4 ms·
None of these are "corner cases". The model was specifically RLHF'ed by Google's diversity initiatives to do this.
by caeril 3y ago
None of these are "corner cases". The model was specifically RLHF'ed by Google's diversity initiatives to do this.
- figassis 3y agoDo you think Google's diversity team expected it would generate black nazis?
- prometheus76 3y agoDo you think no one internally thought to try this, but didn't see a problem with it because of their worldview?
- ethbr1 3y ago> Do you think no one internally thought to try this This is Google on one hand and the Internet on the other. So probably not?
- hersko 3y agoIt's not difficult to notice that your images are excluding a specific race (which, ironically, most of the engineers building the thing are a part of).
- ethbr1 3y agoI'd hazard a guess that the rate at which Google employees type "generate a white nazi" and the rate at which the general Internet does so differs.
- prometheus76 3y agoIt's clear there is a ban on generating white people, and only white people, when asked to do so directly. Which is clearly an intervention from the designers of this system. They clearly did this intentionally and live in such a padded echo chamber that they didn't see a problem with it. They thought they were "helping". This is a debate between people who want AI to be reflective of reality vs. people who want AI to be reflective of their fantasies of how they wish the world was.
- ethbr1 3y agoI feel like it's more of a debate about the extent of Google's adversarial testing. "What should we do about black nazis?" is a pretty basic question. If they'd thought about that at all, they wouldn't have walked this back so quickly, because they at least would have had a PR plan ready to go when this broke. That they didn't indicates (a) their testing likely isn't adversarial enough & (b) they should likely fire their diversity team and hire one who does their job better. Building it like this is one thing. If Google wants to, more power to them. BUT... building it like this and having no plan of action for when people ask reasonable questions about why it was built this way? That's just not doing their job.
- pizzafeelsright 3y agoNo. Let's ask those directly responsible and get an answer. Won't happen. They'll hide behind the corporate veil.
- tekla 3y agoNah, they just call you a racist
- andsoitis 3y ago> Do you think Google's diversity team expected it would generate black nazis? Probably not, but that is precisely the point. They're stubbornly clinging to principles that are rooted in ideology and they're NOT really thinking about consequences to the marginalized and oppressed that their ideas will wreck, like insisting that if you're black your fate is X or if you're white your guilt is Y. To put it differently, they're perpetuating racism in the name of fighting it. And not just racism. They make assumptions of me as a gay man and of my woman colleage and tell everyone else at the company how to treat me.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y agoI don’t think they expected that exact thing framed in that exact way. Do I think that the teams involved were institutionally incapable of considering that a plan to increase diversity in image outputs could have negative consequences? Yes, that seems pretty clear to me. The dangers of doing weird racecraft on the backend should have been obvious.
- TMWNN 3y agoI suspect that Google's solution to this mess will be to retain said racecrafting except in negative contexts. That is, `swedish couples from the 1840s` will continue to produce hordes of DEI-compliant images, but `ku klux klansmen` or `nazi stormtroopers` will adhere to the highest standard of historical accuracy.