Position: Fairness Failure in Generative Models is an Evaluation Problem

Despite groundbreaking advancements in generative models during the last decade, concerns about their lack of fairness, reinforcing societal inequalities and harming marginalized groups, remain under-addressed and difficult to act upon. This position paper argues that fairness failures in generative models, albeit driven by multiple factors, are ultimately stemming from an evaluation problem: fairness findings are rarely comparable across papers or actionable for deployment decisions. This paper diagnoses recurring empirical and conceptual failure modes in current practice and motivates a shift from ad-hoc bias checks to standardized, generative-specific evaluation. We propose Fairness Cards as a minimal reporting artifact that makes evaluation choices explicit (prompt families, counterfactual protocols, metrics, and refusal handling) enabling reproducibility, comparability, and accountability. We conclude with additional recommendations towards a paradigm shift in evaluation standards. Our project page can be found at https://mariiavladimirova.github.io/fairness-cards .

Offline-to-Online Creative Optimization with Generative Models and Adaptive Testing

Ad creative optimization is increasingly constrained by evaluation rather than generation. Generative models can produce many plausible creatives, but reliable evaluation requires online experiments, in which only a limited slate can be tested. We study how to use data from historical A/B tests to generate and select the candidates in that slate. We developed and deployed a performance-driven offline-to-online workflow that guides creative generation with a predictive model as an inference-time critic. In the offline phase, we use a predictive model trained on historical experiments to rank and refine variants created by a generative model. A final test slate is then deployed in an online adaptive experiment. In a 50-arm field experiment, we found that the best creative generated with this method yielded 45.1% higher engagement than the best human-authored creative. Two additional experiments showed the same upper-tail pattern, with lifts of 46.7% and 36.2%. We found that despite the predictive model being too noisy to directly identify the best creative offline, it effectively guides the generative model toward creating strong candidates that can be efficiently evaluated in an adaptive experiment. The results suggest a design principle for creative optimization with generative models: use predictive models to guide generation of a slate to test, judge the slate by whether it contains high-performing candidates at a feasible test size, and use adaptive experiments to select among candidates while limiting traffic lost to weak arms.

The Market in the Model: Latent Diffusion as Neural Economy

Valuable critique of generative image models within visual culture and the humanities has emphasized the role of datasets in shaping the images they produce. Yet, close studies of the ideological positions embedded into the mechanism of the models have been neglected, leaving them imagined as "black boxes." In a bid to expand, rather than replace, dataset critique, this paper examines the mechanisms of the latent diffusion model in terms of the problems they were brought in to solve on behalf of computer vision engineers, and the decisions each component was tasked with automating. I interpret that ensemble through the histories of its parts and the theory of vision the system inscribes into every generated image. Drawing on Impett and Offert's notion of neural exchange value, I offer this analysis to argue that the model operates as a neural economy: a contained symbolic system that abstracts social communication into commensurable vectors as it transfers the social sphere into parcels for sale. Tracing the training and generation pipelines component by component reveals what each operation displaces, and how it further entrenches the logics of platform and attention economies over social communication. The paper warns that any critique fixated exclusively on copyright and commodity defenses risks reaffirming the very fetishism the model produces, and argues instead for centering social exchange.