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.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @06:19PM
I mean, it's one less question you have to answer on the survey... Let the damn computer do all the work.. That's what we build them for...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday September 11 2017, @06:19PM (15 children)
They should run pictures of the leaders and members from the various anti-LGBT groups and see who gets flagged.
Would be amusing and a bit interesting indeed.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @06:22PM (11 children)
They should run it on the leaders and members of the pro- groups as well. Might just be as interesting.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @06:40PM (10 children)
I'm not sure why any straight pro-LGBT leaders would bother masquerading as gay. For this to happen, they'd have to have some pressing reason to want to do this job (they could just go take up some other cause after all), and be worried that they wouldn't have as much credibility being straight. Being a pro-LGBT group leader probably isn't all that lucrative financially; someone talented enough for that could probably easily find some other job paying at least as much. And it likely wouldn't be that scandalous even if they were exposed: as long as their actions backed their talk, others probably wouldn't care too much.
It's on the other side where it's much more interesting and funny, because of the blatant hypocrisy. The motivation there is pretty obvious: religious idiocy. I just don't see the opportunities for such motivation on the pro-LGBT side, for someone to lie about their orientation.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday September 11 2017, @06:49PM (3 children)
There is the occasional outlier in every cause. Like that woman who pretended she was black.
If I knew I could make a very comfy living by heading a big pro-LGBT group, but it helped getting the job to pretend to be gay, I'd give it a thought. It might turn out I'm better at helping their cause in that position than the real gay guy who would otherwise get the job because of his orientation. So it may not be a bad thing, technically.
But I suspect any attractive lesbian in the group would quickly notice that I'm not gay, so it wouldn't work for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:34PM (2 children)
> But I suspect any attractive lesbian in the group would quickly notice that I'm not gay, so it wouldn't work for me.
You might be surprised how not everyone interprets behavior in such a binary way.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Gaaark on Monday September 11 2017, @10:03PM
"He's an out-doorsy guy: he's always pitching tents when I'm around!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @11:55PM
What might arise! [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:07PM
I really doubt economics is a big factor involved in either direction. Self loathing is probably one reason somebody would become a big anti-guy person. Their hatred is real and emanating from the fact that they hate many people, but none so much as themselves. In the other direction there's going to be a large factor of seeking some purpose in life. In hindsight witch hunting and witch hunters are something we can look back at with incredibly bemusement, if not laughter. But it was likely the same thing as today. People just trying to find some meaning for otherwise pointless lives create an enemy, even when none actually exist. And over time they probably came to convince themselves that they were not just riling mobs into attacking people for imaginary offenses, but saving the world from the horrors of witchcraft and other dark arts. Everybody wants to fight some great injustice or evil. The problem is that in our world today, they're pretty hard to find. Unfortunately that's never stopped us from inventing them before and it's not stopping us today.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday September 11 2017, @08:22PM (4 children)
Why do people mascaraed as black? It does not seem any more strange to fake your race than it is to fake your orientation.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @08:46PM (3 children)
Mascerated? Teeth?
Mascara-ed? Eyes?
Mis-carried? Babies?
Not sure what the Parent is trying to say.
(Score: 3, Funny) by requerdanos on Monday September 11 2017, @09:16PM (2 children)
It could also be masquerade [oxforddictionaries.com], which has, among others, meanings of "A masked ball" and "The wearing of disguise."
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday September 11 2017, @10:25PM (1 child)
Of course it was. I see that the AC's masquerade of feigned confusion was excessively effective. Grammar Nazis are getting subtle.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday September 11 2017, @11:06PM
Yeah, that's sort of the idea, I guess.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday September 11 2017, @09:24PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:12AM (1 child)
Only if you think them going "looks like our death-squads missed some" is amusing.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:26AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @06:42PM (40 children)
I think this is quite telling of our future. In the end people will likely be able to be remotely profiled for everything from political views, to IQ, to sexuality, and more. This is already certainly happening in the digital age, but we're at least somewhat complicit partners in that game.
I wonder what the solution is, or will be. The issue is that people who are "undesirable" -for instance due to a below average IQ- are going to become vastly more isolated. It seems to me that we're likely to entering into a brave new world of eugenics. The only question is de facto or de jure? And while I'm implying it will be somewhat dystopic, need it really be? Imagine we allowed every individual in the world to opt into a irreversible sterilization in exchange for let's say $10,000. I think many in the groups that are likely to be increasingly disadvantaged in the future we're headed towards would opt in. And this would ideally help them to make a better life for themselves in the mean time, or -at worst- simply have some fun. That payment would also likely be not only free but actually earning money from the perspective of the government paying it. Consider the amount saved due to these individuals voluntarily choosing to not procreate. I would under no circumstance support any form of involuntary or coerced system.
For those that are unaware, IQ is very strongly heritable. A good upbringing can help elevate an individuals childhood relative IQ, but a peculiar and well known aspect of intelligence is that as we reach adulthood our IQ is primarily decided by genetics regardless of our childhood IQ. This [wikipedia.org] study is something that radically changed my views on this topic and also made me decide I would never adopt (after having previously been strongly considering it). A good privileged upbringing is itself sadly insufficient to change the cruelty of nature. Telling everybody they can achieve whatever they want is already a lie, and we're entering into a world where this inability can be judged at a glance. I imagine like most things we'll simply walk forth and respond as problems become impossible to ignore, but this is likely to end up more painful than necessary for all involved.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 11 2017, @06:47PM (20 children)
This is the end. This system will become ubiquitous very quickly, and as soon as it gets into the hands of a fascist government--and make no mistake, the US is on the way to fascism--that's it. It's over.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:31PM (7 children)
You mean corporatism, suppression of freedoms and promotion of the concept of total war? Hate to break this to you but Clinton lost an election last year on that platform.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 11 2017, @08:29PM (5 children)
And you think the GOP isn't the same way? Idiot. Trump is an outlier, but he's also incompetent and near-powerless. The establishment will eat him alive.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:07PM
I'm OK with that. But are they really so sure they won't be eaten alive in return?
I think that doubt is the only thing that has prevented them from impeaching him outright already. Between the Democratic and Republican wings of the UniParty they certainly have the votes to do it. I don't think they even have to prove anything "beyond a shadow of a doubt," the way you do in a court of law. They only have to have enough votes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:21AM (3 children)
And what would be the reaction to impeachment of the 'deplorable' 49% of voters who put him in office?
Statistically, they are much more likely to be straight-talking, straight-shooting, anti-government types than the weak lefty 'libruls' who want Trump gone.
Electing Trump was a great big FUCK YOU to the system that was continually screwing them. Take away that last hope and you might not like the result.
Also, objectively what has Trump done that is so bad?
He says things that piss off foreigners. = Ha, good for him, them furriners need telling to fuck off. #MAGA.
He tweets a lot of crap. = So what, who's it hurting? It makes them lefties scream, and thats funny.
He killed TPP and is putting US interests ahead of the rest of the world. = FUCK YEAH! #MAGA #MAGA #TRUMP-RULES
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:03AM (2 children)
Okay, Timmy, that's enough internet for you today. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)
My name is not Timmy, and failure to understand the truths buried beneath the funny in that post is what put Trump in office. If the left (really, the slightly less right) keep failing to understand, then Trump will probably win a second term.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:44PM
Pull your head out of the sand. Killing TPP was the only positive thing Trump has done, everything else has been a train wreck on the way to Fascitown.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:09AM
True enough, but didn't you notice they had the other guy whipped and in his place within weeks?
The elected officials that we think "run the country" are just public faces with little to no influence or power, and that's becoming increasingly difficult for even the dullest and least informed voters to miss.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lx on Monday September 11 2017, @09:01PM (7 children)
Nothing is over. No system of government lasts forever. Eventually every empire will fall. Remember this.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:26PM (2 children)
Corruption is such a pervasive cause. Our next iteration of democracy needs a much more robust system of error correction/corruption elimination.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday September 11 2017, @09:30PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:46PM
But but tyranny of the majority!!
lawl
It is always possible for society to go off the rails, make really bad decisions. I for one would be much more comfortable with a more democratic process than the shitshow we have now in the US.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:04AM (3 children)
This reminds me of the common saying "all that goes up must go down". People who say that should be launched into an escape trajectory from the solar system.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:06AM (2 children)
Why? So they can die before they come down? How would that possibly make anyone better off?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "escape trajectory". If something is going fast enough [wikipedia.org] in the right direction, then it will never come down. Ever. If you add up the amount of energy it takes to go from the surface of the earth to the edge of the observable universe it is a finite number, and not even especially large. It's easy once you have that energy number to use the kinetic energy equation KE=(m*v^2)/2 to find out how fast you'd have to go to never come down. Wikipedia even has a list! [wikipedia.org]
Back to the point, I believe the post you're replying to intended that they learn physics properly before they use it as an analogy for anything affecting society at large. Suggesting that they take a one-way trip out of the solar system as an object lesson is (hopefully) hyperbole.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Touché) by deimtee on Tuesday September 12 2017, @06:53PM
To be pedantically fair, an escape trajectory does mean that they will die before they come down.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @09:06PM (3 children)
The US is already fascist, however there is still some lip service being paid to the concept of freedom. I think you mean that the people are on the way to getting so beaten down they stop pushing for freedom.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:20PM
I think somebody on SN pointed out the other day that the last couple of decades have shown us how little weight our constitutional rights actually have, given how the 4th Amendment was so easily jettisoned when it got in the way of what the Establishment wanted to do.
Alas, it seems freedom is not something that can be won, but rather is something you have to keep winning.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @09:38PM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:47PM
Have you noticed yet, what a surprisingly large proportion of them is progressive?
The big liberal/progressive split has been a long time coming. As a child of *cough*many decades past*cough* it's positively surreal to see how Rs are better at supporting civil liberties (however faintly and unreliably) than the Ds.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @06:56PM (4 children)
I wonder what the solution is, or will be. ... It seems to me that we're likely to entering into a brave new world of eugenics. The only question is de facto or de jure? And while I'm implying it will be somewhat dystopic, need it really be?
You're wondering what the future is going to look like. "Gattaca" proposed one possible vision, though I think it was very flawed (why bother having the low-IQ people run around cleaning stuff when you can just build robots for that?). Personally, I think something like "Brave New World" is a pretty good vision of the future, except again we don't really need many less-intelligent people because of automation, but overall that society does seem to solve the problems of divorce, poor child-rearing, etc. However, the most likely vision of our future I think is seen on the TV show "The Walking Dead".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday September 11 2017, @08:48PM (3 children)
What is intelligence though? I don't think we've fully answered that, nor have we come up with suitable tests. If all we ever looked at was pattern recognition, speed, and basically mathematical and/or spatial puzzles, are we unduly denigrating somebody that could be a great artist?
That's my worry about a GATTACA style future. Parents selecting based on traits that are profitable and lead towards power. That doesn't sound like a future where we get the eccentric people that so greatly contribute to the arts. Would classical composers suitable pass the intelligence tests to be allowed to live?
I think they would make robots, and then eventually we would find nobody making new music or art. A world so dull, you would take the Walking Dead life over it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:34PM (2 children)
I sure as shit would take the Walking Dead universe, because I'm pretty sure I could quickly and easily outsmart a bunch of slow zombies: Construct walk-in cuisinart, lure zombies in, blend. Wash, rinse, repeat. Pretty soon, hey, no more zombies!
Good point about different possible futures, though. Is our end goal as humans to become profit-maximizing units to enrich some other asshole? Is it to reduce everything and everyone to some idealized archtype? A future where a pack of supermodels sits around drinking latte and discussing Kant seems a special sort of nightmare.
Me, I'd be content with generalized leave-me-the-hell-alone-ism.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday September 11 2017, @10:11PM
Yuuuuuuup!
Zombies are nothing when compared to people (as shown in WD).
Much rather deal with the Zombies.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:22PM
I sure as shit would take the Walking Dead universe, because I'm pretty sure I could quickly and easily outsmart a bunch of slow zombies: Construct walk-in cuisinart, lure zombies in, blend. Wash, rinse, repeat. Pretty soon, hey, no more zombies!
It's not that easy. (Disclaimer: I've never seen The Walking Dead, but I've read plot synopses.) You're looking at a situation where there's hordes of zombies, and very few humans left, and not a lot of food/resources for them. So the problems isn't that the zombies are smart and fast, because they're exactly the opposite. The problem is the other humans. Even in good times, humans are terrible at working together effectively, without people being evil and stabbing others in the back for their own personal gain. In a post-apocalyptic scenario, it's going to be far, far worse. And from what I've read about the show's plot, that's exactly what happens: dealing with some mindless zombies may be a bit of a challenge if everyone were working together as a well-knit team but it'd be doable, but here there's a bunch of people from different walks of life who don't trust each other, and a bunch of them are outright scum, so that just ruins everything.
A future where a pack of supermodels sits around drinking latte and discussing Kant seems a special sort of nightmare.
Sounds a lot better than what we have now. I'd rather have a future where everyone's a supermodel drinking latte and talking about tech stuff though; that sounds like paradise actually, as long as they're not conservatives or religious (which for some reason seems to have a high degree of correlation with tech). I had a roommate who was a philosophy major (yeah, I know...) and talked about Kant all the time. No thanks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 11 2017, @07:14PM (12 children)
"a brave new world of eugenics"
Eugenics has a bad name, because of historical abuses. However, humanity does have a problem: we are currently seeing the opposite of eugenics. IQ correlates strongly with economic success: on an individual level [sciencedaily.com], within countries and among countries. Economic success, in turn correlates with lower reproductive rates - this appears to be a societal artifact, but a strong one. The most economically successful individuals and groups reproduce below replacement level. Meanwhile, the poorest and least successful reproduce far above replacement level.
I present you with the mother of the future [me.me].
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday September 11 2017, @07:53PM (5 children)
I was hoping to see a link to "Idiocracy", as it has a great presentation of the topic.
I'd swear that move is a documentary sent back from the future.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:39PM (3 children)
I always thought "Brazil" seemed the most likely. Idiocracy didn't seem plausible enough, because they still had a material culture that somebody had to know how to create. Then, I don't drink enough Brawndo.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:45PM (2 children)
My justification for Idiocracy is that widespread automation and stuff built centuries ago worked just enough to keep the gears greased. But it is a comedy so who cares?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)
Nah, man, it's a tragedy masquerading as a comedy. The key in understanding that was contained within the movie, wherein Ow! My Balls! was presented as a comedy, but its manifestation was tragic for its star when he made appearances.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:34AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:26PM
Someone has to post it. [xkcd.com]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday September 11 2017, @09:21PM
I am not convinced that's the reason eugenics has a bad name.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @09:44PM (4 children)
No, eugenics has a bad name because it is bad. Everyone understands the science, but it is inhumane. Immoral. Unethical. Wrong! Anyone who advocates for eugenics is literally pro-genocide.
Even without worrying about moral implications there are still problems with eugenics. No human can predict the full impact of artificially selecting specific genetic traits, and you can easily see the potential problems in dog breeds. Speeding up evolution can have unintended consequences and lead scientists / society into accepting more drastic measures such as major gene therapy, genome "cleanup", etc. In a quest for improvement we could quite possibly cause our own extinction.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:28PM (3 children)
I agree that eugenics is bad because of the potential problems you cite, but how on earth is it "literally pro-genocide"? Genocide is when you murder a bunch of people, usually because of their membership in some group like race or nationality. Eugenics isn't about murder, it's about controlling breeding. No one gets killed, but their freedom to breed the way they want is curtailed. There's obvious ethical issues there of course, but even if you were going as far as involuntarily sterilizing a bunch of "undesirable" people, it's just not the same as sticking them in a gas chamber. Lots of people never have children, either because of choice, lack of a partner they like well enough, or especially medical issues. So your claim is like claiming someone is a "victim of genocide" if they got some natural disease that rendered them infertile.
Things can be really bad without having to make up false equivalencies and using wrong terminology about them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:52PM
Eugenics is almost always supported by racists types who love to use such "scientific" arguments to promote murder / sterilization. Even without the racism eugenics is aimed to destroy all "unfit" people, prevent them from breeding. I guess it would be possible for a humane and decent eugenicist to exist but I won't hold my breath waiting.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:59PM (1 child)
Forced sterilization of an entire target population is the functional equivalent of mass-murder, it just takes longer and is easier to swallow. This fact is not lost [blackgenocide.org] on the African American population of the United States. Imagine if racist eugenics had their way and forcibly sterilized every woman on the dark side of the brown bag test. In less than 100 years of having no children the population of dark-skinned Americans would be a rounding error statistically. This is not a theoretical issue, it's already been tried and stopped [blackgenocide.org] in the United States. From the page I just linked:
The women affected by the doctors mentioned above can justifiably be called victims of genocide. There's a very big difference between the few people who for whatever reason are not able as individuals to have children and targeting an entire population for eradication via denying the ability to reproduce.
I have to wonder whether there's an equivalent of Muphry's law for logical fallacy...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 13 2017, @12:35AM
I think I see the problem here. Here's what Wiktionary says about "genocide":
So I was going by the "common usage", but you're correct, the formal and legal definition means the elimination of an ethnic group, even if it doesn't involve actually killing them.
(Score: 1) by r_a_trip on Tuesday September 12 2017, @01:27PM
Yet Einstein was born to average parents...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @06:51PM
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.
I hate to say it, but that's because nonwhite Americans are, on average, much more socially conservative (and religious) than white Americans, and *far* less tolerant of homosexuality. Go read some African-American blogs about what it's like to be a black homosexual. If the GOP wasn't so obviously racist (and worse, allied with white nationalists these days), and courted minority voters using their shared socially conservative values, they'd be pretty impossible to beat in the elections. (However, the anti-gay white people seem to be much more extreme in their actions than anti-gay minorities, either using violence, or turning it into a big political issue, or making it issue #1 in their pulpits; minorities just aren't very accepting of it in their communities, but that's about it. Maybe they feel they have much bigger problems to worry about.)
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Monday September 11 2017, @06:55PM (34 children)
A fully operational gaydar isn't the worst problem for them. Wait until they can go prenatal testing. Will the 'gay gene' be as unpopular as downs? How fast will the LGBTQWERTY lobby become teh most stalwart Pro-Life organization in the country?
Sooner or later Science! (praise be to Science!) will answer the nature or nurture question and this current either, neither or both as politically expedient will collapse into knowledge. Any actual answer is going to lead to huggies being filled, just a matter of who is going to be triggered.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @07:04PM (22 children)
A fully operational gaydar isn't the worst problem for them. Wait until they can go prenatal testing. Will the 'gay gene' be as unpopular as downs?
Perhaps, but the question here is: why does anyone really care that much?
Not many people want a Downs baby, or a child who's mentally deficient in any way. It makes for a harder life, and frequently means you can never get rid of them, as they need constant supervision, and can never live as an independent adult.
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. In fact, many of them turn out to be extremely successful, and some industries would probably be far worse off if they didn't exist (such as fashion, theater, etc.). 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.
Of course, these days with so many parents being religious nuts (as the non-religious people aren't having many kids), I can see how prenatal testing might be popular, but those religious nuts also tend to be anti-abortion so I'm not sure how this would turn out. 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.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @07:49PM (16 children)
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?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @08:01PM (12 children)
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)
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)
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
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
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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...
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday September 11 2017, @07:57PM (4 children)
Why would anyone care? Does it really matter why? When we know that they will. The why only matters if we think we can somehow change their decision which I doubt we can. Since fetal selection is already a thing, it might be some sort of defect such as downs syndrome or it might just be that the fetus has the wrong gender compared to their preference. Technology in that regard will just give people more options to make selections out of.
As noted most people want "the best", whatever that is, for their offspring. They want them to have a normal life. We know that being a homosexual or being abnormal in some other fashion isn't exactly going to be smooth sailing. They, the parents, might be okay with their offspring being gay but large parts of society won't. It will be a thing they might want to adjust. Just like they might sooner or later be able to design their babies in other fashion such as why would anyone want a fat baby, or a baby that will grow up bald, or stupid or any kind of disease or defect etc. Then there might be the completely egotistical reasons such as them one day wanting to have cute little grandchildren. It's not like gay people can't produce that but it might not be the same for them since it's not done in the "normal" way. Not to mention the factor of "what will other people think!". A lot of factors beyond just the baby clearly influence or could influence the decision.
So they won't even have to be religious nutters, they might just have a desire for making things easy for their offspring. It they are nutters they probably don't even have issue with aborting or tweaking the fetus. It's all down to God, if he didn't want them to abort defective fetuses he wouldn't have made humans invent the technology to do it. I'm sure they can rationalize all their decisions if they just try hard enough.
Overall tho the story is odd, first of all there isn't a 100% sure answer. So the gaydar clearly have wiggle room. There is a massive slant in the testing images, only white american people cause they couldn't find enough images of gay people of other nationalities and races. All images from dating sites. One could perhaps assume that people there are trying to make themselves attractive to the kind of people they want to hook up with. Which might just enforce certain stereotypes. But over all computers are slightly or somewhat better at guessing then humans, humans seemed to have it down to about 3/5 while the computer brought it up to 4/5. It's not really a massive endorsement of the technology to just be slightly better then a human at guessing. Not sure if humans became better at guessing if it was more images, the computer became about 10% better if it got multiple images.
I recon one could even gay-it-up for a picture if one wanted to. It seems proper grooming is a factor, some makeup, proper lightning and such you might look totally gay (or not gay) in the eyes for the machine if you just wanted to.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @08:13PM (2 children)
They, the parents, might be okay with their offspring being gay but large parts of society won't.
Depends on the society. Large parts of urban American society really don't care, and in fact homosexuals are very well accepted there. (Of course, those places probably aren't producing many kids on their own...)
It's not like gay people can't produce that but it might not be the same for them since it's not done in the "normal" way.
From what I've read, it's not that unusual for homosexuals to have children in the "normal" way. Many times, they do want kids, so if they're female, well it isn't exactly hard to get a female pregnant if you can find a willing male.... And it's a whole lot cheaper than an artificial clinical approach. (Obviously, this doesn't work for gay men, who would have to adopt unless they can find a willing egg donor + surrogate.)
It will be a thing they might want to adjust. Just like they might sooner or later be able to design their babies in other fashion such as why would anyone want a fat baby, or a baby that will grow up bald, or stupid or any kind of disease or defect etc. Then there might be the completely egotistical reasons such as them one day wanting to have cute little grandchildren.
Now this part is a little worrying. What other factors are choosy parents going to select against? I foresee a future where everyone genetically selects their kids to be extroverted sports stars and socialites, and within a generation there's not enough competent people left to keep society's technology going, and disaster ensures.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Don't look now, but we're there already, without needing designer babies. Social programs and state schools did that job just fine all on their own.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:02PM
Don't be ridiculous. We have plenty of people going into STEM programs (maybe not as many as some would like...), and the pace of software development, as one example, certainly isn't slowing down. And there's plenty of people going into trades work (again, not as many as some would like) to do the hands-on work needed to keep things running. So no, we're not there yet.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12 2017, @11:08AM
Given that the dataset they were using seems to be exactly 50/50, that isn't slightly better, that's very much better.
A coin-toss would be 50% accurate, a human is only 10% better than coin toss, but a computer is 30% better than coin toss. Another way of seeing how different these are is to view their being correct in terms of fair odds - the human has 3:2-on odds (which should cause a number like 1.5 to appear in your mind), and the neural net 4:1-on odds (which should cause a number like 4 to appear, 4 being very different from 1.5).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Funny) by tfried on Monday September 11 2017, @07:42PM (1 child)
Good question, indeed. But also, how fast will Southern Baptists and others become pro-choice?
Yeah, but what if that knowledge just happens to be "both" (as I think it probably will be)?
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:25AM
Lots of lulz all around, no argument on that.
That would be my best guess as well. But when we reach a point where you get a report of probabilities for various outcomes, it will be interesting to see what happens when "gay" hits 50-50 probability since it is all downside. Gay gets ya lower odds of grandkids, higher chance of disease, higher rate of other mental issues, higher rates of suicide. Of course what happens when some of those issues are also broken out as line items. And what if you get "70% chance of gay, 80% chance of +2SD Intelligence"? Abort, retry or ignore?
We are heading for uncharted territory. And as others have mentioned, what happens when we throw in prenatal treatment options? If you get a 75% gay diagnosis how many would pay $X for a treatment that promises to cut those odds in half? Or what about something like bipolar, what would be big pharma's profit maximizing price for a treatment option? And what would those Pro -Life Southern Baptists do about these options that aren't abortion? What if they have a risk of death of the fetus?
This is a rabbit hole that doesn't really have a bottom.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:59PM
> A fully operational gaydar isn't the worst problem for them. Wait until they can go prenatal testing. Will the 'gay gene' be as unpopular as downs? How fast will the LGBTQWERTY lobby become teh most stalwart Pro-Life organization in the country?
I'm more concerned about janitors that'll have to clean up the headsplosions the religious fanatics will experience when they have to choose between Science! and gay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 11 2017, @08:32PM (6 children)
> How fast will the LGBTQWERTY lobby become teh most stalwart Pro-Life organization in the country?
> Any actual answer is going to lead to huggies being filled, just a matter of who is going to be triggered.
Go to Hell. These are human lives we're talking about here, God damn you. They're not talking points for your sociopathic amusement (now let's see if you respond the way I predict...).
I hope to fuck you reincarnate gay, black, poor, and female, preferably somewhere in the Sudan. It'd serve you right.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:40PM (4 children)
Let's say (hypothetically) that rather than abortions or embryo selection, the cure is a single pill. Gays and lesbians can choose to take one single pill and turn 99.999% straight. Not very realistic, but whatever.
You're glad to be a lesbian and wouldn't have it any other way today. But there may have been some moment earlier in your life where social/peer pressure, anxiety, or teenage confusion would convince you to take the pill.
That's the nature of the upcoming existential threat to the gay and lesbian communities. Society's pressure to conform combined with a working biological intervention. Some people underwent dark age style conversions or aversion therapy willingly and it drove them to suicide. If something that is safe and effective comes along, I guarantee that people will jump on it.
Then you have the parents. They are going to be presented with a lot of attractive designer baby options in the coming decades. Parents will have the ability to control or at least influence eye color, hair color, skin color, height, physical attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, and other traits. Using simple embryo selection, parents already have the ability to eliminate Down syndrome [soylentnews.org] and other genetic disorders. Who's to say that homosexuality won't be put on the list? All that's required is evidence that certain genes are likely to lead to homosexual behavior. Genetic population studies are getting much bigger. For example, the UK wants to sequence 100,000 genomes [genomicsengland.co.uk]. It's entirely possible that these studies could identify clusters of homosexuals without the need for these people to reveal their own sexual orientation to researchers. Thank the pattern-finding capabilities of machine learning.
While it is funny to think about pro-life conservatives grappling over aborting gay embryos/babies, gene editing may offer them an option that they are willing to stomach. Many other parents may readily choose to skip the ~2% of "aberrant" embryos even if they aren't wildly anti-gay elsewhere in life. Because embryo selection or gene editing is a literally life-altering decision that they will probably hide from everyone else anyway - including the kid(s).
If epigenetic factors are to blame for homosexuality instead of genetics, it might be a little more complicated. But I doubt that the "syndrome" will go "uncured" forever.
So jmorris has it about right. LGBT organizations will probably have strong feelings on this subject. If they don't become pro-life, they will at least try to legislate away designer babies. And if that happens, parents will just go to China, South America, Sudan, or wherever has the loosest standards in order to get the procedures done. The whole thing will look a bit like the cochlear implant debate [time.com], only turbocharged.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:19AM (3 children)
By around adulthood I came to the conclusion that, to put it informally, "haters gonna hate." Even as a child I could tell most people were more full of shit than a bloating septic tank in August. But thanks for second-guessing me! That TOTALLY doesn't get old!
And no, J-Mo does not have it right, because he's just sitting here reveling in the idea of people, any people, suffering. There's no depth, no consideration, no humanity to it; the man is a stone-cold psychopath and he delights in others' pain. Peruse his post history for proof.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:01AM
Who's hating on whom? All I said is that you or anyone else could have had a moment in their vulnerable teenage years where they could be swayed by a sexual orientation "cure". A lot of people question their identity or orientation early in life. And it's entirely relevant to the topic: cures or prevention of homosexuality. Facial gaydar today, genetic screening tomorrow.
I'd rather respond to the actual ideas in the comment, which I did in part, not the user's entire posting history and a psychological profile.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:09AM (1 child)
Azuma, I don't think that jmorris (in this particular instance) was actively wishing pain and suffering on anyone. That honor falls to you in this thread.
He was simply speculating on the mental gymnastics that may be required of some people when they encounter a position that may make them hypocrites. I can absolutely see a scenario where someone is OK with aborting a baby with a particular gene (Down Syndrome), yet is not OK with aborting a baby with another particular gene ('likely gay').
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:05AM
Yeaaaah, no, sorry, but when someone gleefully posts about people "getting triggered," filling their diapers, etc, that's wishing pain on them, and for the express purpose of enjoying it. Again, read the man's post history; this is not a well-socialized human being we're dealing with. I don't know where this zero-sum or worse view of humanity he has comes from, and at this point I don't care anymore.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:51PM
Uhh, I don't know if you know this but that part isn't so unappealing to people who are straight males in this lifetime.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:08PM
Isn't the popular theory that epigenetics is the cause of the gay?
Another angle is that an early intervention (prenatal or during infancy) rather than abortion could influence brain development and prevent homosexuality. A so-called cure for gayness. That's what happens down the line when you pin your identity on biological factors "out of your control".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Monday September 11 2017, @06:56PM (2 children)
Given the usual thrown-around statistics, wouldn't it have done better simply by identifying everyone as "straight"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:21PM
It depends on the site. That would work for match.com, not so much for Grindr.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:23AM
The test it is describing means one image was of a homosexual individual and the other was heterosexual. So the naive optimal solution would score an optimal 50% success rate - showing it did vastly better than random and also vastly better than humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:35PM (2 children)
That sounds like an ig nobel award. Just what the world needed an AI gaydar. That is a spectacular waste of time. What is the practical usage of such a phrenology based AI? To make sure racism and bigotry continue on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)
Take another look at the story. It's part of the bigger picture question of the origins of homosexuality. It's not about finding your next truck stop fling with better AI.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @08:09PM
I did read it.
Also, the study reports which areas of the face proved to be most significant for the algorithms in distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals
It is phrenology. Just with a coating of 'on a computer'. It is an AI gaydar.