I will be utterly astounded if this "study" is replicated. I will not be remotely surprised if they sell it the gullible fools in public service who don't treat lie detectors with the utter contempt they deserve.
What are currently the best tech buzzwords that might convince people you have magic pixie dust for sale?
The linked study does not support or address lie detection.
It is about attacks on AI face recognition. (Making it misdetect or not detect the subject.)
This is actual fake reporting. Unless author has made a critical mistake when pasting the link to the study.
Which is somewhat less than impressive. The quoted "accuracy" is AUC which weighs all errors the same. It is also not a binary detector. For use in courtroom false positives are much more costly.
Remember this also says nothing about generalization power of the system. Nor how well humans could be trained to detect lies. (Untrained results were pretty impressive.)
There's plenty of science behind micro-expressions and detection of deception.
Paul Ekman [0] is "ranked 59th out of the 100 most cited psychologists of the twentieth century" and I thought the TV show based on his research [1] was very entertaining. (I am surprised that the article used the phrase "micro-expression" without any reference to Ekman's work.)
Your question seems to be inconsistent with HN guidelines: comments should be constructive.
Specifically, comments should encourage discussion and allow for multiple perspectives on topic. It appears to me that your comment is borderline name calling and is anything but constructive.
I fail to see how asking someone if they know what science is would help with a constructive discussion. Did you mean to imply that the micro-expression related work the the GP cited is not scientific in your opinion? Or are you questioning the GPs knowledge about science?
The problem I think is, lie detection software is kinda like jet plane software. Even at 99% percent effective can have terrible consequences when its 1% wrong.
If the idea is true, then wouldn't it actually be good?
Or, I guess there may be a distinction between "it is good to, for every thing, to be skeptical of that thing" and "for every thing, it is good to be skeptical of that thing".
I consider the statement that "for every statement, it is good to be skeptical of that statement, regardless of what other statements that one is or is not skeptical of" to be doubtful.
It seems fairly clear that skepticism which is directed in a specific way can be harmful?
What are currently the best tech buzzwords that might convince people you have magic pixie dust for sale?