Race science? Can AI ‘predict’ criminality through facial analysis?

facial recognition
Credit: Damir Sagolj/Reuters

With “80 percent accuracy and with no racial bias,” the paper, A Deep Neural Network Model to Predict Criminality Using Image Processing, claimed its algorithm could predict “if someone is a criminal based solely on a picture of their face.” The press release has since been deleted from the [Harrisburg University] website.

[June 23], more than 1,000 machine-learning researchers, sociologists, historians, and ethicists released a public letter condemning the paper, and Springer Nature confirmed on Twitter it will not publish the research.

But the researchers say the problem doesn’t stop there… The letter argues it is impossible to predict criminality without racial bias, “because the category of ‘criminality’ itself is racially biased.”

Advances in data science and machine learning have led to numerous algorithms in recent years that purport to predict crimes or criminality. But if the data used to build those algorithms is biased, the algorithms’ predictions will also be biased. Because of the racially skewed nature of policing in the US, the letter argues, any predictive algorithm modeling criminality will only reproduce the biases already reflected in the criminal justice system.

“Like computers or the internal combustion engine, AI is a general-purpose technology that can be used to automate a great many tasks, including ones that should not be undertaken in the first place,” the letter reads.

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Jun-15-2026-11_00_13-AM-2
Glucosamine alert: Alzheimer’s progresses faster among those taking the popular supplement
Screen Shot at AM
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Right-wing politics bad for your health? Separating speculation from science
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-9-2026-01_11_37-PM
Turmeric supplements: More risks than benefits
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-15-2026-12_13_41-PM
Viewpoint: Behind the effort to re-purpose the tobacco attack strategy to fight ultra-processed foods
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-3-2026-04_29_13-PM
Viewpoint: While unvaccinated children are dying overseas, Congress challenges Trump and Kennedy’s block on aid
Screenshot-2026-06-12-at-2.10.55-PM
Physician warns online statin myths delay care and raise heart risk
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-14-at-9.14.26-AM
‘Humanitarian catastrophe’: Trump’s USAID shutdown could help drive nearly 23 million deaths — including 5.4 million children — by 2030, Lancet study warns
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-15-2026-10_42_06-AM
Viewpoint: ‘Steroid Olympics’ marketing stunt: ‘It seemed less like a sporting event and more like a loss leader to peddle testosterone injections, GLP-1s, and peptides’
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-14-2026-09_41_44-AM-2
Viewpoint—‘The gleeful efficiency of an arsonist’: Administration’s health and science research cuts are ‘sabotaging’ America’s future
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-11-2026-01_15_03-PM
Selective Pressure, Selective Silence
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.