[aledevv]

On 4th example photo the model says:

>They likely share an agnostic worldview and identify as heterosexual.

I wonder how the model would know that they are heterosexuals?

let's be careful about categorizing people so easily and in such a simplistic way.

[wongarsu]

Many homosexuals are visually identifiable as such (with reasonable certainty), some by accident and some by deliberate signalling. I can easily see how the absence of any such signals could end up as a classification as heterosexual, even though it really should put them in the "unknown" category.

Of course any automated classification of that kind quickly gets problematic in multiple ways. In the EU it's a fast-track to getting your AI labeled as a "high risk AI system" that has higher requirements for quality control, ensuring fairness and user choice, etc

[piculet]

Tagged both me (male) and my male partner as heterosexuals. I think there is still some learning to do on that front. Rainbow merchandise has not been as widely adopted as you might think.

[augment_me]

A bit like "they do not have cancer", if you are fitting to a distribution you will have the best results by estimating an average. Being hetero is the majority/average, so a good prediction.

But doing this on a 20-way parlay like in this case will almost always fail.

[xigoi]

> I wonder how the model would know that they are heterosexuals?

It’s about 95% likely to be correct, which is very effective at scaring statistically illiterate people.