@DEVILinIRON: thank you, I need the support! 🤣

This whole discussion is very non-inclusive for those of us who are folically challenged.

That sucks. 68 isn't exactly young, but it's not that old either. Always hoped he'd be around longer to continue making masterpieces.

@robertos:

Your entire argument is a logical fallacy. You're saying it was intentional without proof. They took it down to fix it since it wasn't intentional, what's the issue.

Maybe familiarize yourself with what a logical fallacy actually is. What you implied, which is that intention can always be determined by results, most certainly is one.

You may disagree with me asserting that this was intentional, but it's not a logical fallacy. There will never be ironclad "proof" unless google releases their source code the public, which we both know isn't going to happen. The best we can rely on is evidence. And the fact that there is confirmed existence of a "diversity dial", and admission that it was "overtuned", and numerous people who all experienced the same thing (including myself, as I actually tried gemini for myself), makes it pretty logical and reasonable to assume this was a feature, and not a bug.

Said lead developer's history of blatant anti-white rhetoric via tweets doesn't exactly strengthen the case that this was all just a "glitch" either.

@robertos:

That's just more evidence this was not intentional, as the company has stated. Someone "woke" wouldn't want an AI making Black Nazis 😂🤣.

Logical fallacy. Just because some of the end results were unexpected, doesn't mean the action that caused it was/wasn't intentional.

The extend of how much it was turned by the AIs learning, which is what caused this controversy, wasn't intentional. That is until you prove otherwise.

What more proof do you need? The article Vaasman linked acknowledges the existence of what is effectively a "diversity dial", and them admitting it was basically turned up too high. How is that not intentional?

That's a specific parameter that can be set to show more or less white people.

@Vaasman: "It wasn't programmed intentionally to not show white people OK??? It just has a diversity dial programmed in, that was turned up so high that it was barely showing any white people. Geez, stop with the conspiracies!"

@Vaasman:

I mean, right in your own article:

"Why it matters:AI makers are trying to counter biases and stereotyping in the data they used to train their models by turning up the "diversity" dial — but they're over-correcting and producing problematic results."

I'm sure that "diversity dial" just appeared out of nowhere. A random glitch, and not intentional at all!

@Vaasman:

The AI was trained on all peoples of all walks of life and simply wasn't capable of making a logical conclusion like "Don't draw black Nazi's" because it isn't yet capable of that exception. I really have no idea why you want so badly for this to be some elaborate conspiracy when it so clearly isn't

So, I guess you're going with option C then?

C) random glitch that none of Google's many developers, engineers, or beta testers managed to uncover before releasing to the public?

Seems like a pretty big oversight when your algorithm somehow manages to generate every color of nazi except the actual color they were, especially when there shouldn't be any actual images out there of anything other than white nazis to feed it for reference.

But sure, go on believing there was no parameter at all set enforcing "diversity". While we're at it, I have some property on the moon to sell you. 🤣

@robertos: Rational just means you think in a logical, reasonable way, rather than allowing emotion to cloud your judgment.

AI generates images based on algorithms using a large data set of images it bas been fed for reference.

So if AI is now generating black popes, black nazis, black 17th century european monarchs, but not white ones, which of the following explanations is the most logical to you?

A) This AI tool was fed a bunch of actual pictures of black nazis, black popes, black 17th century monarchs, but none, or few of white people in the same roles?

B) This tool was fed pictures of real nazis, popes, monarchs, but a parameter was set in the algorithm to prioritize showing "diverse" people? Aka: "not white people".

C) random glitch that none of Google's many developers, engineers, or beta testers managed to uncover before releasing to the public?

@robertos: oh well then. Google said it wasn't intentional, and I see no reason to question that, as a totally rational person, because large corporations never lie or spin once caught out on something! 🤣