From the tip of her golden hair to the bottom of her perfectly proportioned body, Aphrodite was the epitome of beauty. She was so stunning that it's been said her beauty could launch a thousand ships! Although it sounds like a myth, research suggests that symmetrical facial features and body proportion are key factors that determine attractiveness. So, it's no wonder why Aphrodite's charm was so irresistible! Aphrodite's beauty was so renowned that it was the subject of countless works of art and literature.

As the old joke goes, on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. But thanks to the rise of artificial intelligence, not only do today's machines know you're a canine, they can tell what color dog you are -- and may treat you differently as a result. AI-driven algorithms impact our lives in countless ways, from the technology that identifies your voice when you call your bank to the algorithms that determine whether you're a good credit risk. It's expected to play an increasingly large role in designing products, identifying potential clients, diagnosing disease and preventing crime. An AI bot may troubleshoot your computer, offer legal advice or teach your kids Spanish.

In 2011, entrepreneur and investor Marc Andreessen wrote his famous,"Why Software Is Eating the World" in the Wall Street Journal. Today, that story would more likely read, "Why Artificial Intelligence Is Eating the World." The market for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies-- from voice and image recognition to chat bots to self-driving cars-- is hot. A Narrative Science survey found last year that 38% of enterprises are already using AI, and that number will grow to 62% by 2018. Like the tech industry at large, the field of artificial Intelligence is dominated by white men.

Beauty pageants have always been political. After all, what speaks more strongly to how we see each other than which physical traits we reward as beautiful, and which we code as ugly? It wasn't until 1983 that the Miss America competition crowned a black woman as the most beautiful woman in the country. So what if we replaced human judges with machines? As shallow as the whole thing is, would a computer at least be able to see past skin colour and look at, potentially, more universal markers of attractiveness?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say. And in a futuristic beauty contest (though some might argue judging people based on their looks isn't all that forward-thinking), the beholders are a bunch of robots. The Beauty.AI 2.0 contest is an international beauty contest judged by artificial intelligence. The robot jury is comprised of five algorithms -- RYNKL (judging your wrinkles), PIMPL (complexion), MADIS (how you compare to models within your age and racial group), Symmetry Master (symmetry of your face) and AntiAgeist (how old do you really look?). The objective of this beauty contest wasn't simply to show people what robots think are beautiful -- it was to test biogerontologists and data scientists' theory "that in the near future machines will be able to get a lot of vital medical information about people's health just by processing their photos," the Beauty.AI website says.

They say'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', but in a new event the beholders are robots. The Beauty.AI beauty contest used five algorithms to evaluate youthfulness, face symmetry, skin and other parameters, and then compare them to models and actors in a database. Now, the systems have announced the winners from more than 6,000 user-submitted selfies of individuals who live all over the world and range in ages of 18 to 69. The Beauty.AI beauty contest put together of robot judges to determine the winners. More than 6,000 people from around the world submitted head shots to be analyzed by the algorithms.

The way a rational agent changes her belief in certain propositions/hypotheses in the light of new evidence lies at the heart of Bayesian inference. The basic natural assumption, as summarized in van Fraassen's Reflection Principle ([1984]), would be that in the absence of new evidence the belief should not change. Yet, there are examples that are claimed to violate this assumption. The apparent paradox presented by such examples, if not settled, would demonstrate the inconsistency and/or incompleteness of the Bayesian approach and without eliminating this inconsistency, the approach cannot be regarded as scientific. The Sleeping Beauty Problem is just such an example. The existing attempts to solve the problem fall into three categories. The first two share the view that new evidence is absent, but differ about the conclusion of whether Sleeping Beauty should change her belief or not, and why. The third category is characterized by the view that, after all, new evidence (although hidden from the initial view) is involved. My solution is radically different and does not fall in either of these categories. I deflate the paradox by arguing that the two different degrees of belief presented in the Sleeping Beauty Problem are in fact beliefs in two different propositions, i.e. there is no need to explain the (un)change of belief.