Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

existential1 OP wrote

Hard agree. A lot of science articles are guilty of implying black-box AI when it isn't the case of what happened methodologically.

3

masque wrote (edited )

The more I think about it, the more it seems like "AI weighs in..." is just a straight-up inappropriate title.

I mean, the experiment is basically just

  • annotate a massive number of videos according to perceived facial expression and context
  • do statistical analysis to check whether perceived facial expression is appropriately correlated with emotionally-charged contexts (toys etc.), and whether these correlations are preserved across cultures.

The fact that the annotation was carried out by a DNN mimicking humans, instead of directly by humans, is irrelevant to the interpretation of the results (except that it introduces more noise) and it shouldn't be mentioned in the headline at all.

The actual paper is titled "Sixteen facial expressions occur in similar contexts worldwide" which is a much more appropriate title.

4

existential1 OP wrote

Yeah, that's the difference between "scientific article" and "scientific reporting" i guess.

2