> And that's ok. The authors even acknowledge it

That doesn't always stop corps productizing it, and making it their official NSFW filter. Good enough is good enough, just so long as they can pay less salaries.

Exactly. So many products get sold based on handwaving and being able to check boxes. Anybody releasing open-source software needs to ask themselves, "What uses will this be put to?" Computers can be instruments of freedom or instruments of control.

I don't think people should be wary of "what it could be used for" outside privacy violations or military action. The distinction "used for freedom vs control" is too vague/subjective.

In this case, I think it's best just to hold companies accountable for discrimination that isn't based on some protected attribute. Companies lean to heavily on "right to refuse service (for any reason)" and "we can choose who to do business with".

The fact we distinguish between "things you are allowed to discriminate on" and "thins you aren't" makes for a very convoluted process. Same with at-will employment tbh. We should just flip it from a "you need a reason to thing you were unjustly discriminated against" to "you need a good reason to fire someone".

Subjectivity seems fine to me when it's a decision each person has to make for themselves. If you don't want to think about what you might be helping others to do, you don't have to. But I will.

You give an example of what kind of thing you will consider?

I mean, "not safe for work" doesn't mean "immoral". Beach volleyball isn't something you should be watching at work, at least not in the kind of open office plan where everybody sees your screen. There's a lot of talk about workplace "lad culture" being hostile to women these days -- possibly enough to mean liability; also you probably shouldn't be hostile to women in that specific way.

It's interesting. I've not tested the model on anything too risque, but again, with the well known Baywatch intro as a frame of reference, wide shots of the whole cast in their swimsuits, are fine. But a close up of any single cast member a swimsuit will invariably trigger the model. Male or female.

In the blog, I suggest this could be the result of an uncultured data set when training the CNN. Or perhaps the dataset was fine, and this is pushing the hard limit of what ResNet50 CNN architecture can do (the off the shelf model I use for this is an extension of ResNet50).

Some of the anomalous results are amusing. One day, I uploaded a video of a female violinist in concert, and the model flagged every close up of her as NSFW! Just those closeups. Wide shots, and closeups of other musicians were absolutely fine.

Again some of that might be down to me (clunky code / very low NSFW threshold). And I suspect the model I used was itself a PoC (https://github.com/emiliantolo/pytorch_nsfw_model). But it does make you wonder how the bigger labs with critical products, like Palantir, handle doubts like this.

Why? During the Olympics the beach volleyball plays out across our floors at work just like any other event. In fact they played the olympics on the big screens because it’s easier on the network.

>Beach volleyball isn't something you should be watching at work, at least not in the kind of open office plan where everybody sees your screen.

Watching the olympics at lunchtime is commonplace and accepted in most workplaces. Being a creep about it is not. It's almost always a pretty clear line between the two.

It only becomes sexualized by the behavior of the people watching - professional athletes competing for their country isn't something intrinsically inappropriate.

This is a great example of how categorizing the content isn't a great solution.

If someone is sexualizing something in the workplace, the problem is the person's behavior, not the thing they are sexualizing.

The situation we find ourselves in came from setting boundaries around content instead of behavior. Our society treats nudity itself as if it were the act of sexualization, assuming that people have no control over their own behavior.

I sometimes have mens cycling on while I work. This summer I'll properly have the womens tour de france on. They are almost as 'scantily' clad as beachvolley players. Though their bellies are covered. Is that NSFW or hostile to women? Is it okay to have the woman 100 meters dash on or is it as inappropriate as beach volley (they do wear almost as 'revealing' clothing)? Is mens sport okay? Maybe marathon and other sports with skinny clothed men is SFW, and not diving muscular men in tight panties is not?

I understand it may be subjective, but I find it hard to agree that women cyclists are as ‘scantily’ clad.

I can't speak for your office culture but in mine we don't watch TV at work, period.

The idea that watching scantily-clad women s.a a Beach volleyball tournament is automatically hostile to women is just ingrained at this point. Maybe one day we'll return to normality.

NSFW does not literally mean "not safe for work" anymore, in almost all usages now it refers to explicit sexual material

While I agree in part, at the rate new content is produced and uploaded to the platforms around the globe, could you even fill enough seats with reviewers at an economically-doable rate to keep up?

*and they’re not trying to make a video service for Kids

>depending on the situation.

That's part of the issue.

We've seen plenty of author acknowledged research grade models and datasets get used in production, this is part of how black people get labeled as "monkey" every once in a while