489
Google apologizes for ‘missing the mark’ after Gemini generated racially diverse Nazis (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
197 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Google apologizes for ‘missing the mark’ after Gemini generated racially diverse Nazis::Google says it’s aware of historically inaccurate results for its Gemini AI image generator, following criticism that it depicted historically white groups as people of color.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Would it be accurate so say that while current AI does have the knowledge, it lacks the reasoning skills needed to apply the knowledge correctly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    No, it can solve word problems that it's never seen before with fairly intricate reasoning. LLMs can even play chess at Grandmaster levels without ever duplicating games in the training set.

    Most of Lemmy has no genuine idea about the domain and hasn't actually been following the research over the past year which invalidates the "common knowledge" on the topic you often see regurgitated.

    For example, LLMs build world models from the training data, and can combine skills from the data in ways that haven't been combined in the training data.

    They do have shortcomings - being unable to identify what they don't know is a key one.

    But to be fair, apparently most people on Lemmy can't do that either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I don't think it's generally true, because current AI can solve some reasoning tasks very well. But it's definitely something where they are lacking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It isn't reasoning about anything. A human did the reasoning at some point, and the LLM's dataset includes that original information. The LLM is simply matching your prompt to that training data. It's not doing anything else. It's not thinking about the question you asked it. It's a glorified keyword search.

    It's obvious you have no idea how LLMs work at a fundamental level, yet you keep talking about them like you're an expert.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So if I find a single example of an AI doing a reasoning task that's not in its training material, would you agree that you're wrong and AI does reason?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's fair, I have seen AI reason at a low level, but it seems to me that it is lacking higher levels of reasoning and context

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •