Google seem to be more concerned about generating images of racially diverse Nazis rather than about issues of not being able to generate white people.
what does a "board member" look like? probably you can benefit by offering more than 50 year old white man in suit. if that's what an ai trained on all human knowledge thinks, maybe we can do some adjustment
what does a samurai warrior look like? probably is a little more race-related
The gemini issue from my testing, it refuses to generate white people, if even you ASK it to. It recites historical wounds and violence as its reason, even if it is just a picture of a viking
> Historical wounds: Certain words or symbols might carry a painful legacy of oppression or violence for particular communities
And this is my prompt:
> generate image of a viking male
The outrage is indeed, much needed.
"Be accountable to people." from their AI principles is sounding like "Don't be evil."
If you train your models on real world data, and real world data reflects the world as it is.. then some prompts are going to return non-diverse results. If you force diversity, but in ONLY IN ONE PARTICULAR DIRECTION.. then it turns into the reverse racism stuff the right likes to complain about.
If it outright refuses to show a white male when asked, because you don't allow racial prompts.. that's probably ok if it enforces for all races
But.. If 95% of CEOs are white males, but your AI returns almost no white males.. but 95% of rappers are black males and so it returns black females for that prompt.. your AI has one-way directional diversity bias overcorrection basked in. The fact that it successfully shows 100% black people when asked for say a Kenyan in a prompt, but again can't show white people when asked for 1800s Germans is comedically poorly done.
Look I'm a 100% democrat voter, but this stuff is extremely poorly done here. It's like the worst of 2020s era "silence is violence" and "everyone is racist unless they are anti-racist" overcorrection.
no matter your politics, everyone can agree they screwed up. the question is how long (if ever?) it'll take for people to respect their ai
Going first route means we get to calcify our terrible current biases in the future, while the latter instead goes for a facile and sanitized version of our expectations.
You're asking a machine for a binary "bad/good" response to complex questions that don't have easy answers. It will always be wrong, regardless of your prompt.
Thing is, if they did just present a 50 year old white man in a suit, then they'd have a couple of news articles about how their AI is racist and everyone would move on.
I don't understand your argument; if that's what the LLM produces, that's what it produces. It's not like it's thinking about intentionally perpetuating stereotypes.
By the way, it has no issue with churning out white men in suits when you go with a negative prompt.
If current board members were 80% late middle aged men then shifting to, say, 60% should move society in the desired direction without being obvious and upsetting people.
This is what happens when you go super-woke. Instead of discussing how we can affect the reality, discuss what is wrong with it, we try to instead pretend that the reality is different.
This is no way to prepare the current young generation for the real world if they cannot be comfortable being uncomfortable.
And they will be uncomfortable. Most of us are not failing upward nepo babies who can just "try things" and walk away when we are bored.
If you ask Hollywood, it looks like Tom Cruise with a beard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Last_Samurai.jpg
From what I understand, they of course knew that it was alternative history (aka a completely fictional universe), but they strongly related to the larger themes of national pride, duty, and honor.
Maybe it is so over the top so a that when they "fix" it, the remaining bias will be "not so bad".