I&#x27;ve been on-and-off interested in facial expression for a while, and can&#x27;t help but feel that &#x27;the emotion tool&#x27; is kind of flawed.<p>Unless there&#x27;s been a groundbreaking shift in the last 12 months or so, this software will be using the Facial Action Coding System to recognize muscle contractions which are then interpreted as &#x27;emotions&#x27;. FACS is an amazing tool (can&#x27;t recommend learning it enough if you&#x27;re interested in this stuff), but it still relies interpreting the context of the expression to determine an emotion. It&#x27;s a notation system for expressions, not an identification system for emotions.<p>There&#x27;s an off chance that their algorithm has crowdsourced their data which can be even worse because the emotions we display and the ones we feel aren&#x27;t always the same. For example, I may force a smile to cover fear. FACS training can take 100+ hours because a lot of heuristics for identifying expressions need to be unlearned.<p>It&#x27;s a bit of worry when <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.projectoxford.ai&#x2F;demo&#x2F;emotion#detection" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.projectoxford.ai&#x2F;demo&#x2F;emotion#detection</a> uses mostly posed photos to demonstrate their software. The third photo contains perhaps one smile that shows signs of being genuine, the rest seem to be posed (I&#x27;d need higher resolution to be sure). If this third photo was accurately reading their emotions (cf. expressions), then the results should not be that they are happy.<p>Replacing the emotions with names for expressions would make me feel a little more comfortable about using this: &#x27;happy&#x27; with &#x27;smile&#x27;, &#x27;angry&#x27; with &#x27;glare&#x27; and so on. But then it seems a lot less useful so I see why they&#x27;ve described&#x2F;marketed it the way they did.