21–30 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take off the spin. When asked to generate nazi soldiers, it generated black, asian, and native american people wearing nazi uniforms. When asked to generate white people, it said it's not allowed to.
It's a creative toy, not a history book.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdawn/the-ai-that-draws-wha...
It’s hard to trust that people this intensely upset about Google’s issues aren’t seeking to benefit from leaving stereotypes and other biases from training intact.
Did he also loose trust in OpenAI back when DALL-E exclusively generated images of white males when you prompted it with "CEO"? And images of women when prompted with "nurse"?[0] Or is this just the old google-bashing? [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdawn/the-ai-that-draws-wha...
I'm done with @Google. I know many good individuals working there, but as a company they've irrevocably lost my trust. I'm "moving out". Here's why: I've been reading Google's Gemini damage control posts. I think they're simply not telling the truth. For one, their text-only product has the same (if not worse) issues. And second, if you know a bit about how these models are built, you know you don't get these "incorr…
That there are bugs in AI training? That when they tried to retrain their model to remove one type of bias, they accidentally went too far the other way?
What's his theory? That Google deliberately "by hand" forced their programs to make ridiculous images so that they would be mocked by absolutely everyone? Does the writer think that people who care about racial diversity are going to be somehow pleased by pictures of Black Nazis?
It's paranoia, but it's also clickbait. We shouldn't give these losers a platform.
Did he also loose trust in OpenAI back when DALL-E exclusively generated images of white males when you prompted it with "CEO"? And images of women when prompted with "nurse"?[0] Or is this just the old google-bashing? [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdawn/the-ai-that-draws-wha...
Anyone mind summarizing this / linking to a different source? For some reason that I don't care to investigate too thoroughly, twitter links never seem to work for me.
But, to try and summarize:
- Issues with Gemini were not (in author's opinion) an initial instruction set fluke, but top to bottom design of the system.
- Rather than presenting the information you asked for it's presenting what its makers think the world and information you asked for should look like (i.e their ideology)
- If you can't know how the product is trained and set up, you can't trust anything it gives you because you'll never know if you're getting the information as is, or are getting the world view of the company who's product you're using.
- "...ask yourself what would Search look like if the staff who brought you Gemini was tasked to interpret them & rebuild it accordingly? Would you trust that product? Would you use it? Well, with Google's promise to include Gemini everywhere, that's what we'll be getting.."
99% sure this is the "google hates white people" thing that a specific set of people have been absolutely losing their minds about gemini produced images of non-white people in a lot of situations in which it shouldn't have I've read theorized(?) that, in order to counteract disproportionately large amounts of pictures of white people in training data, they basically added instructions after the fact in an effort to…