Lol, they added a "Location" to the winners (winner characters)
I guess it's more about the characters than only AI-generated images.
In a CNN article titled, "The first Miss AI has been crowned — and she’s a Moroccan lifestyle influencer," fashion journalist Jacqui Palumbo writes, "Meet Kenza Layli, a Moroccan lifestyle influencer who hopes to bring 'diversity and inclusivity' to the AI creator landscape.
That's the real problem, isn't it? Not the original character contest, with a clear setting. But others promoting the characters as if they were real people.
There is no artistry. […] It’s all a bunch of fake stupidity and I can’t understand why anyone would care at all about this, much less deign to critique it from a feminist perspective. It doesn’t seem worthy of spending the time analyzing it to that degree.
I really don't get this take.
If they're crafting prompts and iterations they are crafting. If they're crafting them according to artistic concerns on the output, there's artistry.
It's a different kind. But I don't see why it would be immediately disqualified just because it's something different.
It's much closer to creative/producing arts than it is to classic beauty pageants.
Why would a girl feel pressured to look as good as an image that doesn’t have actual bones or organs or skin pores - not even fucking gravity.
If you can interpret it as an image of a woman then there is correlation. What they are sourced from doesn't make a difference.
Do you think photoshopped images or makeup also don't change perception and consequently influence beauty standards? Those are also not based on the inherent physical properties of the original bodies.
They shared sexually explicit images in whatsapp groups. You consider that similar to having personal thoughts nobody will know of or written stories?
"were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence."
Have you dismissed this quote? I don't know where to start explaining how it's different from what you described because of how far off it is. I have no idea where the baseline is to argue from.
Humans are a social creature. We form groups, and want to be part of groups. Teens are especially vulnerable with a developing personality, social norms, and social belonging. Breaking norms and violating common personal barriers and control of self-expression and self-presentation is deeply violating in a vulnerable phase of life.
They didn't create a personal collection. They shared in their social groups.
Do you want an explanation of why creating and sharing sexually explicit material of other people without consent is problematic and damaging, and especially for children?
If I were holding the most bitcoin I wouldn't feel the need nor want to mine more. One could do better with that kind of money. In this case, even doing nothing would have been better.
The original text had 'he' where 'it' was correct. Which supports part of your premise.
They also merged a change request that changed those instances alongside 'they' instances. I don't know if the original author and denier was involved, but it's certainly important context missing from OP blog post.
the whole point behind it was them making an assumption about something
What makes you think the change suggesters assumed ill intent?
The submitted PRs seem to reason improvement, not accuse the original author. I see them suggesting a change, neutrally. With (minimal) objective reasoning.
/edit: I see the later ones did. But the first one didn't. And the second one arguably didn't.
I'm not surprised unlisted content would show up. A single public or leaked link means unlisted is discoverable elsewhere than the primary listings. YouTube can't solve that. The private alternative setting already exists.
The problem with law solutions is that they only work as far as the law and prosecution reaches. Maybe the western nations will agree on common policies. Like they do on copyright for example. But will China follow? Russia? Smaller countries? Will the prosecution be active or realistically possible?
Laws are important as agreed upon baselines. But they're no technical guarantees. They're quite limited on a public, accessible Internet.
IIRC in Germany there's still an active prosecution section working on the cases (and only those). It takes a long time to go through. And we may not hear of what comes of the cases.
Mastodon user posts about rejected change suggestion to neutral pronouns. Many critical comments get posted on the old rejected PR.
Someone else creates a PR to fix grammar mistakes, including pronouns, it gets merged.
Hello. This is the EU grammar police. Please fix your typo. Thank you for your cooperation.