Skip to content

Fatphobia Is Fueled by AI-Created Images, Study Finds

Technology
14 12 61
  • This post did not contain any content.
  • This post did not contain any content.

    The headline is not only bait but also wrong

    At best, they could claim that AI-generated images are fueled by societal associations of negative attributes with obesity

    And surely the use of the word phobia in an academic context should be more rigorous

  • The headline is not only bait but also wrong

    At best, they could claim that AI-generated images are fueled by societal associations of negative attributes with obesity

    And surely the use of the word phobia in an academic context should be more rigorous

    The term fatphobia in general always irked me, it’s a co-opting of phobias usage with homophobia and feels like it’s trying to elevate itself to that level.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I’m a little done holding space for people trying to argue that being overweight/obese is not a serious health issue. Like, we need to treat it like smoking: no, you’re not a bad person for smoking, but smoking is bad for your health and quitting is good.

    I honestly think there’s a lack of personal responsibility among folks—particularly online—who simply refuse to see anything wrong with themselves and think all lifestyles are equally valid no matter what.

    Idk, as someone who’s struggled with being overweight since childhood, it really bugs me to try to reframe obesity as something that’s not a serious health problem and that society needs to accommodate certain unhealthy life choices. Again comparing with smoking, I’m very very VERY glad that stores/restaurants now ban smoking indoors. Sucks for the smokers, sure, but society does not need to accommodate all ways of life—particularly those that are straight up unhealthy. If you want to adopt unhealthy behaviors, that’s on you; don’t make it my problem.

  • The headline is not only bait but also wrong

    At best, they could claim that AI-generated images are fueled by societal associations of negative attributes with obesity

    And surely the use of the word phobia in an academic context should be more rigorous

    Agreed, AI just like all media, has the biggest question of "is it fueling bias's, or just reflecting them". It's drawing what people think of when they see something.

    It isn't racist for me to say, getting pulled over for no reason is far more likely if your skin is darker, it's just what society is.

    and that's of course before we talk about the general discussion of actually effective ways to deal with obesity in society... which is more complicated. Obviously directly shaming, has a negative impact. Making someone with an eating disorder feel shitty about themselves, makes it harder to overcome the disorder. At the same time saying it's not a problem for them to face at all is also not going to help them want to change.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    It wouldn't surprise me if 'fatphobia' turned out to be a psyop, like the corporate-funded research into nutrition whose aim is to plant a particular meme in the public conscience ('don't give up soda kids, just exercise to lose all that weight!')

    50 years of high-fructose food ubiquity doesn't negate millennia of evolutionary conditioning that expects us to be on foot most of the day, consuming high protein diets and covering 10+km distances

    The notion that we can out-social engineer physical reality is a doggedly persistent one

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Fatphobia energy should be redirected into carbohydrate education. We ban cigarettes not smokers. Teach overweight people their problem is all the carbs in their diet (sugar, soda, pizza, candy, etc).

  • The term fatphobia in general always irked me, it’s a co-opting of phobias usage with homophobia and feels like it’s trying to elevate itself to that level.

    There are definitely folk who see obese people as an acceptable target because they can hide behind (valid) health claims, and then justify their moral superiority because they don't have those "personal failures".

    The litmus test is if they think Semaglutide/GLP-1 is "legitimate" or obese people using it are "cheating".

  • Fatphobia energy should be redirected into carbohydrate education. We ban cigarettes not smokers. Teach overweight people their problem is all the carbs in their diet (sugar, soda, pizza, candy, etc).

    Just yesterday I was discussing this issue with my wife. Here we have "Physical Education" in schools, which is mostly kids doing exercises or some kind of sport activity in school, a couple of hours per week. This is surely fine, but I'd also like kids being taught the right way to eat, things to avoid, things to limit... I think it would be an investment for the future, which could avoid a lot of problems related to bad eating habits.

  • Just yesterday I was discussing this issue with my wife. Here we have "Physical Education" in schools, which is mostly kids doing exercises or some kind of sport activity in school, a couple of hours per week. This is surely fine, but I'd also like kids being taught the right way to eat, things to avoid, things to limit... I think it would be an investment for the future, which could avoid a lot of problems related to bad eating habits.

    I strongly agree! The current food pyramid experiment isn't working.

  • I’m a little done holding space for people trying to argue that being overweight/obese is not a serious health issue. Like, we need to treat it like smoking: no, you’re not a bad person for smoking, but smoking is bad for your health and quitting is good.

    I honestly think there’s a lack of personal responsibility among folks—particularly online—who simply refuse to see anything wrong with themselves and think all lifestyles are equally valid no matter what.

    Idk, as someone who’s struggled with being overweight since childhood, it really bugs me to try to reframe obesity as something that’s not a serious health problem and that society needs to accommodate certain unhealthy life choices. Again comparing with smoking, I’m very very VERY glad that stores/restaurants now ban smoking indoors. Sucks for the smokers, sure, but society does not need to accommodate all ways of life—particularly those that are straight up unhealthy. If you want to adopt unhealthy behaviors, that’s on you; don’t make it my problem.

    Hey, at least being fat doesn't create an aura of stench that makes anyone nearby miserable.

  • Just yesterday I was discussing this issue with my wife. Here we have "Physical Education" in schools, which is mostly kids doing exercises or some kind of sport activity in school, a couple of hours per week. This is surely fine, but I'd also like kids being taught the right way to eat, things to avoid, things to limit... I think it would be an investment for the future, which could avoid a lot of problems related to bad eating habits.

    Wtf? You arent taught this? I learned it growing up in Canada and my kids are too, here in Japan.

  • Wtf? You arent taught this? I learned it growing up in Canada and my kids are too, here in Japan.

    I'm pretty positive that, although teacher may casually mention it, that's not a specific topic in school. And it should be.

  • I’m a little done holding space for people trying to argue that being overweight/obese is not a serious health issue. Like, we need to treat it like smoking: no, you’re not a bad person for smoking, but smoking is bad for your health and quitting is good.

    I honestly think there’s a lack of personal responsibility among folks—particularly online—who simply refuse to see anything wrong with themselves and think all lifestyles are equally valid no matter what.

    Idk, as someone who’s struggled with being overweight since childhood, it really bugs me to try to reframe obesity as something that’s not a serious health problem and that society needs to accommodate certain unhealthy life choices. Again comparing with smoking, I’m very very VERY glad that stores/restaurants now ban smoking indoors. Sucks for the smokers, sure, but society does not need to accommodate all ways of life—particularly those that are straight up unhealthy. If you want to adopt unhealthy behaviors, that’s on you; don’t make it my problem.

    I pretty much agree.

    The only thing I would add is that it's not our place to tell others to lose weight or to point out their weight; people already know they are overweight and that it's unhealthy. We shouldn't be policing other people's bodies.

    It's also possible to be overweight and have body positivity; being overweight doesn't equate to being unattractive.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • What is SIEM (Security Information and Event Management)?

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    3 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 325 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    156 Aufrufe
    P
    Jimmy Carter gave up his tiny peanut farm. Yet people nowadays are just incapable of understanding the concept of conflict of interest?
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 22 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows

    Technology technology
    80
    1
    486 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    177 Aufrufe
    Z
    Their problem with China is the supposed atheism, and that they're not christian fundamentalists.
  • Google Shared My Phone Number!

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    145 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    172 Aufrufe
    M
    Italy, and all of Europe, have always had a greater respect for personal and a lesser respect for business' profits than the U.S.
  • *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet