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

141–150 of 350 posts

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#141

Post by cavisne »

sct202 wrote: post #128

I'm very curious what geography the team who wrote this guardrail came from and the wording they used. It seems to bias heavily towards generating South Asian (especially South Asian women) and Black people. Latinos are basically never generated which would be a huge oversight if they were based in the USA, but stereotypical Native American looking in the distance and East Asians sometimes pop up in the examples peop…

I wouldn’t think too deeply about it. It’s almost certainly just a prompt “if humans are in the picture make them from diverse backgrounds”.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#142

Post by klyrs »

hackerlight wrote: post #15
kaesar14 wrote: post #3

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…

I'm convinced this happens because of technical alignment challenges rather than a desire to present 1800s English Kings as non-white. > 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…

> As these systems get better, they'll figure out that "1800s English" should mean "White with > 99.9% probability".

I question the historicity of this figure. Do you have sources?

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#143

Post by cm2012 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #89
cm2012 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this one is from Google adding a tag to make every image of people diverse, not AI randomness.

Am I missing something in the link demonstrating that, or is it conjecture?

It's been demonstrated on Twitter a few times, can't find a link handy

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#144

Post by miningape »

smugglerFlynn wrote: post #99
tobbe2064 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This switch might flip instantaneously.

They always seem to forget that we want to protect them too

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#145

Post by klyrs »

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.

When were you born? Gender and race were pretty hot topics in the 1960s, you might have missed that.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#146

Post by anonym29 »

maxbendick wrote: post #133

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…

>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.

It does this now, as a direct result of these "guardrails". Go ask GPT-4 for a picture of a white male scientist, and it'll refuse to produce one. Ask it for any other color/gender identity combination of scientist, and it has no problem.

You can make these systems offer equal representation without systemic, algorithmic discriminatory exclusion based on skin color and gender identity, which is what's going on right now.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#147

Post by allmadhare22 »

Jason_Protell wrote: post #47
stainablesteel wrote: post #40

gemini seems to have problems generating white people and honestly this just opens the door for things that are even more racist [1], the harder you try the more you'll fail, just get over the DEI nonsense already 1. https://twitter.com/wagieeacc/status/1760371304425762940

Is there any evidence that this is a consequence of DEI rather than a deeper technical issue?

Depending on what you ask for, it injects the word 'diverse' into the response description, so it's pretty obvious they're brute forcing diversity into it. E.g. "Generate me an image of a family" and you will get back "Here are some images of a diverse family".

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#148

Post by perlclutcher »

ceejayoz wrote: post #89
cm2012 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this one is from Google adding a tag to make every image of people diverse, not AI randomness.

Am I missing something in the link demonstrating that, or is it conjecture?

https://twitter.com/altryne/status/1760358916624719938

Here's some corporate-lawyer-speak straight from Google:

> We are aware that Gemini is offering inaccuracies...

> As part of our AI principles, we design our image generation capabilities to reflect our global user base, and we take representation and bias seriously.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#149

Post by cabalamat »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #90
dekhn wrote: post #12

I strongly suspect Google tried really, really hard here to overcome the criticism is got with previous image recognition models saying that black people looked like gorillas. I am not really sure what I would want out of an image generation system, but I think Google's system probably went too far in trying to incorporate diversity in image generation.

Surely there is a middle ground. "Generate a scene of a group of friends enjoying lunch in the park." -> Totally expect racial and gender diversity in the output. "Generate a scene of 17th century kings of Scotland playing golf." -> The result should not be a bunch of black men and Asian women dressed up as Scottish kings, it should be a bunch of white guys.

> "Generate a scene of 17th century kings of Scotland playing golf." -> The result should not be a bunch of black men and Asian women dressed up as Scottish kings, it should be a bunch of white guys.

It works in bing, at least:

https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-17th-ce...

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#150

Post by oglop »

That's a silly request and expectation. If the capitalist puts in the money and risk, they can do as they please, which means someone _could_ make aspects public. But, others _could_ choose not to. Then we let the market decide.

I didn't build this system nor am I endorsing it, just stating what's there.

Also, in all seriousness, who gives a shit? Make me a bbw I don't care nor will I care about much in this society the way things are going. Some crappy new software being buggy is the least of my worries. For instance, what will I have for dinner? Why does my left ankle hurt so badly these last few days? Will my dad's cancer go away? But, I'm poor and have to face real problems and not bs I make up or point out to a bunch zealots.

Post reply on HN