The whole debacle is so comical that it makes me think someone might have actually allowed it just to torpedo the DEI or ethical teams in charge of this at Google.
This does feel too amazing not to be a purposeful middle finger to DEI efforts.
For a week or two, I was presented with tons of Jordan Peterson talks, which I've never clicked on because of my tendency to consciously ignore <pseudo-celebrity everyone is raving/ranting about>.
After clicking on everything except Peterson-adjacent videos, my feed is now filled with "Bill Maher owns the libs!" shorts. I don't get it.
I've clicked to "stop showing me this channel" / "im not interested in" etc..
And without fail, it starts showing Maher/Rogan/Peterson/blah blah blah stuff. Which is fine if that's what I wanted, but I'm watching like.. SNL clips, some comedians and movie trailers. And have proactively expressed I don't want to see Rogan/Peterson repeatedly.
There's also shows I cannot get it to stop showing me clips of - Sunny, Sopranos, etc.
I probably wouldn't have remembered it if it weren't a continual anti-recommendation of what are (in my mind) somewhat niche speakers. It's also surprising given at least Rogan and Peterson's troubles with advertisers.
It's not like it's <latest movie trailer> or <breaking news story> or something else of a general appeal. Maybe YT is trying to demonstrate they're not censoring or something?
I do watch SNL and some CC stuff occasionally, but I mostly search for STEM and history lectures/documentaries, or "10 hrs of nondescript background music".
Was not an accident - it was deliberate.
Why they thought this would not be noticed is beyond me.
EDIT: Just saw it on HN homepage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39465250
Providing people with misleading historical context is rarely beneficial.
In the cases where it was deliberate, it’s usually clear that this is the case such as with Isaac Newton in the recent Doctor Who special.
FWIW I've not personally tried the model, this is only what I've heard mentioned on blogs/HN
https://x.com/danodonnellshow/status/1760454601902260232?s=4...
1) it’s not happening.
2) ok it’s happening but it’s not a big deal.
3) it’s actually good that it’s happening.
4) the people complaining about it happening are problematic.
It refused to generate images of white people.
For example:
People would ask it to generate something like a picture of a German couple in 1820 and it would spit out images of Asian and Black couples.
Pictures of the founding fathers would also include weird things like native Americans and other ethnicities.
Other historical prompts would result in the same output - no white people.
Basically the AI went woke af.
That's called empathy. It's not a weakness, it's a virtue, whether you signal it or not. Now that you've been enlightened and seen you're actually capable of empathy, you're more woke than you were before, and less of a bully, and less of an bigoted asshole.
Is that really so terrible? Can you now live with being woke and empathic now by choice, without even suffering as much as all those other human beings who have to live with ACTUAL day-to-day racism and sexism and homophobia against them without having any choice about it?
I don't like your suggesting that the AI model beign human-adjusted to exclude people of a certain race is not "ACTUAL" racism.
Edit: turns out it generates German WW2 soldiers as non white which is most likely the kind of thing that will make Google take a step back. I was close with my guess.