[HN Gopher] How normal am I?
___________________________________________________________________
How normal am I?
Author : un_montagnard
Score : 492 points
Date : 2022-07-05 05:46 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hownormalami.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hownormalami.eu)
| davidkuennen wrote:
| Very educational. Well done.
| kyawzazaw wrote:
| If anyone is interested on similar type of anthropology studies,
| check out Qoves Studio. (They also have a similar website and
| also a paid service by actual persons w/ experience and degrees.)
|
| https://qoves.com
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnlvhYDQLq4d_C3JYEVnWAQ
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Beauty less than normal, sigh
| Bromeo wrote:
| I think many people commenting on the model making bad
| predictions are missing the point. The speaker argues that even
| though models are known to be inaccurate, companies like tinder
| or insurance companies might still use the model outputs since
| they have nothing better. Therefore, in some future (or already
| today?) you can suffer from bad model predictions because you are
| "not normal enough" for the model to make good predictions, and
| might therefore receive a wrong predicted life expectancy and
| higher insurance bills.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| This isnt an usolvable problem though since you can calculate
| the strength of model fit for a particular data point. You
| learn how to do this with linear models in stat 101 so everyone
| who is paid to be a datascientist will no doubt understand
| this.
| Bromeo wrote:
| Unfortunately the theory for linear models does not translate
| easily to deep learning based models, which this demo is
| based on. The "strength of model fit" becomes much more
| complicated and is an active field of deep learning research.
| canaus wrote:
| It might not be an unsolvable problem, but it is a problem
| that is apparent currently in the technologies that we use.
| aendruk wrote:
| Already experiencing this with automated fraud detection
| systems. Excessive captchas, "there was a problem with your
| order", unexplained 403s, etc.
| hinkley wrote:
| Credit already works this way.
| car_analogy wrote:
| > you can suffer from bad model predictions
|
| This is the _worst_ anti-surveillance argument. The last thing
| I want is to be accurately predicted. As far as I 'm concerned,
| once the models are perfected and they can accurately predict
| everything you will do or say, things will be far worse.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Insurance companies hire very smart actuaries... and thus
| currently use actuarial models. Actuarial models aren't perfect
| either. However, throwing them out to use one of these machine
| prediction models would almost certainly be a disaster for the
| insurance company. And there is currently a lot of competition
| for life insurance.
| cloverich wrote:
| If one of these models is on average better, then they would
| gain an advantage by using it. The problem is for the "not
| normal enough" folks, it may be _harder_ to remedy an invalid
| classification, particularly if there are no fallbacks or
| work arounds. I was cued into this once by an ML book that
| gave an example of a fraud detection company using an
| actually worse algorithm, because when it gave false
| positives it was easier to understand and hence easier to
| manually override. But if it is less profitable to operate
| this way, and there is no regulation around it, people
| getting falsely classified may be out of luck. That's where
| the discussion around regulation needs to happen, I think.
| lowercased wrote:
| Using this sort of data to enrich and refine existing data,
| vs throwing current stuff all out in favor of this newer
| data... that's what I'd expect (enrichment vs replacement).
| I'm fairly confident insurance companies have areas in their
| models where they know there's stuff they don't know. If more
| data can enrich their models to provide better accuracy, why
| wouldn't they?
| kqr wrote:
| The classic danger here is that it's very easy to
| accidentally overfit. What people tend to do when they get
| a perfectly good actuarial model and then hear that they
| can "enrich" it with additional data is that they start
| modeling noise. This is obviously not good to stay
| profitable as an insurance firm.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Perhaps, but the demo did not show anything an insurance
| company would not already know. But as a wider observation,
| financial products are already based on models even though
| none of them are perfect. Making those models better isn't
| really a bad thing.
| k__ wrote:
| lol, I got a beauty score of 5.
|
| Which isn't surprising, since I look like crap with that shitty
| cam.
| timwaagh wrote:
| It put me at 82% put my age at 20 (I am 34 and visibly graying).
| This was the project of a student of a local uni so I'm not going
| to put too much stock in it. But as student projects go it's
| pretty slick.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Heh. It got almost everything off. The only two things it got
| right were gender and that I've smiled.
|
| [?] Read terms - hah! I wanted to check what would happen if I
| don't tick the box. It let me through. I would've most likely
| read it otherwise.
|
| [?] Beauty - okay, I'm flattered.
|
| [-] Age - it thought I lied, made me almost ten years younger.
| I guess the model was trained to studio-quality photos, not
| what my camera had produced against a bright window.
|
| [+] Gender - yeah, it got me, I'm an attack helicopter^W^W^W^W.
| Just kidding, but yeah, the model had worked correctly.
|
| [-] BMI - it thought I'm overweight. I was underweight until
| very recently when I've started to work out and grew a bit of
| muscle making it to the lower threshold of "normal" BMI range.
|
| [-] Life expectancy - hard to argue about it, but it's probably
| somewhat off, because I've moved almost halfway across the
| globe.
|
| [-] Came closer - that was really weird because it thought I
| didn't, but I sure did. I've got at least 15cm closer, making
| my face from 1/4 screen tall to almost fit the it vertically.
| How it missed that is beyond me.
|
| [+] Expression - OK, yea, I think I've smiled. Not sure if that
| was at that doggy - I was mostly just grimacing at myself.
|
| So now it told me about my normalcy, I wonder the same thing -
| is that model normal, i.e. is it representative of what most
| people/companies why employ models like this actually use?
| ArrayBoundCheck wrote:
| It did the same for me, except I was 65% average
| jmckib wrote:
| Meanwhile I was weirded out because it guessed my age exactly.
| I'm also 34 and I'd like to think I look a bit younger, but the
| algorithm doesn't agree.
| mcv wrote:
| Same here. 48, but sometimes I think I look in my 30s. The
| system wasn't fooled.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Violently Average
| jzellis wrote:
| Apparently I'm just shy of being fugly and look seven years
| younger than I am. Which is kind of damning with faint praise,
| but in a dark room when I'm barely awake? I'll take it.
| wruza wrote:
| Has anyone tried sending non-face to it?
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| How cute is your butt? Let our 100% accurate butt inspector
| program calculate it for you.
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| Should read
|
| "How gullible am I for uploading my face to some random data
| harvester?"
| npwr wrote:
| No data leaves the browser, feel free to check it out.
| thegagne wrote:
| Similar to https://stealingurfeelin.gs/ which was created with
| support from Mozilla.
| focusedone wrote:
| 36% Normal. "Pretty strange, in a sexy way"
|
| OK, I'll take it.
| mtbkvc wrote:
| just realized i'm too ugly to even have an AI gf in the future.
| eye-opening software for me, never considered this as an option.
| hirundo wrote:
| This appears to be a modern variation of phrenology. That doesn't
| make it a hoax or useless, maybe phrenology was just analysing
| the wrong features of the head. But it should start with the same
| (skeptical) epistemic status.
| self_awareness wrote:
| It guessed my age wrong, my BMI wrong, it got the thing that I
| came closer wrong, it got my expression wrong, and my
| attractiveness, which SHOULD be much higher ;)
| rdrey wrote:
| Your username improves this comment :P
|
| I gamed the attractiveness model for as long as I could, trying
| different angles and glasses on/off and hit 9.2. If dating apps
| use a max() across pictures that would be great.
| CraftingLinks wrote:
| Average Joe misses the point of the site.
| NightWhistler wrote:
| For people worried this might be a scam: the guy in the video is
| Tijmen Schep and he's a privacy researcher and activist.
|
| I had the pleasure of meeting him a while ago and seeing him give
| a talk about how companies gather data and the chilling effects
| on society.
| [deleted]
| isaacfrond wrote:
| Beauty score of 5.9 out of 10. Hmm. It may be average, but that
| I'm still a bit peeved.
| karolist wrote:
| 5.8 but scored 10 years younger than I actually am so I've got
| that going for me, which is ... I don't know.
| q-big wrote:
| > but that I'm still a bit peeved.
|
| You are spoiled.
| TheHypnotist wrote:
| I blame the laptop lens
| richrichardsson wrote:
| I don't recall if the score went from 1 to 10 or 0 to 10 (or
| even if they mentioned that). If it was the latter wouldn't
| that put you slightly over average beauty? Even if not, it
| could have been worse to be determined "less than average" by a
| machine!
| kurupt213 wrote:
| Is beauty the right word?
| bodge5000 wrote:
| I wouldnt feel too bad. It said I was 8.2, and looking at the
| camera view I highly doubt that, so its probably not the most
| accurate
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| 4.2. Well.
| upupandup wrote:
| i can see this easily devolve into affiliate links to Korean
| cosmetic surgery hospitals. "but you could be PERFECT with just a
| chin tuck here...rhinoplasty there etc"
| toolz wrote:
| lol, my score went up two points just changing to a different
| webcam, also can confirm this works completely offline
|
| guess I know which webcam I'm using from now on! xD
| mhh__ wrote:
| 56% of people were sad when looking at the dog
| dspillett wrote:
| Got my age to high, when in real life I usually get picked out as
| younger than I am. BMI was significantly off too. Can't argue
| with the not-pretty assessment though! Might give it another
| chance under better light later.
| kennethh wrote:
| Pretty cool to see it guess your age and BMI. Lots of interesting
| information. I also got the score violent average.
| agent008t wrote:
| Morpheus: I was a prototype for Echelon IV. My instructions are
| to amuse visitors with information about themselves.
|
| JC Denton: I don't see anything amusing about spying on people.
|
| Morpheus: Human beings feel pleasure when they are watched. I
| have recorded their smiles as I tell them who they are.
|
| JC Denton: Some people just don't understand the dangers of
| indiscriminate surveillance.
|
| Morpheus: The need to be observed and understood was once
| satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality
| with data-mining algorithms.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| "Deus Ex" (Ion Storm, 2000) ?
| Minor49er wrote:
| Yes, in one of Morgan Everett's secret rooms
| langsoul-com wrote:
| My beauty score is average, racist AI xD
|
| Also, very VERY interesting and informative project.
| memorable wrote:
| > You are more attractive than 0% of the Spice Girls.
|
| That hurts.
| pedro_hab wrote:
| It got a lot correctly about me, and put me at 92% normal.
|
| I wonder if you are too far off "normal" it won't recognize you
| correctly, eg age.
|
| It seems to be down rn
| karaterobot wrote:
| I was able to double my attractiveness by sticking out my tongue
| and squinting one of my eyes. Hold on for a minute while I update
| my tinder profile.
| shubham_saboo wrote:
| When prompted GPT-3 with this and asked to come up with a funny
| response, here is what I got - "I don't know, I can't calculate
| that."
| shaolinspirit wrote:
| wow, got 8. guess I'm not that ugly as I thought.
| tidenly wrote:
| I got a 7.4, but it went up to 8 when I changed the lighting. I
| wonder how much is based only on the face
| astura wrote:
| Are these real/standard algorithms? This site though I was 30
| years younger than I am.
| easrng wrote:
| Wow, got my age exactly!
| Taniwha wrote:
| mine was off by 40 years .... it said I lied about my age
| drexlspivey wrote:
| in v2 you will have to upload your ID to convince it
| tromp wrote:
| Same here, it underestimated my age by 31 years...
| jeffparsons wrote:
| When I saw that it said I lied about my age (it thought I was
| nearly 10 years younger), I wondered whether there was going
| to be another metric later about whether being accused of
| lying made you appear angry. I was disappointed by this one
| omission, but greatly enjoyed it overall!
| tristanperry wrote:
| Interesting for sure. The first time I done it, I had a beauty
| score of 5. I then put glasses on and got better lighting, and
| got up to a 7.
|
| It kept saying my age was 18-20, but I'm 32.
|
| Finally it kept predicting my BMI as 30+, even though it's 22.5.
|
| So it was interesting, and a pretty cool tech demonstration, but
| it wasn't too accurate for me.
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| How far is it from 'beauty score' to 'aryan score' ?
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| My Windows Machine has a weird bug where it uses the primary
| monitor as a webcam feed. Backfeeding that video gave me some
| interesting results.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/2bBVv4t
| Saint_Genet wrote:
| Almost got misgendered. I have long hair and shaved an hour ago,
| but still. Also, guessed I have a BMI of 20
| throwawayben wrote:
| It gave me an attractiveness of 9.5, and 5-10 years younger than
| I am, which has actually given me a big boost of confidence. How
| strange.
| mellavora wrote:
| I've heard that line works in any number of sales situations.
|
| And I have to say, thowawayben, that you are indeed one
| handsome devil. Please feel free to upvote my comment.
| throwawayben wrote:
| I think my inclination is to trust the algorithm more than
| any humans, which is the interesting part! It gave me a
| confidence boost far more than I've felt when other people
| have told me such things.
| swat535 wrote:
| Well.. Apparently I'm violently average, got a score of 7.5
| somehow.
|
| Oh, also I'm 60% better looking than spice girls (will certainly
| share this with news with my fiancee when she comes back).
|
| It also somehow guessed my BMI correctly (very close), I got 21.5
| score and my BMI is 22.
|
| Impressive work!
| kansface wrote:
| My face was not recognized. I have glasses, a beard, and some
| crazy hair at the moment. Non-faced is far less normal than I
| expected.
| albinoloverats wrote:
| Apparently I'm a sad 5 year old girl living in the US :-/
|
| Who knew? Because I certainly didn't.
| stackbutterflow wrote:
| Interestingly, if you click on the ToS you end up on a page
| explaining how it works (can't link it).
|
| _The beauty scoring model was found on Github (this or this
| one). The models to predict age, gender and facial expression
| /emotion are part of FaceApiJS, which forms the backbone of this
| project. Do note that its developer doesn't fully divulge on
| which photos the models were trained. Also, FaceApiJS is bad at
| detecting "Asian guys"._
|
| Apparently some dating apps rates their users with these sort of
| algorithms. Maybe I'm living under a rock but I did not know that
| was a thing.
|
| _This project has received funding from the European Union's
| Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, under grant
| agreement No 786641._
| schleck8 wrote:
| How does a patchwork of APIs and open source pretrained models
| receive funding from the eu...
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Here is the project funding information page.
|
| https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/786641
| gspr wrote:
| Indeed - I was also surprised by this. One possibility, which
| I hope is true, is that the authors are funded for something
| else (some actual research). If they spent a few hours of
| their workday to throw this together, they might be obligated
| to cite their funding agency.
|
| I know for a fact that I've acknowledged funding agencies on
| papers about topics that were at best extremely tangential to
| my grant.
|
| A less flattering possibility is that they wanna use EU
| affiliation as a badge for respect for privacy or something
| like that.
| JackFr wrote:
| > they wanna use EU affiliation as a badge for respect for
| privacy or something like that.
|
| Literally my first thought.
| tokai wrote:
| You have to label it clearly in your project if you have
| received Horizon money. It's a requirement from CORDIS. The
| funding is for the whole SHERPA project, not just for that
| page.'
|
| The first objective of SHERPA is to "represent and
| visualise the ethical and human rights challenges of SIS
| (artificial intelligence and big data analytics) through
| case studies". This page does that nicely. That it is put
| together with available resources instead of some over
| engineered solution is just a plus.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| This won't load for me. I assume its because I have a bunch of
| privacy protection stuff going?
|
| What is it?
| rayxi271828 wrote:
| I like this AI more than hotornot. The AI gave me 7.2 score,
| while at hotornot (this was... 20 years ago, at this point?) I
| don't think I ever even got a 6...
| kulhur wrote:
| Maybe both AIs are accurate and you just age like a fine wine.
| ksec wrote:
| Great website. Now I know I am not only average but a liar and
| ugly.
| Alducer wrote:
| very inaccurate generally, and the markers for eyebrows were just
| in random places...
| Saint_Genet wrote:
| I can't help wondering how the AI would judge the clearly very
| attractive, but not white lady on the front page of the link.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Algorithm says I am a 4.5 on attractiveness but also says I am 12
| years younger than I am. I don't know if I should feel insulted
| or happy. :)
| mhandley wrote:
| Apparently I'm also ugly, but I'll take consolation in having
| 81 years more to live. Sadly, that's probably because my age
| came out as NaN. I'll just take that I'm ageless :)
| hericium wrote:
| I'm mesmerized that so many of the HN crowd are willing to let
| some website take pictures of them in order to present some
| "funny/interesting results".
| muzani wrote:
| "funny/interesting results" is a lot better than the deal I get
| from Meta.
| altdataseller wrote:
| It just goes to show you that the vast majority of ppl don't
| care about privacy (FWIW, I used the site as well and didn't
| care at all, didn't even read the disclaimer)
| Accacin wrote:
| I'm mesmerized that you weren't able to validate that it works
| completely offline and instead decided to write a comment.
| sushxbehshx wrote:
| Joeboy wrote:
| There are already photos of me on the internet, which can be
| downloaded and analysed by anybody.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Yup. Though i am having trouble downloading what you did on
| the 29th of last month. Busy day?
| Joeboy wrote:
| I was spending the day dead for tax reasons.
| elzbardico wrote:
| I live in a big city where my face is captured in millions of
| frames by security cameras everyday.
|
| I used android devices, now I use an iphone, and I keep cloud
| accounts and personal photos backups with both companies. I
| have linked-in, facebook, instagram and handful of other
| accounts with varying levels of personal information.
|
| This cat is already out of the bag, and has been for quite some
| time.
| Moctogo wrote:
| Well, I apparently look like a 31 year-old to this AI although
| I'm 39, so I'm considered a liar by it (them/him/her?) It's time
| to rejoice!
| luplex wrote:
| I stumbled across this when it launched. Here's the talk by the
| artist that gives some background information:
| https://youtu.be/bp23r-Gtdkk
|
| Rather than talking about webcam permissions, I think we should
| talk about how much we use and rely on bad ML models. Dating apps
| might want to rate attractiveness, but we have no checks in place
| to see how we're being rated. Especially free open access models
| probably don't come with a thorough bias&limitations datasheet.
| nottorp wrote:
| Isn't this a dupe? Or I'm mixing channels and got it some other
| way before.
| [deleted]
| patrulek wrote:
| Almost perfectly guessed my age and BMI.
|
| Attractiveness a lot higher than i would expect (but still in
| range). Could be that attractiveness is related to age and BMI?
|
| Seems im not normal when it comes to looking at dogo (why people
| are so sad?)
|
| It was fun, NGL.
| w1nk wrote:
| Given the usual markers of attractiveness, wouldn't you expect
| age and weight to be strong predictors usually?
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| It was very "kind" to me, significantly underestimating my age
| and BMI.
|
| I never noticed the dog picture somehow, and I guess sad is my
| default facial expression.
| chris_st wrote:
| I think it's hilarious that it decided, based on the AI
| algorithm, that I lied about my age!
| xeromal wrote:
| Probably cause you're not normal meaning you look young or old
| for your age? I think that actually makes a lot of sense.
|
| I'm pretty basic and it guess my age exactly. lol
| nightfeather wrote:
| Same here. The algorithm can't decide how old I am so it just
| told I lied that I'm not NaN years old.
| pawelk wrote:
| Same here. I selected my real age and the algorithm thinks I'm
| 7 years younger than that (well, thanks I guess, but it is not
| me who's not telling the truth).
| [deleted]
| Pakdef wrote:
| atum47 wrote:
| I'm more beautiful using my laptop camera (6.7) than my cellphone
| (5.6). I was serious on the cellphone and smiling on the laptop,
| this could also have tipped the scales.
| atum47 wrote:
| Also, my profile gets a higher score than the front of my face
| (8.2)
| atum47 wrote:
| it also thinks that I'm younger than I really am.
| atum47 wrote:
| not gonna lie, I'll probably use this new information about
| my pictures to hack my tinder profile.
| atum47 wrote:
| ladies will be matching with a 8.2 only to find out that
| he is a real life 5, haha
| Nursie wrote:
| This is fun, but it got my age very wrong, the first run through
| failed to guess at all, the second run through it underestimated
| by 13 years.
|
| It underestimated my BMI a bit, though I am losing weight at the
| moment and my face does seem to be getting thinner so maybe
| that's thrown it, and generally it told me I'm quite attractive,
| so ... all good :)
| par wrote:
| It thinks I'm a lot skinnier than I actually am, and it thinks
| I'm uglier than I actually am. xD
| Poppys wrote:
| Seems to have been overrun.
| merpnderp wrote:
| I think the website has some bugs. The section results often
| appeared before the section finished loading and often the
| section video would never even run.
|
| Hope he can figure out how to remove the bad data.
| needle0 wrote:
| It underestimated my age by 15 years. Not sure if this is due to
| the AI being biased or simply inaccurate in general. (I'm Asian,
| and from the experience of me and others, Asians tend to get
| their age greatly underestimated in the west.)
| astura wrote:
| I am 39 and it estimated my age as 10. I am not Asian.
| fujiters wrote:
| I'm also not Asian. In late 30s and it guessed that I'm 7...
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Why not just upload a portrait picture? Why camera access to
| random site?
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's interactive.
| Marinus wrote:
| Doesn't detect the location of my face properly. Not sure if
| that's a good or a bad thing :-)
| dwringer wrote:
| This is what it did to me as well. Seemed to be picking up only
| the right side of my head, centered on my ear. I guess that
| means I can just double the number it gave me, right?
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Nice demo. It was off by a decade (thought I was younger, marked
| me down as a liar about my age lol) and obviously the beauty
| score was too low.
| jstanley wrote:
| I was initially put off by the webcam permission requirement, but
| the terms and conditions page says it's basically an art project
| and they don't send any data off (unless you explicitly accept it
| at the end) so I gave it a chance.
|
| I'm glad I allowed webcam permission because it was an
| interesting, informative, and fun look at biometric tracking.
|
| Apparently I'm "violently average" which is not a way I would
| previously have described myself. According to this site the most
| unusual thing about me is that I read the terms and conditions
| before ticking the "accept" box.
| avodonosov wrote:
| So you haven't even tried without the "accept" box. It works
| the same, BTW.
| richrichardsson wrote:
| I found that the most shocking. 96% of people who used this
| didn't read the conditions first.
| teraku wrote:
| It's skewed. I read the terms first, but then the website
| bugged so I had to reload. And then it said I haven't read
| the terms first. So....
| Morgawr wrote:
| Same, I had the wrong webcam plugged in and when I plugged
| the right one the website bugged so I had to reload. It
| said I didn't read the TOS but I did... oh well.
| maest wrote:
| That's lower than I expected, tbh.
| montebicyclelo wrote:
| > According to this site the most unusual thing about me is
| that I read the terms and conditions before ticking the
| "accept" box.
|
| I'd put forward the hypothesis that people who read the terms,
| and who are therefore concerned about privacy, are also less
| likely to be willing to agree to submit the data at the end.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| Same, but I think people generally over-estimate how much
| different from average they are. (It's from the webcam's pov
| anyway) Usually I also don't like interactions with the webcam
| but this was interesting enough.
| cambalache wrote:
| and now your face is linked to your ip in a db somewhere
| [deleted]
| Shadonototra wrote:
| I always find it funny when .eu websites for projects sponsored
| by the UE are all using registrar from the USA, and probably
| hosting all of their data in US datacenters, including code
| hosted on US platforms
|
| And who knows what they do with the sensible data they manipulate
| as a result
|
| How can this still happen nowadays, what a shame and what a waste
| of EU money
|
| It clearly shows their lack of direction, ethics and care
|
| https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/786641
|
| Total cost EUR 2 865 947,50
|
| What a shame
| tokai wrote:
| What are you on about? The registrar for the SHERPAR domain is
| Italian. hownormalami.eu is a minuscule part of the whole
| project. And it works offline so there nothing wrong with
| hosting it in the US when your data never hits their server.
| null0pointer wrote:
| Surprisingly fun, I'm glad I allowed camera permission for this.
| My favorite subtle detail was the username on the camera view
| updating to reflect the different bits of information it was
| predicting about you.
| tuxie_ wrote:
| Ha! Nice try, cop.
| tyiz wrote:
| Camera access? Nice try, bye.
| mywittyname wrote:
| This flagged me as lying about my age because it guessed that I'm
| 10 years younger than I am.
| iopq wrote:
| I am apparently 6 BMI higher and 5 years younger now
|
| But the way it tells me that is I lied about my age (I didn't)
| iopq wrote:
| My girlfriend is actually a 20 BMI 17 year old male (all wrong)
| fallinghawks wrote:
| For me it was 15+ years too young and also got the wrong
| gender.
| wmil wrote:
| It seems you can significantly reduce your BMI with clever
| beard shaping.
| kuu wrote:
| Sharing my face with my camera with a random website? Sure, what
| could go wrong... /s
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| They give a pinky promise, that they won't do evil!
| arisAlexis wrote:
| EU funded project, really not very risky.
| seanw444 wrote:
| > Government-funded project, really not very risky.
|
| No thanks.
| floodle wrote:
| I'm guessing you're from the US and the parent poster is
| from the EU?
| seanw444 wrote:
| Correct. I don't care which government is in question,
| though. None are worthy of my trust or data.
| tinco wrote:
| I work for a company that does projects that are
| sometimes funded by the EU. I've never heard of the EU
| ever asking for something in return. You submit your
| project, the EU either decides to give you money, or not,
| and you do your project. Sometimes they check whether
| you've actually done what you said you'd do. No one in
| the EU has time to deal with the output of the billions
| of euro's they invest in random projects.
| gmfawcett wrote:
| It's not clear if you're trying to make us feel better
| (the EU doesn't care about this project's data) or worse
| (the EU has ineffective oversight over this project --
| anything could be going on).
| Nimitz14 wrote:
| That's not true. You clearly have no clue of the
| administrative side of things.
| tinco wrote:
| Ah thank you for enlightening us with your treasure trove
| of information.
| opdahl wrote:
| If its a small project they very rarely <<check>> that
| you have done what you have done. A lot of it is self
| reporting. The reporting of course takes a while and you
| have to describes for instance your results, which
| wouldn't be too hard to fake but I assume very few do
| this.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| Worth it to be told I am more attractive than 100% of the Spice
| Girls.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Spice Girls back then or Spice Girls now?
| packetlost wrote:
| It doesn't specify, so I can only assume both and which it
| compares to depends on how ugly the user is.
| avnigo wrote:
| For the extra paranoid, I can confirm that it does work offline
| after you press the button and let it load. You can hide your
| face until it loads, and then cut the connection. Be sure to
| close the tab before you go online again.
| danuker wrote:
| Service Workers are a thing.
|
| If you're extra extra paranoid, use a disposable VM in Qubes
| OS.
|
| https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/how-to-use-disposables/
| traverseda wrote:
| Or just open it in private browsing?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Wait--service workers can keep running after a tab is
| closed?!
| danuker wrote:
| Maybe or maybe not, depending on browser implementation.
| They can be kept in memory if the browser sees no memory
| need.
|
| But they might store stuff to localStorage. Right -
| localStorage is also a thing. And so are cookies.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Or disable service workers
| Rerarom wrote:
| Don't we all have tons of pictures of ourselves online already?
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| No. This kind of auto-defaulting to "tons" baffles me quite
| hard.
| worthless-trash wrote:
| Observation bias.
| cynix wrote:
| Nope.
| mlatu wrote:
| not all of us ^^
| croes wrote:
| No
| Aleksdev wrote:
| N-not really...
| cambalache wrote:
| seanw444 wrote:
| Gonna pile on another "no."
| oakpond wrote:
| No
| [deleted]
| barbarbar wrote:
| No. Zero.
| mortehu wrote:
| Do you avoid tourist attractions and cities so that you
| aren't included in other people's photos? Even though I'm
| not an Apple customer, for example, I'm sure they could
| infer much of my movements from their photo database using
| only other people's photos (I live in a city).
| Joeboy wrote:
| Almost all, yes. The people who don't are obviously not
| normal, so they don't need the website.
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| I hope you're not diagnosing people for a living
| jalk wrote:
| But could be a fine statistician
| noisy_boy wrote:
| And by that logic, people who do are normal so they don't
| need to use the website either. So no one needs to use the
| website :)
| pawelmurias wrote:
| that's not how logic works
| [deleted]
| raverbashing wrote:
| Did you read the terms of service? ;)
| croes wrote:
| Do you believe the terms of service?
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| Yep, another magic spell akin to 'software license' that is
| supposed to dispell all evil.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| I believe that I verified it runs locally, even offline,
| not sending data to a remote server.
| croes wrote:
| At least for the moment
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| What's their incentive to change that _after_ the HN
| surge?
| [deleted]
| cal85 wrote:
| Devil's advocate here. What could go wrong?
|
| If you open a website in a fresh browser context and let it use
| your camera, isn't this about the same as walking down a street
| with CCTV cameras?
| RyEgswuCsn wrote:
| > fresh browser context
|
| I get your point, but I am not sure how fresh our browser
| context is.
| cal85 wrote:
| I just mean private browsing or incognito or whatever. It's
| 2 seconds away in any popular browser.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Most people have such weird and illogical views on privacy. A
| website collecting face pictures without anything else is
| pretty useless. Walking in to a retail store owned by a
| company using facial recognition on a huge range of owned
| stores is a serious privacy issue.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Face pictures and IP adresses...
| worthless-trash wrote:
| And browser fingerprint and operating system.
| toss1 wrote:
| And the bait on the hook is not a good indicator either -
| an appeal to a deep drive or insecurity in many people.
|
| Obviously not determinative in itself ,but if I wanted to
| harvest a lot of faces in a hurry, that's _exactly_ the
| sort of bait that I would use (I can hardly think of a
| better one off the top of my head).
| moonchrome wrote:
| So what's the concern here ? I'm sure I have plenty of
| photos of me online tagged by other people.
| Hellbanevil wrote:
| loopback_device wrote:
| Not useless at all, there are usually enough pictures of
| people on the internet with names, metadata, etc attached
| to immediately link and identify. Basically what Clearview
| does (did?). I would not be surprised if this was a data
| collection siphon.
| greggsy wrote:
| > I would not be surprised if this was a data collection
| siphon.
|
| Except for it being sponsored by Eu - home to the most
| effective privacy jurisdiction on the planet.
| jhbadger wrote:
| I don't think this is a scam/data collection site (as
| others have recognized the researcher involved, etc.),
| but what would stop a random website from claiming it was
| "sponsored by the EU"?
| djbebs wrote:
| The same organization pushing for mass surveillance?
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Easy enough to check using browser dev tools.
| nkrisc wrote:
| You have to weigh "what could go wrong?" with "what could go
| right?"
|
| The worst case scenario is far greater in magnitude than the
| best case scenario.
|
| Just not worth any risk here.
| slightwinder wrote:
| > Devil's advocate here. What could go wrong?
|
| Could be used for a scam, by a stalker, for social
| engineering, or several other evil ploys. Today, there are so
| many possible bad actions which are happening... On average,
| they are unlikely, but not impossible. And who knows about
| the long run.
|
| > If you open a website in a fresh browser context and let it
| use your camera, isn't this about the same as walking down a
| street with CCTV cameras?
|
| In my country, there are harsh regulations on public cameras.
| Private people are not even allowed to capture you outside
| from being in the background.
| Hellbanevil wrote:
| mcv wrote:
| Could be a scam, but the guy has a Dutch accent and talks
| about privacy, so it's probably fine.
|
| (I'm 54% averagely normal)
| cal85 wrote:
| Which country is that?
| slightwinder wrote:
| A member of the European Union, there are strong
| regulations for all countries here.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| web site has much more information about you that it can
| connect.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| A website can collect millions of faces in a few hours. A
| CCTV camera can only collect data from a single area.
|
| It's more akin to those spying doorbells from Amazon and
| friends, which I personally would try to avoid when I can.
|
| The concentration of data and the lack of necessity of your
| face being recorded in the first place change the decision
| making process significantly.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| It could use that to impersonate you in a mobile banking
| application through biometric authentication. It's getting
| pretty popular in my country (I think it's required by law or
| something).
| hiisukun wrote:
| Some interesting tidbits:
|
| * There's a sortof hidden/unlabelled button - did you press it?
|
| * Did you notice the nickname you were given, slowly building up
| over time?
|
| * Do you have resting sad face? Or resting happy face?
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _Do you have resting sad face? Or resting happy face?_
|
| Or a resting angry face.
| toyg wrote:
| It might not be the best at dealing with facial hair. I was
| smiling most of the time and it said I was sad and disgusted by
| the doggie.
| tinco wrote:
| It said I was said while looking at the doggy, but I think it
| was because I was trying to keep up with the messages it
| displayed while rendering the doggy and one of the messages
| said something about it trying to determine whether I am
| Donald Trump, which must've increased my frown a bit :P
| [deleted]
| vhodges wrote:
| Hehe... I wrote a FB app (circa 2008) called How Normal Am I? -
| it got pretty popular for the time.
| kypro wrote:
| Well executed.
|
| I was aware of most of the data protection and privacy concerns
| presented, but I wasn't aware facial recognition system are being
| used as widely as suggested here.
|
| If these systems ever become widely adopted I might seriously
| consider obscuring my face in public.
|
| Here in the UK I've noticed over the last year or so many
| supermarket self checkouts have been fitted with cameras and
| screens. I'm not naive enough to believe I wasn't being recorded
| previously, but I can't help but find this trend of sticking a
| camera directly in my face whenever I'm trying to make a purchase
| extremely insulting and violating to my sense of privacy. Now
| after watching this I have almost no doubt that facial
| recognition software is installed on these systems.
|
| I've spoken to other people about the rudeness of this but most
| people seem to think it's fine. Perhaps I'm just weird and more
| bothered about this stuff than most people. If sticking a camera
| in someone's face when they're trying to purchase something in a
| pharmacy isn't going too far though I do wonder if the average
| person would really care about anything presented here.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Shops and many other places have had video cameras for decades
| to deter theft and crime so people are used to it.
| kypro wrote:
| They're completely different. This is solely for intimidation
| purposes.
|
| Cameras previously would show a wide angle view of the store
| so you can see when someone put something under their jacket,
| etc. I can understand and accept this.
|
| In comparison these new cameras have a very swallow angle of
| view, they're zoomed in on your face and they're in portrait.
| They would be completely useless if you wanted to see if
| someone was, say, putting something under their jacket at
| checkout.
|
| These are there to purposefully record your face and let you
| know that they're doing that full colour and HD whether you
| like it or not. It's vile and extremely rude. I've never
| signed an agreement accepting such an obtrusive and
| unreasonable violation of my privacy when I enter a
| supermarket - at least online I'd have to accept T&Cs before
| placing my order.
| emsixteen wrote:
| 100% agreed on this, and have no idea how to tackle it.
| adolph wrote:
| Ideas to tackle it:
|
| Wear your covid mask, sunglasses and sunhat everywhere.
| Also put heel inserts in your shoes to change your
| height/walking gait. Or just go full privacy burka with a
| headshape altering chef's hat or mitznefet.
| lowercased wrote:
| Stop shopping at those places? But... if you have stuff
| from them delivered, should you turn the tables and have
| your own face recog stuff turned on them?
| danudey wrote:
| You're not turning the tables on them, you're turning the
| tables on the random gig economy worker who got assigned
| your delivery. It's not like the CEO of the pharmacy
| chain is delivering your case of red bull or something.
| ldite wrote:
| Put a bag over the camera before beginning your
| transaction!
| jonhohle wrote:
| I was somewhat hoping full face mask/helmet wearing would
| become in vogue in the past two years with all of the
| masking requirements like we see in so many sci-fi shows
| and movies. Algorithms would move to gate analysis or
| other things, but at least facial recognition could be
| crossed off.
|
| If a air born pandemic can't move society in that
| direction, I fear that we'll never get to our perpetually
| masked future.
| jrimbault wrote:
| > These are there to purposefully record your face and let
| you know that they're doing that full colour and HD whether
| you like it or not.
|
| I believe (?) this, as it is stated above, would be illegal
| in France under the current laws. You have to consent to be
| the _subject_ of photography in a public place.
|
| Of course, advocates of such systems would argue against
| that easily.
| vanattab wrote:
| Really? Security cameras are illegal in france?
| BeetleB wrote:
| In the US, this is solved by posting signs that recording
| is in progress and by entering you consent.
| tfussell wrote:
| My understanding is that these aren't for intimidation but
| rather to reduce theft by giving people an outside view of
| themselves. A mirror can also serve this purpose, but may
| be more difficult to fit in certain spaces. If this is
| correct, then these cameras aren't recording, just
| displaying the image directly on the screen. Here's an
| article about it
| https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-
| commentary/mir...
| jaywalk wrote:
| All of the ones I've seen specifically say "RECORDING IN
| PROGRESS" on the screen. Could they be lying? Sure, but I
| doubt they are.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| I went to a Walmart subsidiary recently, called Lider, and
| they pulled every bitchvictim move the could pull. More in
| fact, I now legally have standing to sue for abduction for
| April 17, 2022 15:49:22 hour at the Lider at 560 Merced
| (which gives receipts as Walmart) and sent six guards at me
| claiming I didn't pay, herding me back to their grounds
| where they have total editorial control over their cameras
| --but none were interested in looking at a receipt. I
| started screaming "If you accuse me of theft you have to
| call the real police!" And a pharmacist across the street
| heard me and called my family, they showed up with a lawyer
| who agreed it was highly abusive of their power (these guys
| wore clothes that said SWAT).
|
| At that point, if the supermarket will accuse me of theft
| despite paying, DUDE! Everyone has the moral authority to
| steal from Lider. Lider toes the line of theft literally
| down to the micrometer (ie shaving microns of plastic) and
| prostitutes lawyers to say they never steal. They steal,
| but defend themselves legalistically, ie shitloads of
| lawyers showing up doing bitch moves quoting laws that were
| written by culpable serial rapists in the 1973 coup.
| Economic theft.
|
| If you're going to be falsely accused unconditionally
| you're obliged to fulfill the accusation with real harm in
| some way on the grounds that you will be persecuted anyway.
| It's acting in self-defense, because false accusations of
| violence are an exactly equivalent act of violence in the
| opposite direction. And you can't let magic spells disarm
| you, there's always going to be some conspiratorial threat
| --just like 7 Walmart employees conspired against me that
| day, the cashier CE. NEWEN and the 6 guards, all of whom
| knew they were carrying out a crime.
|
| I personally refuse to carry out this theft myself or
| benefit from this because it would stain my heroism, but
| they'll accuse anybody of stealing either way. I'll show up
| to testify on your behalf if you quote me on this, as a
| hero according to Roman Law from May 12, 2012, like in US
| or in Chile which are based on Roman Law
|
| I boycotted Lider, funny thing abduction, guess that's a
| good description of their market power, they can do all
| kinds of shit (though in America I was basically satisfied
| with their business against Amazon), the only thing
| limiting their total market dominance is the percent of
| people they abduct. And I only boycott them 90%, that's the
| trick, when they make a crazy effort to break they boycott
| I yield in an un-constructive way.
|
| Dude you can totally buy in like a crappy little store run
| by immigrants which has no Facial Recognition. That's what
| you have to do. Otherwise, go without. Live downtown. Else
| you get HD deepfakes INCLUDING framing you as stealing from
| them in their camera editing zone or, if you sue them,
| making porn with your face like the kids in school do with
| photoshop, cyberbullying. There's media blackout on that.
|
| I talked about this abduction here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31306746
| danudey wrote:
| Your story is relevant and what you went through is
| horrible, but you may want to practice telling it in a
| clear and concise way. At first glance your post sounds
| like a crazy person rant, and it would be unfortunate for
| people to brush you off without actually reading your
| post.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| It wasn't horrible because I did something about it. It
| wasn't a tragedy.
|
| I am in fact practicing (EDIT: this came out wrong, I
| meant attempting) clarity and concision. So listening to
| other people's tragedies and what they went through--
| which always comes out rant-like--is helping me tell my
| piece the right way, with absolute adhesion to the truth.
|
| Partly that's a scam, they show you a cartoon of a madman
| and tell you "that's why he's mad, sweating, screaming,
| shaking, accusing, because he's stupid" then after that
| inb4, that poisoning of the well, nobody respects that
| stereotype until it's you who's mad, sweating, screaming,
| shaking, accusing, and being called stupid. And then it's
| too late. First they came for the Jews right? Wrong,
| first they came for the madmen, and perfected their
| extermination techniques with them, and nobody said
| anything, nobody visited them. And _then_ they came for
| the Jews, and then everybody else. I remember it starting
| with the Jews, in Holocaust museums it starts with
| communists, in America it starts with Jews sometimes and
| Socialists other times, it changes all the time. But it
| never _ever_ starts with the mad (Although Communist is
| close enough, they were thoroughly accused of being mad,
| Salvador Allende did medical research on the subject to
| vindicate them).
|
| Putting it here in full, best I can do:
|
| .
|
| .
|
| [0th they came for the ranting crazy persons
|
| to figure out all the ins and outs of abduction and
| execution
|
| but I won't even include them in this poem
|
| Because I was not and still am not a crazy person]
|
| .
|
| First they came for the Communists
|
| And I did not speak out
|
| Because I was not a Communist
|
| .
|
| Then they came for the Socialists
|
| And I did not speak out
|
| Because I was not a Socialist
|
| .
|
| Then they came for the trade unionists
|
| And I did not speak out
|
| Because I was not a trade unionist
|
| .
|
| Then they came for the Jews
|
| And I did not speak out
|
| Because I was not a Jew
|
| .
|
| Then they came for me
|
| And there was no one left
|
| To speak out for me
| coding123 wrote:
| Well, I'm covered I guess - still wearing a mask.
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| Wearing a mask will not protect you from facial
| recognition technology:
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-
| japan-...
| danudey wrote:
| > The technology firm had already been working on a
| system to meet the needs of allergy sufferers who wear
| masks
|
| Yes, it's the needs of the _allergy sufferers_ that drove
| this project from the start. Hi NEC, I wear a mask
| because of allergies but I 'm worried that will prevent
| private corporations and governments from tracking my
| every move, can you fix this please?
| nsv wrote:
| The key difference here is that most CCTV up to this point
| has not been high resolution enough to run facial detection
| on.
| april_22 wrote:
| Yes but it wouldnt cost that much to replace those with
| newer, higher resolution ones.
| bko wrote:
| I played around with Amazon's Rekognition software. I took one
| of those youtube videos where someone takes a picture of
| themselves every day for 10 years. It was fairly ideal
| conditions (consistent lighting, same pose for the most part)
| but the kid also went from 12 years old to 22, so his face
| definitely changed a lot. I used the first image as the image
| to compare the rest to (12 years old at the time), and I was
| surprised that it got pretty much almost all of them with a
| high degree of confidence (80%+). And the 80% ones were
| terrible lighting, sunglasses or an image of his girlfriend he
| slipped in there.
|
| Even the sunglasses, beard, face paint, bad lighting or puberty
| didn't throw off the model.
|
| The open source dlib model was considerably worse, but AWS
| Rekognition was incredible
|
| https://mleverything.substack.com/p/how-facial-recognition-w...
| april_22 wrote:
| There was this one incident in China where the facial
| recognition system mistaked the face of a chinese celebrity
| on a bus for a jaywalker... so the system isn't perfect for
| special conditions/environments yet. However I do believe
| that results today are already outstanding and will only get
| better.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/22/18107885/china-facial-
| re... https://you.com/search?q=facial+recognition+in+china
| bko wrote:
| Funny you should say that. In another post I compared
| sitting congressmen to convicted felons
|
| - 440 images of congressmen
|
| - 1,756 mugshots
|
| - 10 mismatches (?) with 70+% certainty
|
| The highest was 86%, but to be fair, I wouldn't be able to
| tell you confidently for all of them that the convicts
| aren't the same person. And under 80% should be suspect
| anyway. It's just that you need to use the right
| statistical methods when comparing a person to a large pool
| because you'll have spurious matches.
|
| https://mleverything.substack.com/p/how-facial-
| recognition-w...
| cbau wrote:
| Wow, the more insane story to me here is that they flash
| your face, name, and ID number on a public screen if you're
| caught jaywalking. How dystopian.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| I thought it was so people behind the till could do age checks
| and bypass machine blocks without having to move.
| [deleted]
| Wronnay wrote:
| I tried different facial expressions and could influence the
| model from a 8 to 9.
|
| Kinda reminds me of SingStar where I scored better if I simply
| sung louder - even if I sung a completely different text...
| cardosof wrote:
| Based on algorithms like those, my 6-7ish beauty score would stop
| me from becoming a popular social media influencer if I wanted
| to. Isn't that lovely!
| Joeboy wrote:
| I was not really prepared for being told how unattractive I am
| this morning.
| kleene_op wrote:
| I was a 6.3 as I stepped out of bed.
|
| I took a shower, shaved, brushed my teeth, put on a nice shirt,
| fixed my hair and offered a good angle of my best smile at the
| camera. I was now a 9.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| Interesting! I thought it would be purely based on facial
| symmetry.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Bald guy here -- let me assure you, symmetry is not the
| only factor, not for the algorithm and not for the people
| it represents :)
| mywittyname wrote:
| I took off my glasses and jumped 2.5 points. If it were
| measuring symmetry, that wouldn't happen.
| altdataseller wrote:
| I was a 6.3 but I felt pleasantly surprised because I
| personally think I'm a 1.5
| szatkus wrote:
| Same. Their algorithm is broken.
| failedengineer wrote:
| I got a 4.8... the model also told me I lied about my age
| by nearly 20 years, so that's nice. I'm a very young
| looking ugly.
| khendron wrote:
| Same. It shaved 8 years off of me, and then called me
| ugly.
| rhexs wrote:
| I'm wondering if this is scaled so 5 is quite low and 1-5
| should be non-existent. Giving someone a 1 vs a "5" feels a
| little mean.
| blobbers wrote:
| ... I got a 5. When I smiled it bumped me up to 5.5
|
| Fwiw, telling someone a 5 is a 1 is even meaner.
|
| :-/
| rhexs wrote:
| Hey, I was 5 myself, no need to take offense. We can be
| low self-esteem buddies.
| blobbers wrote:
| My self-esteem is fine! A 5 is not bad : half of people
| are prettier than me, half are less pretty. But calling a
| "5" a "1" is a little mean, no? ;-) Don't really care.
| Joeboy wrote:
| Sorry to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure the wording
| on the site (which I don't have open anymore) suggested 5
| was below the "normal" range, which presumably means it's
| well below the median. I'd be extremely happy to hear
| some more flattering interpretation.
| [deleted]
| rossdavidh wrote:
| That's actually fairly similar to how humans would be
| influenced by showering, shaving, etc. so in some ways that's
| pretty impressive.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I'm also reasonably sure other factors also influence these
| algorithms. Hair style, framing, lighting, the clothes found
| on your shoulders, angle, distortion by the camera lens, and
| most importantly, similarity to high-scoring faces in the
| source data set.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Then you're missing the point the website makes about this and
| other algorithms like it being extremely unreliable. There are
| tons of biases in the training data, and not just
| ethnic/cultural ones mentioned. For starters, you're comparing
| a crappy webcam to a model that in all likelihood is based on
| people's best selfies.
|
| The model tries to fit you into a very narrow niche. On top of
| that it will do so poorly.
| MrBlueIncognito wrote:
| Apparently there's a score of 10.1 too :D
| cpfohl wrote:
| This was cool. Well done.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| This web page is a sycophant. It told me I looked 15 years
| younger than I do, and said my attractiveness was several points
| higher than empirical evidence from my 54 years of life have told
| me is the case. But it did also call me a liar, so not totally a
| sycophant I guess.
| [deleted]
| drakonka wrote:
| This is very well done! Really fun data to draw people in coupled
| with genuinely interesting, educational voice-over.
| cocochanel wrote:
| more attractive than 100% of the spice girls. i'll take that :)
| lom wrote:
| Beauty, age, gender and BMI are all just `...` for me ?
|
| Also sad to hear that my life expectancy is only 58
| tinco wrote:
| It bases your life expectancy on your IP address... where do
| you live that has an average life expectancy of 58?
| dan1234 wrote:
| Not sure what db they're using for geolocating ips, but mine
| was miles off (thought I was US, but actually Europe, so not
| even the right registry!).
| fnands wrote:
| My result: 45% Normal: "Pretty strange, in a sexy way."
|
| Thanks, I guess? Got pretty close on age underestimated my BMI a
| little.
| cosmojg wrote:
| Time to get laser eye surgery.
| Madmallard wrote:
| It said I was way heavier than I was, way younger than I was, and
| way more attractive than I am. All the while I was staring into
| it with good lighting. Me thinks it is not useful.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It is useful when you think about that you might actually be
| evaluated like this in the future.
| systoll wrote:
| Beauty score of 10.5 out of ten?
|
| I'll thank our AI overlords for the compliment, but I don't think
| I'm _off the charts_ attractive.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| How normal am I?
|
| > So! Lets talk about your face
|
| Nope nope nope nope I am gone.
| lampshades wrote:
| I scored a 9 in beauty you ugly fucks.
|
| And my expression was happy, unlike all you normal ugly folk.
| pnut wrote:
| I got a 5.7 but can have any woman I desire in real life, so...
| lampshades wrote:
| focusedone wrote:
| Showoff
| oreilles wrote:
| By moving my face to show my best profile, I managed to get a
| 10.1 in beauty. Yes, point 1. Don't know if the algorithm was
| being sarcastic.
| dan1234 wrote:
| 9.4 here, which made me wonder if Apple's new webcams add some
| beautifying filters?
|
| The site also underestimated my age by 10 years (and then
| accused me of lying about my age!).
| Void_ wrote:
| Am I on Reddit?
| lampshades wrote:
| If you just took a quick look at the address bar you'd see
| that you are.
| sushxbehshx wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-05 23:01 UTC)