In traditional artforms characterized by direct manipulation [32]of a material (e.g., painting, tattoo, or sculpture), the creator has a direct hand in creating thefinal output, and therefore it is relatively straightforward to identify the creator’s intentions andstyle in the output. Indeed, previous research has shown the relative importance of “intentionguessing” in the artistic viewing experience [33, 34], as well as the increased creative valueafforded to an artwork if elements of the human process (e.g., brushstrokes) are visible [35].However, generative techniques have strong aesthetics themselves [36]; for instance, it hasbecome apparent that certain generative tools are built to be as “realistic” as possible, resultingin a hyperrealistic aesthetic style. As these aesthetics propagate through visual culture, it can bedifficult for a casual viewer to identify the creator’s intention and individuality within the out-puts. Indeed, some creators have spoken about the challenges of getting generative AI modelsto produce images in new, different, or unique aesthetic styles [36, 37].

we have turned to machine learning, an ingenious way of disclaiming responsibility for anything. Machine learning is like money laundering for bias. It's a clean, mathematical apparatus that gives the status quo the aura of logical inevitability. The numbers don't lie.

Before 2009, Facebook had given users a simple timeline––a never-ending stream of content generated by their friends and connections, with the newest posts at the top and the oldest ones at the bottom. This was often overwhelming in its volume, but it was an accurate reflection of what others were posting. That began to change in 2009, when Facebook offered users a way to publicly “like” posts with the click of a button. That same year, Twitter introduced something even more powerful: the “Retweet” button, which allowed users to publicly endorse a post while also sharing it with all of their followers. Facebook soon copied that innovation with its own “Share” button, which became available to smartphone users in 2012. “Like” and “Share” buttons quickly became standard features of most other platforms.Shortly after its “Like” button began to produce data about what best “engaged” its users, Facebook developed algorithms to bring each user the content most likely to generate a “like” or some other interaction, eventually including the “share” as well. Later research showed that posts that trigger emotions––especially anger at out-groups––are the most likely to be shared.

Algorithms in themselves are neither good nor bad. And they can be implemented even where you don’t have any technology to implement them. That is to say, you can run an algorithm on paper, and people have been doing this for many centuries. It can be an effective way of solving problems. So the “crisis moment” comes when the intrinsically neither-good-nor-bad algorithm comes to be applied for the resolution of problems, for logistical solutions, and so on in many new domains of human social life, and jumps the fence that contained it as focusing on relatively narrow questions to now structuring our social life together as a whole. That’s when the crisis starts.

algorithmic embedding and enhancement of biases that reinforceracism, sexism, and structural inequality

computers might therefore easily outperform humans at facial recognition and do so in a much less biased way than humans. And at this point, government agencies will be morally obliged to use facial recognition software since it will make fewer mistakes than humans do.

In less than 6 hours after starting on our in-house server, our model generated 40,000 molecules that scored within our desired threshold. In the process, the AI designed not only VX, but also many other known chemical warfare agents that we identified through visual confirmation with structures in public chemistry databases. Many new molecules were also designed that looked equally plausible.

how does misrepresentative information make it to the top of the search result pile—and what is missing in the current culture of software design and programming that got us here?