ffhq-dataset VS flaxmodels

Datasets like FFHQ consist of face images crawled from the Internet. While those images are published under CC licenses, the authors usually have not obtained consent from each person depicted in those images. I guess that's why they are taking takedown requests: People can send requests to remove their faces from the dataset.

The real ones were taken from this dataset.

NVIDIA's FFHQ says "Only images under permissive licenses were collected." https://github.com/NVlabs/ffhq-dataset

The FFHQ dataset https://github.com/NVlabs/ffhq-dataset is a high quality, high resolution, and extremely well curated dataset that is used in many recent SOTA GAN papers and also has applications in many other areas.

I trained on FFHQ and Danbooru2019 Portraits with resolution 512x512.

> Which makes it an inexcusable mistake to make in 2021 - how are you not testing for this?

They probably are, but not good enough. These things can be surprisingly hard to detect. Post hoc it is easy to see the bias, but it isn't so easy before you deploy the models.

If we take racial connotations out of it then we could say that the algorithm is doing quite well because it got the larger hierarchical class correct, primate. The algorithm doesn't know the racial connotations, it just knows the data and what metric you were seeking. BUT considering the racial and historical context this is NOT an acceptable answer (not even close).

I've made a few comments in the past about bias and how many machine learning people are deploying models without understanding them. This is what happens when you don't try to understand statistics and particularly long tail distributions. gumboshoes mentioned that Google just removed the primate type labels. That's a solution, but honestly not a great one (technically speaking). But this solution is far easier than technically fixing the problem (I'd wager that putting a strong loss penalty for misclassifiying a black person as an ape is not enough). If you follow the links from jcims then you might notice that a lot of those faces are white. Would it be all that surprising if Google trained from the FFHQ (Flickr) Dataset?[0] A dataset known to have a strong bias towards white faces. We actually saw that when Pulse[1] turned Obama white (do note that if you didn't know the left picture was a black person and who they were that this is a decent (key word) representation). So it is pretty likely that _some_ problems could simply be fixed by better datasets (This part of the LeCunn controversy last year).

Though datasets aren't the only problems here. ML can algorithmically highlight bias in datasets. Often research papers are metric hacking, or going for the highest accuracy that they can get[2]. This leaderboardism undermines some of the usage and often there's a disconnect between researchers and those in production. With large and complex datasets we might be targeting leaderboard scores until we have a sufficient accuracy on that dataset before we start focusing on bias on that dataset (or more often we, sadly, just move to a more complex dataset and start the whole process over again). There's not many people working on the biased aspects of ML systems (both in data bias and algorithmic bias), but as more people are putting these tools into production we're running into walls. Many of these people are not thinking about how these models are trained or the bias that they contain. They go to the leaderboard and pick the best pre-trained model and hit go, maybe tuning on their dataset. Tuning doesn't eliminate the bias in the pre-training (it can actually amplify it!). ~~Money~~Scale is NOT all you need, as GAMF often tries to sell. (or some try to sell augmentation as all you need)

These problems won't be solved without significant research into both data and algorithmic bias. They won't be solved until those in production also understand these principles and robust testing methods are created to find these biases. Until people understand that a good ImageNet (or even JFT-300M) score doesn't mean your model will generalize well to real world data (though there is a correlation).

So with that in mind, I'll make a prediction that rather than seeing fewer cases of these mistakes rather we're going to see more (I'd actually argue that there's a lot of this currently happening that you just don't see). The AI hype isn't dying down and more people are entering that don't want to learn the math. "Throw a neural net at it" is not and never will be the answer. Anyone saying that is selling snake oil.

I don't want people to think I'm anti-ML. In fact I'm a ML researcher. But there's a hard reality we need to face in our field. We've made a lot of progress in the last decade that is very exciting, but we've got a long way to go as well. We can't just have everyone focusing on leaderboard scores and expect to solve our problems.

[0] https://github.com/NVlabs/ffhq-dataset

[1] https://twitter.com/Chicken3gg/status/1274314622447820801

[2] https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1434874728682901507

a while ago I posted here regarding a repository containing some pretrained models implemented in Jax/Flax. I decided to add training code for these models. Here is the training code for StyleGAN2: https://github.com/matthias-wright/flaxmodels/tree/main/training/stylegan2