- 29comments
- 220comments
- 129comments
- 17comments
- 9comments
- 119comments
- 64comments
- 455comments
- 145comments
- 13comments
- 15comments
- 9comments
- 296comments
- 81comments
- 1comments
- 3comments
- 375comments
- 476comments
- 36comments
- 3comments
- 382comments
- 51comments
- 40comments
- 141comments
- 39comments
- 357comments
- 30comments
- 433comments
- 194comments
- 35comments
Really seems like they used it to anonymize the students, but that is a lot less polarizing. Does it matter if they swapped the race? They also swapped all identifying facial features of anyone in the picture. That might have even been the prompt they used in the first place.
I am not a big fan of gen ai, but freak outs about nothingness detract from the real issues. I would be more concerned if they swapped the 3 students into a background or setting they were never in, than use the public setting and swap out the students for ai models.
Edit: please stop saying I didn't read the article. The article is almost exclusively opinion based on the observers reaction. "Slimmed down" is what I an saying is anonymized. As I also said, they put letting on top, so it is a tiny tile in a much larger piece. No problem if people don't agree, but the contention the article gives a lot of info and supporting claims is not true. We only really learn Stanford took the photo from the article, the rest of the conclusions are drawn from the 2 pics
Only a bot who can't parse images would reply with this. Look at the pictures, your thesis is totally wrong.
dang's law: Never attribute to a bot that which is adequately explained by someone not reading TFA
funny but presumably this law predates hn. is it actually attributable to him?
full disclosure, this user did not read the article.
I am not a bot.
That explanation doesn't make sense. If the point is anonymity, why not just AI generate the students entirely? They AI-generated the girl on the right in her entirety, so capability clearly isn't the problem. And the guy in the middle is still very much recognizable.
I don't understand what you mean? For me, it appears all 3 students have been changed. The 3rd student is changed into a black female. I am not doubting they want to inject diversity (although i didnt say it above) my contention is they likely view the original as a blank background, which they inserted 3 "new" anonymized students into. Its not that they turned 1 person "black", its that they changed ALL 3 PEOPLE entirely
Given how little the two students on the left changed, I highly doubt the AI made a creative decision to completely randomize only the student on the right. I think it's more likely that they did it in two steps: tweak the faces, and replace the student on the right.
You think the first 2 students were changed as significantly as the 3rd?
The first 2 are still recognizable, the third is not.
Is this a race to find the most offensive use of AI?
Amazing how it's offensive to everyone involved. Both to be replaced and to be represented by an AI rendition.
It's more offensive to be prettified by an AI than it is to be removed and replaced entirely.
Says who? Compare: "you only need some minor tweaks" versus "you can't be fixed"
Me for one. It's a direct judgement on your appearance, whereas being removed could be for purely demographic reasons.
They went the opposite way from what I assumed from the headline. Also they clearly thought that girl wasn’t slim enough.
What do you mean? It's exactly what I assumed
Yeah honestly anyone familiar with marketing and communications departments (and especially those in higher-ed) is used to this sort of chicanery.
This particular instance is somewhat notable in just how egregious it is, but they pick-and-choose students based solely on ethnicity for photoshoots all the time.
Hey, at least they used pictures from actual students. I remember looking at promotional material from the higher-ed place I attended and I think I spotted one picture of a familiar classroom with someone I knew, with all the other pictures being of total strangers in rooms that I had never seen. As the school was rather small, I was surprised that it was the case, until I suspected the communication department, unsatisfied with what pictures they had, reached for stock photos.
I think if they did that, it would be a lot less of an issue. Here they took a genuine photo and made it fake. It's not representative at all, and it stinks of tokenism which I hate.
Still just as bad IMO. Whitewashing and blackwashing are both racism.
It looks more like the image on the right is of a banner and isn't flat.
Tokenism is awful. Unfortunately, speaking out about it is also frowned upon nowadays. To be perfectly clear, I'm only talking about marketing efforts that intentionally ignore or replace unmarked groups with marked ones. Here, they took a real photo and fucking replaced students that didn't look diverse enough for their tastes. I'd argue that should be considered just as bad as the reverse.
To downvoters: I AM NOT saying there should be less diversity. I am saying that fake and dishonest diversity is just as harmful as any other kind of discrimination. Instead of helping the problem it just creates an alternate version.
My account is banned, but for whoever has [showdead]:
This is totally self-inflicted.
Self-inflicted by whom? I really don't think the people in the photo are the problem. I think whoever thought they needed to fucking edit it to create a fake impression of diversity needs to stop. If you want to show that your school has diverse students... then take diverse photos. Don't take a non-diverse photo and then diversify it. At best (there are diverse students, but they weren't in the photo) it's dishonest, at worst (there aren't diverse students) it's literally false advertising.
So Stanford R&DE subscribes to the Jason Arday school of thought.
Marketing is about attracting customers.
So the incentives are there to present the image you want to project to attract customers.
Hey buddy, not everything is about cold calculation. Some of us value culture and integrity. These are going to matter even more in the age of AI not less.
Advertising is more about selling aspirations rather than reflect objective reality.
To wit: even the original photo was probably staged…
Anything you do as a university / person reflects your values. This shows a lack of integrity.
Why?
Are you justifying replacing a real hispanic student with a fake black one for "culture and integrity"?..
If you were being sarcastic, it was not clear.
10xDev is arguing the opposite, NOT replacing students for some cold calculated marketing, and being more authentic for culture and integrity.
And which exactly customers will be enticed by the modified image?
Yes, which is why people study marketing to understand revealed preferences in society. Here, they slimmed down the woman on the left. It's well known that skinnier is more marketable. By the same token, we must assume that they think replacing the hispanic man with a black woman is also an upgrade. By contrast, in China, they sometimes do the opposite: https://variety.com/2015/film/news/star-wars-china-poster-co....
To quote one of the most prolifically insufferable linkposters of HN: "Demographics are destiny."
So, you fill your university marketing and publication department with people who think this is ok and this is the sort of PR faux-pas whoopsie you get.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that this sort of marketing material needs as many races represented as possible so as many people as possible can see it and see someone that looks like them and identify with it but something tells me the university isn't gonna come out and own it like that and even then using AI to make a replacement when you have a student body to pull from is kind of icky.
I fail to see how these are related whatsoever.
If anything, it adds more fuel to the maga "woke academia" fire.
EDIT: GP has since been edited to elaborate more since this reply was written
They're related because of an ironic lack of diversity of thought.
If they could have pried any one of the dozen line cooks that Standford RD&E surely employs away from the hookers and blow or got the drunkest frat boys to put down the bottle for a few seconds to ask them they would have been told that AI replacing people with different races and slimming people up is slimy enough that you should give a black girl a free hoodie if that's what it takes to get her to be the token for your stupid staged photo.
It's regressive to want someone to look like you in order to identify with them. And universities like Stanford should be fighting that regressive instinct, not indulging it.
The consequences of not doing so will get ugly. My kids go to a "diverse" private school (but not economically or politically, obviously) and the message the kids get is that white people must reject special affinity for their co-ethnics, while that's acceptable or even encouraged for non-white people. There's a special "black girl magic" weekly lunch, which my daughter was invited to attend once a month because I guess that's how the math works for a half-white, half-asian girl. There is, of course, no affinity group for white (or British or whatever) kids. I think this double standard has only a decade or two before it collapses completely, and the result will be ugly.
Throwback to when Microsoft swapped a black guy out for a white guy in an ad meant for Poland: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/26/microsoft...
I'm not sure which is worse: human marketer instructing AI specifically to make everyone more diverse and attractive or human marketer instructing AI to do basic marketing and AI has internalized to make everyone more diverse and attractive.
The worst part is that "diverse" should mean showing how many skin colors you can fit.
The change of the peoples faces might just be an artifact of nano banana regenerating the image.
I have done similar things and it sometimes changes the apperance of the people in the image. They might have also wanted to change the pullover of the guy wearing GAP.
And honestly targetgroup research should have happened before the photograph was taken. Not in post... but hey that was the big promise of genrative models right? The thing is, the marketing department could have posed in their office holding staplers and notepads and then asked the model to recreate the image as well. to even save the cost for the photographer...
A tale as old as time. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uw-booklet-student-added/
Escalate this all the way up to the president of Stanford. Falsifying images is a disreputable act such a prestigious institution will not tolerate.
Have you seen who the previous president of Stanford was ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Tessier-Lavigne
I think the student is making a mountain out of a molehill. They didn’t “transform him into a studentin” they just replaced him with a female student in the position he was in the original photo.
Sure, it’s stupid to be so lazy that you can’t use a new photo with whatever characteristics you want. It’s also stupid to slim down a chubby student without permission. I think she has more reason to be upset than he has. That said why does the university see the need to alter reality?
There was an episode of Scrubs where Turk (Black Male Doctor) is annoyed about always being used in advertisements for everything he was in. They had a gag where his college had him copy and pasted twice in the same picture of an advertisement.
I was looking at a marketing page for a conference I attended. This conference had hundreds of mostly white people. But out of 10 photos of individuals or small groups, 7 centered a non-white person. I was there twice. I'd like to think I'm just photogenic--but I look like Azis Ansari with better facial hair, lol.
He makes a pretty attractive black woman. Talk about confusing...