Permanently Deleted
Wait, so he asked it to generate the opposite of a man who’s been pictured smiling and is considered traditionally handsome (Marlon Brando), and it’s somehow shocking that the opposite of that is a face of a frowning woman with ugly features?
I mean all the training data that gets fed to this thing just results in the replication of pre-existing biases of the society that data was collected from, filtered through the people collecting and classifying the data.
In another ten years, after AI behaviour has been studied academically (which I feel like AI developers are not in a hurry to facilitate, so that the product preserves its mystique) we’re all going to be super-jaded about this.
Like, someone’s going to notice something like this and someone else is going to say "oh, yeah, that’s just the Chang-Plimpton effect. It happens when multiple [hoozitz]-type parameters are very high in the source image, essentially creating a feedback loop in the [whatchamacallit]. "
I mean, I’m jaded about it now. The article - as written - feels like some Creepypasta I’d have seen on 4chan twenty years ago.
Oooo! A mysterious uncanny-valley ghost-woman image is popping up in the back of all my negative-of-a-negative-of-a-negative search results. Lets try to mystify this into a supernatural phenomenon, rather than realize it for a simple AI heuristic scraping the bottom of the logical barrel.
Someone at ABC News needed a fresh spin on the topic of AI Art, which was already saturating media markets. So they wrote a ghost story about AI Art (or, more likely, found a ghost story and slapped a journalist veneer over the top). I wouldn’t even be surprised if someone used a chatbot to reskin the old Pokemon urban legend about an IRL kid who was killed by a haunted copy of the game.
