Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence
复制标题
面相人工智能
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.3927300
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jevan Hutson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Luke Stark;Jevan Hutson
通过计算机视觉和机器学习大规模复兴相面学和颅相学的伪科学是一个迫切关注的问题。这篇文章有助于关键数据研究，消费者保护法，生物识别隐私法和反歧视法，致力于将外貌人工智能（AI）概念化和问题化，并为州和联邦立法者提供政策建议，以防止其扩散。
我们认为，外貌学人工智能是使用计算机软件和相关系统来推断或创建个人身体成分的层次结构，受保护的阶级地位，感知的性格，能力以及基于他们的身体或行为特征的未来社会结果。生理学和颅相学逻辑是计算机视觉应用于人类的技术机制所固有的。在这篇文章中，我们观察到计算机视觉是如何成为相面人工智能技术的中心向量的，揭示了计算机视觉如何在概念，形式和实践中重新激活相面，以及这种趋势对公民自由带来的危险。
因此，这篇文章主张采取立法行动，以防止和击退相面人工智能的扩散。为此，我们考虑了一系列潜在的保障措施和限制措施，以显著限制人工智能系统的部署，我们希望这些措施可以用于加强地方、州和联邦立法。我们通过建议废除外貌人工智能来突出我们的政策讨论。从那里，我们将美国消费者保护法，生物识别隐私法和民权法的制度作为拒绝面相学在人工智能中的数字复兴的工具。具体来说，我们认为，相貌人工智能应该被断然拒绝，因为它是压迫性的和不公正的。其次，我们认为立法者应该宣布外貌人工智能本身是不公平和欺骗性的。第三，我们认为立法者应该制定或扩大生物特征隐私法，以禁止外貌人工智能。第四，我们认为立法者应该禁止在公共场所使用相貌人工智能。我们还观察到缺乏公平，问责和透明度的程序和管理制度，以解决外貌人工智能，并参加支持外貌人工智能的潜在反驳。
The reanimation of the pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology at scale through computer vision and machine learning is a matter of urgent concern. This Article, which contributes to critical data studies, consumer protection law, biometric privacy law, and anti-discrimination law, endeavors to conceptualize and problematize physiognomic artificial intelligence (AI) and offer policy recommendations for state and federal lawmakers to forestall its proliferation.
Physiognomic AI, we contend, is the practice of using computer software and related systems to infer or create hierarchies of an individual’s body composition, protected class status, perceived character, capabilities, and future social outcomes based on their physical or behavioral characteristics. Physiognomic and phrenological logics are intrinsic to the technical mechanism of computer vision applied to humans. In this Article, we observe how computer vision is a central vector for physiognomic AI technologies, unpacking how computer vision reanimates physiognomy in conception, form, and practice and the dangers this trend presents for civil liberties.
This Article thus argues for legislative action to forestall and roll back the proliferation of physiognomic AI. To that end, we consider a potential menu of safeguards and limitations to significantly limit the deployment of physiognomic AI systems, which we hope can be used to strengthen local, state, and federal legislation. We foreground our policy discussion by proposing the abolition of physiognomic AI. From there, we posit regimes of U.S. consumer protection law, biometric privacy law, and civil rights law as vehicles for rejecting physiognomy’s digital renaissance in artificial intelligence. Specifically, we argue that physiognomic AI should be categorically rejected as oppressive and unjust. Second, we argue that lawmakers should declare physiognomic AI to be unfair and deceptive per se. Third, we argue that lawmakers should enact or expand biometric privacy laws to prohibit physiognomic AI. Fourth, we argue that lawmakers should prohibit physiognomic AI in places of public accommodation. We also observe the paucity of procedural and managerial regimes of fairness, accountability, and transparency in addressing physiognomic AI and attend to potential counterarguments in support of physiognomic AI.