• OpenStars@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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?

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.