Hadn’t heard of this before but I’m more than a little skeptical, especially if its being used for policing
"More recently, companies such as Parabon NanoLabs and Identitas have begun offering forensic DNA phenotyping services for U.S. and international law enforcement. However, the science behind the commercial services offered by Parabon NanoLabs has been criticized as it has not been subjected to scrutiny in peer-reviewed scientific publications. It has been suggested that it is not known "whether their ability to estimate a face’s appearance is better than chance, or if it’s an approximation based on what we know about ancestry” -DNA phenotyping wiki
Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing.
The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person.
No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
So? That’s nowhere near the same thing as what you’re suggesting “AI can just take DNA and make the same person”. Look up what twins actually are. They aren’t just DNA injected into some random person.
I just re-read their post and yes you’re right, in which case I disagree with them. “Perfect” is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect
You’re joking, right? There’s a reason genotype and phenotype aren’t synonyms.
Forensic DNA phenotyping is actually being used. Of course it’s not perfect, but it can give a direction.
Hadn’t heard of this before but I’m more than a little skeptical, especially if its being used for policing
"More recently, companies such as Parabon NanoLabs and Identitas have begun offering forensic DNA phenotyping services for U.S. and international law enforcement. However, the science behind the commercial services offered by Parabon NanoLabs has been criticized as it has not been subjected to scrutiny in peer-reviewed scientific publications. It has been suggested that it is not known "whether their ability to estimate a face’s appearance is better than chance, or if it’s an approximation based on what we know about ancestry” -DNA phenotyping wiki
A very reasonable concern.
There’s also a reason identical twins look alike.
Wow, Jack and Ross look so alike! How did he get his arm back, isn’t that after the accident?
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted, it’s a good point that shows that genetics is the main factor for your appearance
Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing.
The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person.
But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point.
No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical
So? That’s nowhere near the same thing as what you’re suggesting “AI can just take DNA and make the same person”. Look up what twins actually are. They aren’t just DNA injected into some random person.
They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.
I just re-read their post and yes you’re right, in which case I disagree with them. “Perfect” is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect
Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details
deleted by creator
Identical twins also share the same womb, so it’s not 100% genes.
Same womb, similar growing environment, etc.
But even then, they’re not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same.
I don’t think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA
If you’re just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic.