> This is quite absurd. You think you can't know something about someone's gender from a photograph? Wow.
No, I'm saying that neither humans nor machines can determine gender solely by looking at a picture, no matter how well they're trained. There will always be examples they get wrong. The problem is not that the machines aren't as good as humans. The problem is that they're both trying to do something that's impossible.
And predicting at "above-chance levels" isn't enough. The article goes into great detail about how this kind of inaccurate prediction can cause real human suffering.
> No, I'm saying that neither humans nor machines can determine gender solely by looking at a picture, no matter how well they're trained. There will always be examples they get wrong.
This is irrelevant and dishonest. Don't go around making factual claims like something can't be done when it manifestly can usually be done.
No, I'm saying that neither humans nor machines can determine gender solely by looking at a picture, no matter how well they're trained. There will always be examples they get wrong. The problem is not that the machines aren't as good as humans. The problem is that they're both trying to do something that's impossible.
And predicting at "above-chance levels" isn't enough. The article goes into great detail about how this kind of inaccurate prediction can cause real human suffering.