jingxiaotuan
Stories (2)
Filter by community
spirit
Making machines understand you better is what researchers in the field of emotional computing are trying to do. Laughing when you're happy, blushing when you're shy, and talking faster when you're nervous are human expressions of emotion. And these emotions are being understood by machines through collection, recognition and computation. Emotion recognition is the key technology for machines to understand human emotions. From text, speech, facial expressions, body movements, and internal physiological signals, researchers are trying to integrate more emotional signals to make recognition more accurate, and make human-computer interaction more natural, smooth, and warm. Deciphering human emotions In 1995, Professor Rosalind W. Picard of the Media Lab of Massachusetts Institute of Technology first proposed to create a computer system that can perceive, recognize and understand human emotions, and make intelligent, sensitive and friendly responses by identifying human emotional signals. In 1997, Picard's monograph Affective Computing was published, in which she pointed out that "Affective Computing is the calculation that focuses on the external manifestations of human beings, can be measured and analyzed, and can influence the emotions", which opened a new field of computer science. This is where emotional computing begins. In artificial intelligence research institute, tsinghua university and other institutions jointly issued the "emotional calculation of artificial intelligence", emotional calculation is divided into three modules, respectively is the emotional signal acquisition, signal analysis, modeling and recognition of emotion and emotion signal fusion algorithm research, emotion recognition and include language, facial expressions, voice, body, and many other segmentation module. At present, most researches focus on text, facial expression and speech recognition. But most of the time, human emotions are not externalized in the face or the sound of words. Some researchers believe that relying on facial expressions to identify human emotions is not accurate. In 2019, five U.S. experts published an article called Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: In Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements, the paper points out that the ways people express emotions such as anger, anger, sadness and surprise change with culture and situation, and even in the same situation. Different people use different expressions. "The expression of human emotion is not just words, expressions and sounds. The emotions themselves are very complex. For example, my heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature all change when I'm nervous. "Facial expressions, language, voice, physiological signals and other modes can reflect human emotional changes." Zhijiang Laboratory artificial intelligence research Institute frontier theory research center assistant director Li Taihao pointed out. In 2016, researchers at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab developed a device called EQ-Radio that can identify emotions via wireless signals. Eq-radio claims to be able to tell with 87 per cent accuracy whether a person is excited, happy, angry or sad by monitoring subtle changes in breathing and heart rate. Li Tae-ho pointed out that the accuracy of single modal emotion recognition is not high, and now multi-modal emotion recognition is a promising direction for researchers. "Speech and physical expressions can be controlled, but physiological signals are not. One mode is difficult to accurately judge the human emotion, now we hope to improve the accuracy of the original single mode through multi-mode, all kinds of perceived information, signal integrated emotion recognition." Multimodal emotion recognition is still at the forefront of research. Mr Lee says there are two big problems in this area that need to be addressed. One is perception. "On the one hand, we need to make breakthroughs in hardware, such as the development of simple and comfortable wearable devices that can accurately capture changes in physiological signals such as heart rate, blood pressure and EEG. On the other hand, some studies are trying to collect physiological signals without contact, such as using machine vision and image processing technology to obtain body temperature, blood pressure and other data. But overall, there is a problem with accuracy." Lee Tae-ho explained. The second is the problem of multi-modal fusion. "The difficulty is how so much information is related to each other, how to integrate multiple modes without relying too much on one mode," Lee said. When the perceptual signals are collected better and the algorithm fusion is improved, machines may be able to recognize emotions more accurately than humans." Let robots have "emotions" When human emotions are deciphered, can be applied in what work and life scenarios? Cases have been reported in the field of autonomous driving. Affectiva Automotive AI, a Boston-based startup, has developed a passenger-focused software product that can help reduce traffic accidents by monitoring drivers' state and identifying emotions from their voice, body language and facial expressions. Leaders of the EQ-Radio project have also predicted that the emotion-recognition device could be used in entertainment, consumer behavior and health care. Movie studios and advertisers can use the system to test audience reactions in real time, and smart home systems can use information about your mood to adjust the temperature, for example. "You don't know how an AD will work until it's launched, and that's where emotion recognition comes in. For example, if an AD is aimed at young people, the advertiser can select a sample in advance and use emotion recognition to determine whether the AD is effective, so as to make corrections." Lee Tae-ho explained. In addition, emotion recognition has been used in the auxiliary diagnosis of mental diseases, education, transportation and other fields. Service robots may be the biggest application scenario for multimodal emotion recognition in the future. In Lee's view, today's robots are task-based, have no temperature and cannot interact "emotionally" with humans. "There are more and more elderly people, and it is very likely that robots will take care of them in the future. If robots are just machines, the elderly may be more lonely. People are social and need to communicate, and service robots must have 'emotion' if they want to be used." In Disney's "Big Hero 6," Baymax is a robot that transforms the hearts of millions of people as a personal health aide and a friend to Hiro, who guides him through his dark days. With the development of artificial intelligence technology such as emotional computing, maybe one day in the future, robots will no longer be cold devices, we can also have warm "baymax".
By jingxiaotuan3 years ago in Futurism
humanity
1. The meaning of the topic now it has almost become the consensus of human beings that human nature is inherently evil. Whether it is the biological evolution research conducted by scientists through controlling variables or the mainstream of philosophical thought, the self-protection of human beings has been recognized. Group living is not out of the basic good, but out of the need to fight against natural enemies, altruism is not out of nature, but out of the rational choice of equivalent exchange. So why is it still relevant to talk about human goodness? Because we still have hope in humanity, because even the worst of us can understand guilt and insecurity. And the conscience in the heart is the root of goodness. We may not be all altruistic saints, but we can still be relatively kind. The same debate about values has different meanings in different times. Although the first time I saw the topic of the debate was the same old meme that has been discussed many times in Chinese debate circles, I was devastated. Jiang Changjian's sentence "The night gave me black eyes, but I use it to find light" is really a timeless classic, it is a need to admit self-worth, have the courage to recognize the desire and desire to live in harmony with their own, to create more social and personal wealth. Now, our heart has recognized that human nature is evil, the independent personality of the generation after 90 has already awakened, reform and opening up has been carried out for 30 years, today to see this topic, perhaps there is a bit of moving meaning. Material life has been basically guaranteed, so in addition to having the courage to recognize our inner desire, should we also start to reflect on whether our spiritual level can be upgraded accordingly? So many have fought on the front lines to protect their homes. Is it their hope for the next generation to create a warmer, more peaceful, more benevolent world? Therefore, at this stage of history, can we discuss the possibility and evidence of the inherent goodness of human nature and look for a more realistic hope for the bright future of the world? 2. The definition of Good and evil that interests me most in this debate is not human nature, but "good" and "evil". But unlike the definition of other arguments, the contestants must find a boundary between "good" on the one hand and "evil" on the other. So what is the line between good and evil? Kindness, like optimism, tolerance, freedom and equality, cannot be a limit without measure or control. So relative kindness should be something we can talk about. In this competition, the players all define "good" as "altruism." This definition is vague and infinite, because in a mutually beneficial relationship, although there is self-interest and altruism, there is no discussion of good and evil. Only when there is a contradiction between self-interest and altruism, in other words, only when there is the possibility of self-interest at the expense of others and altruism at the expense of oneself, can good and evil be highlighted. There is no dispute that self-interest at the expense of others must be evil, and that self-interest at the expense of others can also be identified as the category of saints, rather than the relative goodness of ordinary people. There are also two situations, not at the expense of others, and not at the expense of others. Not hurting others to benefit oneself is the premise of survival, because life itself is to take care of yourself. Relative kindness is shown by not harming yourself to benefit others, or very lightly harming yourself to benefit others, such as stopping for a few minutes to point out directions to a lost person. In the final, the pros and the pros were drawn. Babies cry in the middle of the night to drink milk, and disturb their parents' sleep to avoid the presence of younger siblings. Babies may not be conscious themselves, but this crying habit is the result of biological evolution and natural selection. The opposition is trying to show that people are inherently evil. I do not agree with this point, because there is a new situation here, not knowing the harm of others, but at the expense of others. Taking care of other people's feelings and understanding them are as much perceptual and experiential as understanding the objective world. It is not an innate instinct. So the baby can not take care of themselves, but also can not think of a way to survive without harming others and self-interest. It is the existence of natural selection, biological instinct reveals the hardships of life, but more can reflect the softness and goodwill of human heart. Self-interest is the essence of survival, do not know self-interest life can not move forward. From the point of view of human nature as inherently evil, the question is whether the self-serving way is harmful to others. If there is a selfish impulse in human nature to benefit oneself at the expense of others, then human nature is evil. From the perspective of the inherent goodness of human nature, the problem lies in whether it is beneficial to others without harming oneself. If the enthusiasm of helping others exists in human nature, then the inherent goodness of human nature can be proved. The opposite side is also repeatedly used as an example of desert island survival, cannibalism to feed, to the desperate human reaction to determine human nature is can harm others self-interest evil. But I don't think that's a valid example, because cannibalism in extremity, that's the embodiment of evil, that a good person with a conscience would peacefully accept death instead of killing his fellow man. The problem is that the desperate "evil" can prove to be human nature, I do not say desperate will stimulate human evil, I mean, desperate will reflect a person's character, the so-called adversity is a friend indeed, but this character is an adult after years of experience accumulation of self-cultivation, rather than is the nature of itself. Therefore, the middle value of good and evil is not to harm others to benefit oneself -- survival itself, the relative good is no matter how to keep the bottom line, and the relative evil is knowing that will harm people, keep the moral bottom line.
By jingxiaotuan3 years ago in Humans
