their own way on their own time, just like everyone else. But the people that call themselves 'activists' or 'leaders' these days, not people I know personally but public figures, that seems to be a group with quite a different profile, with completely different goals and means.

                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:40PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:40PM (#566775)

              The modern innovation was to turn this into an identity.

              I think the reason for this is fairly simple: it's a reaction to most of society pushing heterosexuality as the only acceptable practice, with a large dose of religiosity behind that. This has been the case, really, since Christianity and other Abrahamic religions rose to normalcy. Anyone who didn't toe the line (following the correct religion, having the correct sexual orientation) was a "deviant" and had to be severely punished or killed. If it wasn't a big deal, then it wouldn't be an "identity"; it'd be more like the Greek days (though even there, they had certain gender roles and expectations; they could have male lovers, esp. in the military, but were still expected to marry and have children).

              Also, note the Kinsey Scale (a relatively modern invention), which does posit that humans are generally not 100% homo or hetero, but somewhere in-between, though frequently in practice they tend to adopt one side or the other. But it's not uncommon for "hetero" people to do homo acts in secret sometimes (like the infamous Sen. Larry Craig (R) of Idaho), probably because they're really in the middle somewhere and not able to act on the homo desires because of social consequences.

              And doing that is actually contradictory to our liberal ideal of 'it's not a big deal.'

              That's the ideal; modern society isn't there yet, so that's why people are making a big issue out of it I think. Basically, if the conservatives would either die out or drop the anti-homosexual stance, and it really did become "no big deal" across society, then I don't think you'd see any more activism or making it one's identity (after a generation or so), as there'd be no need.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:10PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday September 11 2017, @09:10PM (#566395) Journal

      How many kids you create isn't anyone's business but your own (and your spouse's).

      Genetic/epigenetic interventions performed on the children are the parents' business. They might not have to reveal the changes made at all. And if it's embryo selection for specific traits, the parents can tell their kids with a straight face that they are unaltered, 100% natural humans. While brushing aside how many embryos were screened out before little Timmy was selected.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 11 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:35PM (#566370) Journal

    Buddy, if being gay were a choice, every woman on the planet would be a lesbian. Don't kid yourself. The fact under 2% or so of us are really dyed in the wool gold-star-toting gay is the strongest possible argument that we don't choose our sexuality. And damn if I don't feel luckier and luckier every day to have hit that 2% chance.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @09:52PM (1 child)

      by Arik (4543) on Monday September 11 2017, @09:52PM (#566426) Journal
      Funny, but not insightful.

      No, every woman wouldn't be gay, not even close. Though there is a very real and fairly common phenomena sometimes called the 'college lesbian' you might want to look into.

      "The fact under 2% or so of us are really dyed in the wool gold-star-toting gay is the strongest possible argument that we don't choose our sexuality."

      Really? You don't think anyone would willingly choose to be in such a small minority, for any reason?

      That's fascinating. And I can tell you without a doubt it's incorrect. Jews are approximately 1.4% yet there are still conversions happening every day.

      "And damn if I don't feel luckier and luckier every day to have hit that 2% chance."

      That looks an awful lot like a reason you would want to put yourself in that group - a motivation to make that choice.

      Now let me be clear, I'm not in any way implying that there is not SOMETHING very important in all this that is beyond conscious choice, possibly even beyond environmental influence as well. I don't doubt that for a moment. But we're talking about a lot more than that. We're not talking about the urges of the flesh, we're talking about an *identity* - a social construct. And since it's not one you were born with, the only logical possibility is that it's one you have chosen to wear. It might be a very easy choice to make, because of other things, things you did not choose, but there's still clearly a choice involved.

      There's been a real movement to deny this and it seems to be motivated by the idea that it's easier to convince fit-sitters that you shouldn't be discriminated against if you can convince them there are no choices involved, I get that. But it's generally bad policy to advance false positions for short term tactical gain.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:13AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:13AM (#566503) Journal

        I don't think I've ever seen quite that much self-serving bullshit in one post before. That is...impressively wrong, and what isn't wrong is only not-wrong because it's entirely opinion.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...