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
[–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

No, it's not. It's saying "a book is knowledge", which is absolutely true.

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

    A book is a physical representation of knowledge.

    Knowledge is something possessed by an actor capable to employ it. One way I can employ a textbook about Quantum Mechanics is by throwing it at you, for which any book would suffice, but I can't put any of the knowledge represented within into practice. Throwing is purely Newtonian, I have some learned knowledge about that and plenty of innate knowledge as a human (we are badass throwers). Also I played Handball when I was a kid. All that is plenty of knowledge, and an object, to throw, but nothing about it concerns spin states. It also won't hit you any differently than a cookbook.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What exactly are you trying to argue? Yes, I wasn't incredibly precise, a book isn't literal knowledge, but I didn't think that somebody would nitpick this hard. Do you really think this is in any way a productive line of argumentation?

    Knowledge is something possessed by an actor capable to employ it.

    Technically this is not correct, as e.g. a fully paralyzed and mute person can't employ their knowledge, yet they still possess it.

    ™One way I can employ a textbook about Quantum Mechanics is by throwing it at you, for which any book would suffice, but I can't put any of the knowledge represented within into practice.

    Why can't you put any of the knowledge represented in the book into practice? You can still pick the book up and extract the knowledge.

    See how these are technically correct arguments, yet they are absolutely stupid?

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

    Technically this is not correct, as e.g. a fully paralyzed and mute person can’t employ their knowledge, yet they still possess it.

    You'd have to be past Hawkins levels of paralysis to not be able to employ that knowledge to come up with new physical theories. Now that was a nickpick.

    You can still pick the book up and extract the knowledge.

    That would be employing my knowledge of maths, of my general education, not of the QM knowledge represented in the book: I cannot employ the knowledge in the book to pick up the knowledge in the book because I haven't picked it up yet. Causality and everything, it's a thing.

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