| that's the wrong attitude. That would be like a layman hearing someone say "general AI isn't possible, their claims are bollocks" and someone responding with "maybe that's true, but do you have a background in general AI?". And this attitude causes things like police to arrest the wrong person because they don't understand the limits of machine learning. I don't need to be an expert to simply say this is problematic and shouldn't be used. YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. We need more skepticism, not less. But to answer your question, I understand biology well enough to understand the challenges involved here. But you don't even need that to understand the problem. In their marketing photo's, they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That by itself is all you need to understand how low the applicability of this is. Just imagine a police officer arresting someone who was bald and sort of looked like the criminal because this algorithm chose to render them as bald. People aren't NEARLY good enough at being able to identify a _STRANGER_ with a radically different hairstyle to be trusted with this. |
> YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used.
Trying to offload onto ME the validating of YOUR claim is wrong. You claim, you back it up. Not me.
> We need more skepticism, not less.
Oh sure! But skepticisim isn't denial. You denied, calling it 'magic'. You back it up, with stats and science, not namecalling.
> they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That
I'm not stupid, I noticed that too. And I'm not stupid, I'm not going to put any faith into this until some value is shown, scientifically not via the marketing department. Don't assume I do.