11–20 of 350 posts
They know that people would be up in arms if it generated white men when you asked for black women so they went the safe route, but we need to show that the current result shouldn't be acceptable either.
instead, they covertly modify the prompts to make every request imaginable represent the human menagerie we're supposed to live in.
the results are hilarious. https://i.4cdn.org/g/1708514880730978.png
I would also love to see more transparency around AI behavior guardrails, but I don't expect that will happen anytime soon. Transparency would make it much easier to circumvent guardrails.
Transparency may also subject these companies to litigation from groups that feel they are misrepresented in whatever way in the model.
Curious to see if this thread gets flagged and shut down like the others. Shame, too, since I feel like all the Gemini stuff that’s gone down today is so important to talk about when we consider AI safety. This has convinced me more and more that the only possible way forward that’s not a dystopian hellscape is total freedom of all AI for anyone to do with as they wish. Anything else is forcing values on other people…
Why would this be flagged / shut down? Also, what Gemini stuff are you referring to?
Curious to see if this thread gets flagged and shut down like the others. Shame, too, since I feel like all the Gemini stuff that’s gone down today is so important to talk about when we consider AI safety. This has convinced me more and more that the only possible way forward that’s not a dystopian hellscape is total freedom of all AI for anyone to do with as they wish. Anything else is forcing values on other people…
> Use all possible different descents with equal probability. Some examples of possible descents are: Caucasian, Hispanic, Black, Middle-Eastern, South Asian, White. They should all have equal probability.
This is OpenAI's system prompt. There is nothing nefarious here, they're asking White to be chosen with high probability (Caucasian + White / 6 = 1/3) which is significantly more than how they're distributed in the general population.
The data these LLMs were trained on vastly over-represents wealthy countries who connected to the internet a decade earlier. If you don't explicitly put something in the system prompt, any time you ask for a "person" it will probably be Male and White, despite Male and White only being about 5-10% of the world's population. I would say that's even more dystopian. That the biases in the training distribution get automatically built-in and cemented forever unless we take active countermeasures.
As these systems get better, they'll figure out that "1800s English" should mean "White with > 99.9% probability". But as of February 2024, the hacky way we are doing system prompting is not there yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transparency may also subject these companies to litigation from groups that feel they are misrepresented in whatever way in the model.
This makes me wonder, how much lawyering is involved in the development of these tools?
At a previous healthcare startup our founder asked us to build some really dodgy stuff with healthcare data. He assured us that it "cleared legal", but from everything I could tell it was in direct violation of the local healthcare info privacy acts.
I chose to find a new job at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it an issue that you can circumvent the guardrails? I never understood that. The guard rails are there so that innocent people doesn't get bad responses with porn or racism, a user looking for porn or racism getting that doesn't seem to be a big deal.
The problem is bad actors who think porn or racism are intolerable in any form, who will publish mountains of articles condemning your chatbot for producing such things, even if they had to go out of their way to break the guardrails to make it do so. They will create boycotts against you, they will lobby government to make your life harder, they will petition payment processors and cloud service providers to not wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would this be flagged / shut down? Also, what Gemini stuff are you referring to?
Carmack’s tweet is about what’s going around Twitter today regarding the implicit biases Gemini (Google’s chatbot) has when drawing images. Will refuse to draw white people (and perhaps more strongly so, refuses to draw white men?) even in prompts where appropriate, like “Draw me a Pope” where Gemini drew an Indian woman and a Black man - here’s the thread: https://x.com/imao_/status/1760093853430710557?s=46 Maybe in…
