[ZeroGravitas]

> Apparently the new model when asked for historical figures that were historically white would "hallucinate" more diverse persons.

This is a weird parallel to similar controversies in fiction.

So presumably an AI image generator generating images of historical figures in situations they never experienced, wearing clothes they never wore, in places they never visited, at times they didn't live through, using tools they never heard of, meeting people who's lives didn't overlap, saying things they never said in languages they never spoke etc. is fine but skin colour is a bridge too far because "historical realism" is soooooo important when using an AI image generator.

[rootlocus]

I think the problem people have is that all those other hallucinations were happenstance mistakes, while skin color was added intentionally as a bias through the development of the model. The AI was specifically told "ignore facts, improve diversity", meaning someone deliberately decided diversity was more important than facts. That someone (or multiple someone) has authority at one of the largest companies on earth. This shows the company is willing to add bias for whatever reason.

These are the companies we expect will drive AI development to the point where it will replace a lot of the jobs humans do. Are we OK allowing them to purposefully retell history to hide ugly or inconvenient truths? There are already lots of people believing slaves were "expensive" or treated well, that it might have been a great honor to "work" for their great great grandfathers. Where did they get that idea I wonder?