Didn't see the comments yesterday where HN achieved consensus that racist AI might be real but isn't that bad if it is?
Please draw your attention to the discussion about the witness in the process of image generation. For example:
Officer: "Could you describe the man who attacked you, miss."
Witness: "Well, he had ...eyes, a ... forehead, and ..."
<here's the impotent part for you, _lady>
Officer grabs the first rendering from the machine and shows it to the witness: "Did he look like this?"
Witness: "No, his eyes were set further apart."
Whir, whir, the machine prints another image.
Officer: "More like this, then?"
And so on...
In the scenario I described, I'm not sure where a new source of racism is introduced.
Help me see this differently.
It can't think, or form opinions. It's not "intelligent" in any real sense.
It's just Eliza with a really, *really* big array of canned responses to interpolate between.
So, just like people, then.
> It can't think, or form opinions. It's not "intelligent" in any real sense.
Honest question, what is the purpose of this comment? What is the change you want to see coming out of this semantic argument?
The argument is that the output is racially discriminatory for a variety of reasons and it's easier to just say "it's racist" than "Many of the datasets that AI is trained on under- or over-represent many ethnic groups" and then dive into the details there.