221–230 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Black vikings do not model reality. Asking for 'an Irish person' produces a Leprechaun. Defending racism when it concerns racism against white people is just as bad as defending it when it concerns any other group.
I think you two are agreeing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would appear the woke mind virus / DEI was deeply embedded into the core of the AI. It refused to generate images of white people. For example: People would ask it to generate something like a picture of a German couple in 1820 and it would spit out images of Asian and Black couples. Pictures of the founding fathers would also include weird things like native Americans and other ethnicities. Other historical promp…
Remember that terrible feeling you have of being the victim of racism as a white man, and recall it next time you hear somebody who's not a white man complaining about being discriminated against or bullied when it comes to their day to day life and activities like getting a job, buying a house, or just trying to live their lives. That's called empathy. It's not a weakness, it's a virtue, whether you signal it or not…
German couple in 1820 https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1avmpfo/ah_the_cla... 1943 German soldier https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1awtzf0/average_ge... Pretty funny, but what do you expect.
Your second link was removed
Its the exact same reason we won't solve the alignment problem and have basically given up on it. We can't align humans with ourselves, we'll absolutely never define some magic ruleset that ensures that an AI is always aligned with out best interests.
OpenAI already experienced this backlash when it was injecting words for diversity into prompts (hilariously if you asked for your prompt back it would include the words, and supposedly you could get it to render the extra words onto signs within the image). How could Google have made the same mistake but worse ?
Allowing a political agenda to drive the programming of the algorithm instead of engineering.
1. Attempt to correct inherent biases in training data and produce diverse output (May sometimes produce results that are geographically or historically unrepresentative) 2. Unfiltered (Warning. Will generate output that reflects biases and inequalities in the training data.)
Default to (1) and surely everybody is happy? It's transparent and clear about what and why it's doing. The default is erring on the side of caution but people can't complain if they can switch it off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engineers can easily spend more time and effort dealing with these 'corner cases' than they do building the whole of the rest of the product.
The famous 80/80 rule
What I find baffling as well is how casually people use 'whiteness' as if it was an intellectually valid concept. What does one expect to receive when asking for a picture of a white women ? A Swedish blonde ? Irish red-head ? A French brunette ? A Southern Italian ? A Lebanese ? An Irianian ? A Berber ? A Morrocan ? A Russian ? A Palestinian, A Greek, A Turk, An Arab ? Can anyone tell who of those is white or not an…
A Swedish blonde ? yes Irish red-head ? yes A French brunette ? yes A Southern Italian ? yes A Lebanese ? no An Irianian ? no A Berber ? no A Morrocan ? no A Russian ? yes A Palestinian no, A Greek yes, A Turk no, An Arab ? no You might quibble with a few of them but you might also (classic example) quibble over the exact definition of "chair". Just because it's a hairy complicated subjective term subject to social a…
> You might quibble with a few of them but you might also (classic example) quibble over the exact definition of "chair".
This is only the case if you substitute "white" with "European", which I guess is one way to resolve the ambiguity, in the same way that one might say that only office chairs are chairs, to resolve the ambiguity about what a chair is. But other people (e.g. a manufacturer of non-office chairs) would have a problem with that redefinition.
I'm curious whether this is on purpose. Either as a PR-stunt to get some attention. Or to cater to certain political people. Or even as a prank related to the previous problems with non-white-people being underrepresented in face-recognition and generators. Because in light of those problems, the problem and reactions are very funny to me.
Any generative AI company knows that lazy journalists will pound on a system until you can generate some image that offends some PC sensitivity. Generate negative context photos and if it features a "minority", boom mega-sensation article.
So they went overboard.
And Google almost got away with it. The ridiculous ahistorical system prompts (but only where it was replacing "whites"...if you ask for Samurai or an old Chinese streetscape, or an African village, etc, it suddenly didn't care so much for diversity) were noticed by some, but that was easy to wave off as those crazy far righters. It was only once it created diverse Nazis that Google put a pause on it. Which is...hilarious.