zlacker

>>kevema+(OP)
>While we leave an in-depth empirical analysis of social and cultural biases to future work, our small scale internal assessments reveal several limitations that guide our decision not to release our model at this time.

Some of the reasoning:

>Preliminary assessment also suggests Imagen encodes several social biases and stereotypes, including an overall bias towards generating images of people with lighter skin tones and a tendency for images portraying different professions to align with Western gender stereotypes. Finally, even when we focus generations away from people, our preliminary analysis indicates Imagen encodes a range of social and cultural biases when generating images of activities, events, and objects. We aim to make progress on several of these open challenges and limitations in future work.

Really sad that breakthrough technologies are going to be withheld due to our inability to cope with the results.

>>daenz+b5
Translation: we need to hand-tune this to not reflect reality but instead the world as we (Caucasian/Asian male American woke upper-middle class San Fransisco engineers) wish it to be.

Maybe that's a nice thing, I wouldn't say their values are wrong but let's call a spade a spade.

>>user39+C6
Except "reality" in this case is just their biased training set. E.g. There's more non-white doctors and nurses in the world than white ones, yet their model would likely show an image of white person when you type in "doctor".

>>Ar-Cur+t9
Alternately, there are more females nurses in the world than male nurses, and their model probably shows an image of a woman when you type in "nurse" but they consider that a problem.

>>umeshu+Ic
> their model probably shows an image of a woman when you type in "nurse" but they consider that a problem.

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?