[ffgjgf1]

> We're talking about an image generation algorithm that adds a layer of diversity on top to prevent misuse

So if LLMs did the same (i.e. purposefully distorted facts and historical events due arbitrary and political reasons) it would also be acceptable?

> historically accurate images of Gettysburg when prejudiced misuse is the far more likely outcome of that accuracy?

This is pure conjecture. But the answer is no, the only acceptable behavior in these circumstances would be for the model to refuse to generate the image and explicitly explain why this type of censorship is necessary.

> It just seems like an absurd and disingenuous over-reaction and lack of pragmatism.

That does sound explicitly Orwellian..

> but its still perfectly acceptable for a company to draw a line and say "not on our software".

Yes, it’s even more acceptable for for anyone to criticize that company for its decisions, make fun of its work culture and to mock its CEO.

[hemogloben]

>So if LLMs did the same (i.e. purposefully distorted facts and historical events due arbitrary and political reasons) it would also be acceptable?

You're talking as if there is a way to get an 'unbiased' AI. There isn't. It is inherently biased by its training, it hallucinates, and it is further biased by its prompt.

The whole endeavor is to bias it.

I'd prefer that AI be labelled on the tin for what it's biases are attempting to do, and promote diversity and deter abuse seems like a perfectly reasonable metric to use.

If that's not good for you fine, but you can't pretend that you're utterly baffled why they would make that choice over any other.

There literally ISN'T a way to not have a biasing prompt.

[ffgjgf1]

> You're talking as if there is a way to get an 'unbiased' AI. There isn't. It is inherently biased by its training, it hallucinates, and it is further biased by its prompt.

Certainly. Doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t prioritize accuracy and integrity instead of purposefully increasing the amount of bias even further.

> you're utterly baffled why they would make that choice over any other.

I’m not. I’m baffled that there are people defending that choice (especially in such a way)

> and promote diversity

Why? I mean why do you think this is the right way to do it? Surely going out of your way to make sure that your model does its best to doctor the images it creates to conform to some political agenda (whatever that might be) would achieve the opposite because it actually legitimizes the things the other side is constantly saying? (and due to the potentially severe backlash from more moderate fraction of the society)