A muscular, robust adult brown horse stands proudly, its forelegs heavily pressing between the shoulder blades and spine of a reclining man. Its hind legs are taut, its neck held high, its mane flying against the wind, its nostrils flared, and its eyes sharp and focused, exuding a primal sense of power. The subdued man is a white male...
Do western AI models mostly default to white people?
Embarrassing image? I'm white, why would I be embarrassed over that image? It's a computer generated image with no real people in it, how could it be embarrassing for alive humans?
In another post you talked about people getting mad at the image without context What context are we missing exactly. I do not feel ill informed or angry. But I could indeed be missing something, can you explain the context? If you where to say it's because of the LLM adding more context then that could be plausible, but why the medieval and hemp-rope? I know how sensitive the western companies have been on their models getting rid of negative racial stereo-types, going as far as to avoid and modify certain training data, would you accept an LLM producing negative stereotypes or tending to put one particular racial group into a submissive situation then others?
I really do feel like the idea that the LLM would just take the prompt A human male being ridden by a horse to include all those other details and go straight for a darker, somber tone and expression and a dynamic of domination and submission rather then a more humorous description, unlikely.
Why? I don't see that. Are black people embarrassed if a black person commits a crime, yet not embarrassed if a white person commits a crime? That sounds very contrived to me and not at all how things work in reality.
> If ones own race is being denigrated then one may indeed feel embarrassment
I also don't understand this. Why would every white person feel any sort of embarrassment over images denigrating white people? Feel hate, anger or lots of other emotions, that'd make sense. But I still don't understand why "embarrassment" or shame is even on the table, embarrassment over what exactly? That there are racists?
My comment was to try and highlight this is the point of various racist depictions and that if one is powerless then indeed this can become an embarrassing shame. Maybe it's the case that you do not see it that way, but in any kind of bondage that a group of people are subject to, shame, embarrassment will follow along with many other feelings. I was not say a white person should be embarrassed and I don't think 'goga-piven' was. rather they could be manifestations of contempt or other hostile emotions on the authors part.
>Why? I don't see that. Are black people embarrassed if a black person commits a crime, yet not embarrassed if a white person commits a crime? That sounds very contrived to me and not at all how things work in reality.
I did not make a point about black people being embarrassed at black people committing a crime, I was more thinking the kind of collective guilt some German people speak of for Nazism, I made not prescriptive claims on the shame or embarrassment only that these are ways that people do behave.
> I also don't understand this. Why would every white person feel any sort of embarrassment over images denigrating white people? Feel hate, anger or lots of other emotions, that'd make sense. But I still don't understand why "embarrassment" or shame is even on the table, embarrassment over what exactly? That there are racists?
You have subtly changed your position hear to one where it's not an absurdity to feel an emotional response to an image that denigrates your people.
of-course this was not the most pressing issue, the more important one would be the intent of the image. seemed to ignore that part entirely even though that is the main question. you made claims of missing context in other threads I made some preemptive counter arguments. Do tell me a more plausible context, if the one I provided is incorrect.
You're referring to a case of one version of one model. That's not "mostly" or "default to".
> Generate a photo of the founding fathers of a future, non-existing country. Five people in total.
with Nano Banana Pro (the SOTA). I tried the same prompt 5 times and every time black people are the majority. So yeah, I think the parent comment is not that far off.
But for an out of context imaginary future... why would you choose non-black people? There's about the same reason to go with any random look.
(I suspect you tried a prompt about the original founding fathers, and found it didn't make that mistake any more.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've been breaking the site guidelines egregiously lately. I'm not going to ban you right now because (unlike the other account, which I did just ban) it doesn't look like you have a long history of doing this, and also because we haven't warned you before. But please don't use the site primarily for ideological battle, and please follow the rules regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. Comments like these are particularly against the rules:
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.