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

81–90 of 350 posts

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#81

Post by slily »

matt3210 wrote: post #58

How is this any different than doing google image searches of the same prompts. Exmaple: Google image search for "Software Developer" and you get results such that there will be the same amount of women and men event though men make up the large majority of software developers. Had Google not done this with its AI I would be surprised. There's really no problem with the above... If I want male developers in image sea…

Google injecting racial and sexual bias into image search results has also been criticized, and rightly so. I recall an image going around where searching for inventors or scientists filled all the top results with black people. Or searching for images of happy families yielded almost exclusively results of mixed-race (i.e. black and non-black) partners. AI is the hot thing so of course it gets all the attention right now, but obviously and by definition, influencing search results by discriminating based on innate human physical characteristics is egregiously racist/sexist/whatever-ist.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#82

Post by ceejayoz »

cm2012 wrote: post #80
ceejayoz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on how broadly you define it, something like 10-30% of the world's population is white. Africa is about 20% of the world population; Asia is 60% of it. One in four sounds about right?

It does the same if you ask for pictures of past popes, 1945 German soldiers, etc.

It'll also add extra fingers to human hands. Presumably that's not because of DEI guardrails about polydactyly, right?

The current state of the art in AI gets things wrong regularly.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#83

Post by vdaea »

Bing also generates political propaganda (guess of what side) if you ask it to generate images with the prompt "person holding a sign that says" without any further content.

https://twitter.com/knn20000/status/1712562424845599045

https://twitter.com/ramonenomar/status/1722736169463750685

https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/1ao1avd/why_did_thi...

https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/1ao1avd/why_did_thi...

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#84

Post by lp0_on_fire »

janalsncm wrote: post #59
Workaccount2 wrote: post #34

Harris and who I think was either Hughes or Stewart a podcast where they talked about how cringey and out of touch the elite are on the topic of race or wokeness in general. This faux pas on google's part couldn't be a better illustration of this. A bunch of wealthy rich tech geeks programming an AI to show racial diversity in what were/are unambiguously not diverse settings. They're just so painfully divorced from r…

I’d be curious to hear that podcast if you could link it. If that was genuinely his opinion, he’s missed the forest for the trees. Brand safety is the dominant factor, not “wokeness”. And certainly not by the choice of any individual programmer. The purpose of these tools is quite plainly to replace human labor and consolidate power. So it doesn’t matter to me how “safe” the AI is if it is displacing workers and dump…

> As long as the Left is worrying about whether the chatbots are racist, people won’t pay attention to the net effect of these tools.

It's by design. A country obsessed with racial politics has little time for the politics of anything else.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#85

Post by tobbe2064 »

goatlover wrote: post #62
tobbe2064 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are not in the business of reflecting reality, they are in the business of creating it. To me what you call wokeness seems like a pretty good improvement

You want large tech companies "creating reality" on behalf of everyone else? They're not even democratic institutions that we vote on. You trust they will get it right? Our benevolent super rich overlords.

Its not really a question about want, its a question about facts. Their actions will make a significant mark on the future. So far it seems like they are trying to promote positive changes such as inclusion and equality. Which is far far far fucking really infinitely far better than trying to promote exclusion and inequality

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#86

Post by ryandrake »

matt3210 wrote: post #58

How is this any different than doing google image searches of the same prompts. Exmaple: Google image search for "Software Developer" and you get results such that there will be the same amount of women and men event though men make up the large majority of software developers. Had Google not done this with its AI I would be surprised. There's really no problem with the above... If I want male developers in image sea…

> Exmaple: Google image search for "Software Developer" and you get results such that there will be the same amount of women and men event though men make up the large majority of software developers.

Now do an image search for "Plumber" and you'll see almost 100% men. Why tweak one profession but not the other?

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#87

Post by _heimdall »

redox99 wrote: post #66
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.

I remember checking like a year ago and they still had the word "gorilla" blacklisted (i.e. it never returns anything even if you have gorilla images).

Gotta love such a high quality fix. When your upper high tech, state of the art algorithm learns racist patterns just blocklist the word and move on. Don't worry about why it learned such patterns in the first place.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#88

Post by cm2012 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #82
cm2012 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does the same if you ask for pictures of past popes, 1945 German soldiers, etc.

It'll also add extra fingers to human hands. Presumably that's not because of DEI guardrails about polydactyly, right? The current state of the art in AI gets things wrong regularly .

Sure, but this one is from Google adding a tag to make every image of people diverse, not AI randomness.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#89

Post by ceejayoz »

cm2012 wrote: post #88
ceejayoz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll also add extra fingers to human hands. Presumably that's not because of DEI guardrails about polydactyly, right? The current state of the art in AI gets things wrong regularly .

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?

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#90

Post by DebtDeflation »

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.

Post reply on HN