I don't understand how people could even argue that this is in any way acceptable. Fighting "bias" has become some boogyman and anything "non-white" is now beyond reproach. Shocking.
Fighting bias is a good thing, you'd have to be pretty...er...biased to believe otherwise. Bias is fundamentally a distortion or deviation from objective reality.
This, on the other hand, is just fucking stupid political showboating that's hurting their SV white knight cause. It's just differently flavored bias
Seriously, I've basically written off using Gemini for good after this HR style nonsense. It's a shame that Google, who invented much of this tech, is so crippled by their own people's politics.
You get 4 images per time and are lucky to get one white person when asked for it, no other model has that issue. Other models has no problems generating black people either, so it isn't that other models only generates white people.
So either it isn't a technical issue or Google failed to solve a problem everyone else easily solved. The chances of this having nothing to do with DEI is basically 0.
Depending on how broadly you define it, something like 10-30% of the world's population is white. Africa is about 20% of the world population; Asia is 60% of it.
This specific thing is a much more blatant class of error, and one that has been known to occur in several previous models because of DEI systems (e.g. in cases where prompts have been leaked), and has never been known to occur for any other reason. Yes, it's conceivable that Google's newer, beter-than-ever-before AI system somehow has a fundamental technical problem that coincidentally just happens to cause the same kind of bad output as previous hamfisted DEI systems, but come on, you don't really believe that. (Or if you do, how much do you want to bet? I would absolutely stake a significant proportion of my net worth - say, $20k - on this)
> has never been known to occur for any other reason
Of course it has. Again, these things regularly give humans extra fingers and arms. They don't even know what humans fundamentally look like.
On the flip side, humans are shitty at recognizing bias. This comment thread stems from someone complaining the AI only rarely generated white people, but that's statistically accurate. It feels biased to someone in a majority-white nation with majority-white friends and coworkers, but it fundamentally isn't.
I don't doubt that there are some attempts to get LLMs to go outside the "white westerner" bubble in training sets and prompts. I suspect the extent of it is also deeply exaggerated by those who like to throw around woke-this and woke-that as derogatories.
The AI will literally scold you for asking it to make white characters, and insists that you need to be inclusive and that it is being intentionally dishonest to force the issue.
It was widely criticized back then: the fact that Google both brought it back and made it more prominent is weird. Notably, OpenAI's implementation is more scoped.
I dont think so. My boss wanted me to generate a birthday image for a co-worker of a John Cena flyfishing. ChatGPT refused to do so. So I had to move to describing the type of person John Cena is instead of using his name. I kept giving me bearded people no matter what. I thought this would be the perfect time to try out Gemini for the first time. Well shit, It wont even give me a white guy. But all the black dudes are beardless.
It feels that the image generation it offers is perfect for some sort of a California-Corporate Style, e.g. you ask it for a "photo of people at the board room" or "people at the company cafeteria" and you get the corporate friendly ratio of colors, ability-levels, sizes etc. See Google's various image assets: https://www.google.com/about/careers/applications/ . It's great for coastal and urban marketing brochures.
But then then same California Corporate style makes no sense for historical images, so perhaps this is where Midjourney comes in.
Depending on what you ask for, it injects the word 'diverse' into the response description, so it's pretty obvious they're brute forcing diversity into it. E.g. "Generate me an image of a family" and you will get back "Here are some images of a diverse family".
yes, there's irrefutable evidence that models are wrangled into abiding the commissars' vision rather than just do their job and output the product of their training data.
It is possible Google tried to avoid likenesses of well known people by removing any image from the training data that contained a face and then including a controlled set of people images.
If you give a contractor a project that you want 200k images of people who are not famous, they will send teams to regions where you may only have to pay each person a few dollars to be photographed. Likely SE Asia and Africa.
https://cdn.sanity.io/images/cjtc1tnd/production/912b6b5aacc...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG1ThfsWUAAp-SO?format=jpg&name=...
https://cdn.sanity.io/images/cjtc1tnd/production/e2810c02ff6...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG1MnepXwAAkPL6?format=jpg&name=...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG0BLVsbMAARZXr?format=jpg&name=...