Yeah, but they claim 90-ish if they have multiple pictures
-
-
Replying to @gedankenstuecke
I've read v little about the author but what little I have read concerns me.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BodenLab @gedankenstuecke
Not that this matters at all but 50% is higher than chance. It's not 50/50 if somebody is gay. Gay people aren't 50% of the population.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The data was balanced, so I think 57% is not much better than chance. That was using their "facial femininity" feature only.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @o_guest and
If I were to pick out a flaw, it would be from doing 20-fold cv on a dataset of faces where total images outnumbers number of people.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ah, I missed that they had equal numbers of "gay" and "not gay" people. Nice catch!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @sir_deenicus and
The flaw isn't in the dataset really either way, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hmm what do you mean? I don't think it will hold if they took a larger sample, across subcultures and races.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I think it's inherently unethical researcher that doesn't reflect reality but either way is flawed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I def agree on it being unethical. But I was also surprised you could get gender from looking at 2D faces alone. That seems unlikely.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, they claim you can get gender too?
-
-
Oh, no, sorry, I misused term.
They did too (their gender (really m/f) predictor informs femininity => 57%) but that's irrelevant.0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.