Technology

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.

Here is an uncropped version of the image: [NSFW] https://mypmates.club/1972/Miss-November/Lena-Soderberg

Considering this it's more understandable that it's controversial.

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.

Forsén is quoted as saying, "I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me."

Since Lena herself decided she wanted to retire the image, I don't have any qualms with them not accepting new papers using it. It's really weird that her "big break" came from scientific papers, of all things.

I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.

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.

It's a woman looking over their shoulder

For the curious, you can find the uncropped photo by searching Lemmy posts for "Lenna". It was posted to [email protected] a few months ago.

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've seen more skin in a Sears catalogue in the 90s. Yeah I was a teenager shut up. People need to get over themselves.

people who are offended by images of other people are narcissists

Huh I had no idea!

I'm pretty sure I compressed that image in our computer vision class with some alogrithm we implemented for exercise. I though that was just some artsy over the shoulder picture, but seeing the full version the shoulder does seems supicious in hindsight.