Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gowld 2430 days ago
Why would you wait until someone is no longer a pedophile before deeming them ready for rehailitation?

Sure, one could grant that gay people on average are slightly more feministic, and criminals on average are more testosteronistic (as are athletes and law enforcement officers).

How do you define "work"? How is this information usable, even slighly, in a security context, overcome the completely predictable shitshow that it will create in practice?

You say "telltale", but that's not supported by the evidence.

> Israel has the most advanced airport security

Because they have highly trained officers interrogating people and searching packages, not running AI dowsing rods.

1 comments

Rehabilitation in society: most people do not want convicted pedosexuals who show no signs of betterment to be around children, just like most people do not want murderers released when they say to the prison doctor that they still have an urge to kill.

Work, as in serve as a double-check for a human border agent. If someone failed to correctly (as deemed by a reasonably accurate system) answer all 16 questions, I do not want to fly with that person, before a border guard has had a second look. This is how fraud detection often works: An automated system gives a high score, and possible explanations for this score, and then a human analyst can make a more informed decision.

Here are some telltale signs that someone is lying: https://parade.com/57236/viannguyen/former-cia-officers-shar... & https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-tell-someones-lying-b...

Model-performance based accuracy (both human and artificial neural networks) supports the evidence for efficiency.

> Because they have highly trained officers interrogating people and searching packages, not running AI dowsing rods.

These highly trained officers also sit behind a video camera to observe passengers. Do you think detecting suspicious behavior from video is AGI-complete? BTW: Isreal invests a lot into large scale face detection at its borders, has plenty of intelligent hardware devices aiding its security, uses statistics to skip a pat-down of a 5-year old Isreali boy, they track cars the moment they enter the parking lot and track the time there -- and cross-reference if this car has been near the border or power plants, they may (not sure) do social media analysis, like the US is doing now, the Isreali army unit Intelligence Corps 8200 is actively supporting airport security, the Isreali border patrol focuses all their attention on passengers, and not their luggage (why search their luggage after they've been cleared by a behavior check?), they use TraceGuard to swab clothes for substances, they have a similar Suspect Detection System called VR-1000 which automatically checks for signs of lies, such as profuse body sweat and eye movements, BellSecure ties up all sources of information on the web and in databases to get a better no-fly list, they track their own border agents with automated systems to spot opportunities for learning and malbehavior, WeCU also automatically checks facial clues, they have automated weapon scan systems, Vigilant's surveillance systems are deployed in Israel and the US and act as a digital border guard and motion/gait recognizer.

What may sound like an AI dowsing rod to you, could actually help combat airline terrorism.

> WeCU Technologies (as in "we see you") is a technology company based in Israel that is developing a "mind reading" technology for the purpose of detecting terrorists at airports. The company's products evaluate reactions to specific images for indications that someone is a potential threat.

> The technology involves projecting an image that only a terrorist would be likely to recognize onto a screen. The idea is that people always react when they see a familiar image in an unexpected location. For example, if a person unexpectedly saw an image of their own mother on the screen, their face and body would react. For the terrorist detection, the people passing by the screen would be monitored partly by humans, but mostly by hidden cameras or sensors that are capable of detecting slight increases in body temperature and heart rate. Other detection devices, which are more sensitive and currently under development, could be added later.

>> Here are some telltale signs that someone is lying: https://parade.com/57236/viannguyen/former-cia-officers-shar.... & https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-tell-someones-lying-b....

That is all bunkum as evidenced by the sources quoted (business insider?).

Just to hand-pick an example I find particularly egregious - that touching one's face is a sign of lying. This guy would disagree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlmNqwEhGIk

(Zizek ticking)

No the sources are from CIA and FBI agents trained in interrogation and spotting lies (and wanting to sell their books, like researchers want their research read). One of the agents used these signs to know that Timothy McVeigh was lying. They also give a counter to your hand-pick: Observe the person when they are not lying/natural environment, note any ticks, and discount these when interrogating.

Place your lead hand thumb on your cheek and two fingers on your chin and imagine you are talking to someone standing one meter from you. Do you feel sincere?

There is plenty of research that show that lie detection is not all bunkum, and that techniques such as cognitive overloading help catch lies and lower defenses (which need focus and don't come naturally to most people).

>> Place your lead hand thumb on your cheek and two fingers on your chin and imagine you are talking to someone standing one meter from you. Do you feel sincere?

I really can't think of anything I could do that could make me feel insincere when I was being sincere. This sounds a bit like the discredited claims about power-posing, or smiling to feel better etc.

I'm sorry but I really think you're letting yourself be taken in by some extraordinarily shoddy science and by the pseudo-scientific claims of people who are either engaging in magickal thinking and really believe they can "tell when you're lying" or just charlatans trying to take advantage of the naivete of others.

> I'm sorry but I really think you're letting yourself be taken in by some extraordinarily shoddy science and by the pseudo-scientific claims of people who are either engaging in magickal thinking and really believe they can "tell when you're lying" or just charlatans trying to take advantage of the naivete of others.

Did you win the Putnam?