I think people got upset about Soldier's announcement because it seems forced

My opinion is that instead of “forced” because of his personality, I think it was forced since it didn’t really needed to be exposed. Like literally this knowledge has no impact on the story of overwatch. The knowledge of Soldier 76 being gay is rather… irrelevant. Someone else’s sexuality is less important than a character history after all. Why would Michael Chu waste his time by announcing 76 is gay instead of making an actual lore. I don’t really care about his sexuality (although I used to ship mercy76, but I had moved on past that point) but I think it would have been a better idea if the revelation is sooner and accompanied by an actual lore.

I guess you missed the fact that it we got a 14 page short story focused on Ana.

3 Likes

I don’t really read the comics yet, I only observed from the fandom’s reaction. If it’s like that, then I don’t really understand why the fandom are being so negative about it.

Because the fandom has a lot of homophobes in it. It was literally one sentence in a 14-page story.

2 Likes

LOL, kind of ironic since one of the biggest ships in overwatch is gay and lesbian couples

Quite ironic indeed; although the lore/fanart side and the gameplay/OWL side might as well be two different fandoms at this point. =P

Denial much? Post a counter article then.

You didn’t post an article yourself. But if you care to actually look at the results you get from your own proposed search term, it already shows rebuttal pieces which demonstrated how the claim isn’t true.

I didn’t find anything debunking. The mighty Google has nothing to back up it’s opinion piece.

thenextweb dot com said this: "Yet, the entire paper goes on to point out that the researchers designed an algorithm that imitates human bias. At no point is this AI predicting gayness: it predicts whether humans will think a face looks gay or not based on data from humans who tried to predict whether a human’s face was gay or not.

It’s basically using second-hand knowledge of people, from humans who got it right a little-better than half the time, to determine what made those people think the faces they were looking at were gay or straight. It’s predicting patterns. It does not predict gayness."

The writer has no idea how machine learning works, but lays it out perfectly. You give the machine data, lots of it (even human input), the machine creates patterns from that data and ‘learns’ against a known dataset of heterosexual and non-heterosexual images. To increase its hit rate it goes through different permutations of data, trying to get better patterns to match with.

Machines don’t have consciousness, they match patterns; that’s what they do. And this one seemed to learn faces and sexual orientation very accurately.

Except it has nothing to do with the faces, but everything to do with the source (selfies for a dating site, which are themselves a biased sample of images designed to get the attention of a specific desired gender) and other factors which don’t have a thing to do with the actual faces, like whether they wear glasses. Which if you’d actually read any of the three pieces in the top search results (rather than the verbatim news reports regarding the initial claim) you might have picked up on. You also ignore the claims actually advanced by the original researchers which are about the ability of the AI to pick out actual physical facial differences that supposedly exist between gay and straight, physiognomical characteristics. It’s not about the algorithm, it’s about the claim that there are that kind of difference there in the first place. And the original researcher doesn’t limit to just gay/straight either, he’s insisted it will apply to political leanings, IQ, criminal propensity etc. It’s just another expression of the old racist phrenology idea, given an “IT” spin to make it seem new and modern.