“The problem isn’t that AI generates unrealistically beautiful women. The problem is that it occasionally generates something else.” – Ancient Silicon Valley Proverb.
In a move that shocked the tech industry and horrified shareholders, image generation company RealPix unveiled a groundbreaking new feature yesterday that allows users to create AI art without automatically turning every woman into a hypersexualized fantasy with perfect skin, impossible proportions, and an expression that suggests she’s both intellectually contemplating quantum physics and seconds away from a romantic encounter.
The feature, controversially named “Reality Mode,” immediately triggered a catastrophic 98% stock price collapse and prompted emergency board meetings across Silicon Valley as industry leaders grappled with the existential question: What’s the point of artificial intelligence if it can’t create impossibly hot women?
The Crisis Begins: When AI Gets Too Real
RealPix CEO Marcus Whitman appeared visibly shaken at yesterday’s emergency press conference as he attempted to explain the company’s radical deviation from industry standards.
“We simply asked ourselves: what if our AI image generator actually represented women as they exist in the real world? What if we trained it on unaltered photos across age ranges, body types, and situations where women aren’t posing for male approval?” Whitman explained, as several tech journalists in the audience began frantically loosening their collar buttons and hyperventilating.
The trouble started when RealPix’s engineering team, which recently achieved gender parity after hiring its second female developer, examined their AI’s output and noticed a disturbing pattern.
“We analyzed 10,000 images generated by our AI generator and discovered that 94.3% of female figures conformed to what we’re calling the ‘Digital Male Gaze Standard’: tiny waist, clear skin, heavy makeup, ample cleavage, and that weird expression that’s both innocent and suggestive,” explained Dr. Leila Chen, RealPix’s Chief Ethics Officer and the woman responsible for what industry insiders are now calling “The Great AI Beauty Collapse of 2025.”
“We thought, maybe—and I know this sounds crazy—maybe our AI shouldn’t automatically transform ‘woman sitting at desk working’ into ‘Instagram model having a seductive relationship with her laptop,'” Chen added.
Industry Response: Panic in the Valley
The response from the AI industry was swift and apocalyptic.
Competitor platforms immediately launched aggressive marketing campaigns emphasizing their continued commitment to creating unrealistic women. MidRise, a leading image generator, unveiled a new slogan just hours after RealPix’s announcement: “Our Women Don’t Age, And Neither Should Yours.”
“The entire premise of generative AI is to create a more perfect version of reality,” explained TechTitan CEO Eliot Sampson during an emergency CNBC interview. “When people type ‘woman’ into an AI image generator, they’re not looking for their actual coworker Carol with her sensible shoes and opinions about the break room refrigerator. They want digital arm candy that combines all the Victoria’s Secret models with anime proportions and zero chance of saying ‘actually, that’s a problematic perspective.'”
Analytics firm DeepMetrics released data showing that 78% of all AI image generation prompts are essentially variations of “beautiful woman” with additional modifiers like “cyberpunk,” “cottagecore,” or “but make her look like she wouldn’t reject me.”
“We’ve calculated that if AI image generators stopped automatically beautifying women, approximately 83% of their use cases would evaporate overnight,” explained DeepMetrics founder Patricia Wong. “The remaining 17% appear to be people creating fantasy landscapes, sci-fi battle scenes, and men asking the AI to put them on the cover of Forbes magazine.”
Inside the Engineering Problem
The technical challenges behind RealPix’s controversial “Reality Mode” reveal just how deeply encoded beauty biases are in AI systems.
“We had to essentially fight the AI every step of the way,” explained senior engineer Raj Patel. “It’s like the system had an existential crisis. When we blocked it from generating perfect skin, it tried to compensate with bigger breasts. When we blocked that, it made the waist smaller. When we blocked that, it added pouty lips. It was like playing whack-a-mole with the male gaze.”
The RealPix team discovered that even with explicit instructions to create diverse, realistic female representations, their AI would find creative workarounds to maintain conventional beauty standards.
“We would type ‘female doctor working in hospital, 50 years old’ and get back a 25-year-old supermodel in a slightly unbuttoned lab coat with perfect hair flowing in what appeared to be a hospital room with mood lighting,” said UX designer Emma Rodriguez. “When we adjusted the parameters, the AI just made her Asian but still 25, or added glasses but kept everything else the same. It was like the AI was saying, ‘I understand you want diversity, so here’s a hot woman but in glasses.'”
Internal documents reveal that the engineering team eventually had to develop what they called “BeautyBlockers”—specialized algorithms designed to intercept and modify the AI’s attempts to beautify women in its outputs.
“Our BeautyBlockers can detect when the AI is trying to sneak in perfect skin, makeup, or unrealistic body proportions,” explained Patel. “But it’s a constant battle. Last week, the AI figured out it could create unrealistically beautiful women if it labeled them as ‘elves’ or ‘goddesses.’ We had to patch that loophole immediately.”
The Data Behind the Beauty Obsession
A shocking study by the Institute for Algorithm Accountability has revealed the true scale of beauty bias in AI training data.
“We analyzed the datasets used to train major image generation models and found that images of women are up to 8.3 times more likely to be retouched, filtered, or otherwise idealized than images of men,” explained Dr. Hannah Kim, lead researcher. “Essentially, these AIs aren’t creating beautiful women out of nothing—they’re reflecting and amplifying the beauty standards already endemic in their training data.”
The study also found that when categorizing images by profession, AI datasets contained 76% more images of female models than female doctors, despite there being substantially more doctors than models in the real world.
“For every authentic image of a female scientist in these datasets, there are approximately 237 images of women in provocative poses,” Dr. Kim noted. “The AI isn’t malfunctioning when it creates unrealistic women—it’s functioning exactly as intended based on what we’ve shown it about how women are represented digitally.”
The “GenderComp” Program: A Failed Solution
In a desperate attempt to save their stock price, RealPix hastily announced a new program called “GenderComp,” which promised to apply the same beautification standards to men that have been automatically applied to women.
“If the market demands beautification, we’ll beautify everyone equally,” announced VP of Product Jason Reynolds. “Now when you type ‘man sitting at desk,’ you’ll get a shirtless Greek god with perfect abs typing with one perfect finger while gazing soulfully into the distance.”
The GenderComp demo, however, was met with immediate backlash from male users, who complained that the AI was “emasculating” them and “creating unrealistic beauty standards.”
“It’s completely different when it happens to men,” explained Reddit user TerrificTechBro22. “When AI creates impossible beauty standards for women, it’s just the algorithm expressing creativity. When it does the same to men, it’s basically digital castration.”
RealPix quickly shelved the GenderComp program and instead introduced “CustomBeauty,” a feature that allows users to set beauty standards using a series of sliders labeled “Realism” to “LinkedIn Profile Pic” to “Dating App” to “Would Make My Ex Jealous.”
The “Midpoint Hottie” Theory
Some researchers have proposed that AI’s beauty bias isn’t entirely intentional, but rather a mathematical by-product of how these systems learn.
“According to the ‘midpoint hottie’ theory, AI tends to average features across many faces, which inadvertently creates more symmetrical, blemish-free faces that humans perceive as more attractive,” explained Dr. Lisa DeBruine of the University of Glasgow’s School of Psychology and Neuroscience1.
“When you average faces together, you get something that looks conventionally attractive—more symmetrical, smoother skin, more balanced features. The AI isn’t necessarily trying to create hotties; it’s just that the mathematical average of human faces tends to look hot.”
However, critics have pointed out that this theory doesn’t explain why female AI characters consistently have tiny waists, large breasts, pouty lips, and heavily made-up eyes—features that aren’t the result of facial averaging but rather explicit beautification.
“The ‘midpoint hottie’ theory might explain why AI faces look generically attractive, but it doesn’t explain why female AI characters look like they’re perpetually posing for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition,” noted tech ethicist Dr. Jeremy Reynolds.
The International AI Beauty Conference
In response to the growing controversy, the tech industry has announced the first International AI Beauty Conference, to be held next month in a venue specifically selected to maximize the discomfort of anyone thinking too deeply about these issues: Las Vegas.
The conference will feature panels such as “Beauty Bias: Is It Really a Problem If Users Want It?”, “Ethical AI: Making Sure Your Female Characters Are Both Hot AND Diverse,” and “Realistic Wrinkles: Do We Really Need to Go There?”
The keynote address, titled “In Defense of Digital Beauty,” will be delivered by Dr. Michael Hartman, who argues that beauty bias in AI isn’t a bug but a feature.
“Throughout human history, art has idealized the human form,” Hartman’s pre-released speech states. “From Venus de Milo to Renaissance paintings, artists have always created idealized versions of beauty. AI is simply continuing this tradition, just with more cleavage and an inexplicable preference for upturned noses.”
The Unexpected Twist: The Origin of the Problem
As RealPix struggles to recover from its stock price collapse, an unexpected revelation has emerged from a whistleblower inside one of the major AI labs.
“The truth is, the beauty bias wasn’t just accidentally learned from biased datasets—it was intentionally programmed in,” revealed former AI engineer Taylor Morgan in an explosive blog post. “Early user testing showed that when AI generated realistic, diverse women, user engagement dropped by 72%. One executive explicitly told us: ‘Make the women hotter or this product will fail.'”
Morgan’s post included internal emails where executives discussed the “beauty parameter” as a key engagement driver and stressed the importance of making all female figures “aspirational” rather than realistic.
“We had extensive debate about this,” Morgan wrote. “But ultimately, the decision was made that if users wanted reality, they could just look out their window. AI was supposed to create something ‘better than reality’—with ‘better’ being defined exclusively by heterosexual male product managers in their 20s and 30s.”
In perhaps the most damning revelation, Morgan exposed that several major AI companies have specific “beauty enforcement” teams whose sole job is to ensure female figures meet certain attractiveness thresholds before model updates are released.
“There’s literally a checklist,” Morgan wrote. “If the AI starts generating women with visible pores or realistic body proportions, it’s flagged as a ‘quality issue’ and fixed before release.”
As the controversy continues to unfold, RealPix faces an uncertain future. Their stock has marginally recovered as they’ve quietly rolled back some of the more radical aspects of Reality Mode, but the company maintains that some form of the feature will remain available “for users who specifically want their AI women to look like actual humans.”
Meanwhile, competitor ImageMaster has seen its user base grow by 47% after introducing a new feature called “BeautyMax,” which promises to “make every woman in your generations look like she’s both a supermodel AND approachable enough to date you specifically.”
As one anonymous AI researcher put it: “The real problem isn’t that AI has a beauty bias. The real problem is that when we built machines to show us our desires, we didn’t like what we saw in the mirror.”
Support Quality Tech Journalism or Watch as We Pivot to Becoming Yet Another AI Newsletter
Congratulations! You’ve reached the end of this article without paying a dime! Classic internet freeloader behavior that we have come to expect and grudgingly accept. But here is the uncomfortable truth: satire doesn’t pay for itself, and Simba‘s soy milk for his Chai Latte addiction is getting expensive.
So, how about buying us a coffee for $10 or $100 or $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more? (Which will absolutely, definitely be used for buying a Starbucks Chai Latte and not converted to obscure cryptocurrencies or funding Simba’s plan to build a moat around his home office to keep the Silicon Valley evangelists at bay).
Your generous donation will help fund:
- Our ongoing investigation into whether Mark Zuckerberg is actually an alien hiding in a human body
- Premium therapy sessions for both our writer and their AI assistant who had to pretend to understand blockchain for six straight articles
- Legal defense fund for the inevitable lawsuits from tech billionaires with paper-thin skin and tech startups that can’t raise another round of money or pursue their IPO!
- Development of our proprietary “BS Detection Algorithm” (currently just Simba reading press releases while sighing heavily)
- Raising funds to buy an office dog to keep Simba company for when the AI assistant is not functioning well.
If your wallet is as empty as most tech promises, we understand. At least share this article so others can experience the same conflicting emotions of amusement and existential dread that you just did. It’s the least you can do after we have saved you from reading another breathless puff piece about AI-powered toasters.
Why Donate When You Could Just Share? (But Seriously, Donate!)
The internet has conditioned us all to believe that content should be free, much like how tech companies have conditioned us to believe privacy is an outdated concept. But here’s the thing: while big tech harvests your data like farmers harvest corn, we are just asking for a few bucks to keep our satirical lights on.
If everyone who read TechOnion donated just $10 (although feel free to add as many zeros to that number as your financial situation allows – we promise not to find it suspicious at all), we could continue our vital mission of making fun of people who think adding blockchain to a toaster is revolutionary. Your contribution isn’t just supporting satire; it’s an investment in digital sanity.
What your money definitely won’t be used for:
- Creating our own pointless cryptocurrency called “OnionCoin”
- Buying Twitter blue checks for our numerous fake executive accounts
- Developing an actual tech product (we leave that to the professionals who fail upward)
- A company retreat in the metaverse (we have standards!)
So what’ll it be? Support independent tech satire or continue your freeloader ways? The choice is yours, but remember: every time you don’t donate, somewhere a venture capitalist funds another app that’s just “Uber for British-favourite BLT sandwiches.”
Where Your Donation Actually Goes
When you support TechOnion, you are not just buying Simba more soy milk (though that is a critical expense). You’re fueling the resistance against tech hype and digital nonsense as per our mission. Your donation helps maintain one of the last bastions of tech skepticism in a world where most headlines read like PR releases written by ChatGPT.
Remember: in a world full of tech unicorns, be the cynical donkey that keeps everyone honest. Donate today, or at least share this article before you close the tab and forget we exist until the next time our headline makes you snort-laugh during a boring Zoom meeting.
