3 ms·

Way to completely misunderstand the issue at hand. The issue isn’t “we’re mad at them for subscribing to a New Puritan agenda (although there is one playing ou

Way to completely misunderstand the issue at hand. The issue isn’t “we’re mad at them for subscribing to a New Puritan agenda (although there is one playing out); the issue is that right now there is no way to censor the model for “undesirable” features without lobotomizing the acceptable content as well. It’s not just removing nipples from training. We have evidence that the “safer” the models get, the worse they get. The more heavy handed the weights are by manual influence, the less they are producing valuable output. The cost of performance for everyone is directly coming at the cost of the perpetually-offended, and I suggest why bother because those people are never satiated. When you make your identity about being offended, there will always be something that is offensive.

jameshart 3y ago
I thought the issue at hand was that a state lottery generated fake porn of a customer?
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Typically replies are referenced to a comment. But… The spur here you are cha going the topic to is a side effect of government employees not knowing that these models aren’t yet so lobotomized that it is still possible to create “problematic” imagery.
  - jameshart 3y ago
    I’m just saying that I don’t think the lottery player who got sent fake porn of herself is necessarily a member of the ‘perpetually offended’, to whom you’re ascribing the demand that model outputs be restricted. I think she’s part of the class of ‘actually offended’. This image wasn’t ‘problematic’, it was potentially actionable. And when you are a business, actually offending your customers is normally not a good idea. Striving to create software systems that avoid actually offending people is a good idea, even if it comes at the expense of some other benefits. Whatever ‘performance’ we apparently give up by training systems not to generate nude photographs has to be weighed up against the risk that it might do so at an inopportune moment.
araes 3y ago
You take out the nipples and vaginas and you lose a large portion (most?) of human advertising.

jameshart 3y ago

I thought the issue at hand was that a state lottery generated fake porn of a customer?

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
Typically replies are referenced to a comment. But… The spur here you are cha going the topic to is a side effect of government employees not knowing that these models aren’t yet so lobotomized that it is still possible to create “problematic” imagery.
- jameshart 3y ago
  I’m just saying that I don’t think the lottery player who got sent fake porn of herself is necessarily a member of the ‘perpetually offended’, to whom you’re ascribing the demand that model outputs be restricted. I think she’s part of the class of ‘actually offended’. This image wasn’t ‘problematic’, it was potentially actionable. And when you are a business, actually offending your customers is normally not a good idea. Striving to create software systems that avoid actually offending people is a good idea, even if it comes at the expense of some other benefits. Whatever ‘performance’ we apparently give up by training systems not to generate nude photographs has to be weighed up against the risk that it might do so at an inopportune moment.

araes 3y ago

You take out the nipples and vaginas and you lose a large portion (most?) of human advertising.