Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Algorithms Determine Mona Lisa's True Emotions

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the better-than-ticked-off dept.

Science 349

caffeinemessiah writes "The BBC reports that researchers at UIUC and the University of Amsterdam, Holland have used "emotion recognition" software to determine Mona Lisa's true emotions. The algorithm is based on a library of neutral face images of young women and determined that Mona Lisa was 83% happy and 9% disgusted." From the article: "The program, developed with researchers at the University of Illinois, US, draws on a database of young female faces to derive an average 'neutral' expression. The software uses this average expression as the standard for comparisons. The New Scientist says that software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood. "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know (3, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272556)

First time I saw the painting I said "She looks bored ".
She had likely been sitting there for hours having her painting done , likely irritated , in need of the toilet and bored .

Perhaps since the knew study is out , we have discovered that Da Vinci painted naked and was fairly good looking . She was probably thinking "Oh dear lord , he is nude . Oh wait , fairly hot body though .. must not look interested , I don't want to appear easy , but Meooooow"

Re:You know (2, Informative)

greenguy (162630) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272615)

But he wouldn't have had much interest in her (except as a model he was commissioned to paint), as he was gay.

As for the article... I think these folks just need a hobby.

Re:You know (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272616)

Which is a very interesting thought to imagine the subject having, since it is widely thought that the Mona Lisa is a self portrait.

And... (4, Funny)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272557)

83% happy and 9% disgusted

and 8% lost, seemingly.

Re:And... (5, Informative)

Flashbck (739237) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272639)

And to modify your sig: Those who can't RTFA, complain about stupid crud

Quote from the third paragraph in the article:
It concluded that the subject was 83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful and 2% angry, New Scientist magazine was told.

Re:And... (2, Funny)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272782)

Kinda how Dutch locals look at you when they realize you are a drug tourist. Or how you look at them. I forget.

Her true emotions aren't hard to judge (1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272558)

considering the smell of shitty Crisco which survives on the back of the canvas to this day

Thank you (1, Insightful)

Undaar (210056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272559)

Thank you science, for trying to take the mystery out of art. Not everything can be quantified. Some things just need to be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are.

Re:Thank you (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272609)

Thank you science, for trying to take the mystery out of art. Not everything can be quantified. Some things just need to be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are.

Yeah, like, it's a painting. Some see a portrait of a lady. Some see choice of colours. Some see the setting. Some see technique. Some see lighting. Some see choice of wood rather than cardboard or cloth.

I'm sure an infinite number of monkeys with oils, brushes and canvas could render the same painting, but would it mean as much?

Re:Thank you (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272773)

an infinite number of monkeys is about as unlikey as an infinite number of monkeys rendering the same painting

Re:Thank you (4, Insightful)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272622)

It's also possible to appreciate and enjoy this science, whether or not you believe the algorithm's results.

Re:Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272635)

why? that is how you view art however not everyone shares that opinion...

i see art as something that can be quantified to an extent and by doing so shows greater detail about the work. apparently i am not alone either.

Re:Thank you (1)

Hey Pope Felcher . . (921019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272637)

Absolutley rubbish, everything can be quantified.

What else are art critics for?

They surely can't be there purely to tell me I'm wrong when I say that, for instance, every single Jackson Pollock can be quantified as being a piece of crap, designed purely so that he could laugh in the face of the art critics that love it.

So what (4, Interesting)

Mark of THE CITY (97325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272860)

everything can be quantified

As Einstein said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts."

Re:Thank you (2, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272642)

I know what you mean but, every human subjective feeling is quantified in a way. A measure of brain activity will if accurate enough always provide a bridge from the qualitative feeling to a readout of quantitative measure. I'm contrasting the logic of the brain with the physical mechanism. And with that said I still agree with you.

Re:Thank you (0, Flamebait)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272658)

Thank you for posting a trite timeworn cliche yet again in order to gain karma.

Art needs two (5, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272670)

They're not trying to take the mystery out of it, they're trying to understand it in yet another way.

Art needs two, one to start, and one to reply.

It's meaningless (to society) unless somebody else looks at it, thinks about it, talks about it. The more, the better.

Re:Art needs two (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272787)


They're not trying to take the mystery out of it, they're trying to understand it in yet another way.

That's the truth, I think. Everyone sees Art in the way they choose. I think people often get upset when a new and scientific approach is taken to interpreting a piece of art however, because they often feel the scientist is implying their interpretation is somehow more valid than anothers. And to be fair, there is some truth to that.

But the painting remains the painting, before and after.

Re:Thank you (2, Insightful)

slashdotnickname (882178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272735)

Thank you science, for trying to take the mystery out of art.

That's assuming the study is logically sound. I didn't see them take into account how the Renessaince culture (with its repressive religious cooncerns and high-society rearings) might affect how emotions were facially expressed.

Re:Thank you (1)

sedyn (880034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272747)

"Thank you science, for trying to take the mystery out of art. Not everything can be quantified. Some things just need to be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are."

Think about it, if you were going to analyze someone random person's expression in a random pose, would it hit home as well as a painting that everyone knows.

As is, I can read the article in lynx and understand everything. Hell, reading the results and knowing the subject is enough.

As they said:
"Possibly the most famous portrait of all time, Mona Lisa's cryptic expression has intrigued art lovers for five centuries."

The first part agrees with what I've said, and the second leaves the defense for any fuck ups on the researcher's part as "interpretation" of the subject.

It was a damn smart move from a logical standpoint if you ask me.

Re:Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272785)

Lies. Everything CAN be quantified! Dissected, Observed, and replicated.

We are on our way to being GODS! GODS I TELL YOU!

Clippy 2008 (5, Funny)

TomSawyer (100674) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272563)

Clippy: Ok man, I was just saying... I should really just go, sorry.

Re:Clippy 2008 (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272600)

I don't think clippy really cares how you feel.

Re:Clippy 2008 (1)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272606)

Hello! It looks like you are trying to write a letter, may I be of...oh, oh man...geez, I'm sorry...sorry!

So... (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272564)

She did have gas.

Why can't we just say (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272566)

that Mona Lisa looks like she's "pleasant". She doesn't have to be happy, or smiling....to me she just looks like she's kickin' it, and doesn't really feel like much of anything.

How this probably works ... (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272567)

You can find corpuses [face-rec.org] of human faces taken with different emotions displayed.

Once you've either collected them yourself or downloaded them, you need to use a process called eigenanalysis which is basically fancy talk for analyzing a large dataset with multiple classes (emotions) using matrix decomposition.

I've actually worked on many projects involving this and the result is an eigenface (or eigenmask) [mit.edu] that allows you to transform the space that the original image is in and classify it using any of a number of algoirthms that use euclidean distance.

I know I left out a lot but there are many papers out there that you can find on citeseer [psu.edu] and white papers floating around out there [ucsb.edu] that provide a lot of reading material on this.

There are also strategies which require tagging certain features as points on the face (like corners of eyes, corners of mouth, center of eye, etc) and then using the relative distances between all these points to determine what classification you would give a new face. The problem with this is that it requires a lot of hand work to prepare the training set.

Hope this helps anyone who wants to learn more about the actual process used to accomplish this recognition.

Re:How this doesn't work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272737)

I looked at a few images from your link, and it became immediately clear that the emotions represented by the pictures are simulated. In other words, they had someone saying "ok, now look happy|sad|angry|etc." Unfortunately for this research, that means the actual emotions do not line up with the data. Without personally reviewing the learning data, I'd have to conclude that there's no way the computer is within 50% accurate.

Fortunately for us the human BSometer is really good at detecting fake smiles, even when they're mislabeled as smiles in a database. Any kid can tell you that Mona Lisa has one. There's also a strong touch of "worried" in that famous fake smile.

I guess they get the "disgusted" from the awkward sideways glance. Newsflash: photographers and painters pose their subjects. Furthermore, painters are not even required to paint what's really there.

Currently feeling:- messed up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272571)

I'll only be impressed when the software can relate my current feelings to an accurate and appropriate emoticon.

Currently feeling:- £^!

the other 8% (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272575)

the other 8% was actualy a piece of hamburger from lunch.

I don't buy it (5, Funny)

gusmao (712388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272577)

Mona Lisa is a woman, how can any software possibly tell what she is really thinking?

Re:I don't buy it (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272601)

Easy: the researchers perfected a revolutionary technique of writing non-male software!

Re:I don't buy it (2, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272638)

As long as it's also not female; because women can't tell you how they're feeling, either. You're just supposed to KNOW.

I'm..... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272580)

22% hungry and 88% constipated

Always giving 110%, I see. (1)

benjcurry (754899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272680)

Ewww. Just ewww.

Re:I'm..... (1)

iced_773 (857608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272708)


You're giving 110 percent to Slashdot! Taco should be flattered.

Dave, Are you sure you want to do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272583)

Yes, I'm damn sure, now open the door.

Next Microsoft Office (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272584)

The New Scientist says that software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood.

Finally!
Computer:"Clippy senses you're getting pissed off at it and want to kill it! It'll go hide in a corner now out of view. So sorry!"

Re:Next Microsoft Office (1)

3770 (560838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272824)


If I had written this software I would just determine if the subject was male or female from the user name.

Then, if the user is female I'd hard code the mood to "mood for shopping" and if male I'd hard code it to "mood for porn".

There, five minutes of coding and the result is spookily accurate.

ML was also 8% bored... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272585)

...and 6% bad at math.

self portrait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272586)

Considering the Mona Lisa is a self portrait of a man as he would be as a woman I think the whole fucking study is probably flawed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/gallery/mona lisa.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

Re:self portrait (0, Flamebait)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272647)

Another more unlikely - but popular - theory is that the painting was a self portrait.
And NASA never landed on the moon
And JFK was shot by three shooters...

Golden Ratio (1)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272587)

83% happy and 9% disgusted

To achieve fulfilment, a woman should strive for balance.

Re:Golden Ratio (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272649)

83% happy and 9% disgusted

To achieve fulfilment, a woman should strive for balance.

So ... on the back of her carriage, Mona Lisa La Giaconda should have had a brass plaque which said

I'm 50% Happy and 50% Disgusted. Don't push it

A painting isn't a photograph (5, Interesting)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272591)

This of course assumes that DaVinci captured her exact expression... Chances are that the painting just developed that way. Anyone who does art by hand knows that it's not a photograph and that the painting more or less takes on it's own personality as it's being created.

If it were a photo then yes I'd be more apt to accept an algorythmic interpretation of the image.. but paintings take time and it's doubtful that a person feels the exact same way over the course of days or weeks or even months it took for this painting to be completed.

Re:A painting isn't a photograph (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272690)

It's not really about the subjects expression, it's about the painting's expression. People find the smile very interesting in this painting, and that is most of the reason for the painting's particularly great fame. Why is the smile so interesting to people? Perhaps it is the 9% disgust. That's what this kind of analysis can hope to tell us about our response to this painting.

Re:A painting isn't a photograph (1)

underpar (792569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272698)

I agree. It's not capturing a moment in time like a photo. People have a range of emotions while sitting for a while. Hey.. maybe he told a dirty joke halfway through the painting and that's where the disgust came from.

Re:A painting isn't a photograph (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272701)

Not to mention, that for all we know the analysis may be completely wrong.

Yeah, she's 83% Happy, 9% Disgusted, 6% Fearful, 2% Angry.

We're sure she's not 87% Happy, 2% Disgusted, 6% Fearful, 5% Angry? What kind of degree of certainty do we have with these numbers?

Re:A painting isn't a photograph (1)

wolenczak (517857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272788)

The aim of the study is to decode the emotions of Mona Lisa IN the painting, not the emotions she had while the painting was done. As it is not a photograph, rendering the paint would have taken _several_ sessions, with changing moods.

Annoying (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272592)

software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood

You mean, like Clippy, but even more annoying?

Waste of time... (0)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272593)

I hate when people say stuff like "and yet Cancer goes uncured", but I *could have* played with my pecker all morning and come up with something more useful than this.

Re:Waste of time... (3, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272763)

"I *could have* played with my pecker all morning and come up with something more useful than this." (emphasis mine)

Eww. I always just discard that stuff, what do you do with it that makes it so useful?

If we're going to get technical... (1)

butterwise (862336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272594)

...It's a painting, and last I heard inantimate objects were incapable of emotions.

how is this possible? (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272612)

i find it funny that a machine was programmed to basically say things like

for every degree the eyebrows are tilted inward, thats 1% of anger.
for every degree that the outside of the lips are pointed upward, thats a %1 of happiness

has been used to decipher art. way to take the fun out of living.

Re:how is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272707)

So if I'm 90% happy I'm going to have some seriously funny looking lips :-]

Oh captain my captain? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272811)

"...has been used to decipher art. way to take the fun out of living."

You know, if you plot a line at the realism value of the painting on one axis, and the emotional value of the desired effect on the other axis, you can determine the true value of a portrait by calculating the area of the rectangle you've just outline (with the origin as the opposing corner).

Try again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272613)

The Mona Lisa is said to be Davinci's self portrait. If that is the case, then the numbers are incorrect. But it's not far off -- just replace happy with horny and disgusted with rejected.

translated into "emoticon recognition" (5, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272619)


83% happy

.83(:-))

I need this (1)

ranton (36917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272631)

I need the program that they used for this study. I can never tell what is going on in my girlfriend's head, and she always makes different facial expressions that I can never discern. With this I could finally read her mind just like she can always read mine.

She doesn't have emotions (2, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272632)

Mona Lisa doesn't have emotions. She's made of paint.

Re:She doesn't have emotions (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272798)

Shhh! Do you have any idea how upset she would be if she found that out?

The Slashdot Method (4, Funny)

ccnull (607939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272636)

I find this story 83% Interesting and 9% Funny.

Re:The Slashdot Method (1)

Rhoon (785258) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272726)

I find this story 83% Interesting and 9% Funny.

and 8% Troll

Re:The Slashdot Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272806)

...and I'll decide on the other 8% the next time this story is posted.

Sadly (1)

Life700MB (930032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272655)


Sadly, there's no program that can detect how this strange article makes me feel.


--
Great hosting [tinyurl.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

Another Idea Whose Time Never Was (1)

pkiesel (245289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272660)

"The New Scientist says that software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood. "

Now why does Grovel, the obsequious robot of Danger Mouse fame come to mind?

I just can't wait for the day when my computer starts reading things into my appearance! This could be a real labor saver - taking the drudge work of misinterpreting my moods off my wife's shoulders.

My mood (1)

NotoriousGOD (936922) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272662)

What if I haven't been laid in a couple days? Will my computer start flirting with me and ask me to buy it a drink?

Well damn (1)

cloudkj (685320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272671)

Well if the machine can recognize the O-face...... well, damn.

Soviet's Know that it is .... (1)

ta ma de (851887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272681)

just a gender-bending self portrait.

I thought it was a gender bending self portrait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272684)

The article explained that a database of women's faces were used. But it's been claimed that the Mona Lisa actually contains many of Leonardo's features.

Sort of blows the project right there, hrm?

It also leaves open the question of what template they should have used... Renaissance geniuses? Self-absorbed artists? I think this calls for some grant money to be spent.

Clippy of doom! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272694)

could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood

Lovely, now clippy can pop up with "You look like you're frustrated as hell with Microsoft Office. Would you like to buy some Microsoft stock?"

Death to clippy!

How does that work? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272699)

...software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood. Great... how is my computer going to adjust itself to my looking horny and bored?

The way things are going... (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272702)

I think we have to look at the more likely application: Detection of thoughtcrime!

And using my amazing "care factor" recognition (1)

kpang (860416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272706)

I've determined that this research experiment was a 100% waste of time. :P

Warning Signs (4, Funny)

Mignon (34109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272717)

software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood.

If your computer says "I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you," then you should pull the plug immediately.

200% (2, Funny)

racerxroot (786164) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272718)

I want to try and trick it and simultaneously make all the expressions that i can. I could be 17% happy, 40% confused, and 85% constipated.

Yes Indeed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272720)

Basically, this is 83% FUCKING STUPID

CmdrTaco's wife is SO FAT

3% (1)

Ankou (261125) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272721)

Oh dont forget 3% SBD (silent but deadly). But maby thats just the smile I make when that happens to me. *must think unfunny thoughts ... must not laugh*

Nice trick these researchers have discovered (5, Insightful)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272724)

  1. Invent algorithm
  2. Apply it in a domain where your work can't be falsified
  3. ???
  4. Profit!

pseudoscience (1)

phlegmofdiscontent (459470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272725)

I read this write-up of the study in question:

http://www.livescience.com/history/ap_051215_mona_ lisa.html [livescience.com]

This isn't science. Jim Wayman, a biometrics researcher, says "It's hocus pocus, not serious science, but it's good for a laugh, and it doesn't hurt anybody." He's right, though this is right up there with those studies that find an equation for the perfect ice cream cone, or whatever. The annoying thing is, people take this shit seriously.

Furthermore, from the link, "it couldn't detect the hint of sexual suggestion or disdain many have read into Mona Lisa's eyes". It occurs to me that the Mona Lisa, like all art, is subject to the interpretation of the viewer as well as the intent of the artist. Maybe the enigma WAS da Vinci's intent. In which case, studies like this are just blowing smoke up our asses. We all put a little of ourselves into the art.

Open the Pod Bay Doors HAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272739)

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that. . .

I sense hostility and emotional instability, I think you wish to do me harm. What's that? Do I see you face changing to a look of trying the side hatch and blowing the POD door?

I don't think so.

Great! (1)

AlvySinger (900304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272754)

When this software is widely available it'll bring joy to husbands everywhere: now we'll know what the wife is thinking.

But perhaps "100% annoyed for no apparent reason" isn't going to be useful information...

Longshot question (2, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272755)

Is there a chance the facial images have changed over the 1000-1500 years or whatever? I mean, obviously they wouldn't change much, but maybe a little?

More importantly, are we sure da Vinci had regular access to girl's faces? I mean, it was probably mostly guesswork on his part.

Algorithms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14272760)

Or heuristics?

I've seen babies smile like that. I think it's just gas.

Pointless (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272778)

My life feels complete now that a piece of software has told me what Mona Lisa's expression is. It was money and time well spent. A round of applause for these fine researchers.

Maybe she had to use the toilet and was trying to hold it in. Maybe Leonardo simply got the expression wrong. Maybe it was a mix of emotions given that the painting actually took some time to complete. There are countless sensible explanations for why she looks the way she does, and they're all irrelevant because it's just a work of art.

On the other hand, I'm sure it was Leonardo's dastardly plan was to confound people for centuries as to what Mona Lisa was feeling.

Re:Pointless (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272864)

"There are countless sensible explanations for why she looks the way she does, and they're all irrelevant because it's just a work of art."

I think it's the exact opposite. They are all relevant because it's a work of art.

The conjecture, the interpretation, that's all part of appreciating art.

rotcoD ehT (0, Offtopic)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272783)

This is a fake!

Bruce

About the comments here... (1)

SunPin (596554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272789)

I'm 83% happy and 9% disgusted.

A programming problem (5, Funny)

Myrmidon (649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272797)

Okay, here are my questions for the Slashdot community:

1) You're writing some code. You call the User Emotional Analysis API, and it reports back that your user is currently "83% happy and 9% disgusted". How should your software "adjust its response" in reaction to this information?

2) What happy/disgusted ratio leads to maximum productivity?

3) What are the odds that the Mona Lisa is a portrait of a Perl programmer?

oh good (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272799)

"The New Scientist says that software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood. "

hope you arent feeling horny at some random point of the day when people are around you.

What this means she was thinking (1, Redundant)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272801)

"Man, that Leonardo is such a stud... but does he really have to paint me while he's naked?"

Imagine (1)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272818)

It would be great to have this software display in your glasses (or cellphone if you pefer to have it now) the emotion of the girl you are talking to in a bar in realtime. If your cell phone/PDA doesn't have enough power to do that, you could upload a picture to a web server and get the stats. OK, I'm a nerd, but so are you!

Babe polygraph (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272820)

Can they customize this alogrithm to load into my cell phone and tell me if the hot chick at the other table finds me desirable?

HAL (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272840)

PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood.

Hal: Good Morning, Dave.

Just what we all need a computer that can sense we are getting pissed off and attempt to kill us before we kill it, our advantage is over.

Mood sensing PCs? (1)

tlon (154006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272851)

..."The New Scientist says that software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood. "

... As soon as I manage to rid the galaxy of those pesky Jedi, I will be unstoppa - oh, hello computer. No, I'm really just a happy, pleasant senator from Naboo.

In all seriousness - if you're in a foul mood, does the PC darken the screen and turn all the colors to dark and forboding colors? Pretty soon it will just shut itself off: Please don't engage with the keyboard device while in a foul mood. My circuits are sensitive....

Actual results (1)

skintigh2 (456496) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272853)

83% happy
9% disgusted
8% confused as to why anyone would take a COMPUTER'S word about EMOTIONS

So what does that mean? (2, Insightful)

theotherbastard (939373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272857)

83% happy and 9% disgusted? And just what does that mean? All of life's greatest mysteries can be solved in a quantitative manner? I for one don't want my computer to act differently if I'm happy, sad, pissed off, stoned, whatever. Just what I've always wanted, a computer with a Genuine People Personality (TM).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?