from the can-it-tell-which-personality-is-currently-active? dept.
This psychologist's "gaydar" research makes us uncomfortable. That's the point.
Michal Kosinski used artificial intelligence to detect sexual orientation. Let him explain why.
By Brian Resnick@B_resnickbrian@vox.com Jan 29, 2018, 12:00pm ESTIn September, Stanford researcher Michal Kosinski published a preprint of a paper that made an outlandish claim: The profile pictures we upload to social media and dating websites can be used to predict our sexual orientation.
Kosinski, a Polish psychologist who studies human behavior from the footprints we leave online, has a track record of eyebrow-raising results. In 2013, he co-authored a paper that found that people's Facebook "likes" could be used to predict personal characteristics like personality traits (a finding that reportedly inspired the conservative data firm Cambridge Analytica).
For the new paper, Kosinski built a program with his co-author Yilun Wang using a common artificial intelligence program to scan more than 30,000 photos uploaded to an unnamed dating site. The software's job? To figure out a pattern about what could distinguish a gay person's face from a straight person's.
I hate the terms "Must see TV" and "must read" and similar terms. But, this article comes pretty close to "must read" for those who wish to understand where computer are going to take us. Especially read the conversation between Resnick and Kosinski - the research is not really about homosexuality, but about analyzing people in general.
Michal Kosinski
Exactly.
It proves to be uncomfortably accurate at making predictions.
We know that companies are already collecting this data and using such black boxes to predict future behavior. Google, Facebook, and Netflix are doing this.
Basically, most of the modern platforms are just virtually based on recording digital footprints and predicting future behavior.
Psychologists would say, "Oh, yes, that's true, but not personality. This is just pseudoscience." I'm like, wait. You can accept that you can predict 57 things, but if I say, "What about 58?" you say, "This is absolutely theoretically impossible. This is pseudoscience. How can you even say that?"
Science or pseudoscience, we can bet that corporate America and the government are going to be using this.
A smart person with a computer and access to the internet can judge sexual orientation of anyone in the world, or millions of people simultaneously with very little effort, which makes lives of homophobes and oppressive regimes just a tiny bit more easy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:16PM
The AI says you will spend your food stamps when you are shown targeted ads for fried chicken and grape soda.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:21PM (2 children)
It "makes lives of homophobes... just a tiny bit more easy."
Well, all we have to do is profile them, and post. You'll usually find that the loudest haters are just projecting their own "perversions". And the military, well! At least the American one is still the world's best dressed! Oh, but the Nazis, truer fashion mavens you will never find. I can't understand why they lost the war... Well, we did build better looking airplanes..
All your dictators are closet fags, actually they are just beasts. They will fuck anything in their path.. That's part and parcel to their power.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:28PM
Adolt Hilter loved him some Jewish anus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:03PM
See? For instance, with that "Troll" mod, you can see that the moderator is obviously gay, and is ashamed of it. Homosexuals are just as bigoted against the truth as everybody else. They are trying so hard to blend in. When it fails, they lash out in frustration. Homos can be among the meanest people on the planet. This is why people are repulsed by them. If gays were actually happy, they would get along with the rest of the world just fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:44PM (3 children)
So, "the only winning move is not to play" ??
While there are some photos of me on the web, I have not given any to FB, Google, etc directly. I suppose there is a chance I'm on someone's FB page and maybe I'm identified and profiled there...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:40PM
See you got that wrong. Because if it can be done, it will be done. Just you wait until the world as seen in Black Mirror s3e1 becomes reality and everyone has a mandatory social media presence for the purpose of implementing a reputation scoring system. Such scoring systems are already widely in use today, such as credit rating. You are participating in these because you are pretty much forced to whenever you do business with a bank. It's in the small print and as long as your credit rating never takes a nosedive, or a high-profile data breach occurs, you might not spend a second thinking about your data being perpetually stored and routinely queried. The extrapolation to general use reputation scores as seen in Black mirror seems logical and unavoidable. And for identification purposes, of course you will be mandated to upload a biometrical-grade photo of yourself.
You will play, whether you like it or not.
So either we quickly kill off all the homophobes, or your saying should rather be: The only winning move is not to gay.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:31PM
1) You are not given the option to not play. There are photos of you and they have been cataloged and analyzed.
2) Your propensity to not post details of yourself online is itself a highly-valuable indicator of which personality/future action category to slot you into.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:32PM
I don't have a Facebook account either, but I'm reasonably certain that Facebook has a me account. Even if I didn't know that I had friends who had a Facebook account, I'd suspect that they had an account for me linked, among other things, to addresses purchased from spammers. Facebook (unofficial?) representatives have occasionally stated their goal is to know everything about everybody. Of course, they also denied this..so you can believe whichever suits you. (I don't think it was the same person asserting and denying, so there could be internal disagreement, either in addition to or instead of lying.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:00PM
Interestingly, Ted Kaczynski [wikipedia.org] (pronounced the same way), became the Unabomber because he so feared psychotechnlogical developments like this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:02PM (11 children)
I never made an FB account nor ever want one.
It is now seeing a drop in usage. Alarming investors?
I like MDC have my own issues and stay outside looking in.
My family is my refuge. I am mostly happy which is huge for me.
Being into AI I sort of feel like I have joined the dark side due to the shear power of it
My thoughts are still leave these platforms as they are just ways to further manipulate/pacify you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:29PM (3 children)
Sarah Connor is on her way to your house with a sniper rifle. Stay away from the windows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:44PM (2 children)
Sarah Connor? [fanpop.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:49PM (1 child)
Sarah Connor? [jango-raid.ml]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday February 02 2018, @05:26AM
Humm...black page, white text, mystery links...The guys with the white coats with extra long sleeves are just about at your door.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:33PM (1 child)
Good news. Facebook has already made a profile for you and filled it in FAR more completely than you could ever imagine. Photos. Shopping habits. Browsing habits. Friends, relatives, acquaintances, airline tickets, DMV info.
If it makes you feel better though continue to deny the reality of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @07:15PM
Yep, I understand what a shadow account is.
However, why do I need to directly participate?
Knowing what you know about what it is being used for why do you?
By the time this 1984esque reality goes from benign (at best since we already know it is having negative consequences for people’s happiness etc) to bad I stand a good chance to be ash.
But my daughter will be in the thick of it.
Just hope the other side isn’t in power (not your beliefs) when these hounds are released.
Admittedly, all I really get at this point is my own private pat on the back. Little consolation given how I envision this going. But it helps me sleep at night nevertheless.
The strange thing to me is so many others, like yourself, see what I see and trust it fully.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:53PM (3 children)
No FB for me either. But you may already be tagged in FB because you may appear in photos with other FB using people, for example, at disney world.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @07:23PM
What about your FBI account?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:16PM (1 child)
That would require to have been at Disney world to begin with. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:44PM
I have a FB account - one without my real name. I use it to keep tabs on things, like snow and inclement weather days at work. I know that I've been tagged in dozens of photos, with my real name. I can't say whether FB has made the connection between the real me, and the fake me. I'm not offering them any assistance, though. They can just fuck off and die, for all I care.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 02 2018, @07:28AM
I'll add to it: if you can't abstain, troll the hack out of them. Present a false image of yourself, a non-sensical one if possible. Used to be called 'poisoning attack', now it 'evolved' into Adversarial Machine Learning [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:42PM (10 children)
This proves that the cause of homosexuality is in nature, not nurture. Facial structure isn't set by choice (unless you see a plastic surgeon), so it must be set by either genes or environment. Thus, attempts to turn gays straight are pointless.
On the other other hand, this may lead opressive regimes to decide that gays are irredeemable and do worse things to them than they otherwise would.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:47PM
This only proves that gay people upload different photos than straight people when the purpose is attracting a partner. Colour me surprised.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @04:56PM (2 children)
No, it doesn't. Note that it didn't analyse random pictures of the person, but pictures that person uploaded to the social media/dating site. That is, the picture not only tells something about the person's look, but also about the person's personality. You wouldn't update a random picture to the site, but one which you think gives a favourable impression of yourself.
Also note that profile pictures not only reveal biological traits, but also your hair style, and typically some of your clothing. The background may also be telling.
That is, if the system really does what is claimed, and not just on the training data. Remember, with neural networks, we never know what the network really learns.
There's the nice case of a system that was meant to distinguish own tanks from enemy tanks. It worked quite fine on the test data, but then failed spectacularly when applied in realistic conditions. It turned out that the images of the own tanks in the test set were all photographed at perfect weather, while the enemy tanks weren't, so what the system really had learned was to distinguish weather conditions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:03PM
The real test of your theory will be if an effective working AI Gaydar Camera can be developed. If so, and it is accurate on any random picture of a person, then the choice of picture uploaded would be irrelevant.
That would be an interesting experiment to identify if it is the selection of picture that is really what identifies orientation, or if any random picture of a person would identify that (and maybe other!) characteristics.
What about an AI algorithm that can identify from a photo whether a person is likely to be a serial killer?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:04PM
The tank thing's an urban legend, though it remains a useful way of illustrating some of the limitations. As best as various investigators have been able to tell, it was merely a possibility that was discussed.
https://www.gwern.net/Tanks [gwern.net]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:48PM (1 child)
Two sibling replies state that this does not prove what it says. Let me quote from TFA . . .
This would suggest it has nothing to do with the photo one self selects to upload to a dating website.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 01 2018, @08:53PM
I might encourage you to read some critiques of the study's interpretation and conclusions here [medium.com]. There have been responses to these criticisms too, but if you read this stuff, it becomes much less clear-cut.
For example, the study claims a 71% success rate on female faces for determining homosexuality. The critical response I linked above showed that they could achieve a 63% success rate just by creating a naive algorithm on the basis of whether a woman wears eyeshadow. (Lesbians apparently are statistically less likely to wear eyeshadow.)
If they include sex more yes/no questions about presentation (“Do you ever use makeup?”, “Do you have long hair?”, “Do you have short hair?”, “Do you ever use colored lipstick?”, “Do you like how you look in glasses?”, and “Do you work outdoors?”), they increased the success rate of their simplistic algorithm to 70%, which is nearly identical to the performance of the algorithm based on a photo. Note that all of these questions are based on superficial characteristics that have nothing to do with "innate" facial features, but rather are about stylistic or cultural choices: the first four obviously are superficial things that would influence a photo appearance. Lesbians are apparently more likely to wear glasses. And the "outdoors" question comes from the fact that a poll showed those with homosexual interests had a slightly less likely chance of working outdoors, which correlated with paler skin... i.e., whether they had a "tan" or not. (The study authors from TFA had suggested a difference in skin color for homosexuals due to hormones, but it might have simpler origins...)
That link also notes that in some other studies involving photos taken in controlled lab conditions (same angle, same lighting, no glasses consistently, no make-up), previous AI algorithms basically dropped to chance in terms of ability to predict homosexuality.
That doesn't deny that there couldn't be SOME level of judgment based on facial characteristics that are more "innate" in homosexuals. But it seems there's a pretty strong component of these judgments that could be based on superficial characteristics, style choices, and "social signaling" in the way photos are chosen (lighting, angle, pose, etc.).
Let the authors repeat their study with lab controlled photos taken under the same lighting, pose, and other superficial characteristics controlled for. Then we can reevaluate how strong their claims that their algorithm is picking up on fundamental aspects of facial structure (perhaps determined by more basic physiological characteristics like hormones, etc.) are.
(Note, by the way, that there's good reason to be suspicious of such claims. There is a VERY long history in science of trying to identify various "degenerates" based on basic physical characteristics. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries this was particularly pronounced, with lots of scientists claiming to be able to identify those with criminal disposition, homosexuals, etc. just by measuring various elements of their heads or bodies. These sorts of studies were often praised by eugenicist movements, which even forced sterilization on some such individuals with such defining characteristics. I'm NOT being alarmist here -- I'm just noting that there are still those who want to claim homosexuals are "degenerate" in some way, and they'd love physical data proving they are different in measurable, perceptible ways. And maybe they are... maybe there are some basic physical characteristics that can make the difference. But this study hasn't really met the bar for telling us how much of its algorithm -- if any -- is actually differentiating on that basis... rather than more superficial characteristics of the photos determined by cultural signalling.)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:41PM
Actually, I *think* this is a reference to research I read about a month or so ago in Science News. The AI learned to recognized dress styles and hair styles, and similar things, not physical characteristics. And there was the comment that the photos that people upload to a dating site aren't random choices. It wasn't tested against random pictures. My guess is because nobody felt comfortable about walking up to a stranger and saying "Pardon me, are you gay?".
The recognized characteristics are likely to be something that changes as rapidly as hair styles go in and out of fashion. (I haven't seen a lime-green Mohawk cut in quite awhile.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:48PM
Nonsense - this proves absolutely nothing. You don't know - you can't know - whether being gay makes a mark on your, or the marks exist before you become gay. Which is the cause, and which is the effect? Worse, we don't even have a proven correlation yet - just a single study that suggests some of this stuff are correlated.
Science, or pseudo-science? If it's actual science, it needs a good bit more work before it's really useful. (Really useful, as opposed to other pseudosciences admisable in court, and government proceedings, such as lie detectors.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Friday February 02 2018, @12:00AM (1 child)
Two separate and interesting "not quite" comments:
1) The soy-boy meme where high soy consumption among people not genetically predisposed to soy intake (urban white males, perhaps?) results in very low T levels and increased estrogen levels and bodily changes to an aesthetic somewhat appealing to gay folks. Force feed a borderline bi male enough soy, the hormonal changes will push them gay. At least thats the "soy boy" meme. I only believe it about 60% to 80%, I think it more likely right than wrong but I'm not betting the farm on it. It smells believable in the sense that there's plenty of non-controversial science about amphibians and other animals where environmental contaminants can really fuck up their sexuality, and I'm not enough of a creationist to think human animals are magically protected from chemical toxins by some higher progressive power, so even if it turns out not to be soy, it seems realistic there exists some organic chemical out there that can screw up sexuality from the point of view of successful evolutionary reproduction.
2) Classic facial structure issue is fatty face vs skinny face. And there's a subculture of gay men who like the emaciated aesthetic, so you could do worse for an algo with something like bulimic level skinny-face is a somewhat higher than average chance of gay. We're talking about a game of small percentages here, not "all skinny men is gay" level stupidity.
I would be interested to know if the study corrected for hormonal imbalances and simple variation in body weight (so a subpopulation preselected of gay and straight 200 pound men with T levels around 800, lets say, with the implication the higher T means 200 pounds of muscle not lard)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @10:38AM
Anyone looking for a link between low testosterone in males, and high estrogen in males and females, need look no further than dairy products. Agrobusiness keeps the dairy cows loaded with hormones, antibiotics, and whatever else they deem "profitable". Milk and cheese is all-pervasive in the American diet, so you'll have a hard time avoiding all that.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:08PM (6 children)
If an AI can identify from a photo someone's sexual orientation, can other characteristics be identified as well?
Who knows, before you know it, we'll have AI's can can identify, from only a photograph, whether someone is non-white. This will be a boon not only to homophobes but to Stephen Miller, Stephen Bannon, and . . . well to be concise much of the Trump administration.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:18PM (2 children)
Smart TVs could ID gay actors.
Facebook could crawl the web to ID people's orientation. (Not that this is at all creepy. It's just that almost anything Facebook does makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @07:25PM (1 child)
or gay politicians. how about identifing lying politicians?
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Friday February 02 2018, @12:03AM
sigh, Kidz these days...
The source code for that function looks something like "return true;" for various local values of implementation language.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday February 02 2018, @12:10AM
If you recall the "coincidence detector" addon for chrome which was a minor scandal from a couple years ago, the marketing image for the addon was the coincidence detector displaying the wikipedia article for "neoconservative" and almost every name in the article was wrapped by parenthesis, what an amazing coincidence, LOL. Arguably that was a far more complicated technological task than analyzing a photograph, yet it was accomplished a long time ago by a very small team and wasn't really all that hard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @10:41AM (1 child)
Can an AI predict proclivity toward criminal conduct? We have a Minority Report situation arising.
Can an AI determine which of the many mental illnesses a person might suffer from? Bear in mind that shrinks claim that 20% (or more in some cases) of people are mentally ill.
The cops will love a tool like this, as will repressive regimes. And, NOT just for the ability to predict sexual preferences.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 02 2018, @05:50PM
Maybe not from photos. But I bet we've just seen the tip of the iceberg on the amazing things AI classifiers are going to learn. Maybe not from photos but from other patterns shared by serial killers or show patterns of mental illness.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:25PM (4 children)
One point of privacy is to evade bias. Seems many people hold a ton of unfair biases. In addition to the ones we hear about all the time, there's well known favoritism for taller people just for being taller. It's so ingrained it's in our expressions, as in "look up to" and "look down on" someone. Favoritism towards the more physically attractive is another bias we live with.
Employers have had to take proactive steps to reduce bias in hiring as much as possible, deliberately ignore some kinds of info about job seekers. Probably will see more of that as it becomes harder to keep private details about oneself private.
Another is bad laws, such as copyright. If no one had any privacy, the entertainment cartels could actually enforce their vision of artificial scarcity, engage in far more rent seeking than hey are able to now. As it is, ISPs are mostly on their customers' side on that one, refusing to link IP addresses to names. Without privacy, no one could ever get away with speeding or running a red light, no matter the circumstances such as that maybe the traffic light is malfunctioning and will not change, or it's a medical emergency.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:51PM
Landlords don't have to. And neither do cake baking shops.
And soon . . . there's a gaydar app for that!
If an algorithm can learn to recognize sexual orientation from a face, it won't be long until an AI can also recognize whether someone is white or not.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @07:28PM
This is a nice look into how our brain works. It covers some aspects of bias. It infects us all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:08PM (1 child)
Some Orchestra's have moved to blind job applications and ended up with a much more diverse Orchestra.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @12:40AM
Does that mean that all the Violin and Cello players won't all be hot sexy chicks anymore?
Bummer.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:40PM
I take solace in the knowledge that all of this AI code will be error-free, unexploitable, and based on rock-solid scientific inferences. Praise Jesus. Why, could you imagine people making decisions on things like employment, insurance rates, prison terms and parole, and well, just about everything based on incorrect assumptions, buggy code, and just bad, biased science? Madness! Thank God all of this data and these new AI systems will be in the hands of Infallible Saints!
Not only have we kicked off the AI revolution, we've simultaneously solved the problems of bad actors and buggy code! Miracles all around!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @05:51PM
Apple fanbois? It's a serious question.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by aristarchus on Thursday February 01 2018, @07:33PM (2 children)
Does not a submission like this, about a particular Soylentil's, um, issues, belong in a journal instead of the frontpage?
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:05PM
There's nowt queer as folk.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:54PM
ROFLMAO - what kind of mental gymnastics did you have to perform, to equate my person with your own? You really shouldn't stare into the abyss for more than a couple days at a time, before taking a break. You need to get out more. Or in, as the case may be.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday February 02 2018, @12:21AM (1 child)
Yeah for clickbait "they" have to focus entirely on who's bumping what uglies in the bedroom, as if any of that matters other than WRT getting lots of clicks.
What I'd like to see the technology applied to is genealogy. No shit my appearance has a resemblance to my ancestors based on the relatively recent invention of cheap photographs beginning about a century and a half ago. It would be interesting and perhaps less DNA-intrusive spooky for a site like ancestry to try to find ancestry hints based on pix. You could see a little hint appear on ancestry "Based on pix, Ms blah blah has 5% odds of being a cousin of yours" etc.
Now what would be cool is a further hack predicting based on pix of descendants, great-great-grandpa WTF probably looked similar to this fuzzy jpeg.
Another "fun" application, real world phrenology, why women with the number of eyelashes vs that roundness of nostril corresponds directly with the genes for breast cancer variant #246264 such that the problem with genetic discrimination in fifty years might not be corrupt employers stealing our used toilet paper or WTF to genetically sequence us, but merely look at enough pix of our faces on social media and they know the odds to five decimal places of getting skin cancer or some damn thing. I'm not sure if this is a "good" application but I do think its going to be an "influential" application.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @10:48AM
I like how you separate the goodness of a potential technology, from it's probable use.
Potential employer demands a photo ID - scans it - decides that you have a high likelihood of abusing drugs, and you never get a call. Worse, that decision goes into a widely accessible database, and you are simply unemployable.
There are one HELL of a lot of evil uses for this kind of tech. And, as I stated elsewhere, the ACCURACY is irrelevant. Just like lie detector tests, if The Powers That Be decide they like this tech, they will use it.