Sitzordnung im Bundestag

Das ist ja wie in der Grundschule: die Fraktionen streiten sich darum, wer bei wem sitzen darf, und bei wem man ganz bestimmt nicht sitzen mag.

Dabei ist die Lösung denkbar einfach, denn: wo steht denn geschrieben, dass die Fraktionsmitglieder alle auf einem Haufen sitzen müssen? Wie wäre es denn mit einem Losverfahren, und zwar für jeden einzelnen Abgeordneten?

Das hätte viele Vorteile:

• die Abgeordneten würden dem Vortragenden zuhören, statt mit dem Parteigenossen nebenan zu plaudern (stimmt, Grundschule, hatte ich ja schon erwähnt).
• der obige Punkt trifft ganz besonders auf die Regierungsbank zu, wo man gerne wegschaut und miteinander redet, wärend am Rednerpult etwas vorgetragen wird, das der Rigierung nicht ins Konzept (falls vorhanden) passt.
• Unterhaltungen über Parteigrenzen hinaus wären möglich - vielleicht ergibt sich ja etwas Interessantes daraus.

Da die Arbeitsräume ja nach Fraktionen angeordnet sind, gibt es noch genügend Gelegenheit außerhalb der Sitzungen, sich partei-intern abzusprechen.

Einem Abgeordneten gefällt die Nase des Nebensitzers partout nicht? Na dann verlosen wir die Plätze eben alle drei Monate neu.

Spricht etwas dagegen? Macht mal!

Faception - Where is the Outcry?

Israeli tech company Faception created a software (using artificial intelligence, what else would you expect these days?), which can tell you the mindset of a person just by "looking" at the person's face.

Of course, the primary goal is to spot terrorists, but they also claim to be able to tell, for example, whether the person is a gambler, a risk-taker, eager for money, etc.

I find it quite ironic, that an Israeli company buys into the concept what you can determine a person's character by looking at their face: it was the Nazis, who tried (an failed) to do exactly that. This could be hilarious if it were not so sad!

Before artificial intelligence, this software is based on vernacular psychology, without any scientific foundation. There are no studies that show any correlation between face (or skull, as the Nazis had it) and character. Just search for "phrenology", and you will see that serious scientist have abandoned this as BS long ago.

But sure, artificial intelligence will find, what science did not, and what doe not exist: Faception claim in one of their videos that they were able to identify 9 out of 11 of the terrorist who attacked Paris. Just guessing here, but if you train your AI for example on photos of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, this is to be expected. No, not because terrorist share a certain phenotype, but because they were all Arabs!  So the software is not any better that ordinary right-wing people. Or wait, it is even worse, because these days most people believe in predictions made by new technology, regardless of how absurd the underlying theory may be.

Another claim by  Faception is that their "accuracy" is between 70% and 80%. This is an incomplete statement: does this refer to correct positives or correct negatives? Let's assume they mean correctly identified people, so positives. Then that means that more than 2 in 10 people will falsely be accused of being a terrorist. This is certainly not a number that should make any sentient being boast about it!

There will be many governments who will gladly embrace this new technology to ensure safety and "protect our freedom". Imagine this technology being installed on airports, how many people will  mistakenly be denied to board their flight? Or regimes like Turkey, who already arrest people for mere suspicion without a trial: this software will give the a great excuse to move this to an entirely new level.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of reaction all this in the media, no people rallying against this extremely improper us of technology on the basis of a "science" borrowed from the Nazis. What a shame!