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

Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 661 posts

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#301

Post by slg »

tines wrote: post #231
slg wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of bias sounds a lot easier to explain away as a non-issue when we are using "nurse" as the hypothetical prompt. What if the prompt is "criminal", "rapist", or some other negative? Would that change your thought process or would you be okay with the system always returning a person of the same race and gender that statistics indicate is the most likely? Do you see how that could be a problem?

Not the person you responded to, but I do see how someone could be hurt by that, and I want to avoid hurting people. But is this the level at which we should do it? Could skewing search results, i.e. hiding the bias of the real world, give us the impression that everything is fine and we don't need to do anything to actually help people? I have a feeling that we need to be real with ourselves and solve problems and n…

>Could skewing search results, i.e. hiding the bias of the real world

Your logic seems to rest on this assumption which I don't think is justified. "Skewing search results" is not the same as "hiding the biases of the real world". Showing the most statistically likely result is not the same as showing the world how it truly is.

A generic nurse is statistically going to be female most of the time. However, a model that returns every nurse as female is not showing the real world as it is. It is exaggerating and reinforcing the bias of the real world. It inherently requires a more advanced model to actually represent the real world. I think it is reasonable for the creators to avoid sharing models known to not be smart enough to avoid exaggerating real world biases.

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#302

Post by shadowgovt »

pxmpxm wrote: post #227
karpierz wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the end of a day, if you ask for a nurse, should the model output a male or female by default? Randomly pick one. > Trying to generate a model that's "free of correlative relationships" is impossible because the model would never have the infinitely pedantic input text to describe the exact output image. Sure, and you can never make a medical procedure 100% safe. Doesn't mean that you don't try to make them safe…

> Randomly pick one. How does the model back out the "certain people would like to pretend it's a fair coin toss that a randomly selected nurse is male or female" feature? It won't be in any representative training set, so you're back to fishing for stock photos on getty rather than generating things.

Yep, that's the hard problem Google is not comfortable releasing the API to this until they have it solved.

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#303

Post by astrange »

nomel wrote: post #157
ceejayoz wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unanswerable question. Perhaps the answer is "don't". Siri takes this approach for a wide range of queries.

How do you pick what should and shouldn't be restricted? Is there some "offense threshold"? I suspect all queries relating to religion, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender will need to be restricted, which almost certainly means you probably can't include humans at all, other than ones artificially inserted with mathematically proven random attributes. Maybe that's why none are in this demo.

These debates often seem to center around “most X in the world” questions, but I’d expect all of those to be unanswerable if you wanted to know the truth. Who’s done a study on it?

In this case you’re (mostly) getting keyword matches and so it’s answering a different question than the one you asked. It would be helpful if a question answering AI gave you the question it decided to answer instead of just pretending it paid full attention to you.

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#304

Post by contingencies »

pxmpxm wrote: post #291
contingencies wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love it. Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup

Ha! However different pxmpxm on github, I'm afraid.

That's almost poetic. Watch them attempt to make sense of the situation.

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#305

Post by colinmhayes »

concordDance wrote: post #154
devindotcom wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord. Withheld? They've published their research, they just aren't making the model available immediately, waiting until they can re-implement it so that you don't get racial slurs popping up when you ask for a cup of "black coffee." >While a subset of our training data was filtered to removed noise and undesirable content, such as pornographic imagery and toxic language, we also utilized LAION-400M dataset whic…

I wonder why they don't like the idea of autogenerated porn... They're already putting most artists out of a job, why not put porn stars out of a job too?

Same reason pornhub is a top 10 most visited website but barely makes any money. Being associated with porn is not good for business.

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#306

Post by [deleted] »

astrange wrote: post #293
notahacker wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a market for autogenerated porn. But automated porn in a Google branded model for general use around stuff that isn't necessarily intended to be pornographic, on the other hand...

That’s a difficult product because porn is very personalized and if the product is just a little off in latent space it’s going to turn you off. Also, people have been commenting assuming Google doesn’t want to offend their users or non-users, but they also don’t want to offend their own staff. If you run a porn company you need to hire people okay with that from the start.

[deleted]

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#307

Post by [deleted] »

renewiltord wrote: post #229
concordDance wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why they don't like the idea of autogenerated porn... They're already putting most artists out of a job, why not put porn stars out of a job too?

Copenhagen ethics (used by most people) require that all negative outcomes of a thing X become yours if you interact with X. It is not sensible to interact with high negativity things unless you are single-issue. It is logical for Google to not attempt to interact with porn where possible.

[deleted]

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#308

Post by meowface »

benreesman wrote: post #273

I apologize in advance for the elitist-sounding tone. In my defense the people I’m calling elite I have nothing to do with, I’m certainly not talking about myself. Without a fairly deep grounding in this stuff it’s hard to appreciate how far ahead Brain and DM are. Neither OpenAI nor FAIR ever has the top score on anything unless Google delays publication . And short of FAIR? D2 lacrosse. There are exceptions to such…

Not elitist at all; I highly appreciate this post. I know the basics of ML but otherwise am clueless when it comes to the true depths of this field and it's interesting to hear this perspective.

Re: Imagen, a text-to-image diffusion model

#310

Post by paisawalla »

tines wrote: post #279
paisawalla wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know this? Because you can, in your mind, divide the function of a nurse from the statistical reality of nursing? Are the logical divisions you make in your mind really indicative of anything other than your arbitrary personal preferences?

No, because there's at least one male nurse.

Please don't waste time with this kind of obtuse response. This fact says nothing about why nursing is a female-dominated career. You claim to know that this is just an accidental fact of history or society -- how do you know that?
Post reply on HN