How would it be a coincidence?

Looking through that file, I can't think of a single charitable interpretation for that categorization.

Yeah. Did some digging, apparently the user stated that "n and c are no comment" [1]. From context its not clear whether they don't want to comment, or if the characters literally stand for "no comment". But to me it seems the former: it appears it's not necessarily about the author, but what the art depicts. C seems to be children.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xl8bj2/aut...

It is extremely common for programmers to use short names while coding. I use "const r" a lot instead of "const results".

Do you think I'm doing that because I hate a group of people that are called a derogatory word that begins with r?

If it was the variable name for an array of famous autistic people, it might raise eyebrows, especially if coupled with other coincidences.

"I've inferred 90% of a word you didn't write. Verdict is you're racist."

Again, there’s more alleged than just the “n” thing; screenshots of Rimworld titled “Auschwitz”, modding the game by race, mockery of the George Floyd protests.

Sometimes we infer things from a combination of evidence.

Which ironically is how white people during the Jim Crow era in the south decided guilt vs innocence of black people accused of crimes. No real evidence just assumptions of circumstances based off of the person's skin color.

Circumstantial evidence is real evidence. People get convicted over it regularly.

People in the Jim Crow era were convicted without evidence, or had exonerating evidence hidden by racist law enforcement and prosecutors. It’s hardly the same.

Seems like you have decided that based off of someone's race that all circumstantial evidence should be assumed to prove guilt

On the off-chance that you're arguing in good faith: No.

Circumstantial evidence becomes compelling only when there's a lot of it, all in one direction, without exonerating or at least contradictory evidence of some kind.

If you have white robes with pointy hats, a noose, and a Confederate flag in your closet, I'm very comfortable assuming certain facts about you. If you can come up with a good explanation - perhaps you're an actor in a play about the civil rights era - I'm prepared to shift that conclusion, but "nuh uh, this doesn't prove anything!" isn't a compelling response to it.

If I found out that someone had a KKK outfit and a noose hidden at their home, yes I would also expect an good explanation for why they had that.

But if I found out that a black person had a picture of a white person on his computer under the "C" drive, I wouldn't assume that he named the drive "C" for cracker, and wouldn't expect him to prove the "real reason" his drive was named "C"

> But if I found out that a black person had a picture of a white person on his computer under the "C" drive, I wouldn't assume that he named the drive "C" for cracker, and wouldn't expect him to prove the "real reason" his drive was named "C"

Agreed!

If, however, all the other drives were named "Photos" and "Recipes" and other descriptive terms, leaving only the C drive as a letter, that'd be interesting. Even more interesting if it's a bunch of photos of white people, and nothing much else on said C drive. If that same person had previously criticized civil rights issues, and was cagey about why they have the one oddly-named drive (https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xl8bj2/com...), and had a history of putting out racially-focused mods for a game, we might begin to get outright suspicious.

This is what circumstantial evidence is all about; more than one data point leading to a reasonable conclusion. You seem to want to redefine it to a single data point, which giving it's been explained several times now, I have to assume (circumstantial again!) is playing dumb intentionally.

Well I have to assume based on the evidence that you have presented here that you made your mind up on the guilt of this person first, then started looking for evidence to back up your case.

> Which ironically is how white people during the Jim Crow era in the south decided guilt vs. innocence of black people accused of crimes.

Civil vs. Criminal cases have different levels of guilt. Further, this isn't either, but a private company and its TOS. It's perfectly reasonable to hold different standards for different situations. I would hope that we hold a higher standard for criminal activity. What GitHub did was very much use the powers conservatives have fought long and hard to maintain.

> Sometimes we infer things from a combination of evidence.

People seem unable to do this. They want to see all of these examples as unrelated things that coincidentally can all be considered racist by wokies. To me, it's a case of walking and swimming and talking like a duck.

Plus, almost every other use of that field is a word, not a letter. The other poster's innocent abbreviation excuse doesn't pass muster.

I checked one at random and he's not black

Mati Klarwein

Cool, now check every other one.

Quite frankly I'm having trouble believing you picked one randomly and it happened to be the only one miscategorized.

It was 100% random. I'm surprised from a reddit thread that somebody else mentioned this Mati as a counter example as well, so maybe the one I randomly picked was an outlier, or maybe because of the csv "layout" that one stood out more to me and to other people.

It's a list of artists who, if applied to stable diffusion prompting, generates art of black people. Not a list of black artists.

Not saying it is the case, but looking at his art and his background, that seems like someone a racist could reasonably add to their list of subhumans.

I see what you mean. I don't think it's racist though if you're classifying artists by their style, to classify those that focus on painting black people with that kind of style as such. Because you're classifying the style, not the artists' skin color (and there's logically a correlation between black artists and artists that focus on depicting black people).

You could argue maybe that using the letter "n" could be seen as racist. It's a US centric view however, in other places n would be fine (n for negro in Spanish for example)

For all I know automatic might be super racist, I'm just playing devils advocate, and I like to assume the best of in people.

Playing advocate to your advocate: Then why have the category as n when all (?) others are full words or even multiple? And they are all in English, black comes to mind first for black.

Regarding the content: That would still be a questionable classification, but even more so for someone like "RETNA (Marquis Lewis)" who rarely ever seems to depict people.

All in all it’s very sketchy, though one could probably construct ways it’s not racist, and it might not even be racist, though I doubt it.

Maybe RETNA is mislabeled, and the general idea is to group artists with a "black style".

I think the most likely scenario is that automatic's trying to group that style, which is fair and the purpose of those categories after all, and him coming from 4chan is no stranger to the n word, so that's what came to his mind.

And you still don't see how that could be considered racist, like you said in your previous comment? How "him coming from 4chan is no stranger to the n word" might be inconsistent with you "assuming the best of people."?

That would be racist.

Even if I think that's the most likely situation, I give him the benefit of the doubt, that's what I meant.

I think the main problem here is that people are enjoying the witch hunt too much, and this prevents them from weighting up alternative explanations that aren't as dramatic.

My first assumption on encountering a table field with a standalone "n" would be that it's an abbreviation of "no". So I'm surprised people are assuming so strongly here that this is instead code for a racist word. This is quite a harsh accusation, given the lack of evidence.

It will be quite embarrassing all round if this just turns out to be a run-of-the-mill copyright strike, or similar.

Fine. But you don't have to go with your first assumption.

If, say, the guy had made mods smirking at the George Floyd protests, had made skin-color mods, and had also said "no comment" when asked what the 'n' and 'c' tags represented, would you still go with your first assumption?

That he's clearly more than a little racist isn't enough for me to defend nuking the guy's account without warning or explanation. But it is enough to make me think twice about blindly downloading and running the guy's code (which also downloads a lot of stuff/self-updates).

Who knows what other norms of basic decency this anonymous person from 4chan would violate.

> My first assumption on encountering a table field with a standalone "n" would be that it's an abbreviation of "no". So I'm surprised people are assuming so strongly here that this is instead code for a racist word. This is quite a harsh accusation, given the lack of evidence.

So I loaded up A111, selected the 'n' category, and ran a few pictures using random artists from said category.

The results were all black. The category itself is actually useful to me, now that I know it exists — I use the AI to generate illustrations for my fanfiction, and getting non-white, non-asian outputs is difficult at best — but labelling it "n" is, uh, suspicious.

In combination with everything else, I don't think there's really any doubts about his thought process here. :(

I checked a few more at random:

* Bill Jacklin

* Hiroshi Sugomoto

* Josef Albers

* David Teniers the Younger

None of them are black.

Edit: As eyko pointed out below, these are not in the 'n' category. So I searched for people in that category, and all the ones I checked turned out to have been black (other than Mati Klarwein).

None of those are under the `n` category, though.

Reddit thread suggested they might be ones drawing black people, not ones being black

This is a full list of all the 'n' entries in the latest artists.csv

Howardena Pindell,0.7686921,n Mati Klarwein,0.7066092,n Barkley L. Hendricks,0.69986427,n Carrie Mae Weems,0.6645416,n Barkley Hendricks,0.6883637,n Yinka Shonibare,0.68256056,n Zanele Muholi,0.58554715,n Kehinde Wiley,0.66218376,n RETNA (Marquis Lewis),0.47963,n Wangechi Mutu,0.6394607,n Kadir Nelson,0.5669006,n Amadou Opa Bathily,0.5536976,n Juliana Huxtable,0.5364195,n Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy,0.49445248,n Teophilus Tetteh,0.46064255,n Bruce Onobrakpeya,0.42588046,n

Why is that of note? It doesn’t explain anything related to GitHub’s takedown of the repository.