I_HALF_CATS

It wouldn't be beneath VICE to use sound editing to put bomb sounds into takes that didn't have them there to begin with. They quite literally have no journalism code of ethics.

I think there is a grand misunderstanding around my use of machine learning. Your first two suggestions have an assumption that the images weren't heavily modified before going into Artbreeder which was usually the case. or modified in a circular manner, Artbreeder>Photoshop>Artbreeder>Photoshop any kind of MD5 is lost. I could show a progres of each but it is absolutely enormous. Potentially hundreds of decision trees.

As for GAN bias: once in Artbreeder the skin tone is entirely my choosing. If there is a bias in the depiction it is my own bias. There might be a slight bias towards a white, brow-haired female but is is more of a gravity that can be avoided with a bit of skill. There is also a challenge in hair that is -for lack of a better explanation- hair made with human intervention (braids, tall wigs, cornrows, dreads etc).

AS for your last suggestion: I've already been thinking of making videos that show a transition of skin ton of lightest plausible to darkest plausible. Tiberius for example I have a very compelling version as a pale-skinned white dude or a dark-skinned person who looks indian/pakistani. Done in paintover/colorization in Photoshop --directly on the bust- where proportions match.

In the second version of the poster I actually challenged myself to do at least do a quick depiction of each emperor with dark skin. Version 1 my approach was to assuming an average based on place of birth. This time I experimented with assume-darkest-features possible simply to test my assumptions and question my biases. Although quick and not robust, I think it was of value.

Creator here to answer: I have tried to make it clear in interviews these are not ground-truth representations.

"each step towards realism is likely a step away from ground-truth." via https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/peer-past-these-ph... & https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1292107503543689217

I have not in my Roman Emperor write-up itself been as overt. I thought it might be a bit too obvious. My writeups make it clear when no information about skin tone is available.

I did include such a clause in a forensic facial reconstruction experiment: saying: "My gut instinct is that the results are simply easier to look at, that each step towards realism is a step away from ground-truth skull measurements." because it was an experiment where there are likely living relatives.

https://medium.com/forensic-vr/ai-forensic-facial-reconstruc...

Proof: https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1294977757756227585

As the creator I must say there is a lot of misunderstanding in all the comments above but people are making many valid points. On a side-note you might be interested to see that I have tried to reconstruct that horrible Ronaldo statue. https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1287888497286750208

I think most people assumed that Elon was communicating with BuzzFeed in bad faith and the senior tech reporter was acting in good faith ... but consider the alternate perspective. The reporter had spent several years provoking Elon, Grimes and Grimes’s mother with unprofessional tweets. As the article describes, the reporter he was out to get Elon and threw him under the bus at the first opportunity.

The BuzzFeed piece frames Elon as a thin-skinned and erratic with a series of small and misleading reporting errors.

Google Docs footnoting BuzzFeed's reporting errors: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nIi1riFnHmNTdzP5kiHuaV3H...

Vice has no journalism code of ethics. They have no official fact-checking process. I tried fact-checking Vice and it didn't go so well:

https://notvice.com/fact-checking-vice-a-fiction-2d482100116...

Also check out the podcast by "99% Invisible"

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magent...

Yeah, personal morals are silly. Throw Snowden down the well.

Uh, working 4am to 2:15pm has nothing to do with meal perks.

I completely disagree. Someone who discloses things of this nature seems even more honest.

In my opinion you seem like a bit of a square. :|

edit: Goobye kharma.

Many indie documentary companies are edgy. Just look at what plays at festivals like 'hotdocs'.

Speaking more generally about journalism you can try The Intercept.

But if you want more established sources where you have to dig for edgy content you can try New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR, PBS Frontline, BBC, CBC Radio, ProPublica, Associated Press and The Guardian.

Sorry. Got side tracked. Will reply as long as the thread stays open.

Companies that don't take creative liberties in the way you are suggesting:

New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR, PBS Frontline, BBC, CBC Radio, ProPublica, Associated Press, The Guardian.

Their code of ethics can be found here: http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics... http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standard... http://asne.org/content.asp?pl=236&sl=19&contentid=335 http://ethics.npr.org/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/journalisti... http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/act... https://www.propublica.org/about/code-of-ethics/ http://www.apme.com/?page=EthicsStatement http://www.theguardian.com/guardian/article/0,5814,642387,00...

Vice has editorials for sale if you happen to have $27,850: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj_1xHMVAAE9FUs.jpg:large

And to think they tried to hire me.

I guess in some multiverse you're simultaneously trying to advocate and discredit me at the same time.

Since I'm the author of the article and you seem passionate about the subject if you have any specific criticisms. Like a fact I got wrong or something please share! Unlike Vice, I'm open to corrections.

The other Vice parody link in the same article.

https://vimeo.com/121639159

via: https://notvice.com/everyone-is-laughing-at-vice-a82a33228b0...

P.S. I'm the author, will answer questions regarding my adversarial blog after work. (posted at lunch)

Thanks for your reply. I almost didn't read it despite the publisher being Scientific American.

can confirm the article seems to lean heavily towards a "Yea"

Politicians and legislators should be the ones wearing body cameras.

Details are kinda loose on what chrome extension the author is talking about.

Made while writing a book on Vice media. My attempt to quantify low editorial standards in 'new media'.

The methodology was rather crude. I compared Google search results for the word "the site:example.com" and compared it with "update site:example.com" and "correction site:example.com". Adding a few modifiers to remove 'corrections officers' etc.

While this article is a good exception... In writing a book on Vice media I had the idea to see which american media outlets issue more corrections and updates. Vice scored the absolute worst. Much worse than Time, Gawker and Fox News. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQ6IiQcorsN_pnY6oX1h...

Motherboard scored the best among the Vice verticals but not well in the grand scheme of things.

Just to be clear: most the media outlets that misreported this story typically issue corrections more frequently than Vice/Motherboard.

The credit of this article goes the the writer and not Vice. Vice has a long history of history of making up stories for content.

I'm not quite sure what you're advocating. The reporting isn't original and the headline is click-bait.

I consider yc news a place for elevated discussion not for elevating BS.

Did the article really describe a 'constant nightmare' or was the article more an example of anectdata.

I would argue that demonizing STEM fields with sensational language does more harm than good.

Can someone explain to me the difference between this and the computer generated music David Cope of the early 1990s? https://youtu.be/yFImmDsNGdE?t=44s

It seems like the word 'AI' is getting thrown around.

I investigated Vice for over six months for a book. Their media is so bad I regularly call it a liar's cult.

It should be stated that Vice has no fact-checking process. They also rarely issue corrections. Read everything from them with caution.

Here is an article where I fact-checked two documentaries with links to other fact checks.

https://notvice.com/fact-checking-vice-a-fiction-2d482100116...

AUTHOR NOTE: I discovered news.Y from traffic statistics to an earlier version of this article. The article remains a "work in progress" but has been significantly updated.

http://vicemediakit.com redirects to https://medium.com/thoughts-on-media/vice-media-kit-warning-...

If self-posting is banned I'll delete this. Otherwise I'll try to answer any questions.

SUMMARY: Print circulation numbers multiplied by 10, traffic multiplied by 4-10 times and dodgy hiring practices. All these corporate shenanigans, to me, add up to the largest house of cards in the media world.

ABOUT ME: After getting my M.Arch I realized I was in a unique position to write a book on Vice Media. I wrote it because I believe click-fraud and anti-competitive practices are drowning out the honest players in the media world.