441–450 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Nazi's are universally bad to the degree if you try to point out one scientific achievement that the Nazi's developed you will are literally Hitler. So I don't think so, there would be no outrage if every Nazi was white in an AI generated image. Any other context 100% you are right, there would be outrage if there was no diversity.
People seem to celebrate the Apollo program fine.
How much of this do they do to their search results?
Now, sometimes showing you things slightly outside of your intended search window can be helpful; maybe you didn't really know what you were searching for, right? Whose to say a nudge in a certain direction is a bad thing.
Extrapolate to every sensitive topic.
EDIT: for completeness, google "black family" and count the results. I guess for this term, Google believes a nudge is unnecessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is upset that an algorithm accidentally generated some images, they are upset that Google intentionally designed it to misrepresent reality in the name of Social Justice.
It's more accurate to say that it's designed to construct an ideal reality rather than represent the actually existing one. This is the root of many of the cultural issues that the West is currently facing. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. - Marx
It's certainly designed to try to correct for biases, but in doing so sloppily they've managed to make it if anything more racist by falsifying history in ways that e.g. downplays a whole lot of evil by semi-erasing the effects of it from their output.
Put another way: Either don't draw nazis, or draw historically accurate nazis. Don't draw nazis (at least not without very explicit prompting - I'm not a fan of outright bans) that erases their systemic racism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" when i was there it was so sad to me that none of the senior leadership in deepmind dared to question this ideology [...] i watched my colleagues at nvidia (like @tunguz), openai (roon), etc. who were literally doing stuff that would get you kicked out of google on a daily basis and couldn't believe how different google is " Aleksa Gordić, https://x.com/gordic_aleksa/status/1760266452475494828
Interestingly enough the same terror of political correctness seems to take center stage at Mozilla. But then it seems much less so at places like Microsoft or Apple. I wonder if there’s a correlation with being a tech company that was founded in direct relation to the internet vs. being founded in relation to personal / enterprise computing, and how that sort of seeds the initial culture.
It's odd that long after 70s-2000s post-modernism has been supplanted by hyper-racist activism in academia, Google finally produced a true technological engine for postmodern expression through the lens of this contemporary ideology. Imagine for a moment a Gemini that just altered the weights on a daily or hourly basis, so one hour you had it producing material from an exhumed Jim Crow ideology, the next hour you'd h…
Can you give an example of "hyper-racist activism?"
> Of course the politically sensitive people are waging war over it. Just like politically sensitive people waged war over Google identifying an obscured person as a Gorilla. Its just a silly mistake, how could anyone get upset over that?
Understanding that your likelihood of being hired into the most prestigious tech companies is probably hindered if you don't look "diverse" or "female" angers people. This is just one sign/smell of it, and so it causes outrage.
Evidence that the overlords who control the internet are censoring images, results, and thoughts that don't conform to "the message" is disturbing.
Imagine there was a documentary about Harriet Tubman and it was played by an all-white cast and written by all-white writers. What's there to be upset about? Its just art. Its just photons hitting neurons after all, who cares what the wavelength is? The truth is that it makes people feel their contributions and history aren't being valued, and that has wider implications.
Those implications are present because tribalism and zero-sum tactics are the default operating system for humans. We attempt to downplay it, but its always been the only reality. For every diversity admission to university, that means someone else didn't get that entry. For every "promote because female engineer" that means another engineer worked hard for naught. For every white actor cast in the Harriett Tubman movie, there was a black actor/writer who didn't get the part -- so it ultimately comes down to resources and tribalism which are real and concrete, but are represented in these tiny flashpoints.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just US-centric, it is also just wrong. What's considered white in the US wasn't always the same, especially in the founding years.
Iirc, Irish people were not considered white and were discriminated against.
Anyway, if you asked Gemini to give you images of 18th century German-Americans it would give you images of Asians, Africans, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't think you can trust AI to answer correctly, ever. I've seen it confidently hallucinate, so I would always check what it says against other, more static, sources. The same if I'm reading from an author who includes a lot of mistakes in his books: I might still find them interesting and usefull, but I will want to double-check the key facts before I quote them to others.
Saying this is no different than saying you can't trust computers, ever , because they were (very) unreliable in the 50s and early 60s. We've been doing "good" generative AI for around 5 years, there is still much to improve until it reaches the reliability of other information sources like Wikipedia and Britannica.
This seems completely reasonable to me. I still don't trust computers.
OK. Have a setting where you can choose either: 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'…
> 1. Attempt to correct inherent biases in training data and produce diverse output (May sometimes produce results that are geographically or historically unrepresentative) The problem that it wasn’t “occasionally” producing unrepresentative images. It was doing it predictably for any historical prompt. > Default to (1) and surely everybody is happy? They did default to 1 and, no, almost nobody was happy with the res…
I didn't use the word "occasionally" and I think my phrasing is reasonable accurate. This feels like quibbling in any case. This could be rephrased without affecting the point I am making.
> They did default to 1 and, no, almost nobody was happy with the result.
They didn't "default to 1". Your statement doesn't make any sense if there's not an option to turn it off. Making it switchable is the entire point of my suggestion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more accurate to say that it's designed to construct an ideal reality rather than represent the actually existing one. This is the root of many of the cultural issues that the West is currently facing. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. - Marx
but the issue here is that it's not a ideal reality, an ideal reality would be fully multicultural and in acceptance of all cultures, here we are presented with a reality where an ethnicity has been singled out and intentionally cancelled, suppressed and underrepresented. you may be arguing for an ideal and fair multicultural representation, but it's not what this sistem is representing.