• WaterWaiver@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve been encountering this! I thought it was the topics I was using as prompts somehow being bad – it was making some of my podcast sketches look stupidly racist, admittedly though some of them it seemed to style after some not-so-savoury podcasters, which made things worse.

      • WaterWaiver@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gah English.

        “My sketches” as in “me using the AI software to draw pictures”. It’s not my podcast, I was trying to guess at what the presenters looked like based off the topics they discuss.

  • 520@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That explanation makes no fucking sense and makes them look like they know fuck all about AI training.

    The output keywords have nothing to do with the training data. If the model in use has fuck all BME training data, it will struggle to draw a BME regardless of what key words are used.

    And any AI person training their algorithms on AI generated data is liable to get fired. That is a big no-no. Not only does it not provide any new information from the data, it also amplifies the mistakes made by the AI.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are not talking about the training process, to combat racial bias on the training process, they insert words on the prompt, like for example “racially ambiguous”. For some reason, this time the AI weighted the inserted promt too much that it made Homer from the Caribbean.

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are not talking about the training process

        They literally say they do this “to combat the racial bias in its training data”

        to combat racial bias on the training process, they insert words on the prompt, like for example “racially ambiguous”.

        And like I said, this makes no fucking sense.

        If your training processes, specifically your training data, has biases, inserting key words does not fix that issue. It literally does nothing to actually combat it. It might hide issues if the data model has sufficient training to do the job with the inserted key words, but that is not a fix, nor combating the issue. It is a cheap hack that does not address the underlying training issues.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          So the issue is not that they don’t have diverse training data, the issue is that not all things get equal representation. So their trained model will have biases to produce a white person when you ask generically for a “person”. To prevent it from always spitting out a white person when someone prompts the model for a generic person, they inject additional words into the prompt, like “racially ambiguous”. Therefore it occasionally encourages/forces more diversity in the results. The issue is that these models are too complex for these kinds of approaches to work seamlessly.

        • phx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Any training data almost certainly has biases. For awhile, if you asked for pictures of people eating waffles or fried chicken they’d very likely be black.

          Most of the pictures I tried of kid-type characters were blue eyed.

          Then people review the output and say "hey this might still racist, so they tweak things to “diversity” the output. This is likely the result of that, where they’ve “fixed” one “problem” and created another.

          Behold, Homer in brownface. D’oh!

        • lars@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. The training data has a bias, and they are using a cheap hack (prompt manipulation) to try to patch it.

            • Primarily0617@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              the point of the original post is that artificially fixing a bias in training data post-training is a bad idea because it ends up in weird scenarios like this one

              your comment is saying that the original post is dumb and betrays a lack of knowledge because artificially fixing a bias in training data post-training would obviously only result in weird scenarios like this one

              i don’t know what your aim is here

            • Gamma@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You started your initial rant based on a misunderstanding of what was actually said. Stumbling into the correct answer != knowing what you’re reacting to

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      any AI person training their algorithms on AI generated data is liable to get fired

      though this isn’t pertinent to the post in question, training AI (and by AI I presume you mean neural networks, since there’s a fairly important distinction) on AI-generated data is absolutely a part of machine learning.

      some of the most famous neural networks out there are trained on data that they’ve generated themselves -> e.g., AlphaGo Zero

    • i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could try to compensate the imbalance by explicitly asking for the lesser represented classes in the data… It’s an idea, not quite bad but not quite good either because of the problems you mentioned.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The number of fingers and thumbs tells me this maybe isn’t an AI image.