When the human does it, it's because an artist has a lot of experience with faces and knows what they look like, and can figure out what face they can make based on the pixels that looks convincing to them A computer is doing the same thing
-
Show this thread
-
You can say the computer's "experience" based on "training data" is more objective and unbiased than the artist's, but it isn't The computer is just another tool used by a human or group of humans with as much bias as any of the rest of us
2 replies 9 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
This is the worst thing about how computers and the concept of "Big Data" can be used for "opinion laundering" Like instead of just telling you "This is my opinion based on what I think" I use an expensive machine to dress up my opinion and turn it into a fact
2 replies 11 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
Jury trials have actually been strongly affected by an expert witness showing a "computer simulation" of what they think happened rather than just giving a verbal description Even though the "simulation" is just paying someone to animate the verbal description
2 replies 11 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
How does the "simulation" actually add information? The computer wasn't there, the computer didn't magically scan the crime scene and build a 3D model of it All the data that went into the model just came from shit people said in the report in the first place
1 reply 4 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
And we've turned the computer into this Oracle at Delphi where we act like it's so smart it can create a realistic physics model based on shit from a police report we put into it to *prove* that a murder did or did not happen a certain way It's really disturbing
2 replies 5 retweets 54 likesShow this thread -
Like the vast majority of this Big Data stuff people try to sell you is a human analyst who already has their own opinion about a social phenomenon or whatever and then carefully looks for datasets and algorithms for interpreting them that sound like they match what they think
3 replies 6 retweets 53 likesShow this thread -
The idea that a computer is at all capable of answering a question like "How do Generation Z youths feel about Obama's legacy" is obscene, it's ridiculous But people act like doing a term search on Instagram comments or something can "approximate" this somehow
2 replies 2 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Technophiles are trash. Computers are real cool *to a point* and anything after is a disgusting mockery of life itself
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @its_so_soft
I just really want to die on the hill that computers even now are still only tools used by humans, "true AI" may exist someday but right now it's a distant dream, and everything in the world that's "computer-generated" is just human-generated with extra steps
1 reply 9 retweets 44 likes
That means whenever people treat "the Internet" as this amorphous digital God out there that just gives you information out of nowhere for free it's one big lie There's always a human or group of humans who did it
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @its_so_soft
A lot of credit for good stuff gets lost because of this But, possibly far more importantly, a lot of blame for serious harm is also dodged this way
2 replies 5 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @its_so_soft
This comes up right now in US constitutional law The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights explicitly gives you the right to "confront the witnesses against you" in a trial The witness can't be a camera, or a sensor, or an algorithm, it has to be a person
1 reply 5 retweets 22 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.