If you use humans to fine tune and judge the quality of output, then in some sense, that’s pretty much all the AI can possibly do.
Everyone can see the output, “I don’t know.” and mark it zero (dude). But the meat bags will definitely end up rewarding the model if it instead generates some plausible nonsense.
People in the comment seems to not understand that it doesn’t mean average on the “scale of beauty/attractiveness”. But averaged features. Like if you merge all nose shapes of a million person you get this nose, ect.
It was tested already several years ago that people tend to like faces made by merging a lot of faces together and “averaging” them. Most of the time rating them more attractive than the individual faces used.
I don’t find the source anymore… I’ll check better later.
People in the comment seems to not understand that it doesn’t mean average on the “scale of beauty/attractiveness”. But averaged features. Like if you merge all nose shapes of a million person you get this nose, ect.
It more likely means ‘like faces that were called average in the dataset’ rather than an actual average.
What’s the data set from? It will at least be skewed towards people most posting to the social media networks scraped for training data. I wouldn’t be surprised if foreign language social media was substantially underrepresented in the data set because the programmers putting it together weren’t as familiar with it.
In Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, the most average person was created to go inconspicuously undercover on earth. Problem was that she was extremely beautiful and instead of being anonymous she attracted a lot of attention.
Average means average size, distance between eyes, size of lips etc etc.
I mean the grey background and bland expression may be skewing our perception. I wanna see these people in a meadow with a mouth open smile wearing colorful pastel clothing!
On another note I’d love to see photoshop battles start up on Lemmy 😎
Add comment