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

241–250 of 350 posts

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#241

Post by mp05 »

Nevermark wrote: post #185
cabalamat wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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...

I don't know that this sheds light on anything but I was curious... a picture of some 21st century scottish kings playing golf (all white) https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-21st-ce... a picture of some 22nd century scottish kings playing golf (all white) https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-22nd-ce... a picture of some 23rd century scottish kings playing golf (all white) https://www…

I'm really disappointed that nth-century seems to have no effect at all. I'm expecting Kilts in Space.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#242

Post by Jensson »

Suppafly wrote: post #95
kaesar14 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't even know how people get it to draw images, the version I have access to is literally just text.

Europeans don't get to draw images yet.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#243

Post by gopher_space »

serial_dev wrote: post #174
ianbicking wrote: post #140

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. Thing…

There is no need to implement large scale censorship and moderation in this case. Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? The whole premise of your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking to a computer, nobody gets hurt. It's like censoring what I write in my notes app vs. what I write on someone's Facebook wall. In one cas…

> Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment?

I'd love an example of "guardrails" in action on a topic of relevance to actual adults. There's a connection I can't find between the ability to make racist memes and literally anything else I want to do with AI.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#244

Post by UberFly »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #195
ianbicking wrote: post #140

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. Thing…

> publish a word blocklist and people can easily find how to express problematic things using words that aren't on the list. I'd love to explore that further. It's not the words that are "problematic" but the ideas, however expressed? Seems like a "problematic" idea, no ?

A word blocklist just serves to apply guardrails. It just slows down common abuse. Very far from perfect, but the alternatives are anything goes or total lockdown. Perfect solutions are pretty damn rare.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#245

Post by withinboredom »

Ecoste wrote: post #200
serial_dev wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need to implement large scale censorship and moderation in this case. Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? The whole premise of your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking to a computer, nobody gets hurt. It's like censoring what I write in my notes app vs. what I write on someone's Facebook wall. In one cas…

But what if little timmy asks it how to make a bomb? What if it's racist? Then what?

None of this should be a mystery. Making a bomb is literally something you can figure out with very little research (my friends and I used to blow up cow pastures for fun!).

Racism is a totally different and sadder issue. I don’t have a good answer for that one, but knowledge shouldn’t be withheld because someone thinks it is “dangerous”

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#246

Post by photonthug »

jjjjj55555 wrote: post #226
photonthug wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Do we expect this because diverse groups are realistically most common or because we wish that they were? For example only some 10% of marriages are interracial, but commercials on TV would lead you to believe it’s 30% or higher. The goal for commercials…

Also, these tools are used world-wide and "diversity" means different things in different places. Somehow it's always only the US ideal of diversity that gets shipped abroad.

Yeah, someone else mentioned Tokyo which is not going to have as much variety among park visitors as NYC. But then again neither will Colorado (or almost anywhere else!) be as diverse. Some genius at corporate is probably scheming about making image generation as location-sensitive as search is, ostensibly to provide utility but really to perpetuate echo chambers and search bubbles. I wish computing in general would move back towards user-controlled rather than guess-what-I-mean and the resulting politicization, but it seems that ship has sailed.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#247

Post by electrondood »

serial_dev wrote: post #174
ianbicking wrote: post #140

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. Thing…

There is no need to implement large scale censorship and moderation in this case. Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? The whole premise of your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking to a computer, nobody gets hurt. It's like censoring what I write in my notes app vs. what I write on someone's Facebook wall. In one cas…

The concern is that companies have long known that it's bad for business if your product is a toxic cesspit or can be used to generate horrible headlines that reflect poorly on your brand.

It's not "woke," and it's not censorship. It's literally the free market.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#249

Post by xdennis »

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?

OpenAI has no problem showing accurate pictures. You know it's Google-induced bias, but feign ignorance.

If you ask for a picture of nazi soldiers it shouldn't have 60% Asian people like you say. You know you're wrong but instead of admitting it, you're moving the goalpost to "hands".

This entire thread is you being insincere.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#250

Post by samatman »

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.

Why would you expect anything you didn't specify in the output of the first prompt? If there are friends, lunch, and a park: it did what you asked.

Piling a bunch of neurotic expectations about it being a Benneton ad on top of that is absurd. When you can trivially add as much content to the description as you want, and get what you ask for, it does not matter what the default happens to be.

Post reply on HN