Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI behavior guardrails should be public

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 350 posts

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#131

Post by photoGrant »

tobbe2064 wrote: post #85
goatlover wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want large tech companies "creating reality" on behalf of everyone else? They're not even democratic institutions that we vote on. You trust they will get it right? Our benevolent super rich overlords.

Its not really a question about want, its a question about facts. Their actions will make a significant mark on the future. So far it seems like they are trying to promote positive changes such as inclusion and equality. Which is far far far fucking really infinitely far better than trying to promote exclusion and inequality

If it's a question of facts, why are you allowing blind assumptions to lead your opinion? Do you have sources and evidence for their agenda that matches your beliefs?

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#132

Post by CamperBob2 »

rahidz wrote: post #113
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as the Left is worrying about whether the chatbots are racist, people won’t pay attention to the net effect of these tools. It's by design. A country obsessed with racial politics has little time for the politics of anything else.

Exactly. What a coincidence that the media's obsession with race and gender inequalities began right after Occupy Wall Street.

As I recall, it began right after the George Floyd murder. It was clearly time for things to change, and the media latched onto that.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#133

Post by maxbendick »

Imagine typing a description of your ideal self into an image generator and everything in the resulting images screamed at a semiotic level, "you are not the correct race", "you are not the correct gender", etc. It would feel bad. Enough said.

I 100% agree with Carmack that guardrails should be public and that the bias correction on display is poor. But I'm disturbed by the choice of examples some people are choosing. Have we already forgotten the wealth of scientific research on AI bias? There are genuine dangers from AI bias which global corps must avoid to survive.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#134

Post by photoGrant »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #130
photoGrant wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been part of the advertising and marketing world for a lot of these companies for a decade plus, I've helped them sell bullshit. I've also been at the start of the AI journey, I've downloaded and checked local models of all promises and variances. To say they're better than the compute that OpenAI or Google are throwing at the problem is just plain wrong. I left the ad industry the moment I realised my skills an…

Is a $5 can opener better than a $2000 telescope at opening cans? Yes. Is stable diffusion better at producing finished art, by virtue of not being closed off and DEI'd to oblivion so that it can actually be incorporated into workflows? Emphatically yes. It doesn't matter how fancy your engineering is and how much money you have if you're too stupid to build the right product. As for this being written nonsense, that…

[flagged]

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#135

Post by callalex »

vdaea wrote: post #83

Bing also generates political propaganda (guess of what side) if you ask it to generate images with the prompt "person holding a sign that says" without any further content. https://twitter.com/knn20000/status/1712562424845599045 https://twitter.com/ramonenomar/status/1722736169463750685 https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/1ao1avd/why_did_thi... https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/1ao1avd/why_did_thi...

As the images in your Reddit threads hilariously point out, you really shouldn’t believe everything you see on the internet, especially when it comes to AI generated content.

Here is another example: https://www.thehour.com/entertainment/article/george-carlin-...

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#137

Post by didntcheck »

chasd00 wrote: post #73
photoGrant wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind yourself we're discussing censorship, misinformation, inability to define or source truth and we're concerned on Day 1 about the results of image gen being controlled by a for profit single entity with incentives that focus solely on business and not humanity... Where do we go from here? Things will magically get better on their own? Businesses will align with humanity and morals, not their investors? This is…

> Where do we go from here? opensource models and training sets. So basically the "secret sauce" minus the hardware. I don't see it happening voluntarily.

I see it as not unlikely that there'll be a campaign to sigmatize, if not outright ban, open source models on the grounds of "safety". I'm quite surprised at how relatively unimpeded the distribution of image generation models has been, so far

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#138

Post by CuriouslyC »

josephg wrote: post #129
CuriouslyC wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ridiculous degree of PC alignment of corporate models is the thing that's going to let open source win. Few people use bing/dall-e, but if OpenAI had made dall-e more available and hadn't put ridiculous guardrails on it, stable diffusion would be a footnote at this point. Instead, dall-e is a joke and people who make art use stable diffusion, with casuals who just want some pretty looking pictures using midjourne…

Don’t count out Adobe Firefly. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s used more than all the other image gen models combined.

That might be true, but if you're using firefly as a juiced up content-aware fill in photoshop I'm not sure it's apples to apples.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#139

Post by deathanatos »

clintfred wrote: post #76

Human's obsession with race is so weird, and now we're projecting that on AIs.

… for example, I wanted to generate an avatar for myself; to that end, I want it to be representative of me. I had a rather difficult time with this; even explicit prompts of "use this skin color" with variations of the word "white" (ivory, fair, etc.) got me output of a black person with dreads. I can't use this result: at best it feels inauthentic, at worst, appropriation.

I appreciate the apparent diversity in its output when not otherwise prompted. But like, if I have a specific goal in mind, and I've included specifics in the prompt…

(And to be clear, I have managed to generate images of white people on occasion, typically when not requesting specifics; it seems like if you can get it to start with that, it's much better then at subsequent prompts. Modifications, however, it seems to struggle on. Modifications in general seem to be a struggle. Sometimes, it works great, other times, endless "I can't…")

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#140

Post by ianbicking »

I've never been involved with implementing large-scale moderation or content controls, but it seems pretty standard that underlying automated rules aren't generally public, and I've always assumed this is because there's a kind of necessary "security through obscurity" aspect to them. E.g., publish a word blocklist and people can easily find how to express problematic things using words that aren't on the list. Things like shadowbans exist for the same purpose; if you make it clear where the limits are then people will quickly get around them.

I know this is frustrating, we just literally don't seem to have better approaches at this time. But if someone can point to open approaches that work at scale, that would be a great start...

Post reply on HN