
Maybe there is hope for 2020 - jjgreen
https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/24/face_criminal_ai/
======
jaekash
Flagged to fix the title.

This is the letter that supposedly called it junk science:
[https://medium.com/@CoalitionForCriticalTechnology/abolish-t...](https://medium.com/@CoalitionForCriticalTechnology/abolish-
the-techtoprisonpipeline-9b5b14366b16)

The central claim that the title of the original paper would suggest is that
criminality can be predicted by using image processing (original title: "A
Deep Neural Network Model to Predict Criminality Using Image Processing").

This is the press release of the original paper:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200506013352/https://harrisbur...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200506013352/https://harrisburgu.edu/hu-
facial-recognition-software-identifies-potential-criminals/)

The response letter claims:

> AI applications that claim to predict criminality based on physical
> characteristics are a part of a legacy of long-discredited pseudosciences
> such as physiognomy and phrenology, which were and are used by academics,
> law enforcement specialists, and politicians to advocate for oppressive
> policing and prosecutorial tactics in poor and racialized communities.

The thing is though, either the claim of the paper is right or wrong, if they
can predict criminality with 80% accuracy from faces based on image processing
then it can do that.

So either they can, or they cannot. If they cannot, then challenge them on
that aspect of their paper, if they can, then no amount of "debunking" changes
it.

This seems a bit like some moral panic rather than a well founded scientific
objection.

If the claim is true, would it not be better to know the truth? Why should we
hide claims about fact? If the claim about fact is wrong then it is wrong, no
need to hide it, just say it is wrong. If it is right it is right, I really
don't get the need for moral outrage here.

------
jjgreen
Full title: Maybe there is hope for 2020: AI that 'predicts criminality' from
faces with '80% accuracy, no bias' gets in the sea; Springer ditches paper
from research tome after mass protest by boffins over junk science

~~~
dredmorbius
2nd part of title would be preferable to the 1st which you've used here.

~~~
jjgreen
Just trying to follow the site guidelines, The Reg' makes that hard, hence the
explanatory comment ...

~~~
dredmorbius
There's some interpretation allowed, even encouraged. The goal seems to be to
stick with _something_ from the source rather than creating an entirely novel
title.

 _If the title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we 'd
appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do
X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful,
e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."_

 _Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or
linkbait; don 't editorialize._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

General guidance, from dang, 2015:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10597136](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10597136)

Reg example:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21277129](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21277129)

Long title rewrite:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16662989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16662989)

~~~
jjgreen
Ah thanks!

