If the contest is digital, the A.I. contestants look like whatever the computer artists design on their computers. They design something out of their respective imaginations – their best attempts at the epitome of feminine beauty.
For the 2024 “Miss A.I.” Beauty Pageant, some of the fake contestants look a lot like the photoshopped human fantasy-standard models that appear on beauty magazine covers. Some look like the Instagram fantasy-standard to which so many desperate female content creators are trying to conform. “Look at how beautiful I am on the outside!”
Some look like Bratz dolls. Some look mean. Some look jaded and miserable.
Why has our culture been pursuing a standard of human beauty that simply does not look human, or beautiful, or real? It's not because the airbrush, photoshop or A.I. technology can’t replicate photorealism. But real beauty is not someone’s exhibitionistic fantasy.
Who will decide the A.I. winners and set a new cultural “standard” of beauty? The organizers of the contest will be using some of the same A.I. algorithms which produced the digital images in the first place - as judges. And so we have artificial judges, artificial contestants, and artificial beauty for our artificial and confused culture. Who will be declared the winner? Who will be deemed the most beautiful?
Well, it will be interesting to see. Some of the designers, who don’t live and work on Madison Avenue or in Hollywood, seem to be sending a message. Less exhibitionism. Less of the sultry. Less makeup. Less immodesty. Perhaps this A.I. exercise will turn into a sincere quest for more natural and objective beauty. Below is one of the imaginary contestants from a real human computer programmer.
The FDA has rejected its strongest safety warning for Covid mRNA vaccines despite acknowledging that children were killed by the products.
This news surfaced during a televised Bloomberg interview with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who said the agency has “no plans” to apply its strongest safety warning to Covid mRNA vaccines.
In that interview, Makary confirmed that the FDA’s own safety and epidemiology centre had formally recommended a boxed warning — a step reserved, under FDA rules, for drugs with “special problems, particularly ones that may lead to death or serious injury.”