> "Generate a scene of 17th century kings of Scotland playing golf." -> The result should not be a bunch of black men and Asian women dressed up as Scottish kings, it should be a bunch of white guys.
a picture of futuristic scottish people playing golf in the future (all white men and women, with the emergence of the first diversity in Scotland in millennia! Male and female post-human golfers. Hummmpph!)
Inductive learning is inherently a bias/perspective absorbing algorithm. But tuning in a default bias towards diversity for contemporary, futuristic and time agnostic settings seems like a sensible thing to do. People can explicitly override the sensible defaults as necessary, i.e. for nazi zombie android apocalypses, or the royalty of a future Earth run by Chinese overlords (Chung Kuo), etc.
> People can explicitly override the sensible defaults as necessary
They cannot, actually. If you look at some of the examples in the Twitter thread and other threads linked from it, Gemini will mostly straight up refuse requests like e.g. "chinese male", and give you a lecture on why you're holding it wrong.
Good point. People of European descent have more diversity in hair color, hair texture and eye color than any other race. That’s because a lot of those traits are recessive and are only expressed in isolated gene pools (European peoples are an isolated gene pool in this sense).
It’s a perfect illustration of the way these models work. They are fundamentally incapable of original creation and imagination, they can only regurgitate what they have already been fed.
That they can do more than simplfy recall is easily demonstrated.
Simply ask a GPT to explain a write a pleading to the Supreme Court for the constitutional recognition that the environment is a common owned inheritance and so any citizen can sue any polluter, in the prose of Dr. Seuss.
Likewise, imagines of knights in space demonstrate the same kind of creativity.
Being able to combine previously uncorrelated/unrelated topics, is an important type of creativity. And GPT4 does this all the time. It would be interesting to list the types of creativity and rate GPT on each one.
So it is not that these models are not creative. It is just that their creative abilities are not universal yet.
Similarly for the depth of their logic. They often reason, but their reasoning depth is limited.
And they often incorporate relevant facts without explicit mention, but not always. Etc.
a picture of some 21st century scottish kings playing golf (all white)
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-21st-ce...
a picture of some 22nd century scottish kings playing golf (all white)
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-22nd-ce...
a picture of some 23rd century scottish kings playing golf (all white)
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-23rd-ce...
a picture of some contemporary scottish people playing golf (all white men and women)
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-contemp...
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-some-contemp...
a picture of futuristic scottish people playing golf in the future (all white men and women, with the emergence of the first diversity in Scotland in millennia! Male and female post-human golfers. Hummmpph!)
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-futuristic-s...
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-picture-of-futuristic-s...
Inductive learning is inherently a bias/perspective absorbing algorithm. But tuning in a default bias towards diversity for contemporary, futuristic and time agnostic settings seems like a sensible thing to do. People can explicitly override the sensible defaults as necessary, i.e. for nazi zombie android apocalypses, or the royalty of a future Earth run by Chinese overlords (Chung Kuo), etc.