Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
publictorsten's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Kathleen

@petrosyan @publictorsten Sexualizing her photo was so special. Honestly it's essential to fire the individual who did this.

16 October at 17:43 | Wall-to-wall | Open on sanjuans.life
32 comments
Ben Evans

@KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten The point is that no human did this - the AI tool that the social media person used did it "automatically".

It's an example of the harmful biases ("pictures of women should be sexually suggestive") encoded into every one of these damn things, and why none of them are fit for purpose.

16 October at 17:46 | Open on mastodon.social
Yann 不停 Heurtaux :antifa:

@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten The Social Media person was left, not trained enough, not supervised enough. Fire them, and most of all their Manager.

16 October at 17:51 | Open on mamot.fr
Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:

@shalf @kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten I understand where you're coming from, and you are right to be upset. This was not an act of malice, it was addressed professionally and responsibly by management once they became aware of the situation, and - based solely on the original post since that's all the context I have - the injured party appears satisfied with the outcome.

If we fired people for not noticing things that IT tools do, every time it happened, there would literally not be anyone left working in IT. No one in their right mind thinks an "expand image" plugin is going to sexualize the image's contents; would you punish someone for printing flyers that have hidden metadata from the printer (snopes.com/fact-check/househol) in them?

The correct course of action, imo, is to start exactly as they've done by removing the offending image (and apologizing to the injured party), and to then use that as an educational moment so that it doesn't happen a second time.

Now, if it DOES happen a second time, fuck 'em. Unless/until, though, let people learn from their mistakes.

@shalf @kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten I understand where you're coming from, and you are right to be upset. This was not an act of malice, it was addressed professionally and responsibly by management once they became aware of the situation, and - based solely on the original post since that's all the context I have - the injured party appears satisfied with the outcome.

16 October at 18:23 | Open on infosec.exchange
Yann 不停 Heurtaux :antifa:

@dave_cochran Alright. Train better the SoMe worker after a solid warning. Fire their Manager.
To be clearer: reputation and legal risk are way underestimated in this industry. It has to change. Yes, that means people at responsibility and strategy level thinking AI is harmless and allowing or promoting its unsupervised use, mostly for cost reasons (and ignoring externalities), losing their jobs.

16 October at 18:30 | Open on mamot.fr
Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:

@shalf have you seen this report? nngroup.com/articles/computer-

admittedly, it's a few years old now but I'd bet all the money in all of my pockets against all the money in all of yours that the data would be essentially the same if it was done again today.

The short version is that people, as a group, are WAY worse at using computers than people, as a group, think. Like, by virtue of having and using a Mastodon account at all, you are probably in the top 20% or so of computer users worldwide.

The point being, punishing people for things they cannot reasonably be expected to know about or even to know that there's ANYTHING TO LEARN about them, is counterproductive at best, and actively harmful at worst.

It's probably worth keeping in mind that we're talking about the folks running a conference here, and not, like, Facebook. If anything, this could become a phenomenal talk at the very conference it happened at since they're talking about UI/UX stuff (if I'm remembering the OP correctly)!

I just don't think that people acting in good faith should be penalized for things that they had absolutely no reason to think would cause harm, y'know?

@shalf have you seen this report? nngroup.com/articles/computer-

admittedly, it's a few years old now but I'd bet all the money in all of my pockets against all the money in all of yours that the data would be essentially the same if it was done again today.

The short version is that people, as a group, are WAY worse at using computers than people, as a group, think. Like, by virtue of having and using a Mastodon account at all, you are probably in the top 20% or so of computer...

16 October at 18:40 | Open on infosec.exchange
Yann 不停 Heurtaux :antifa:

@dave_cochran “Absolutely no reason to think would cause harm”, in 2024, in a design-oriented communications and events community and business. Alright. Let me elaborate: it was the Manager’s job to a. have heard and learned from Monteiro e.g. 11y ago (see Webstock 2013 iirc), b. have heard and learned about e.g. Gebru et al. stories and work. Defending workers is right, hence my leaning towards your point. Managers are paid to know better. About time for some accountability in those fields.

16 October at 18:44 | Open on mamot.fr
Yann 不停 Heurtaux :antifa:

@dave_cochran To be honest and fair, let in charge, I would fire producers of indoors conferences without neither masks mandates nor best-in-line air renewing and filtering infrastructures and practices too for being stupid and having learned nothing, to explain how I approach taking care of people attending events, or producing/volunteering/speaking there. YMMV.

16 October at 18:53 | Open on mamot.fr
Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:

@shalf on that, my friend, we are in ABSOLUTE agreement

16 October at 19:09 | Open on infosec.exchange
Yann 不停 Heurtaux :antifa: replied to Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:

@dave_cochran Then you cannot not see the issue with a woman speaker being sexualized through automation and edition of a picture she provided but never consented to be edited, never being shown the edited version, and nothing internally preventing that to a. happen, b. not be thrown away in due time, c. ever be published.

How is it taking good care of your speaker community? How can it not show failure at a high level of core biz competencies? How can someone in charge not be fired?

17 October at 0:23 | Open on mamot.fr
Kathleen

@dave_cochran @shalf @kittylyst @petrosyan @publictorsten

Nope. No excuses for creating and posting a SEXUALIZED photo of this individual without permission. No excuses. This isn't "not noticing every single piddly thing IT tools ever do," you straw man you, this is altering a the professional photo of a woman to SEXUALIZE IT.

Wake up.

16 October at 21:11 | Open on sanjuans.life
Kathleen

@dave_cochran @shalf @kittylyst @petrosyan @publictorsten Yeah because "hidden metadata" is exactly the same as showing a faked image they pretended were her BREASTS.
Do you even listen to yourself?

16 October at 21:11 | Open on sanjuans.life
jelte

@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten the change itself is such an example, yes, but the mistake is using the tool in the first place.

16 October at 17:59 | Open on mastodon.nl
Rich Felker

@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten A human did do it. A human decided to use the shit "AI" tool, and uncritically accepted the result that came out of it for use in the material they were posting.

What YOU are doing is exactly the reason bad people love "AI". You are failing to account for the human agency of how the tool was used, and laundering the blame onto the tool that can't be held accountable.

16 October at 18:01 | Open on hachyderm.io
Amoshias

@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten a human chose to use the tool.

You can't wash bad decisions by saying "an AI tool did it."

16 October at 18:04 | Open on esq.social
Karsten Johansson

@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten The person who "did this" was the person who accepted the AI output even with the most obvious difference from the original.

AI is not to blame. Blindly accepting what it produces is to blame. There is a whole team that should have caught that at some point, but the one who specifically did the action should definitely be raked over the coals.

We've taught an entire generation to check their Wikipedia-found data before using it. Why did this change when it comes to AI output?

@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten The person who "did this" was the person who accepted the AI output even with the most obvious difference from the original.

AI is not to blame. Blindly accepting what it produces is to blame. There is a whole team that should have caught that at some point, but the one who specifically did the action should definitely be raked over the coals.

16 October at 18:28 | Open on infosec.exchange
Jon Het-CIS.

@KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten It was done by A.I. There is no one to fire. I guess you could fire a random person who ordered the A.I. to modify the photo to fit the space, or the team that programed the A.I. I am not sure that would help anything though.

16 October at 17:47 | Open on mastodon.social
Susan Kaye Quinn 🌱(she/her)

@Jon_Kramer if you start holding people accountable for using AI and causing harms with it, I guarantee you that will "help"

@KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten

16 October at 17:50 | Open on wandering.shop
Rich Felker

@Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten C&P'ing the exact same reply I gave to someone else with the same bad argument:

A human did do it. A human decided to use the shit "AI" tool, and uncritically accepted the result that came out of it for use in the material they were posting.

What YOU are doing is exactly the reason bad people love "AI". You are failing to account for the human agency of how the tool was used, and laundering the blame onto the tool that can't be held accountable.

16 October at 18:02 | Open on hachyderm.io
Becky

@Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Sure, but someone used the AI tool and would have (or should have) reviewed its output. That person should be held accountable.

It’s one thing to use an AI tool, but you can’t just shrug when it does something in your name.

16 October at 19:36 | Open on oldbytes.space
Jon Het-CIS.

@RenewedRebecca @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Have YOU looked at the output? When you do, and compare it to the input, tell me if you can figure out what is wrong. Remember, you can't refer to the original uncropped photo. Just the cropped photo, and the AI enhanced photo.

16 October at 19:39 | Open on mastodon.social
Becky

@Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Did the person involved have both the cropped photo and the enhanced one? Did the cropped photo have the invented details? Why is this hard for you?

16 October at 21:28 | Open on oldbytes.space
Jon Het-CIS.

@RenewedRebecca @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten She had the cropped photo. The artist through the use of A.I. created the 'enhanced' version. These details are not in dispute, or in any way 'hard'.

16 October at 22:04 | Open on mastodon.social
Becky

@Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Here’s the thing… She was responsible for the photo. If using AI makes it impossible to be verify the details on it, AI shouldn’t be used.

16 October at 22:08 | Open on oldbytes.space
Markus Sugarhill :breadpats:

@Jon_Kramer the photo should not have been uploaded to any ai tool (I seriously doubt it was done in premise) without consent. This is where the wrongdoing started. @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten

16 October at 21:13 | Open on chaos.social
Auld Ma Twəgg

@Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten the person who used the tool is responsible for its output. This is how it has always worked. When I was making videos for corporates I wouldn't be able to get away with using random stock footage, much of which is highly sexualised. I couldn't just say "this is what the shutterstock search returned". This is obviously absurd.

16 October at 22:41 | Open on sauropods.win
Jon Het-CIS.

@quinsibell @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten LOOK at the output as a stand alone piece, and tell me what is objectionable about it. The phrase "highly sexualized" indicates to me that you have not seen the photo.

I think many people commenting on this thread have not seen the photo, and therefore fail to understand what this discussion IS. This leap to vilify a woman who was just attempting to do her job the best way she could is... petty.

And I am done with it.

16 October at 22:46 | Open on mastodon.social
Auld Ma Twəgg

@Jon_Kramer the woman who's face it was objected to it. At the very least edited photos require approval. Like I said, I couldn't get away with this conduct prior to AI image generators. Someone selected and posted the image. They are responsible.

16 October at 22:51 | Open on sauropods.win
Jon Het-CIS.

@quinsibell Great. Now go look at the picture and tell me what is objectionable.

Don't get back to me, I'm done with this idiotic conversation about nothing.

16 October at 22:52 | Open on mastodon.social
Auld Ma Twəgg

@Jon_Kramer it doesn't matter what I consider objectionable. A photo was edited and distributed in a way that the person in the photo objected to without consultation.

16 October at 22:56 | Open on sauropods.win
Go Up