Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, "discovers"... what we've known for a long time. But buzzword in the title = clicks (& thus money from ads on the page) so there's that.
They have a specific result though, which is that fingerprints from different fingers of the same person tend to be recognizable as coming from the same person, just from their characteristics. Was that also known for a long time?
Yes, it has been know since forever. It's not like every finger is a different being. There are three well known chemicals related to the creation of fingerprints patterns. We have sequenced the RNA responsible for determining both the timing and concentrations of these three chemicals. We know thus that people's fingerprints all have certain commonalities that can be used to identify that two, different, fingerprints came from the same person. It has been used by police forces for at least a decade now.
If you read about Turing patterns you'll learn more and be already way ahead of these dude's research. They are trying to parade undergrad knowledge under the AI umbrella. Maybe if they knew a thing or two about forensics they would've made a better contribution to science.
The article makes a big point about how this result is not common knowledge and not the commonly accepted viewpoint. To the extent that their paper was rejected for it. Are you saying they made that up?
I haven't read their paper but... the idea that vaccines can prevent against diseases without harmful side effects is also "not common knowledge" fwiw (the level of basic science literacy in most of the Western world is abysmal), and if reviewers rejected the paper then there is a good chance that there is a reason for that.
If you are interested in this topic, here is an excellent (imho) summary video from 6 years ago, which around 9:30 talks about this identical topic. Enjoy! :-) Beware though, from someone who has been down that road: it will make you sad, and the more you learn along these lines, the less hope it will leave you that anything will ever be okay again:-(. I cannot emphasize this enough: I am nowhere close to kidding here.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot.
Although that link spins forever for me.:-(
They copy pasted the Columbia University press release word for word. Which is unfortunately way too common on science journalism. The article just repeats the researchers claims which may or may not hold water. Their main claim that they proved that inter fingerprints aren't unique is just semantic manipulation. That's probably what irked reviewers. Their research doesn't support their claims. At best, they're proposing a mediocre application of AI to detect markers that were already known about.
That makes a lot of sense. It's way too easy to spread BS the way that science journalism works.