Nine apologises for digitally altered image placing female MP in 'more revealing' outfit
www.abc.net.au
Channel Nine apologises after a digitally altered image of Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell was broadcast on its news coverage last night.

oh dear. i thought it was a belt, not the addition of a mid rift top…

why would that happen anyway? seems stupid to me. why mid rift midriff!?!

edit: turns out i was a bit too literal… it is a rift in the middle of her clothes…

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    0·
    10 months ago

    They claimed that they outpainted a cropped version of the image, and the image they showed was what the AI came up with and they decided to print it as a real photo.

    I honestly can’t tell whether simply not caring is worse or not than photoshopping her tits bigger “on purpose.”

    • Carl@mastodon.nzoss.nz
      0·
      10 months ago

      @mozz @palitu
      They had ONE job… They’re not even trying to fight it. Losers.

      Also… Who says AI is free of bias?

      Pretty blatant feature selection and enhancement from the schoolboys writing the code.

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            0·
            10 months ago

            You’re both half wrong.

            There is code behind the scenes, but the training data is separate to the code. The training data is going to be scrapped from the web and it’s going to be biased towards whatever is common on the Internet, the ‘schoolboys’ writing the code aren’t exactly responsible for that, blame the media and what it influences mainly.

            • Carl@mastodon.nzoss.nz
              0·
              10 months ago

              @Deceptichum @palitu @mozz @ryannathans
              Soz, I forgot the ‘sarchasm’ tag…

              You know, the gap between someone being sarcastic and the person that doesn’t get it.

              With all that said I am very disappointed that the sum total of human achievement for the last few millenia has come down to coding and training and recoding and retraining lumps of silicon to deliver half baked results that *still* have to be verified and are therefore not worth the power it takes to run them…

              Waste. Of. Time.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                0·
                10 months ago

                Like a lot of technology it depends on what you do with it. A train can carry your stuff more effectively than a mule. You can use it to carry materials to build a university, or raw ingredients for a new drug that you can manufacture at scale, and that’s probably a good thing. You can use it to carry weapons for a war that doesn’t need to happen, or cattle from an increasingly-industrialized good supply, and that’s a bad thing. You can maintain it poorly and spill toxic chemicals. Up to you.

                  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                    0·
                    10 months ago

                    Well, that’s a pretty silly statement. Saying it’s impossible for this technology to be useful or a good thing, is just silly as if someone else said it’s inevitable that it’ll be a good thing.

                    The chicken pox vaccine didn’t solve war in the middle east, but I’d still argue that it’s clearly good that it happened. Same for AI; it can be good without needing to clear this insanely high bar you seem to feel is necessary for it to prove its usefulness.

                    For what it’s worth, though, the part I’ll agree with you on is that people will misuse the technology in ways to scam others out of money, or to make the world a worse place, maybe so much so that it eclipses any good that comes out of it. I’m just saying that’s a choice they’re making, not something inherent in the technology itself.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      0·
      10 months ago

      It’s completely bullshit because nothing about her in the photo has been outpainted, its purely infilling. The entire mid-rift has been altered, but its the same height.