It wouldn't be beneath VICE to use sound editing to put bomb sounds into takes that didn't have them there to begin with. They quite literally have no journalism code of ethics.
I think there is a grand misunderstanding around my use of machine learning. Your first two suggestions have an assumption that the images weren't heavily modified before going into Artbreeder which was usually the case. or modified in a circular manner, Artbreeder>Photoshop>Artbreeder>Photoshop any kind of MD5 is lost. I could show a progres of each but it is absolutely enormous. Potentially hundreds of decision trees.
As for GAN bias: once in Artbreeder the skin tone is entirely my choosing. If there is a bias in the depiction it is my own bias. There might be a slight bias towards a white, brow-haired female but is is more of a gravity that can be avoided with a bit of skill. There is also a challenge in hair that is -for lack of a better explanation- hair made with human intervention (braids, tall wigs, cornrows, dreads etc).
AS for your last suggestion: I've already been thinking of making videos that show a transition of skin ton of lightest plausible to darkest plausible. Tiberius for example I have a very compelling version as a pale-skinned white dude or a dark-skinned person who looks indian/pakistani. Done in paintover/colorization in Photoshop --directly on the bust- where proportions match.
In the second version of the poster I actually challenged myself to do at least do a quick depiction of each emperor with dark skin. Version 1 my approach was to assuming an average based on place of birth. This time I experimented with assume-darkest-features possible simply to test my assumptions and question my biases. Although quick and not robust, I think it was of value.
I have not in my Roman Emperor write-up itself been as overt. I thought it might be a bit too obvious. My writeups make it clear when no information about skin tone is available.
I did include such a clause in a forensic facial reconstruction experiment: saying: "My gut instinct is that the results are simply easier to look at, that each step towards realism is a step away from ground-truth skull measurements." because it was an experiment where there are likely living relatives.
As the creator I must say there is a lot of misunderstanding in all the comments above but people are making many valid points. On a side-note you might be interested to see that I have tried to reconstruct that horrible Ronaldo statue. https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1287888497286750208
I think most people assumed that Elon was communicating with BuzzFeed in bad faith and the senior tech reporter was acting in good faith ... but consider the alternate perspective. The reporter had spent several years provoking Elon, Grimes and Grimes’s mother with unprofessional tweets. As the article describes, the reporter he was out to get Elon and threw him under the bus at the first opportunity.
The BuzzFeed piece frames Elon as a thin-skinned and erratic with a series of small and misleading reporting errors.
Many indie documentary companies are edgy. Just look at what plays at festivals like 'hotdocs'.
Speaking more generally about journalism you can try The Intercept.
But if you want more established sources where you have to dig for edgy content you can try New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR, PBS Frontline, BBC, CBC Radio, ProPublica, Associated Press and The Guardian.
I guess in some multiverse you're simultaneously trying to advocate and discredit me at the same time.
Since I'm the author of the article and you seem passionate about the subject if you have any specific criticisms. Like a fact I got wrong or something please share! Unlike Vice, I'm open to corrections.
Made while writing a book on Vice media. My attempt to quantify low editorial standards in 'new media'.
The methodology was rather crude. I compared Google search results for the word "the site:example.com" and compared it with "update site:example.com" and "correction site:example.com". Adding a few modifiers to remove 'corrections officers' etc.
While this article is a good exception... In writing a book on Vice media I had the idea to see which american media outlets issue more corrections and updates. Vice scored the absolute worst. Much worse than Time, Gawker and Fox News. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQ6IiQcorsN_pnY6oX1h...
Motherboard scored the best among the Vice verticals but not well in the grand scheme of things.
