> nothing in the Baywatch intro is NSFW

a debatable claim. There are several scenes in the intro I would not want to have paused fullscreen in a work environment.

NSFW is definitely a sliding (multi-dimensional) scale, and different cultures and work places place themselves differently on it. At a previous workplace (software department in a manufacturing company in Western Europe) a women with only the lower half of her bikini laying on a beach was fine as a desktop background as long as you couldn't see her nipples. At a different company in field service exposed frontal breasts were still SFW. Meanwhile in many other jobs you would get in trouble for far less.

Many years ago, I worked a printing company, and several of our accounts were local porn mags and an adult newspaper that was basically escort ads. The account reps loved those jobs.

Are there shows you'd be comfortable having paused fullscreen in a work environment?

Just doing so would suggest you aren't actually working (on its own a problem in many cultures).

I probably wouldn't do this in a shared office, but I'm pretty open about the fact that I often like to have a show in the background while I work. Keeps my mind from wandering too far if I have a momentary pause for a big download or a long compile or something. And a lot of people find moderate background noise helps them focus. I've been through every Star Trek multiple times and am plenty productive at work. But Bay Watch isn't something I would want coworkers to see. Nipples or no nipples, it's trying to sexualize / objectify about as much as they could get away with in prime time TV. I can't go join a meeting about inclusive culture with my female coworkers if they just saw me staring at Pamela Anderson's bouncing tits in the middle of the workday.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. My statement was not a defense of watching Baywatch but rather a comment on watching everything being highly dependent on your workplace situation and culture.

In an office setting the background noise can be highly disruptive, for example.

Though Star Trek had its moments as well.

How can you call yourself Beef Wellington when you aren't even familiar with the concept of lunch

Well, unless you work for NBC that is.

High jacking the top comment to include my epiphany that "work" is really relative. I used to work at a place that had playboys in the bathroom. We should replace NSFW with NSFC - Not Safe for Childern.

> Not Safe for Childern.

Which is also a debatable because I don't think there's much resarch indicating that images of naked people are in any way harmful for children.

Maybe NSFPP? Not safe for parents and puritans?

"Images of naked people" and "sexualised images of naked people" are different things. A six year-old reading Playboy is totally different to a six year-old visiting a nudist beach.

Or just "contains nudity". I always found it strange that people seem more worried about kids seeing naked people than they are about kids being exposed to violence.

Not Safe for Children according to who? And how do you define children?

And some people actually work at playboy - they have a website after all.

Here's a blog post where I explain my motivation for creating the program - https://raskie.com/post/practical-ai-autodetecting-nsfw. There are some hyperparameters to tune, but you're right, it's extremely flaky. Part of that might be down to my work (I personally wanted the app to be prudish enough to flag the Baywatch intro), but the off the shelf model I used for this, does produce some strange results. Kind of wanted to use this app as a convo piece to discuss AI with people who aren't entirely technical, or with technical people who wonder what AI can and can't do.

"As nothing in the Baywatch intro is NSFW "

I would suppose that depends on the workplace and area(and time) where you live. It is definitely "somewhat" sexualised content in my opinion (close up of a womens body stripping down), even though there is no nipple to see. But sure, lots of normal advertisement sells more sex. So is the red line, when a nipple is shown? That would classify biological and medical content as nsfw.

My point is, human morals are very different. Humans fight about, what content is NSFW. A computer model can never be "acurate" in that sense.

Indeed, I worked in a photo lab back in the day when NSFW images were still on film and we had to think about these kinds of rules, but basically anything was permitted for medical purposes - I once scanned slides for a doctor doing a lecture on pelvic inflammatory disease. She did not say what they were when dropping them off and amusedly asked about it when she picked them up. But it was the very opposite of sexy and quite clearly for genuine medical purposes.

This reminds me of a question I've long had about this sort of thing you reminded me of - in the US at least, we seem to draw the line for showing off breasts at the nipple, but only female nipples. Setting aside any merit or logic to that, can AI actually determine female vs male nipples? I assume not through the nipple itself, but the breast it's attached to or the face of the person?

"can AI actually determine female vs male nipples?"

Not with 100% accuracy, but on average yes, as a female breast is indeed quite different from a male breast. Shape, hair, size, ...

But there are of course exeptions. Muscular women, with small breast who did not breast feed yet, are probably quite hard to detect.

> can AI actually determine female vs male nipples?

Yes, through context. A bearded woman holding a chainsaw would probably fail the test.

There's no such thing as a perfect model. The acknowledgement is welcome.

Per the Baywatch example - there's clearly a grey area here, and in my opinion the model is working as intended. False positives for NSFW are better than false negatives.

> As nothing in the Baywatch intro is NSFW

Clearly incorrect by any reasonable definition unless you work at a swimwear company or a few bits of the media.

I mean, you or I might think Alexandra Paul in a one-piece is an image approaching the beauty of classical sculpture, but quite a lot of classical sculpture is NSFW in most of the world, and the brow is a bit lower where Baywatch is concerned.

One (dare I say?) "reasonable" definition of NSFW is nudity, which in most contexts I'm guilty of associating it with. I know it's an acronym (Not Safe For Work) but I never took it that literally, as otherwise most content would be NSFW unless you work in media. I wouldn't consider Seinfeld NSFW, but the companies I work for wouldn't want to see me watching it at work time, even if it's not normally considered NSFW.

Nudity is not even the beginning of NSFW. If you're looking at nudity in most places you're way beyond NSFW and into gross misconduct.

Very many workplaces have a definition of NSFW that is a bit more restrictive than Facebook's content rules.

And rightly so. Go to work, do your work, go home. It's not adult daycare.

Watching video footage of people running around in swimwear is not really appropriate content unless you work in media or swimwear.

And the title sequence to Baywatch is hardly an advert for sporting endeavour; Baywatch is titillation. It would be entirely reasonable for almost anyone, male or female, to complain about that content.

It is far more sensible to define NSFW as "things I shouldn't be looking at just in case someone has an unjustifiable complaint to make about me that they are looking to bolster with additional offences".

I would consider the Baywatch intro NSFW. Perhaps you don't consider it so because it's Baywatch, but if it was a random video of closeups of people in bathing costumes I bet you would. One thing I find really interesting with AI/Machine Learning is how it can cause you to re-evaluate your own biases. I say the AI is right here and you are wrong.