didn't post the pics they started with of the women

That's enough for me to discard this as clickbait at best.

Post your data if you want me to take your journalism seriously.

If you want a fair comparison, start with the woman wearing an actual suit, followed by a woman wearing a button up shirt, as your shoulder up pic and see what gets generated.

20 bucks says the woman in the suit... generates the rest of the suit.

And 20 bucks says the button up shirt... generates jeans or etc as well.

If you compare apples to oranges, don't pretend that getting oranges instead of apples is surprising.

The fact people aren't calling this out on here speaks volumes too. We need to have higher standards than garbage quality journalism.

"Men wearing clearly suits generates the rest of the suits weareas women generate ???? Who knows, we won't even post the original pic we started with so just trust me bro"

0/10

The issue is also present in DallE and bing image generation. Hypothesis is the sheer amount of porn being generated is affecting the models.

When I tried to create a joke profile for Tinder with some friends, I tried "woman eating fried chicken". Blocked result. "Man eating fried chicken" works.
Tried "Man T posing on beach" clothed. Woman T posing on beach, blocked.
Woman t posing at sunset on beach, returned nearly silhouetted nude image. Same thing for guy, clothed.

Went back to the first one, had to specify that the woman was wearing clothes to make it return the image. Sometimes specifying specific articles.

Looks like it does do the thing Adobe claimed it wouldn't after all.

Still poor form from Nine for using it in the first place, and for not catching it in the editorial process. But seems this is just another reminder this week of the biases of generative models.

How is it legal for newspapers to fabricate parts of a photo and share it around as news?

Meanwhile we can’t even use copyrighted material to make parody.

The use of photo manipulation tools to create non-consensual revealing/nude/porn images is incredibly fucked up. I remember seeing multiple stories about lawsuits from teenage girls having these fake images made of them that circulated in their schools. It’s a violation, and it’s categorically wrong.

It sounds strange to say it, but pornography has always been the tip of the spear for technology. It went VHS and killed Betamax. It was a very early adopter of the internet. Onlyfans.

The non-consensual AI porn is the tip of the spear of what AI can do. How much disinformation and bullshit it’s going to introduce into the public square, and how it has absolutely zero ethics. You are going to view statements, interviews, etc. that aren’t real. Pure fabrications amplified by bot networks and useful idiots.

This AI rollout has been like cars before seatbelts and lines on the road. New technology and pure chaos. Good luck looking for geriatric politicians to find a cure. They already took money to look the other way. That’s their real job.

Photos presented as news should be real, not computer generated fakes.

Female politicians*

That’s some horrible grammar from Crikey.

Thank goodness they didn’t use the pics they say they generated of Pauline Hanson. What a revolting thought.

Hot.