Researcher Trying To Teach Computer What Women He's Attracted To 181
jfruh writes: Harm de Vries, a post-doctoral researcher at the Université de Montréal, is trying to build an algorithm that will sort through pictures on Tinder and OKCupid and pick out women he'll find attractive. "Tinder kept giving me pictures of girls I wasn't attracted to," he said in a phone interview. "So I wondered if I could use deep learning." His program, built using deep learning techniques, has about a 68 percent success rate, which isn't that bad. (A human friend to whom de Vries described his preferences managed 76 percent.)
bullshit, guys don't get dates (Score:1, Insightful)
I call bullshit. Women don't date men, especially techies.
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure if it was a woman looking to filter men this project would be lauded as 'empowering.'
Re:bullshit, guys don't get dates (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure if it was a woman looking to filter men this project would be lauded as 'empowering.'
Tinder and similar apps are already doing this, both for men and women, and nobody but passive-aggressive gamergaters are bringing the misogyny discussion into this. Calling it shallow is fair, both for men and women, but is something a significant portion of both genders do.
Re: (Score:3)
I love the trolling. AC posts comments then an AC accuses AC of being a GamerGater with no substance. What would be the odds it's the same person?
Re: (Score:3)
Yep,if it were a filter for women, it wold be called a breakthrough....for men, it is "Troll-A-Vision"...or an anti-beer goggles simulator....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Women will date anything as long as it has money.
Re: (Score:2)
Whores (of either gender) will date anything as long as it has money.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Some women will date anything that has a lot of money.
Men will date anything that puts out.
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit. Women don't date men, especially techies.
I think that depends on how much money the techie earns (and to a lesser extent, to where he works if it's somewhere "cool", like Apple or Google).
Female and alive. (Score:5, Funny)
Let me guess: female and alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: female and alive.
I would presume that there wouldn't be that many with pictures on there who fail one or both of those criteria. This guy sounds like a real winner, if winners are shallow misogynists.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy sounds like a real winner, if winners are shallow misogynists.
Shallow indeed, but are the female characteristics that a person finds attractive automatically make them a misogynist?
My wife thinks Tom Sellick is hot. She thinks that Patrick Swayze and Elvis Stojko have nice butts.
Does this mean she hates men?
So this shallow shit might indeed be shallow, but drawing any opinion on his love or hatred of women is really telling us a lot about you - because you are the one wielding the "misogynist" card like a sledgehammer.
Re: (Score:2)
Shallow indeed, but are the female characteristics that a person finds attractive automatically make them a misogynist?
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
Re: (Score:2)
So you should go chat with people of the opposite (or I suppose "preferred") sex with the objective of seeing if you're both interested in exploring a relationship, even if you're completely repulsed by those people?
That makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Shallow indeed, but are the female characteristics that a person finds attractive automatically make them a misogynist?
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
But being shallow does not in any way mean he hates women. I have a lady friend who really likes pretty boys. She married two of them, both ended up badly. But she likes men, not hate them. But she's pretty shallow in respect to pairing up.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's more women out there than you can talk to, and what you've got to go on is pictures, then you go by looks.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
He's not looking to make friends, he's looking for dates. Trying to pretend that looks don't matter in romantic/sexual relationships discounts oh about 99.9% of people. Going for nothing but looks is shallow, but it's quite reasonable for looks to be one of a number of factors you take into account up to and including ruling someone out completely.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
He's not looking to make friends, he's looking for dates. Trying to pretend that looks don't matter in romantic/sexual relationships discounts oh about 99.9% of people. Going for nothing but looks is shallow, but it's quite reasonable for looks to be one of a number of factors you take into account up to and including ruling someone out completely.
Looking for "dates" is sort of a silly thing to do with this. While looks get both parties in the door for "dating" that quickly falls to a less important trait if it's a relationship. (Hook ups and generally shallow people, it might not. To each his own.)
He should finish the project using porn.
Then sell the functionality to porn sites that can quickly learn what any given user likes in order to serve up / find more of it.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow
Or a functional human being.
You fucking idiot. First impression based on appearance is part of our self-preservation instinct. Do girls try to avoid guys that "look creepy"? Is it a good idea for them to avoid guys that "look creepy"? Yes? THEN FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. Why don't you tell that girl that avoids the strange-looking dude in the alleyway because she doesn't want to get raped tonight that she's just being "shallow" you stupid fucking asshole.
It's harped on so frequently that "
Re: (Score:2)
Superprotip: The first thing you notice about someone is not their intelligence.
Re: (Score:1)
Experienced Protip: Evolution has bred girls to be attractive to males,
for evolutionary reasons, e.g., a mother to children, nurturing, and other
things that help the continuation of his line. It's just the way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Born female, alive and having no standards.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Female and alive. (Score:1)
Are you a mortician?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.tshirthell.com/funn... [tshirthell.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I prefer those like a steam room; hot and wet, but whatever floats your boat...
It is by will alone I sent my mind in motion... (Score:4, Funny)
...wait, opps, wrong de vries....
Is this really a problem? (Score:5, Funny)
I usually just type in "blonde Thai ladyboy" into the search box and the results are almost 100% what I'm looking for.
Is that so hard?
Shallow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Now there's an idea, chat bots that mimic your personality.
Re:Shallow (Score:5, Insightful)
actually the idea is to like the looks first, then talk to her. then reject the ones you dislike based on personality
so you get physical attraction and personality compatibility. both
if you just talk to girls and find someone you're compatible with on a personality level but you don't want to have sex with because they're physically unattractive to you, the term for that is "friend" (as an aside, many, many men posting on this site probably know this zone well)
what you call shallow is actually called mate selection. if you can't get an erection, you're not going to procreate. mate selection is not friend selection. friend selection is a different topic. to not realize the difference is... shallow, ironically
Re: (Score:1)
This goes back centuries. From the middle ages:
Re: (Score:2)
assuming all goes well
usually it goes from sight to talking and she either
1. looks at you like in disgust like you are a toad,
2. looks at you with a mixture of fear and anger like you are a rapist,
3. or, she actually responds. then YOU run in horror at the utterly stupid crude shit coming out of her mouth
only a tiny percent makes it from sight to talking, and a tiny tiny percent of that to touch
Re: (Score:2)
If you get 1 and 2 often, you may be doing something wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
nah
there's plenty of women who are in a bad mood/ not interested in general at the moment
no man does not get 1 and 2 on regular basis
Re: (Score:2)
This starts from an assumption that attractiveness is based solely on physical characteristics. I actually have not found that to be true. If you are all hung up on physical beauty then that is your own problem. I enjoy a nice pair of tits and a supple young body as much as most straight men, but couple that with a nasty personality and I can't even see her as something I want to have sex with.
By that same token, if a warm smile, pleasing conversation, and wildly dilated pupils are not enough to stir your f
Re: (Score:2)
you said nothing new, you actually restated what i said. you need both physical attraction and personality compatibility. and then you tried to turn it into a weird attempt at an insult at the guy who said the same thing. weird
Re: (Score:2)
Her smile and physical signs of excitement are still quite physical.
Your focus in what attracts you physically can shift. People in long relationships tend to be good at this, for obvious reasons, but it also reminds me somewhat of an interview with a male porn star I saw once. He could find beauty to be attracted to in almost any female body by simply focusing on one part.
Re: (Score:2)
if you just talk to girls and find someone you're compatible with on a personality level but you don't want to have sex with because they're physically unattractive to you, the term for that is "friend"
Unfortunately, the frequent problem here is that if one person is highly interested in the other, but the other is not and wants to "friendzone" him/her, it usually doesn't go over too well. Sooner or later things fall apart and they're no longer friends, because the "friendzoned" person resents this. We he
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the frequent problem here is that if one person is highly interested in the other, but the other is not and wants to "friendzone" him/her, it usually doesn't go over too well.
Indeed: the person who has been "friendzoned" is in fact dishonest. They claim to be OK with being friends and often act as a friend, but that is a dishonest ruse to actually get into the other person's pants hoping that sufficient proximity will do what a lack of chemistry couldn't achieve. If they're actually a friend,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not.
First, a quibble about terminology: someone being "friendzoned" doesn't necessarily mean they've accepted this or claimed to. If a girl says, "I think we should just be friends", and you respond, "OK, I'll see you around" and never call her again, I think that can be said to be an instance of "friendzoning" even though you've basically blown her off and never pretended to be a friend.
Secondly, if someone does willingly accept this, they might think at that time that they're OK with that, a
Re: (Score:2)
frequent for you. not me or many if not most other people
what you should do is if you sense someone is not returning the physical interest you have, realize it will go nowhere but frustration and nip the situation in the bud. avoid them. you cannot be friends with them. that is a dishonest representation of your interest. i am friends with females, but if i am sexually interested in a woman and she does not reciprocate, i won't remain just friends with her, i'll make excuses and avo
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you're saying exactly the same things I said.
Re: (Score:2)
if you just talk to girls and find someone you're compatible with on a personality level but you don't want to have sex with because they're physically unattractive to you, the term for that is "friend"
Some people enjoy sex because it is intimate and shows affection and a deep bonding with a person, not just because they find them physically attractive. Erections are often due to the anticipation of a pleasurable experience, not just physical attributes.
If you are only able to form relationships with people whose appearance gives you an erection, you are limiting the available pool of partners quite significantly. In fact, from experience I have learned that physical attractiveness, the amount of enjoymen
Re: (Score:2)
yup
there's also the histocompatibility complex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
basically the more someone smells different than you, the more attractive they seem. but if their histocompatibility complex smells similar to yours, this might mean your children will have a lack of immunological variability, which is a weakness when fighting off disease. so you won't be attracted to them
after all, this is the point of sex: mix your genes with someone as far away from you as possible to ensure as much genetic v
Re: (Score:3)
Try this experiment, newsflash. Set up two profiles, one with a fake picture of an average looking guy with average credentials. Then set up another profile of a ripped young stud with less than average credentials. Get back to us when you find out which gets more attention.
It's neither bad nor good, it's just human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
A picture gives you a pretty good indication of the type of woman the girl WANTS to be perceived as.
High-angled boobshot? Insecure about rest of body.
Duckface? Dumb as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: pictures can lie. Here's an idea - try talking to a girl in order to see if you might like her.
Yeah, when I saw the story my first thought was "I think it's pretty obvious why you have trouble meeting women...". Although, since he's looking at Tinder, he's likely not really looking for a relationship - just a quick doink.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: pictures can lie. Here's an idea - try talking to a girl in order to see if you might like her.
How? They are too busy staring at their phones to pay random strangers attention.
Tit-for-tat. It takes 2 people to have a conversation. If the world changes your option is to change with it or find like minded people against it.
A better algorithm (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.
Re:A better algorithm (Score:4, Funny)
Here's a pro tip: The picture with the kid wearing a "Class of 1990" t-shirt in the background is probably not an honest reflection of what she really looks like.
Re: (Score:3)
Easy - URL contains the string "ashley madison".
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter if the computer can pick with 100% accuracy the people you're attracted to if none of them actually look like their pictures. I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.
I'd still like to be able to see what people look like, to rule out folks I don't find attractive. But yes, people do pick and choose their photos. Maybe the ideal dating site would ask you for your driver's license number and would scrape your photo off DMV records. This would level the playing field...
And what about... (Score:2)
A Paradox, perhaps? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be pretty valuable to the right companies...
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm reading this correctly, our post-doc protagonist has created a deep learning algorithm to automate the process of being shallow? I have no words. . .
Hence, the tag I put on this article #shallowlearning
Re: (Score:1)
Wierd (Score:5, Funny)
The guy is creating a profile selection algorithm to sift through mostly fake algorithmically generated profiles because the fake profile site's own selection algorithm is inadequate.....
Sexbots are going to be really, really popular.
Re: (Score:3)
Sexbots are going to be really, really popular.
Once sexbots are "good enough" the human population is going to crash. Populations are already declining in Japan, China, and much of Europe. This trend will soon accelerate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think our only hope here is to develop better medical technology, which does two things: 1) increases our lifespan considerably, so we have more time to work on careers and building nest eggs, and then to have families including taking years off for this, and 2) increases our attractiveness, making it so everyone looks like they're always 25-30 and are in ideal physical shape without having to actually exercise; this would massively increase the pool of dateable people. Scientifically, both of these shou
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a bad thing, apart from the short term problem of a high proportion of elderly.
Re: (Score:1)
That actually would be a good thing. Get down to a few million earth-wide and a lot of problems disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think: before too long, online dating will have removed actual people from the process altogether! You'll just sign up, roll a character, and two weeks later get an email letting you know your algorithm has hooked up with another algorithm and they're having lots of little subroutines together. Think of the convenience!
Re: (Score:2)
Sexbots are going to be really, really popular.
Yeah, but they'll just date each other.
Supply and demand (Score:3)
Compellling... (Score:1)
But I wonder how long it'll be before someone comes along and labels this as misogyny?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they already have. It's wrong for men to reject women because they're too fat or ugly, but it's entirely acceptable for women to reject men because they're too "boring"....
That's easy (Score:3)
If you think you're attractive, create an image-reading algorithm that picks girls that looks like yourself (facial features, shape, etc.)
Done.
Look at successful, power couples in the entertainment business sometime (especially athletes) and see if you can spot the narcissistic pattern...
If you don't think you're attractive, I guess you can put a NOT in front of the algorithm...
In other, completlely undrelated news: (Score:2)
Researcher leaves academia and gets a job at Ashely Madison.
How incredibly cruel (Score:3, Funny)
I can't believe he's having something do that for him when there's something willing to tirelessly look out for his happiness right there. Maybe one day he'll realize he had love right in front of him, and he and Eliza/Alice v.2 or whatever he's calling his algorithm can live a happy, long life together.
How about a real challenge? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see if he can use deep learning to filter only the women that would have anything to do with someone who would do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, therein lies the paradox, you know? I mean, I for one am interested in machine learning, though admittedly I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of it. In the abstract, I would love to see how the software actually works, how it improves over time, etc. In the concrete, however, the fact he's using it for this is mashing my "eugh" button pretty hard.
That being said, a "would probably be into you" filter would be awesome as hell. I wonder how that could be implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone... Quickly write a filter and post it free for female use. It simply filters out "Harm de Vries".
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:2)
Didn't we see this in Weird Science?
Help the dude. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's no problem, he just needs to put the code on GitHub.
if at first you don't succeed, try the opposite (Score:5, Funny)
Researcher Trying To Teach Computer What Women He's Attracted To
Well, at least he's trying something new. The usual, and completely wrongheaded, approach a computer nerd uses when trying to get laid is to try to teach women he's attracted to about computers.
Re: (Score:2)
tyro. The better strategy is to berate the prospective mate for their lack of knowledge of computers thereby motivating them to be come more knowledgeable, thus making them more compatible.
Re: (Score:1)
Negging, eh?
You might also try giving the object of your affection two very weak compliments whose implied assumptions about their ignorance actually add up to an insult. I call this "twos complimenting".
[ducks]
Re: (Score:2)
Asimov did it! (Score:3)
Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about this years ago ("True Love" [wikipedia.org]), abeit in a much more entertaining fashion.
"I will say to her, 'I am Joe, and you are my true love.'"
Re: (Score:1)
Love is blind!!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also people trying to explain to some star-crossed lover that the target of their affections has all sorts of terrible flaws which they're totally ignoring because love is blind, and they will resent once the infatuation is over.
issues? (Score:2)
if your first criteria is what the lady looks like, then maybe you have some issues.
I always wanted to know if she was rich. What's wrong with this guy?
Now everybody will be trying to get a grant... (Score:2)
... to feed their pr0n collection into some experimental software?
You Can Use A Computer For That? (Score:2)
Imagine, using a computer for dating?
Doubtlessly the computer matches would be so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest. Ha-ho-ha-hey-hoo!
Alas, only the five richest kings in Europe will ever know for sure...
Needs more statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither the summary nor the linked article provide the necessary statistics to tell us how well this algorithm actually works. We're told it has a 68% success rate, which presumably means that 68% of the time it gives the same answer as de Vries (the human subject/programmer).
The problem is, we're not told anything about the sensitivity or specificity [wikipedia.org] of the technique. What is the rate of false positives? False negatives?
Let's say that de Vries typically finds 1 out of 3 (33%) of the profile pictures "attractive". His computer could score 67% accuracy just by rejecting every single picture. (Such an algorithm would have zero sensitivity, but perfect specificity, and a terrible false negative rate. The "reject-everything" algorithm also scores better the more picky de Vries gets.)
This sort of story is only interesting if it includes specific information about where and how his algorithm fails (and succeeds).
Re: (Score:3)
That's all well and good, but you're running the test backwards. Unless you think de Vries is looking at the rejected women to make sure that he finds them unattractive, as opposed to looking at the selected women to make sure he finds them attractive. The false positive rate only matters if it doesn't significantly cut down on unattractive candidates. And so long as he doesn't run out of candidates to look over, the false negative rate is a meaningless bug.
Of course, good luck to him if his true love isn't
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that dolphins are mammals, and have vaginas?
Well, the female ones, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only wrong if you're not married.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know it was YOUR tax dollars? For all we know, it was MY tax dollars, and I'm fully in support of this research... </sarcasm>