2008/10/2 Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It "boasts" a 50% recognition accuracy rate +/-5 years and an 80% > recognition accuracy rate +/-10 years. Unless, of course, the subject is > wearing a big floppy hat, makeup or has had Botox treatment recently. Or > found his dad's Ronald Reagan mask. 'Nuf said.
Yes. This kind of accuracy would not be good enough to enforce age related rules surrounding the buying of certain products, nor does it seem likely to me that refinements of the technique will give the needed accuracy. As you point out people have been trying to fool others about their age for millenia, and this trend is only going to complicate matters further. In future if De Grey gets his way this kind of recognition will be useless anyway. > P.S. Oh, yeah, and the guy responsible for this project claims it doesn't > violate anyone's privacy because it can't be used to identify individuals. > Right. They don't say who sponsored this research, but I sincerely doubt > it was the vending machine companies or purveyors of Internet porn. It's good to question the true motives behind something like this, and where the funding comes from. I do a lot of stuff with computer vision, and if someone came to me saying they wanted something to visually recognise the age of a person I'd tell them that they're probably wasting their time, and that indicators other than visual ones would be more likely to give a reliable result. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
