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

Losing Trust in Google

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#51

Post by Grum9 »

pljung wrote: post #22

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...

He likely did not and would not. A quick search using America as an example says that prompting CEO and getting a white male would make it 94.1% correct, if the number of 5.9% of CEOs are black is to believed. And of the approx. 3 million nurses 86.0% are woman, which makes those prompts very accurate. The same cant be said when a prompt including the word white with male or family returns anything but 95% of the time.

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#52

Post by glimshe »

true_religion wrote: post #42
dns_snek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other models have biases in outputs and conform to stereotypes, but when used as designed, as a creative tool, that's not a real issue as long as you can correct the output with a simple prompt adjustment. The unique issue with Gemini is that it would flat out refuse to follow simple prompts such as "Please generate an image of a white family" because they "weren't diverse and inclusive" enough, but if you changed "w…

Open Ai had this same issue when they came out because they modified prompts to always include words to generate a diverse set of races. They corrected the guidance in their prompt instructions. It became a non issue.

OpenAI isn't involved in the daily lives of over a billion people. Google's mistakes, for now, have much bigger impact and the problem is especially egregious as the company has near-infinite resources for preventing it.

Also, Google has always adopted a fairly radical and political stance in the DEI subject (relative to the cultural average pretty much everywhere), so it's no surprise that people are making a much bigger deal in this case.

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#53

Post by krapp »

bjord wrote: post #15

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…

[flagged]

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#54

Post by bjord »

dns_snek wrote: post #36
bjord wrote: post #15

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…

Other models have biases in outputs and conform to stereotypes, but when used as designed, as a creative tool, that's not a real issue as long as you can correct the output with a simple prompt adjustment. The unique issue with Gemini is that it would flat out refuse to follow simple prompts such as "Please generate an image of a white family" because they "weren't diverse and inclusive" enough, but if you changed "w…

I appreciate the explanation, thank you

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#55

Post by rootlocus »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #48
gigatexal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the new model when asked for historical figures that were historically white would "hallucinate" more diverse persons. And the article's author is claiming that the training had these biases from the jump. Re: the Twitter post it reads like a "I'm leaving social media' post and then the author waits to see all the engagement -- all the "no don't leave, we love you!" nonesense. Or maybe it's the radicalizat…

> Apparently the new model when asked for historical figures that were historically white would "hallucinate" more diverse persons. This is a weird parallel to similar controversies in fiction. So presumably an AI image generator generating images of historical figures in situations they never experienced, wearing clothes they never wore, in places they never visited, at times they didn't live through, using tools th…

I think the problem people have is that all those other hallucinations were happenstance mistakes, while skin color was added intentionally as a bias through the development of the model. The AI was specifically told "ignore facts, improve diversity", meaning someone deliberately decided diversity was more important than facts. That someone (or multiple someone) has authority at one of the largest companies on earth. This shows the company is willing to add bias for whatever reason.

These are the companies we expect will drive AI development to the point where it will replace a lot of the jobs humans do. Are we OK allowing them to purposefully retell history to hide ugly or inconvenient truths? There are already lots of people believing slaves were "expensive" or treated well, that it might have been a great honor to "work" for their great great grandfathers. Where did they get that idea I wonder?

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#56

Post by verticalscaler »

TomSwirly wrote: post #27
verticalscaler wrote: post #6

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…

> I think they're simply not telling the truth. 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 diversi…

He is a loser because he doesn't think like you?

> We shouldn't give these losers a platform.

Oh look, the truth fell out of you anyhow.

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#57

Post by verticalscaler »

aredox wrote: post #41
mgh2 wrote: post #24

Google as a brainwashing machine has been voiced before: https://medium.com/@trendguardian/a-new-search-engine-1f91a5...

If google's answers are enough to brainwash people, boy do I have news for you... There is far worse out there.

In what universe is this a strong point.

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#59

Post by aredox »

verticalscaler wrote: post #57
aredox wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If google's answers are enough to brainwash people, boy do I have news for you... There is far worse out there.

In what universe is this a strong point.

Because pretending Google's answer are brainwashing people is actually an argumentin favor of speech policing

You wouldn't want Google or others to brainwash people into thinking badly of people of colour, would you?

Or is that some kind of _selective_ worry?

Re: Losing Trust in Google

#60

Post by gigatexal »

rootlocus wrote: post #20
gigatexal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the new model when asked for historical figures that were historically white would "hallucinate" more diverse persons. And the article's author is claiming that the training had these biases from the jump. Re: the Twitter post it reads like a "I'm leaving social media' post and then the author waits to see all the engagement -- all the "no don't leave, we love you!" nonesense. Or maybe it's the radicalizat…

> It's an AI model who cares? It's not like anyone is getting their facts from it People at large are definitely getting their facts from it. Just like a non-negligible number of people consume fake news as facts.

So is it tech's problem that people are lazy, stupid, or both?
Post reply on HN