4 ms·

iEEE commentary on AI confuses the hell out of me. Any model that has a concept of a human body in it, which it needs in order to do body accurate shapes, will

by gmerc 3y ago

iEEE commentary on AI confuses the hell out of me. Any model that has a concept of a human body in it, which it needs in order to do body accurate shapes, will spit out NSFW images. Some training on top of it or some old style CNN nudity feature detection to make it less likely isn’t safety, it’s windowdressing. Not making nude pictures is not a property of these systems, it’s IEEs framing of what they apparently want properties to be.

mvdtnz 3y ago
The models in question are explicitly aligned in order to prevent NSFW images, at great expense. So not making nudes absolutely is a stated feature of this software.
- gmerc 3y ago
  It’s security theatre and IEEE should, as a fundamentals organization, call that out rather than testing security measures and shallow reporting. The security theatre serves interests, talk about that.
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    Agreed. In particular, IEEE should be talking about advancing the domain. This article directly relates to problems that text-to-image has in medicine. Firstly, training on a corpus of medical terms (as opposed to 6th grade English) will produce just as many nonsense embeddings. Secondly, the post-processing filters to prevent medical malpractice will be much bigger than intentional nudity. It’s malpractice to horizontally flip a medical image (think right foot is now left foot). Talking about process of developing a nudity filter is the industry’s way of demonstrating feasibility for more-serious applications.
acdha 3y ago
> it’s IEEs framing of what they apparently want properties to be. More accurately, it’s some researchers assessing how well the leading companies in a booming field are delivering the safety features they’re advertising. A ton of people would like to know whether the applications they’re building can produce output they don’t want to be associated with, the vendors are trying to say they can meet that need, and it’s hugely useful to know how successful they’ve been before it turns out that, say, your grade school kid just got porn shared in their art class’ purportedly safe app. If the safeguards aren’t reliable enough, that might mean the most sensitive buyers wait to see rather than jumping into the market – put the same tech into a game targeting older players and it’s an amusement but not something which is going to scandalize people who were otherwise okay with the latest Call of Gory Murder.

by gmerc 3y ago

mvdtnz 3y ago

The models in question are explicitly aligned in order to prevent NSFW images, at great expense. So not making nudes absolutely is a stated feature of this software.

gmerc 3y ago
It’s security theatre and IEEE should, as a fundamentals organization, call that out rather than testing security measures and shallow reporting. The security theatre serves interests, talk about that.
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  Agreed. In particular, IEEE should be talking about advancing the domain. This article directly relates to problems that text-to-image has in medicine. Firstly, training on a corpus of medical terms (as opposed to 6th grade English) will produce just as many nonsense embeddings. Secondly, the post-processing filters to prevent medical malpractice will be much bigger than intentional nudity. It’s malpractice to horizontally flip a medical image (think right foot is now left foot). Talking about process of developing a nudity filter is the industry’s way of demonstrating feasibility for more-serious applications.

acdha 3y ago

> it’s IEEs framing of what they apparently want properties to be. More accurately, it’s some researchers assessing how well the leading companies in a booming field are delivering the safety features they’re advertising. A ton of people would like to know whether the applications they’re building can produce output they don’t want to be associated with, the vendors are trying to say they can meet that need, and it’s hugely useful to know how successful they’ve been before it turns out that, say, your grade school kid just got porn shared in their art class’ purportedly safe app. If the safeguards aren’t reliable enough, that might mean the most sensitive buyers wait to see rather than jumping into the market – put the same tech into a game targeting older players and it’s an amusement but not something which is going to scandalize people who were otherwise okay with the latest Call of Gory Murder.