Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Why would we need technology to tell us someones emotions when we know ourselves? No, I don't think that this is valuable because it is basically a machine that does an action that we can do ourselves. It also may not even be as acurate as scientist beleive. Another reason why I beleive that this invention isn't valuable is because I just find it really scary how exact the numbers are that the machine gives even if the numbers aren't correct and how much of interaction is happening between the face and the software.

The first reason that I beleive that this software isn't valuable is because we don't need a machine to do the job of reading expressions for us when we can do it just fine by ourselves. I know this because in the article they state," In fact, we humans perform this same impressive "calculation" everyday." This shows that we can indeed read emotions of people all by ourselves. I also know this because the text states," For instance, you can probably tell how a friend is feeling simply by the look on her face." This statement is completely true, I know that I can tell when people are upset even if they aren't my friends or someone that I know. Finally, I know this because the text states," Of course, most of us would have trouble actually describing each facial trait that conveys happy, worried, ect." This is true to a point because we may not be able to know when someone is feeling worried or frustrated but we know that something is wrong. That is not a bad thing when we don't know every expression on somoenes face becasue that gives us social experiences with other people to go and ask them what's wrong.

The second reason that I beleive that this software isn't valuable is because scientists may beleive that this technology is accurate but is it really? I know this because in the text it states,"Yet Dr. Huang observes that artists such as da Vinci studied human anatomy to help them paint facial muscles precisely enough to convey specific emotions." This right here shows that if the muscles of the face aren't showing enough muscle for an emotion the software might pick up a different emotion. I also know this because the text states that, "For example, your frontalis pars lateralis muscle(above your eyes) raises your eyebrows when you're suprised; your orbiculars oris (around your mouth) tightens your lips to show anger." I disagree with how they are training this software to recognize facial emotion because some people don't make a happy face when they are happy or a sad face when they are sad.

The last reason that I beleive that this software isn't valuable is because it is really creepy on how exact the number can get and how much interaction there is between the computer and the face. I know this because the text states,"She's 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry." Wow, to me that is scary. I would never want this software to read my facial expressions. I also know this because the text states, " Dr. Huang and his colleague are experts at developing better ways for humans and computers to communicate." Why would people want computers to take over little everyday things that we do? This is creepy how much computers have weasled their way into our everyday lives so easily.

In conclusion, I beleive that this software isn't valuable because why would we use a machine to do something that we can do by ourselves? Also because the information being received from the software may not even be accurate. Finally, because the software is just really creepy and scary to think about how much human and machine interaction happens daily and how much much we rely on them.

Score: 5