I think it is somewhat interesting that it remains there, apparently after many many "generations" of combining with other images.

It's also interesting to consider what this image was originally "far" away from.

There are a couple of good followup threads exploring how such a thing might come about in the "latent space" of the model:

https://twitter.com/jthteo/status/1567418273628655617

https://twitter.com/mattskala/status/1567300206969982979

For me it kinda makes sense: the portrait/person is an important feature of the image, so it's heavily weighted in the generation, producing another image with that portrait/person, and so on. I find it more interesting that the visage itself is still recognizable between generations, as if it's not "any person", but a very specific visage.

I know very little about this stuff, but doesn’t that just mean that the algorithm considers the original image to contain gore/violence?

It at least considers the original image adjacent to gore/violence, but there's something uncanny about how the "Loab" image itself is not a gory or violent image. There's something funky going on along a "concept axis" involving the upside-down triangles on the face, the rosacea, and the overall bleak composition of the image.

The image looks a lot like the haggard female protagonists or victims in a lot of horror movies so it could just be a composite of those. The rosacea might be due to it confusing blood splattered faces with medical images. Honestly it just looks like a still image from a horror trailer to me.

Isn’t this just a result of the negative weights?