> the label “beauty”, for instance, was only returned for females
Males just dont look good, or something.
Edit: as someone noted before, my point was not that that men look badly. More that it is ridiculous bias I did not even noticed before.
Males just dont look good, or something.
Edit: as someone noted before, my point was not that that men look badly. More that it is ridiculous bias I did not even noticed before.
There's an apparent asymmetry in how imagery of females is perceived, vs. similarly posing males. Commercials employing 'sex sells' tactics are still biased towards using the female sex to sell. Reddits' r/gonewild and offshoots is pretty huge, and filled with females. This is a truism.
The label 'beauty' being only returned for females highlights this asymmetry. There is something deeply absurd about this: on a first order approximation, ~50% of the population should be attracted to males. To me personally it is enlightening to see how 'smart' data driven systems expose the systemic biases in our society.
> To me personally it is enlightening to see how 'smart' data driven systems expose the systemic biases in our society.
I also think that they to make that systemic bias bigger. Like, if there is small difference between the gender of elegant in real life, the algorithm will make it higher. The human bias in worst as amplifier too, but I find algorithmic harder to control and even worst in amplifying effect.
Bun this exact day I have seen similar phenomenon with "elegant". Search for elegant ended with exactly one guy and a lot of young women with dresses, most of them brides. Elegant is commonly used for good looking men.