- cross-posted to:
- programming@zerobytes.monster
- cross-posted to:
- programming@zerobytes.monster
You must log in or register to comment.
Fucking jesus christ it only took 50 years for it to happen.
And people wonder why women don’t feel welcome in these disciplines.
It’s not like they were using the uncropped centerfold. There’s nothing wrong with the headshot. It’s a woman in a hat.
But the image is from a photoshoot for playboy so its inherently dirty and offensive, even if they only use the cropped version. /s
I mean, the model in question was quoted as recently as 2019 as saying she had no problem with it, so hardly 50 years.
While that should certainly be a bright line, it’s more that from the very beginning of computer graphics, the “perfect” image for testing algorithms and showing off and laboring over and analyzing is a Playboy centerfold. I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dong. It was used specifically because they liked it and thought that anyone who didn’t feel the same needed to stay in their lane and STFU because this is “normal” and fine but any other type of sexual material wouldn’t be.
I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dong.
No shit, but apparently all the fellas in this thread seem to think it would have totally been the same. Either that or they just continue to ignore that as an option.
Yeah, I remember learning about it in a CS class and, specifically, the claim that it’s an ideal standard candle kind of image. I always wondered if we couldn’t have found a better reference shot of a smooth flower growing in front of a rough stone or something.
Maybe the mousey girl in class might get uncomfortable knowing its from a porn mag when it’s thrown up on the big screen for the class to see? Maybe it’s about more than just Lena herself? Maybe women don’t feel comfortable going in those spaces because they feel like they’ll be sexualized or worse. Why wouldn’t they expect that when the men involved think its totally appropriate to use the top-half of a nude photo of a woman?
Well if Mousey Mina feels squeamish seeing a bare shoulder then I think the problem is elsewhere… literally feels like much ado for nothing.
I love for you that what you just said is literally the definition of what I’m talking about. Attitudes like “well what’s her problem” are why women don’t want to be in STEM fields. You even immediately came up with a diminutive nickname for her, to make sure this woman would feel chided and demeaned. Stay classy.
TBH from article it seems that woman on photo (Forsén) decided that’s enough of sharing her photo.
To me, that’s a perfectly fine reason to stop accepting the image.
But that’s not why they did it.
They did it because “eww female sexuality icky”
I don’t think it would be in humanity’s best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it’s an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Censorship is a slippery slope.
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one’s censoring the history or saying it never happened, we’re just saying “Maybe there’s a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose.” Which really shouldn’t be a very controversial take at all.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just “don’t use this controversial image in professional documents like science research.” Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Censorship is a slippery slope.
I read it very carefully. I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it’s arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
2 of 2
censored; censoring
ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋtransitive verb : to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
Pedantic ass is pedantic, who knew?
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear.
Give it time.
Yeah, you’re right.
But I’m a little optimistic. The image being widely used for decades is a symptom, not the cause of women being unwelcome.
With it being finally banned, it seems like this is changing. Hopefully this means the root cause, misogyny in tech, is at an all time low.
Fully agreed, it was a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. I hope in professional circles this trend continues.
They shoud use the picture of some ugly-ass motherfucker now in the name of inclusivity
For the curious, you can find the uncropped photo by searching Lemmy posts for “Lenna”. It was posted to !retro@lemmynsfw.com a few months ago.
Here’s a comment on said NSFW post
I won’t link the post directly as it’s NSFW
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Wednesday, the IEEE Computer Society announced to members that, after April 1, it would no longer accept papers that include a frequently used image of a 1972 Playboy model named Lena Forsén.
An uncropped version of the 512×512-pixel test image originally appeared as the centerfold picture for the December 1972 issue of Playboy Magazine.
In 1997, Playboy helped track down Forsén, who appeared at the 50th Annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science in Technology, signing autographs for fans.
It is also a sexually suggestive photo of an attractive woman, and its use by men in the computer field has garnered criticism over the decades, especially from female scientists and engineers who felt that the image (especially related to its association with the Playboy brand) objectified women and created an academic climate where they did not feel entirely welcome.
The comp.compression Usenet newsgroup FAQ document claims that in 1988, a Swedish publication asked Forsén if she minded her image being used in computer science, and she was reportedly pleasantly amused.
In a 2019 Wired article, Linda Kinstler wrote that Forsén did not harbor resentment about the image, but she regretted that she wasn’t paid better for it originally.
The original article contains 732 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Are they published by Elsevier? Just tell them it’s AI-generated and they’ll be happy to publish it.
A lot of people in this thread have a lot of really strong opinions without actually reading the article. The model was cool with it, but she herself also thinks it’s time to retire the photo from how it’s being used in image processing, where it likely isn’t even necessary in the first place. Respect her on that. I seriously doubt she cares if it remains accessible on the web for the pervs worrying about censorship. It’ll still be there if you desperately don’t want to lose your opportunity to take a gander.
First learned about that image on this video https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yCdwm2vo09I
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
people who are offended by images of other people are narcissists
This is not a hill I’d want to die on, but I do understand thinking this photo is fine. If I hadn’t been told it was from Playboy, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. It’s a conventionally-attractive woman in a hat showing a little shoulder. I wouldn’t be upset over Michaelangelo’s David either. It is less sexual than like 90% of modern TV or mass-market advertising. I suspect a similar image of “cleaner” provenance would not garner much attention at all, honestly.
But it is weird that an image from such a source was chosen in the first place. It is understandable that it makes people uncomfortable, and it seems like there should be no shortage of suitable imagery that wouldn’t, so…easy sell, I’d think.
On a related note, boy oh boy am I tired of every imagegen AI paper and project using the same type of vaguely fetishized portraits as examples.
This is kinda interesting. I work in this field and have seen that image show up all the time in papers but never knew the origins.
I think it’s the right move to ban it and I’m surprised there’s so many people defending it. This isn’t about censorship or being a prude or anything like that. It’s just a bit weird that it’s from a playboy and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don’t hurt anyone. Perhaps we can move on and use some less alienating pictures for image processing papers, too.
Utah teapots
Offensive to people who react bad to caffeine or whose relatives had been killed by a falling teapot.
Stanford bunnies
Offensive to people who think there’s a furry connection.
and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
I can understand that and those people can use another image when making their own examples.
It’s not a bad thing to have more empathy, but there’s common sense.
Down the bottom there are some statistics about how many women experience sexual harassment and gender based discrimination in STEM positions. They also tend to have worse outcomes in general and fewer will go on to work in their field.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
If you can’t see how using a cropped image from a playboy for no reason in an image processing paper is different from your made up examples and could make some people feel uncomfortable then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.
The thing is that those reasons are made up just like my examples.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
I don’t think this is correct.
then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.
Maybe I just don’t confuse empathy with doing what idiots want me to do.
People were surveyed about the image, there are articles about it, an entire documentary has been made about it with the support of Lenna. How you can just come along and say that’s all made up is honestly beyond me. And I’m pretty sure that the collective IEEE and the ethics researchers who have written about this aren’t idiots. I really think you are confused about what empathy is, but I don’t see myself convincing you of that. So uh, have a nice day.
It wasn’t chosen for no reason. It was chosen because it presents good test cases for image processing. Not great ones, just the best they had at that particular moment.
You’re right, I wasn’t particularly clear. That was certainly the case originally, I just don’t think there is a good reason for it going forward.
Historical reasons. I personally used it in a project around 2015 because of its history. And you’d need to use it if you’re comparing against anything else that used it, though given its age, that seems unlikely.
But like I said elsewhere, I’m ambivalent about its future use.
Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don’t want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don’t know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? “What image processing tests”?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won’t disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
i think i’ve seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won’t benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
If a sample image is “making some women feel unwelcome in the field” you may be too sensitive for life.
If you thought that making this comment was a good idea, you may be too misogynistic for life.
If you thought making this comment was a good idea you might need to get a grip on life.
This is not porn; it’s an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren’t in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it’s not where you are looking.
Everything about Playboy is creepy
