Computers Can Now Predict Sexuality? | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Computers Can Now Predict Sexuality?

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

Researchers have actually created a kind of artificial intelligence that can determine whether or not a person is gay or straight. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, talk about. Inform us just what you believe in the remark section listed below.

Learn more here:

" Expert system could currently inform whether you are gay or straight merely by evaluating an image of your face.

Two Stanford College researchers have actually reported startling precision in anticipating sexual preference utilizing computer system technology.

Dr. Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang, whose research will be published by the Journal of Character and also Social Psychology, claim that AI can compare the face of a heterosexual man and a homosexual man in 81 percent of situations. For females, the anticipating accuracy is 71 percent." *.

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian.

Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian.

***.

The Largest Online News Show in the Globe. Held by Cenk Uygur and also Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Subscribe to The Young Turks on YouTube:.

Like The Young Turks on Facebook:.

Comply with The Young Turks on Twitter:.

Get TYT Merch:.

Download audio and video of the complete 2 hour show on-demand + the members-only blog post video game show by becoming a member at. Your membership supports the day to day procedures as well as is vital for our continued success as well as development.

Young Turk (n), 1. Youthful progressive or anarchical member of an institution, movement, or political event. 2. A young adult that rebels against authority or social assumptions.( American Heritage Dictionary).

Share Your Comments

27 comments

  1. Posted by aaronpolitical, at Reply

    GAYDAR IS REAL

  2. Posted by Victor Escamilla jr, at Reply

    Literal gay-dar

  3. Posted by TheTheddi, at Reply

    That’s not a high accuracy. You get a 90% accuracy by simply defaulting the result to be straight, since about 90% of all people are straight (or bi).
    Also, i don’t know how much of the factors included there come from cultural factors (like hairstyle, makeup etc) and how much from biological factors (facial structure, height etc.). And also i don’t know how the results would change if homosexuality wasn’t somewhat of a taboo in our culture.

  4. Posted by BlazingShade, at Reply

    😂 *BENDER WAS RIGHT!!!! HE DID HAVE GAYDAR!!!* 😂

  5. Posted by NickTheGreatAndPowerful, at Reply

    A literal gaydar.

  6. Posted by NelC, at Reply

    I can predict sexuality with 90% accuracy from no photos at all. Just label them all straight, job done.

    I know it’s math and probability, but you can surely do a better job of reporting the story than this. What’s the rate of false ID for _each_ of the populations? If it’s 10% for each that’s a different story to falsely IDing straights 9% of the time and getting 90% of the gays wrong, or getting 0% of straights wrong and 100% of gays right. And that’s leaving aside the methodology of testing their results; how many of the so-called straights identified are actually in the closet? How many of the training photos used can be confirmed to be straight or gay? How well does it work outside mainstream American society? Does it give the same results with European populations? Chinese?

  7. Posted by TomasHuxley, at Reply

    it has not yet been published in a peer review journal, so it’s rubbish so far
    And even if it was, the researchers used only photos of white people taken from a dating app. So there’s this bias already.
    Anyway, the ideia of this research by itself is a step backwards. This type of association must remain in the dark age along with phrenology. it doesnt take long for the subject to shifts from sexuallity to criminality

    • Posted by Jeremy S, at Reply

      Tomas, I’m pretty sure behavioural adaptations are a thing. So this specific study aside, there must be some link between biology and behaviour even if there is no significant variation within a species. For example, don’t mirror neurons increase your chances of expressing empathetic behaviour? This study also looked at hair which is something that is affected by behaviour. Anyway, I’m not defending the study, just pointing out hour your criticisms aren’t very compelling. NelC made much better points.

    • Posted by TomasHuxley, at Reply

      Behavioural adaptations can be a thing for sure. But this is a very complex subject. One factor that makes aware of this kind of analysis is the panadaptation. This is a commom mistake, the notion that every aspect of the organism is the result of natural selection and evolutive pressure. And this is just not true.

      I consider behaviour as an episystemic phenomenon, it emerges from the relation between multiple systems, in a way that linear predictions are not adquate at all. This is one reason why I think is very problematic to relate behaviour, a complex multi systemic phenomena, to linear simple factors…such as anatomy.

      To say that face anatomy predictis behavior you have to show how. Just finding some spurious fortute correlations is bad lazy science (if science at all).

      and take a look at the biased sample of these fools! this is very bad. And these commom sense conclusions like the gender neutral features. this is really shitty stuff

  8. Posted by Nienna Tromlin, at Reply

    wait till the insurance companies get hold of this software

  9. Posted by David Carozza, at Reply

    Real life gaydar 😂

  10. Posted by Mysterious Middle East, at Reply

    How about bi people?

    • Posted by pookiewood, at Reply

      Same question!

    • Posted by takfreak11, at Reply

      Gaydar.exe has stopped working.

  11. Posted by Reid Murff, at Reply

    lol at how uncomfortable Cenk is when almost accidentally said that lesbians are more likely to have short haircuts than straight women.

  12. Posted by 01man01truck, at Reply

    Its here.. Its finally real. A GAYDAR!

  13. Posted by Hezekiah Ramirez, at Reply

    The fact that so many people here are just uncritically accepting this as fact really does show how irresponsible the reporting is. TYT does this pretty regularly. They read a poorly reported article that portrays a study or experiment in a simplistic and misleading way and just go ahead and repeat the claims so the audience who largely doesn’t know better accepts them. It’s not all your fault if you don’t know how to evaluate these things critically. We don’t teach that in schools. It is, however, the fault of the people reporting it to do their best not to mislead their audience.

    • Posted by reck829, at Reply

      Well said.

    • Posted by Donny Tinyhands, at Reply

      Lmao this is the internet. TYT audience is actually very well educated, but at the end of the day, it is not their job to present you every angle of every argument. That is what your brain is for, critical thinking among other things.

    • Posted by Hezekiah Ramirez, at Reply

      Nobody is talking about representing every angle. It’s about basic responsibility. Not all of us know enough to pick out the bullshìt. The solution is not “hey, it’s all on you.” That’s how Republicans think. Media has an effect and misleading an audience is an abdication of very real responsibility. That’s why Faux News is harmful. Even well-educated people don’t always know enough to smell BS. That’s why this comment section looks like it does.

    • Posted by Donny Tinyhands, at Reply

      Which is why I emphasized critical thinking. If you can think critically then one would already know to not take the first source as the end all be all.

  14. Posted by loyd webber, at Reply

    Gender atypical features?  This algorithm is made to detect likely flamboyant queers and butch dykes.

  15. Posted by Art Murray, at Reply

    OK this is interesting but how did the AI compare to human predictive accuracy?

  16. Posted by sagely Demonologist, at Reply

    Computers are now smart enough to know where you stick the cucumber.

  17. Posted by JM, at Reply

    80% right is what racist cops will tell you is their anecdotal *rate of sucess following their prejudices.* This is not science but BS of the same caliber Nazis did in their days. Here’s a question to the scientific minds: *Isn’t it possible that a psychological pattern can be, at least partly, triggered by our human made stereotypes (now fed into computers) pushing a young person in a specific direction?* What’s next? Showing the computer pictures of persons with difference racial features and attire will statistically result in pointing out a certain percentage who rightly have been on the wrong side with the law.. See where this is disgusting type of pseudo-science leads? Don’t be an adoring science-worshiper.

  18. Posted by austin addision, at Reply

    I think the nose was rowanda

  19. Posted by KendrixTermina, at Reply

    That’s probably how gaydars work XD

    I wonder if you could increase the accuracy by also including ace or bi/pan people. Would bi people be in-between the gay & hetero ones, or show a dfferent pattern altogether?