Maybe that's a nice thing, I wouldn't say their values are wrong but let's call a spade a spade.
For example, Google's image search results pre-tweaking had some interesting thoughts on what constitutes a professional hairstyle, and that searches for "men" and "women" should only return light-skinned people: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/08/does-goog...
Does that reflect reality? No.
(I suspect there are also mostly unstated but very real concerns about these being used as child pornography, revenge porn, "show my ex brutally murdered" etc. generators.)
I say let people generate their own reality. The sooner the masses realise that ceci n'est pas une pipe , the less likely they are to be swayed by the growing un-reality created by companies like Google.
As a foreigner[], your point confused me anyway, and doing a Google for cultural stuff usually gets variable results. But I did laugh at many of the comments here https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/ufy2k4/why_...
[] probably, New Zealand, although foreigner is relative
Nowhere there is any precision for a preferred skin color in the query of th user.
So it sorts and gives the most average examples based on the examples that were found on the internet.
Essentially answering the query "SELECT * FROM `non-professional hairstyles` ORDER BY score DESC LIMIT 10".
It's like if you search on Google "best place for wedding night".
You may get 3 places out of 10 in Santorini, Greece.
Yes you could have an human remove these biases because you feel that Sri Lanka is the best place for a wedding, but what if there is a consensus that Santorini is really the most appraised in the forums or websites that were crawled by Google ?
You're telling me those are all the most non-professional hairstyles available? That this is a reasonable assessment? That fairly standard, well-kept, work-appropriate curly black hair is roughly equivalent to the pink-haired, three-foot-wide hairstyle that's one of the only white people in the "unprofessional" search?
Each and everyone of them is less workplace appropriate than, say, http://www.7thavenuecostumes.com/pictures/750x950/P_CC_70594... ?
You know that race has a large effect on hair right?
It's a simple case of sample bias.
Unless you think white women are immune to unprofessional hairstyles, and black women incapable of them, there's a race problem illustrated here even if you think the hairstyles illustrated are fairly categorized.
It's like blaming a friend for trying to phrase things nicely, and telling them to speak headlong with zero concern for others instead. Unless you believe anyone trying to do good is being hypocrite…
I, for one, like civility.
Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena†, Lala Li†, Jay Whang†, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Burcu Karagol Ayan, S. Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho†, David Fleet†, Mohammad Norouzi
Oh yeah, as a woman who grew up in a Third World country, how an AI model generates images would have deeply affected my daily struggles! /s
It's kinda insulting that they think that this would be insulting. Like "Oh no I asked the model to draw a doctor and it drew a male doctor, I guess there's no point in me pursuing medical studies" ...
> Oh no I asked the model to draw a doctor and it drew a male doctor, I guess there's no point in me pursuing medical studies
If you don't think this is a real thing that happens to children you're not thinking especially hard. It doesn't have to be common to be real.
One example would be if Imagen draws a group of mostly white people when you say "draw a group of people". This doesn't reflect actual reality. Another would be if Imagen draws a group of men when you say "draw a group of doctors".
In these cases where iconographic reality differs from actual reality, hand-tuning could be used to bring it closer to the real world, not just the world as we might wish it to be!
I agree there's a problem here. But I'd state it more as "new technologies are being held to a vastly higher standard than existing ones." Imagine TV studios issuing a moratorium on any new shows that made being white (or rich) seem more normal than it was! The public might rightly expect studios to turn the dials away from the blatant biases of the past, but even if this would be beneficial the progressive and activist public is generations away from expecting a TV studio to not release shows until they're confirmed to be bias-free.
That said, Google's decision to not publish is probably less about the inequities in AI's representation of reality and more about the AI sometimes spitting out drawings that are offensive in the US, like racist caricatures.
There’s no reason to believe their model training learns the same statistics as their input dataset even. If that’s not an explicit training goal then whatever happens happens. AI isn’t magic or more correct than people.
There is a difference between probably and invariably. Would it be so hard for the model to show male nurses at least some of the time?
Translation: we need to hand-tune this to not reflect reality
Seems to me that (as with any ML stuff, right?) it's reflecting the training corpus.
Futhermore, is it this thing's job to reflect reality?
the world as we (Caucasian/Asian male American woke
upper-middle class San Fransisco engineers) wish it to be
Heartfelt answer: Yes, there is some of that wishful thinking or editorializing. I don't consider it to be erasing or denying reality. This is a tool that synthesizes unreality. I don't think that such a tool should, say, refuse to synthesize an image of a female POTUS because one hasn't existed yet. This is art, not a reporting tool... and keep in mind that art not only imitates life but also influences it.
If it didn't reflect reality, you wouldn't be impressed by the image of the snake made of corn.