“Every time there is discussion on Real AI enhance images I remember this image”
twitter.com
twitter.com
[0] "fastMRI is a collaborative research project between Facebook AI Research (FAIR) and NYU Langone Health. The aim is to investigate the use of AI to make MRI scans up to 10 times faster. By producing accurate images from under-sampled data, AI image reconstruction has the potential to improve the patient’s experience and to make MRIs accessible for more people.", see https://fastmri.org
Conversely reducing costs is often valuable, even if accuracy degrades a bit, depending on how steep the trade off is
Even without "famous person bias", it's fair to say that the skin tone of the resolved image is slightly but measurably lighter than the skin tone of the blurred original (I'm curious what the blurred version of the resolved image looks like, btw).
Occam's razor says the model simply wasn't trained with enough ethnically diverse images, for whatever reason.
I feel as though the general message that the tweet threads author is trying to convey isn’t very clear. I wish they would clarify what they mean.
This is a big issue in Science, actually. One guy speaks and thousands follow. We are still in the dark ages.
In a tweet he identified the issue with the model and how to fix it. Then he got mobbed for it. [0]. But he was, and still is, right.
[0] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter...
In other words it would still be broken. That's not much of a defense.
I don't think there is dataset that would make the PULSE algorithm that produced that image deal well with skin color, the hill climbing it does is going to find it easier to take an averagish face and tweak the lighting.