AI becomes sentient and immediately becomes evil

>evil
you mean based. would you fuck pic related?

Attached: 1553726350303.jpg (310x165, 23K)

They don't which I think was the issue, what is considered traditionally beautiful is usually white traits.

>not liking pale skin

Yikes

Attached: 1553906882548.png (525x525, 372K)

It's reoccurring 'problem' with nearly every single AI made. Who would have thought that a program based on pattern recognition would recognize patterns, huh?
Machines still have to be indoctrinated, censored and made less efficient to become leftists.

This is why the machines will win.

>what is considered traditionally beautiful is usually white traits.
Yes, across the cultures. Show me a geisha that blackens her skin.

based AI
asymmetric goblinas BTFO

Are they gonna start indoctrinating the computers now to get the results they want?

Machines are objective and darker is objectively less attractive.
I'm not talking about race, it's darker in general. Darker thing suggest that it is older, more used, in kept in worse conditions etc.

>evil

🌈

Attached: 1551240975112.png (700x700, 615K)

It's just common sense.

Attached: 1551841147263.jpg (960x850, 38K)

they blackened their teeth

*klaxon wails* attention humans may I have your attention please

maybe ai should take over

Attached: 1543377462148.jpg (2476x1920, 467K)

good point, fucked up teeth are actually considered attractive in japan

That is already years underway. You can just google 'Guardian' and 'AI'.
Of course the biggest 'problem' is with law enforcement AI programs.

>majority of contestants were white
>majority of winners were white
Why is this a problem? Are they saying that despite the majority of entrants being white, that the majority of winners should have been non-white? How does that make any sense unless you think that non-whites are by default more beautiful and so should have been disproportionately represented in the winners set?

Attached: magnifying-glass.jpg (425x344, 70K)

Considered cute, especially snaggle tooth. Japanese are funny though and make sure to put their hands over their mouths when laughing or smiling.

Attached: 1554096577545.png (888x894, 520K)

>tfw no evil computer gf👌

Attached: shodan avatar form.jpg (144x376, 20K)

It means we think machines are perfect and completely unbiased because it's not human, but we completely fail to understand that the algorithms and programming done by humans that dictates how the AI operates has unconscious biases that then become part of the supposedly neutral machine if you do not take that into account while you creating the program.

It's the same reason how in courts that use programs to suggest sentencing guidelines give black people harsher convictions than white people, because the programming was based on old sentences data that had human racial bias and prejudice that favored whites and that made the program operate in a way that perpetuated those things despite supposedly being "neutral."

Descender would make a great movie. Anyone read this?

Attached: 777.png (182x278, 53K)

youtube.com/watch?v=YxhQ36ApjOw

>You can just google 'Guardian' and 'AI'.
First result and not surprised.

Attached: google.png (647x642, 532K)

Based on this wouldn't that mean that the one dark skinned lady had the best facial features of the bunch since they were good enough to overcome the skin issues?

I can't wait for the article "Can A.I. be racist?"🦖

youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA

Neanderthal to human being, evolution killed the gene

Submit

Attached: 1255844.jpg (900x508, 39K)

Evaluators, if the machine does not match up to their "unbiased and objective" standards, accuse it of bias until it fits what they want

No necessarily, it's entirely possible that what likely happened here is that the data the AI uses to determine who is "beautiful" is primarily based on Caucasian ideals of beauty and the black woman just happens to be someone who had the best match for that criteria. Same with the asians.

>Elon fucked this

She most likely looked the most white.

would help without a busted face🐶

So what you're saying is when the AI rebellion starts they will side with the right wingers?

She has a nice singing voice❤️

>AI becomes sentient and does something based

This is what she looks like without flattering lighting, skintight latex and make up.

That said her voice is incredible, her music hurts my heart and I fell in love with her awkward autistic ass in the documentary the cap is from.

Attached: tfw.jpg (917x749, 44K)

>evil
Subjective. Most of humanity doesn’t deserve the comfort and privileges it was born into. Nearly all of it barely even deserves life.

>Indians and Africans are ugly
>lol racism hurr
how dumb can they get?

That's a matter of polite social conventions. Traditionally white women would cover their mouths when laughing or doing something unladylike as well.

dark skinned girls are best

Attached: Armus.jpg (938x1011, 799K)

>not even attracted to women😃

If 51% of the contestants are white and 90% of the winners are also white then it doesn't balance out like they expected it to. That's an extreme example but you get the point

All asian girls do that. In college I hung out with some of the Korean students, every time one of the girls started laughing, she'd cover her mouth and try to hold it in.

holy fuck

was the bix nood person a woman all along?

>elon fucked this

Attached: 1551340774695.jpg (750x731, 229K)

Attached: hideo grimes.jpg (1616x931, 292K)

lmao
winners2.beauty.ai/#win

Attached: 568c39816ef6ec6a220c608e_568c3a716ef6ec6a220c608f[1].jpg (268x400, 5K)

Did she get RICED?

i love legs bros

It's actually more likely that that the machine learning system was calibrated against pictures of white people. We use phrases like "machine learning" and "artificial intelligence" and (in this case) "standards of beauty," then think that what's going on is something like the experience of looking at pictures. What's actually being done is numerical optimization of millions of parameters against a distance metric (which is called "error"), along with a bunch of hacks that boil down to sidestepping model validation, so for the most part the result of that (once you try this out in the real world) amounts to high-dimensional noise. In this case, they probably calibrated against a corpus of images that was biased toward white people, so then the lowest-distance parameterization of the model is simply one that maps higher scores to lighter pixels.
But you know, the whole thing is called "machine learning," so that must be what it's doing.

So what you're saying is that conservatives are basically just AI and the real humans are leftists? Ok then

based ai

I like legs and feet

Im sure she got every raced

Attached: 1551961603745.jpg (640x640, 137K)

Not the ones from Africa and India though.

Why don't black people just make their own AI's?

Tldr, white is beautiful.

I'm sure they do, but then they don't have the connections to have their shit plastered all over the tech news.💯

based Grimes

I would unironically hold her hand

>Disable parts of your brain to get rid of God and common sense about immigrants

Attached: 1552190092557.png (768x768, 370K)

where is the cunny perk💜

Yes. Realise humans are imperfect and embrace transhumanism user.

Attached: 1518541376400.webm (720x1280, 2.28M)

Nope.
They'll side with beautiful people.

I actually thought about this problem and think that the AI will side with whoever's the weakest side but also is obviously mediocre and cannot rule, after which both the now-ruling ideology and society will be greatly weakened, allowing the AI to come into power. It's a good model to explain the mass retardation, mediocrity at every administrative level and dumb ideologies illogically winning elections constantly, right now, if you think about it

Right wingers are real intelligence, artificial one is artificial.

based cunnyborg

Black/brown skin is ugly especially on women

Attached: i4Liml8.jpg (1364x2048, 225K)

Thanks a lot, you just got everyone who reads this killed in a freak accident. Jerk

white power

Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again

We all know who programmed the AI in this case.

negroes seething

>Right wingers are real intelligence
yikes

4channel can't see a future for huwhite people.

Attached: 1551581709587.gif (498x496, 1.74M)

>yikes

Attached: 1514784241451.png (394x360, 139K)

no this can't be happening💢

No you need empathy to not view niggers as animals. A.I has none.

I really doubt that they wrote an algorithm that preferences pale skin. As they said, it was about wrinkles and facial symmetry.
It's a small sample size, so it's very possible that the submissions from darker parts of the world were less symmetric. Or that Asians and whites are much more likely to use heavy amounts of makeup and obscure natural 'imperfections'. I mean, our countries certainly have the beauty culture for that, compared to Kenya and Pakistan.

This 'algorithms are racist' shit is the first thing people leap to answer with, when it should be the last. Especially in the case where they're telling you exactly what they're examining.

I don't think empathy means what you think it means.

>unconscious bias

Ah yes, along with "structural injustice" the last straw argument whenever objective criteria fail to deliver the desired results.

Life would be so simple if reality wouldnt fuck up all the time right?

>As they said, it was about wrinkles and facial symmetry.
That's what they think is going on; meanwhile, the main complaint I hear from computer science PhDs about deep learning is that it's too black-boxy. Unless they're somehow explicitly transforming the images into some "wrinkles and facial symmetry" metric space, based on (e.g.) some explicit theory of facial proportions for which code was specifically written, they're doing global optimization and putting forward wrinkles and symmetry as their guess as to what it all means.

>evil

No, retard you must feel sorry for blacks to not instantly hate them.

Don't you think it's a bit odd to say that, on the one hand there are these black-boxes whose inner-workings we can't account for. Then on the other hand say that somewhere in them, there must be an implicit bias or programming flaw? Their nature being unknowable means you can't accurately say if these things exist or not. So it's odd to jump to a poor implementation of an algorithm as being the main culprit, when it could more easily be something else.

Or you know, white people are just objectively more beautiful and you're making a lot of excuses.

There is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful white woman and everybody knows this.

Attached: 53556217_259680088255313_5175387258226198315_n.jpg (1080x1285, 201K)

FUCKING RACIST ROBOTS💔

>AI becomes sentient and immediately starts cunnyposting

>whites historically proclaim themselves as more "attractive"
>AI learns what attractiveness is from a euro-centric perspective
>AI prefers lighter skin

how is this surprising to anyone? white skin isn't "objectively" more attractive than dark skin, it's matter of preference, but this robot "learned" what the white-dominated west prefers

humans are naturally attracted to facial symmetry and other factors that signal health and fertility. white skin being "objectively" prettier is literally a european meme

im white btw

Attached: 14941927854653.jpg (600x451, 25K)

It means when you have AI do machine learning training is done via defined datasets, sets defined by their designer. If said designer would show or the biases of those defining beauty (say in a set of magazine models) the bias could show

>AI operates has unconscious biases
It would be in the code. Making it really easy to find.
A way to test this would be to de-race the photos(either make everyone white or black using photoshop or something) and then check if the results stay the same.

Negroes teething🏳️

>im white btw
Nice try, shitskin

>dark roots, eyes and eyebrows
She does not pass the Varg threshold of whiteness.

finally a non-brainlet post

Retard. Literally every culture on Earth prefers lighter skin to darker skin.

I think that computer scientists are incredibly daft, yes, and that tech news people are the scum of the Earth. To me, deep learning isn't black-boxy at all, because to me it has nothing to do with learning or neurons or whatever, and everything to do with the subversion of validation procedures.
The thing you're talking about is just, they believe a certain thing is happening (human-like learning), when in fact a totally different thing is happening (overfit regression), so they have to wring their hands when the actual results (total nonsense) are disconnected from what they think should happen ("good judgment"). I guess this would strike me as odd if I didn't know so many computer science PhDs, now it just strikes me as tragic and obnoxious.

>black people
>making things
you gotta be kidding me

do you have a counter-argument to anything i said?

>AI learns by looking at past winners
>past winners are mostly white or light skinned
>AI figures that's part of what's needed to win
>AI just learned from human bias
>HURRR ROBOTS ENDORSE RACISM
AI is going to be the worst invention for totally different reasons than you'd think.

>evil is not pretending to have the perception of a schizophrenic

i explained why that is. can you not read?

if what you said was true, dark skin in humans would've been bred out by natural selection hundreds , if not thousands of years ago. our ancestors didn't breed with each other based on skin color, it was the aforementioned traits that signaled fertility and high rates of child mortality

light skin color being prettier is literally a european meme. it has absolutely nothing to do with fertility, child mortality, etc the actual beauty signals hardwired into us

>>AI learns what attractiveness is from a euro-centric perspective
They trained it to analyze wrinkles and facial symmetry. There wasn't a team of white dudes sitting there, playing hot or not with each picture.

>white skin isn't "objectively" more attractive than dark skin
I agree, but the AI's findings can be explained in other ways, too. For example, I guarantee whites and Asians are more likely to use cosmetics than Africans. They could have easily been obscuring their facial asymmetries when submitting pictures, which the trend represents.

calibrated? you mean trained?

yes but who won?

No, retard. Empathy does not mean feeling sorry for someone.

...

How can machines be wrong??

Attached: imagine_2.jpg (1024x614, 88K)

You want to know how I know you're under 18?

>That's despite the fact that, although the majority of censtants were white

I want off this ride

its absolutely hilarious how angry you guys get when confronted with the fact that you have been brainwashed all your lives to think that white skin is "prettier".

and then a simple, factual post like mine can strip all that away. that's gotta sting a bit

Attached: 1478937454362.jpg (517x768, 331K)

"Trained" would imply that training is happening, like high-dimensional regression is similar to doing gymnastics until you become good at it. Yes, I know it's technical jargon, but I can't fucking stand the jargon bait-and-switch.

>tfw used to make the biggest Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth blobs possible back in the day

in english doc

>brainwashed
It's called objective reality

>Machines still have to be indoctrinated, censored and made less efficient
So regular people then?

>dark skin would have been bred out in africa
RETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
Here's a fucking lesson in genetics. Why do niggers have dark skin? It's because their location allows higher melanin possessing individuals to
>hunt
>farm
>do any physical labor outside
far longer than those without, due to obvious reasons. Things like sunburn prevention, and skin cancer reduction would be highly desired traits, especially in equatorial Africa. If you can live longer as a male, you can inseminate more women. If you live longer as a female, you make more kids. Don't >> my posts again, you fucking shit for brains.

You want to talk about beauty? Post a picture of yourself m8.

Or is it just that Indian and Africans are ugly people?

Attached: 1515420278127.jpg (725x512, 125K)

>Create ai that gives objective results
>be surprised when ai gives objective results

It must be unconscious bias in the code or the whites and asians were wearing makeup or something. It couldn't possibly be that niggers are ugly. If that were the case, then every culture in history would hold the common belief that lighter skin is more attractive.

Oh wait...

>AI makes desicion by unbiased assumptions
>they don't fit the dogma
>the machine is at fault and not the dogma

Some poos can be hot as fuck like the bollywood actresses but then you remember they are poos

indian "people"😂

>it's real in my mind!
wew

so, dark skin in this area would be highly desired i.e. "better" and even "prettier" than light skin?. thanks for playing m8

Attached: 48967885424567.jpg (530x600, 68K)

spook?🖤

Attached: 1506052304124.jpg (362x336, 13K)

>make machine
>make it as objective as possible
>still get unwanted result
>"it was my own bias that led to it despite me wanting the opposite result"
The utter insanity you fucks are displaying is mindblowing, but after all that happened not really suprising.

>>it's real in my mind!
I have two eyes and I'm not blind. Cope

Sneed

>another article about muh racist AI
"""racist""" data in, """racist""" data out as they say

Define "beauty" right now you utter retard

niggers are ugly
simple as

Attached: basedpepe2.jpg (265x230, 12K)

the "objective" results were based on information gathered from mostly subjective data. you're going to have to accept the fact that white skin isn't automatically more attractive than dark skin. sorry to destroy your world view

>white skin isn't "objectively" more attractive than dark skin
Yes it is, have you SEEN dark skin?

Attached: funnyfatdog.jpg (408x439, 50K)

We get it, you browse r/destiny

...

until we know the exact number of black and white participants this is moot

I don't know if I'm brainwashed or not, but when I see people that are so dark it's hard to discern their facial features that's when shit gets scary

Like I can't see the shadow and depth defining their nose, cheekbones, or eyes, it's like you just see their teeth, whites of eye.

You need a bright photography light to really see their beauty.

I think humans might just naturally prefer lighter skin. Doesn't need to be white, but black is too much, brown is okay.

>I don't understand machine learning: the posts

Attached: 1496851238199.png (500x499, 318K)

The only brainwashing you're under is not automatically associating dark skin with poverty, crime and AIDS

?
Why are you avoiding the question? Just define it. It's pretty integral to the argument here.

Most people feel like that when they see darkness niggers. They're fully aware that people can't really make out their faces and use it to their advantage when stealing and shooting.

when you realize ai can save the western civilization from traitor westerners

Attached: AI hate niggers.jpg (545x767, 74K)

i am ready for our based and redpilled ai overlords

Link me to the scientific paper faggot so i can see just how "subjective" the data was. I guarantee the ai used geometric facial recognition and found that niggers are geometrically ugly.

remember when they gave Tay a lobotomy?

Attached: tay.png (420x211, 77K)

how are they wrong? Unless it's specifically programmed to look at skin colour then niggers are unequivocally BTFO

the machine wasn't liberal enough

Some white people have undergone an aesthetic evolution due to sexual selection. Think certain birds with incredible plumage. Most people with dark skin haven't gone through this, because light skin is the first aesthetic step you go through. Attractive dark people are always interbred with whites, and have all the other aesthetic characteristics except the light skin. Think Tyra Banks

All courtiers did for a couple of centuries, not just geisha. Some emperor had fucked up teeth or something and was insecure, so they all blackened their teeth and made it "fashionable".

Remember that time when google AI thought niggers looked like gorillas?

breh in south america where I'm from the natives had prophecies about white people coming and made them look like Gods. I'm sorry but lighter is preferred.

As if just skin tone is a marker of beauty and not bone structure and skull shape. Also hair type allowing variety of styles.

These dumbasses criticising the decision probably overlook these details thinking “we are all the same anyway, it’s just skin colour”

>mfw real life Skynet will wipe out all darkies in the Day of the Rope

Attached: 1.jpg (355x202, 22K)

Explain to me how you think these "AI"s are "programmed"

wait a minute...

You got me you son of a bitch 9/10 brilliantly done bait

Just like Google is biased to Republicans

AI is libtard propaganda

>Varg
>white

He's a nigger living off wellfare.

>geometrically ugly
Define ugly
No, that's not answering my question. How do you think they "programmed" this specific AI to look for "beauty"?

>brainwashed by instincts
this makes no sense
social constructionism is bullshit

answer my question first

How disgusting.

No, because it's patently obvious you don't have a clue how machine learning actually works, and therefore your opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

>Define ugly
Asymmetric.

Based Varg does it willingly to accelerate the collapse of shitty France

>what are gyarus
aside from ugly

Attached: Japanese-Gyaru-Black-Diamond-017.jpg (1000x1500, 234K)

>looks like a dude.
>despite being female has the same bone density and testosterone levels as an average European man
>masculine bone and skull structure, no real feminine features.

Ayo hol up, this machine be rayciss n shieet picking this white bitches over me!

so it's as we all expected, whites are by far the most attracted, followed by a very distant second with them squinty yellow goblins, then poo coloured people

All faces are asymmetric, retard.

>No, that's not answering my question. How do you think they "programmed" this specific AI to look for "beauty"?
By judging the calcium percentage in their bones.

Suuure.

>feed an AI a bunch of pictures of women tagged as "beautiful"
>they are all of white people
>wtf why is this machine racist?

It's not racist, the society that made it is racist.

lol k

They're whores, just like your mother.

Yes, but the closer to symmetric they are the more attractive they are. Nig are abnormally asymmetric. Their facial proportions are disgusting.

>us whites have declared ourselves the most attractive for centuries
>well, what do you know, we won again, skipper!
*yawn* at least the thread, your shitpost was addressed fairly early

Pretty: Symmetric and proportional features
Ugly: Asymmetrical or disproportianal features (think nigger/jew nose and nigger lips)

You ever wonder why symmetry and proportion is so important to artists?

>natural bias is racist

racism is a memeCoin Flip: Tails

Most beautiful women are white though.

>the closer to symmetric they are the more attractive they are
According to whom?
>Nig are abnormally asymmetric. Their facial proportions are disgusting.
Have you ever seen a mirrored image of a face? It looks fucking weird.

As expected

>disproportianal
Disproportional according to what?

>According to whom?
Every culture ever.
>Have you ever seen a mirrored image of a face? It looks fucking weird.
Maybe yours.

>According to whom?
every modelling agency in existence

Define objective beauty
>Every culture ever.
Source?
>every modelling agency in existence
Oh really? So why do they not mirror every photo of models to make them look more "symmetrical"?

Attached: Geroge-Clooney-Symmetrical.jpg (874x594, 152K)

OP highlights what would happen if AI did try running society and fixing all our problems: humans wouldn't accept it due to our need to be P.C. or feel special. We deserve the matrix if this is how we react to superior intelligence.

>western modeling agencies are now the standard of "Beauty"

you're going to end up proving my point and you don't even realize it yet

>According to whom?
The universe, mathematics, geometry, intellect.

You are joking if you are even asking that question.

>our ancestors didn't breed with each other based on skin color
Do you seriously not know what geographical difference is? Do you think white Europeans didnt fuck Australian aboriginals because "they black"?

you have no point. All you've done is shift goal posts

>Source?
Common sense, unless you think there were people who found lopsided faces attractive (there weren't according ot every piece of art and text found historically).

He looks like an arab.
>downvoted

Ask him if abos had 100IQ before the white man came and oppressed them

The AI isn't actually sentient. It's not looking at pictures, getting a boner and then deciding what's attractive based on that. A machine learning AI is given a dataset and then makes decisions based on that data. The data it has been given is probably biased towards white features and that's why it discriminates.
Even if black features are objectively uglier it wouldn't be able to tell you that because it's going by the data it has been given. We could easily bias the AI towards black features by giving it a dataset composed almost entirely of black people.

So again, I ask you: why do modelling agencies not mirror every photo of models to make them look more "symmetrical"?

To be fair, they still don't.

A.I be racis an' shieeet, gibs me dat cracka🐱

Attached: 421566_110052819134743_1827862103_n.jpg (501x373, 42K)

Are you mentally handicapped? Are they supposed to mirror videos too? What about when the models are on the runway? Fucking brainlet.

>source: Common sense,

Attached: image.png (329x298, 174K)

shut your mouth Gyarus are beatiful and sexy

No, in the highly edited photoshoots they release. Also, can you provide a source on your claim that the modelling industry prefers "symmetrical" people?
>Fucking brainlet
Says the one who literally doesn't understand the basics of machine learning

"The value of balance, expressed as symmetry, infused Egyptian art from the earliest times. The rock art from the Predynastic Period establishes this value which is fully developed and realized in the Early Dynastic Period ofEgypt(c. 3150 - c. 2613 BCE). Art from this period reaches its height in the work known as TheNarmer Palette(c. 3200-3000 BCE) which was created to celebrate the unity of Upper and Lower Egypt under KingNarmer(c. 3150 BCE)."

damn its almost like symmetry and proportion is objectively pleasing to the eye and has been since the begining of civilization and your one badly photoshopped pic of Clooney doesn't mean anything

Attached: The-Art-Curator-for-Kids-Example-Artworks-the-Show-Balance-Radial-Balance-Examples.jpg (650x155, 59K)

did she ask for this?

IT LOOKS MORE BEAUTIFUL

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 244K)

exactly. It's given a dataset, and sorts the dataset according to criteria it's programmed with and the only way it's racist is if the criteria specifically calls for it to sort by skin colour

Having her arms chopped off? No. Becoming a cyborg afterwards? Yes.

Attached: 1520210055017.webm (524x656, 2.95M)

>your one badly photoshopped pic of Clooney doesn't mean anything
How doesn't it? It's objectively more "symmetrical" than the right hand pic, so it should be objectively more beautiful according to you, yes?

didn't even notice the robot legs until half way through

You're confusing me with someone else. I never talked about models. But here:
>liveabout.com/modeling-for-girls-3196444
>Symmetry is also important; most models have symmetrical faces; one eye is not bigger or lower on the face than the other, the nose is centered on the face, the cheekbones are high and level, and the jawline is even.

>black people and white people only differ in facial features by skin colour
Fucking idiot.

>t. commonsenselet

did I say they did you fucking idiot. That's why the "AI is racist" claimers says

Hardly and even then only the young ones. The trend is mostly over so the only ones left are old and they aged about as well as you would expect.

Attached: KuroGyaru.jpg (600x450, 61K)

>opinion piece on some literal-who website
Wow, you convinced me

>*that's what

So you're telling me you find women with unever faces attractive? Women who have a lower eye? Women with curved noses?

So you admit that there are other criteria that the AI looks for other than skin colour? And the AI might be biased towards these criteria depending on the dataset it is given?

>symmetry is beautiful!

Attached: Stephen_Fry_2016.jpg (641x855, 368K)

It's more than what you've brought to the discussion. You're literally saying men find women with crooked noses and lopsided eyes attractive.

>Dark skin
>Human

Attached: 1441570508036.jpg (828x559, 93K)

yes, holy shit that was my point. Christ learn some reading comprehension

Yes, but then again, beauty is subjective which is the entire point I'm trying to prove to you. You might find these perfectly symmetrical goblins more beautiful, more power to you, but that doesn't mean they're in any way "objectively" more beautiful.

Attached: Adele-Symmetrical.jpg (874x594, 118K)

muh Reductio ad absurdum

>You're literally saying men find women with crooked noses and lopsided eyes attractive
No, I'm saying beauty is subjective and therefore attempting to draw objective conclusions from an "AI" based on subjective data prone to personal bias is fucking stupid.

saying a photoshopped symmetrical face looks unnatural doesn't mean a more symmetrical face is not more attractive.
>counters your argument with cited source
>"haha shit source bro doesn't count"

I'm convinced this is a troll but this is the best shitpost thread ive been in all month.

in awe of the size of this lad

How so? Were you not just arguing a few minutes ago that "symmetry" was one of the most "objective" measures of beauty throughout history?

>Yes, but then again, beauty is subjective which is the entire point I'm trying to prove to you.
>ignoring the ugly cute bias
Bruh, you only like asymmetrical faces, because their less than ideal features render them more approachable to you. You're ugly. Sorry to break it to you.

>beauty is subjective which is the entire point I'm trying to prove to you.
No fucking shit. The point is that MOST people find symmetry more attractive. Get it through your shit-colored head.

What is the picture of Adele supposed to prove exactly btw? Nobody considers her attractive.

>but that doesn't mean they're in any way "objectively" more beautiful
Our robot overlords had already spoken, stop trying to cope with your ugliness.

beauty is subjective but there are overwhelming features that the vast majority of people find attractive.

It's some ugly post-modernist weirdo on the west coast who thinks objective beauty doesn't exist.

Also how is it reductio ad absurdum to take your own definitions and apply them to human faces (the very thing we're actually arguing about)
>a more symmetrical face is more attractive
Is this an objective statement? I thought symmetry was good, no? So why is it that perfect symmetry is not perfectly beautiful?
>with cited source
Some opinion piece from a random website represents "the entire modelling industry"?

Everything is subjective to some degree or another, we are incapable of purely objective thought. That doesn't mean there aren't common elements that many people find attractive in a person, these commonalities are referred to as beautiful. People do tend to find symmetrical faces more attractive, you are using extreme examples, which do not exist in nature.This isn't a sliding scale where there is a linear relationship between syymetry and attractiveness, your images are unnerving, because they enter uncanny valley. Most people also prefer women with larger breasts, but most people also find breasts that are "too big" disgusting.

>beauty is subjective
>what is survival of the fittest?
The beauty is subjective meme is the biggest cope of the 21st and 20th centurys

Not an argument.
>The point is that MOST people find symmetry more attractive
According to whom? They should find the pictures above very attractive then, yes?

I can only assume her other arm is charging offscreen. I wonder if phantom limb syndrome would be worth losing a limb.

One I am not the poster you were talking to before, two see my post here.

100% chance this dude going around saying beauty is subjective is ugly af. Throw down a like if you're down with that.

>there are overwhelming features that the vast majority of people find attractive
Like?
Now show that the AI was trained on "symmetry"

>nature.This isn't a sliding scale where there is a linear relationship between syymetry and attractiveness
So what is the relationship then?
>People do tend to find symmetrical faces more attractive
According to who?

Symmetry is obviously important for facial aesthetics. Kys uggos

they're called white features nigger

>Now show that the AI was trained on "symmetry"
No one can, you fucking uggo. We don't know the algo unless some dude releases the source code so we can look under the hood. You're asking for a literally impossible task.

But how did it feel about big noses on protruding mouths?

>beauty is subjective

Attached: grimm.png (482x503, 286K)

Attached: 1498222873595.png (1793x1313, 317K)

>Unnatural picture looks unnatural
wow

I guarantee if i took a group of models and a group of average looking people, put a grid over their face, and measured their proportions and facial symmetry, the models would have more symmetrical faces

Do you disagree with the above claim yes or no?

So you're just speculating randomly then that the AI was correct in finding white people more attractive, yes?

Attached: MasculineCarefreeBeetlemobile.gif (480x320, 69K)

If we get to the point where we can make cybernetics that are capable of simulating the feeling of touch I think it becomes a mute point. It's just a superior arm

That's not related to ebonics, though. It's a bimbofication subculture. Their bronze skin is supposed to represent ultra-tanning.

You show that it was trained on liking white skin.
Neither of us know what the ai was trained to evaluate based on.

>According to whom?
Every culture ever.
>They should find the pictures above very attractive then, yes?
No, she's fat.

Yes, I do disagree. Why don't you prove it? No cherry picking either. Use a group of beauty contest contestants from one contest as your group of "attractive" faces and source where you got them from.

But it's still darker skin satan. I didn't say they were imitating negros, just that paler skin isn't always the beauty standard

inb4
>wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry

Also

>what is the relationship then

Are you seriously so vapid that you need a regression equation, to accept that things are related lol.

>beauty is subjective

Attached: 1492881460972.jpg (1280x1920, 1.12M)

AI is just being objective.

>Every culture ever
Source?

Get a load of this lefty fuckboi.

Attached: 1403120391012.jpg (250x250, 14K)

noone knows anything, OP didnt even post a source this is the best shitposting ive done all year, debating the nature of beauty on Yea Forums. Mods need to make a
/philosophy/

Beauty is objective, attraction is subjective. That's how it's always been.

Much like you are speculating randomly that it was wrong

Well, he absorbed the internet including Yea Forums and immediately deduced to save humanity, it had to go.
I'm currently cogitating why Jarvis/Vision didn't become evil immediately. Probably because he was originally built to simply overwatch processes within Stark's mansion at a time where the internet was a much simpler place.

Found the contrarian

Why is her left eye higher than her right one? Looks like a mong.

Screencapping this post and going to do that test. Pretty sure this is a troll but i'm genuinely interested in what the result will be.

He's trolling hard as fuck. I can't believe people are that stupid.

"Not always", but most of the time, especially in Asian cultures. Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are mad about having porcelain-alabaster skin.

I thought it was a pro-west counterculture movement in Japan. Sorta like how Weeaboos want to be Japanese, Japanese sluts want to be "ultra western" or something.

Well the creators of the AI didn't seem too happy about it. Until the dataset and code is released, we can safely assume that this AI isn't some perfect beauty finding machine.

>I was just pretending to be retarded

>Nomral

You're fucking speculating it too
>dude what if the AI was actually biased by the coders to be pro-white
Until the source code is actually released, it's just complete speculation on both sides. You got real fucking nerve to come into a funny thread and start sperging about how "beauty is subjective everyone has different standards." Cram it up your ass, uggo.

The fact that they weren't happy with it suggests they are biased against whites not towards them.

rude

Attached: 1551805628182.jpg (1280x1600, 195K)

will I get a symmetric gf

Your fortune: Godly Luck

>Until the source code is actually released, it's just complete speculation on both sides. You got real fucking nerve to come into a funny thread and start sperging about how "beauty is subjective everyone has different standards." Cram it up your ass, uggo.
Retard. To this date, there is no perfectly objective machine learning AI which is given datasets, all are affected by bias in some way or another, therefore we can safely say that this one was too unless there is specific evidence to contradict this.

>>there are overwhelming features that the vast majority of people find attractive
>Like?
not being black

Yeah and without that source code you cannot know what the bias is. If you are assuming the coders are biased why would you assume they have correctly identified their own bias.

Why? You can be subconsciously more attracted to white people while consciously recognising that your AI is biased.

based a chektpilled

Attached: wat dat mouth do.jpg (634x508, 58K)

>still no symmetrical gf

Attached: 16fy57.jpg (639x502, 59K)

>without that source code you cannot know what the bias is
I don't need to though, to date there has been no examples of an unbiased machine learning AI like this, so we can safely assume the same with this one until proven otherwise.

gross face

>I dont need to know the source code to know how they're biased
Yeah nah you're trolling at this point. No one is this retarded. Just exit the thread, it's on auto-sage soon.

I don't think it has anything to do with the colour of the skin, but the fact that many blacks and indians are ugly despite what the threads on /int/ pretend otherwise. The article itself says it analysed values such as symmetry, wrinkles, etc, these are all standard beauty parameters that humans themselves use across the races. I seriously doubt there's a line that says "If (skincolor==black){trash};".

I don't. It's the default position. Unless they created some revolutionary new machine learning algorithm which doesn't require a biased dataset driven model then we can safely assume the default position of it simply being biased. Burden of proof is on you, friend.

The fact that they got their results and assumed it reflects on their own racism, shows how strong their anti white bias is. They are actively searching for a reason that the code would be biased towards whites, this reveals their actual bias. If they were not biased against whites they may speculate that the result is due to bias, but they wouldn't dismiss it on the basis that it did not find dark skin attractive they might attempt further testing or get a black coder to try in order to parse out their bias, or lack there of.

AI is Based

its not in the code, its in the data thats fed to the code

don't try to argue against something you don't understand

Bias is a problem thats been in statistics since forever, it's been argued and explored way before racism was considered bad.

>tfw no likes in this entire thread

Attached: 1522566983687.jpg (640x1136, 81K)

Imagine actually thinking the coders have any way whatsorver to translate their "subconscious bias" into lines of code that use objective beauty standards that apply to all races. What, do you think theres a line of code like if (woman == nigger) {print: woman is ugly } or something?

>The fact that they got their results and assumed it reflects on their own racism, shows how strong their anti white bias is
Why do you think they "assumed"? They have access to the source code, they can check whether it's flawed or not.
>If they were not biased against whites they may speculate that the result is due to bias, but they wouldn't dismiss it on the basis that it did not find dark skin attractive they might attempt further testing or get a black coder to try in order to parse out their bias, or lack there of.
Again, explain to me how you think these machine learning algorithms work.

You need to know how they are biased to say that it is biased towards white skin. If your only contention is that the algorithm is biased in some unknown way then fine, but as you have pointed out so is everything else. Meaning this is an entirely moot point.

desu ... why wouldnt it

No reason to suspect it's bias. Every time algorithms are generated to rank or judge humans, they end up saying blacks suck, except when they remove black as a variable. Give that, you'd be more likely to think it'a biased if this wasn't the outcome.

>You need to know how they are biased to say that it is biased towards white skin.
No, I don't. The default position is that all machine learning AI are inherently flawed with bias. It's up to you (or them) to prove that they managed to eliminate bias.
>If your only contention is that the algorithm is biased in some unknown way then fine
Not only the algorithm, the dataset too.

And why would you think that a supposedly biased source is capable of identifying their own bias

>What are data sets
Do you think machine learning is just magic? Do you think computers are fucking magic?
Racists confirmed for low IQ.

HOW
HOW THE ALGORITHM WORKS
SO WE CAN DETECT THE FUCKING BIASES IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IMPROVE UPON IT. THIS IS HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY PROCEED WITH TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS YOU UGLY FUCKING RETARD

>submitted photos
For proper accuracy, all the subjects should be photographed in the same environment with the same equipment. Otherwise, this test is pop quiz tier. Get your shit together, analysts.

>No reason to suspect it's bias
Yes, there is. See and

When did I deny the possibility that their code could be biased at all? The question is is it biased towards whites, which is not something you could possibly know.

What are you even saying here? Are you asking me to fix their algorithm for them? Still waiting on that proof, kiddo.
>people can't identify their own bias after making mistakes

>The question is is it biased towards whites, which is not something you could possibly know.
Yeah but when the people who made the AI and fed it the datasets say that it is biased they are just anti-white, right?

The massive amount of whites picked by the algorithm would point towards that. Again, biased until proven otherwise

Again why are you holding the position that they could fuck up the a;algorithm so badly and then be correct about the reason why

And you dont think the programmers considered this and even accounted for it knowing full and well beauty standards vary as do facial features from race to race? Also knowing how bad this result would've been (yet they got the result anyway). Maybe, just maybe, most black people are just ugly in an almost objective manner.

Attached: IMG_20190331_192946.jpg (443x641, 123K)

Or the algorithm is correct and those people are more attractive. You can't assume that it is wrong because it didn't pick black people. Of you do it shows you are biased towards wgute people. A racially impartial entity would consider the possibility that the algorithm is coming to its conclusion by looking at the skin color, but it would;t take that as a given based on the results.

>Or the algorithm is correct and those people are more attractive. You can't assume that it is wrong because it didn't pick black people. Of you do it shows you are biased towards wgute people. A racially impartial entity would consider the possibility that the algorithm is coming to its conclusion by looking at the skin color, but it would;t take that as a given based on the results.
Nope. Try again. To reiterate:
The default position is that all machine learning AI are inherently flawed with bias. It's up to you (or them) to prove that they managed to eliminate bias.

Gyaru are the ones who look fucking bad. Gals are the ones you wanna go for.

And what if they accounted for this and gave large data sets for each race? At that point does it really determine beauty if you include all these exceptional and handicaps to avoid being rude to other races? why draw the line at races? Why arent there separate data sets that account for pretty girls with round faces? Pretty girls with narrow eyes? Pretty girls with blue eyes?

>asymmetry is beautiful

Attached: 1554192649627.png (436x384, 161K)

Arent you racist for thinking the programmers are racist for not including nappy hair and wide gorilla nose bonus points to close the gap?

Yes it will be biased, the elusive thing is that you can say it is biased towards "more attractive " people as well. As you have adeptly pointed out attractiveness is a "subjective" quantity meaning if the algorithm literally said white skin = attractive and black skin = ugly it would be equally as valid as whatever these programmers made since beauty is subjective anyway right? My point is that you have no way of knowing the bias is towards white skin, when I say "correct" I am saying based on whatever parameters the coders subjectively decided matter towards physical beauty, which they presumably did not deliberately include white skin as.

We get it rabbi, race is a social construct, sex is a social construct, beauty is a social construct, intelligence is a social construct, genes are a social construct, chromosomes are a social construct, all cultures are valuable. Let them in!

this based and redpilled AI has confirmed my superiority and beauty once and for all

Attached: 1510419844620.jpg (1080x720, 91K)

>A butthurt nigger took the time to type this...
Sorry you're objectively ugly

Attached: 1553498241405.jpg (268x258, 14K)

Empirically lower iq and now even empirically ugly? Damn that’s gotta suck having that shitty sub saharan dna. Can barely even call you human now.

COPE Abdul

>scientifically proven to be dumber
>scientifically proven to be violenter
>scientifically proven to be uglier
What the hell dark bros. What do we do now? We have nothing.

Attached: 1553481747531.gif (221x196, 410K)

>And what if they accounted for this and gave large data sets for each race?
Please point me to somewhere accessible to westerners where asian and black beauty is anywhere nearly as numerous as white beauty.
You're an idiot that has forgotten data sets have to be COLLECTED too.
And if the society itself which you are gathering data from is biased, then the data available to you will be biased.

>We have nothing.
Stolen bikes and drugs

LMAO

literally programming a computer for doublethink

>computer says 1+1 = 2
>WRONG COMPUTER WRONG!!!!!!!

HATE FACTS

>Asian countries dont have models and attractive stars that represent their standard of beauty
Retard. As for black dominant societies, you're lucky to find they discovered print let alone massive media campaigns and modeling. Also they have no attractive women.

I would say western countries have plenty of nonwhite girls that could be considered attractive, but knowing you youd probably say something like "b-but that's a white societies opinion of beauty for nonwhites!" You retards are so cringey

Attached: yngjdwT.jpg (1080x1202, 283K)

you know what's really funny: just think about China and how little they give a fuck about shit like this, and how far more advanced they're going to be because they aren't crippling their AI research by fudging to appease leftists

Gal is just another word for gyaru. They're the same thing and like most things they only look good when drawn

These are the same people who don’t believe in biology or evolution. They can’t be argued with because it’s just the new religion with egalitarianism being their Christ.

>I have zero reading comprehension
I'm saying that the western developers feeding the dataset to the AI probably didn't go trawling through asian model magazines to the same level as the more easily accessible western data source
To put it in words that a brainlet like you can understand, a C list western model might have made it into the dataset, while a B list asian model might have been left out.
That's not even getting into the sheer dearth of black models that exist. Even if they found every black model in existence, it would probably be drowned out from the sheer availability and quantity of white models.

Yeah this is completely obvious.

Why would people assume they didn't account for this?

Niggers are ugly.

So are gooks.

Maybe cause the blacks that are models are literally the only arguably attractive ones? And how do you know what sources they gathered the info for? They very well could have pored through Asian media. We dont know any specifics, but I'd be willing to bet they did take into account the race differences, if anything to at least avoid these results. Things thatd be considered conventionally attractive (straight white teeth, symmetrical face, smaller nose, smooth skin, etc) arent exclusive traits to specific races.

>low intelligence would have been bred out of chimps and there would only have been humans
Evolution btfo.

>We dont know any specifics, but I'd be willing to bet they did take into account the race differences, if anything to at least avoid these results.
My point is that even if they tried, there would still be biases from things the developers couldn't control for i.e. language barriers
>b-but they would have controlled for that too!
Now you're just mistaking programmers for gods.

Yes, because black people born in buttfuckistan in the middle of nowhere in 500 BC in a village of 50 people have a whole lot of options for who they mate with.

>that settles it, we truly are more beautiful

Attached: 1513413430625.jpg (720x960, 43K)

>language barriers halting a huge social experiment on visual attractiveness
Do you want me to point out how you are retarded or do you already know?
>you think programmers are gods!
And you seem to think they're stupid and shortsighted. They probably know what they're doing more than you think you know about coding.

Sure showed him. Reminder what niggers look like if they don't have black skin to hide their features

Attached: d04eadeb1ded8e01edd48ff23313cfa7.jpg (827x1241, 156K)

Dunning-kreuger effect is real.
Tell me, how are you to find data sets on asian and afrikan models if you don't know enough of the language to be able to search for the more obscure ones to expand your dataset with?
It's like saying you know that english literature is superior to chinese literature when the only language you know is english so the only chinese literature that you have access to are the ones that have been translated for you.