I don't understand how Google's algorithm can be misled into finding sexiness in those. I imagine it has something to do with skin tones or flesh colors, but then what about the high-contrast patchwork of green and brown fields Google finds "likely to contain adult content"? That's totally puzzling.
The confusion with medical images is way more understandable. If you squint, you can almost imagine those are pics of skin cancer or lesions.
Oddly enough, I even see violence in the "violent" picture. In an abstract, Rorschach Test sort of way. Well done, Google!
I'm reminded of a paper for which the authors generated different pictures of static that fooled neural network image classifiers into confidently identifying them as different objects: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1897
Wired summary: https://www.wired.com/2015/01/simple-pictures-state-art-ai-s...
> Computer vision and human vision are nothing alike. And yet, since it increasingly relies on neural networks that teach themselves to see, we’re not sure precisely how computer vision differs from our own. As Jeff Clune, one of the researchers who conducted the study, puts it, when it comes to AI, “we can get the results without knowing how we’re getting those results.”
There are other SSGs, I use Hugo myself (http://gohugo.io, sample of my blog: http://arianv.com/). I like Hugo cause it's probably the fastest SSG (every time you create a post/change content, you're remaking your entire site from scratch. If you have lots of posts - this adds up!) but Jekyll is the most popular and has great tooling.
Hope that helps!