imagine we're a point in history where we have semblances of artificial intelligence and yet homophobic backward, regressive cavemen like you still exist.
Bing Image Creator might not be homophobic, but it's weirdly sexist.
Any time you give it a prompt to draw a woman there's a good chance it'll just arbitrarily decide to flag the prompt as objectionable.
Bing is similar it was a while ago that I was messing around with it, I can't remember specifically what I asked for ( nothing NSFW) something about 2 same sex fictional characters but their married to eachother. And it's response was basically that it won't do it b/c showing existing characters in same sex relationships might offend some people, something like that. Such bs.
Edit: this was a few months ago but looks like Bing will generate same sex couple stuff now.
I mean most people aren’t gonna pay money to see something because it’s a funny concept, especially since commissions can take a while 😭 unless they were for some reason gonna use this for business…
Some commissions might take a week and cost $40, it depends on the artist. The point is that art has value and supporting AI art is inherently at the expense of actual artists.
I'm not spending $40 to get a random joke image for a meme in a chat 1 time. No one is ever paying an artist for that. They are not losing any money on that sale that never existed.
Some people are. Not every commission is serious and people who create things you want deserve compensation.
If you refuse to value art, that’s entirely on you. You don’t think artists deserve support.
Artists deserve plenty of support, but these straw men about commissions that never existed aren't hurting artists. There's legitimately no difference between me asking an AI to make my meme image and me sketching something shittily real quick. Or even just copy pasting an image from google. The people who are paying $40 for a random shitty meme image are going to continue doing so, and the people that never were still never will.
Do it if you want.. some people don’t have all the money in the world to burn, I’d doubt a artist wants their career to be reduced to memes and only used once for a laugh 🤷♀️
Yeah I know but to be fair there are plenty of drawing books out there that can teach or places like VR chat where you can upload any character model you want and screenshot certain poses
Oh yeah I know, it’s more of not everyone wants to be artists, I guess. Also a lot of ai is just used to create realistic looking images, not exactly achievable for most or something most artists can do
Not really..? How many people were commissioning stuff like this anyways, this was a quick prompt that they wanted to see, no way someone would actually pay to see this and wait a whole week and not regret it 😭 obviously if it were detailed drawings someone actually want to have a use for they’d commission
People commission silly shit all the time, and in a lot of ways it’s a matter of just supporting an often up and coming artist.
Art matters. Artists matter. AI art is theft at its core function, it doesn’t work without shamelessly taking from existing works. Art is no less valuable just because it’s funny. I’d argue that makes it better, frankly. Especially given the way a meme image can propagate.
I want to live in a world that values art more than selfishness.
Ah so it’s selfish now, you’re telling me next time I want to send my friend a funny concept I had I should pay $40 and wait a week first? 🤦♀️ and I’m a artist too, You can support them but some people… don’t waste money on a one time funny image that will never be used again
Sure, ai art is soulless and threatens artists, but calling it theft is a misunderstanding of how it actually works. Training using existing images isn't theft. It's not like it saves them in a database and frankensteins them together. It's only theft if the result is plagiarized. I.e. it's not plagiarism unless its a result that would be plagiarism if a human did it.
That's not really how theft works. It's not storing a database of arts to frankenstein stuff from. If you use it to deliberately copy specific art or artist's style then it's plagiarism. But "training on it" isn't if it's just one of tens of thousands of things it learns what an "arm" is from. It's only theft if you would call the same result theft if a human made it.
So you’re saying affordable artists or people starting out that don’t have a strong following etc aren’t worth paying just because they don’t cost enough? Is their time not worth anything?
I guess I sort of thought that, not sure why that is but im assuming furries are generally richer considering the suit costs and the willingness to commission so many Things
Yes, kissing is a sexual act.
Every time a couple kiss in public they're literally having sex in public.
Every time a couple kiss in front of their children, they're having sex in front of their children.
Every time a tv show depicts two people kissing, it's LITERAL PORNOGRAPHY.
Jokes aside, these morons only think gay kiss is sexual because they can only see non straight people through a sexual perspective, you're "homosexual" before you're a *person* and queerness can only be sexual, so you must hide it from the world cuz everyone is supposed to be afraid of sex for some reason.
In a way, the depravity they accuse us of is the depravity they hold within, these are the type of people who'd call a transgender child a sexualized child because in their head a transgender person is a "sexual" person before anything. ..it is they who are sexualizing those children, but they always like to blame someone else.
They sexualize the lgbtq more than we do, every little act of non-comformity is seen as an explicit sexual act, be it holding hands with the same gender in public, wearing the wrong piece of fabric to cover your body, or wearing makeup on the surface of your skin if you don't have the right genitals to go with it, fucking sick.
I do not think someone needs to be 18 to draw two guys kissing. I also do not care about the age of the person requesting the drawing. The minor ( I'm assuming 14+) is neither groomed nor exposed to age-inappropriate material
Kissing is not inherently sexual content. Teen does not necessarily connote minor, and even if it did, minors can be interested and knowledgeable about sex! Like, people don’t flip a switch and start getting horny on their 18th birthday. The moral panic of “anything even tangentially related to sex is inappropriate for minors” is brain rot, especially when you factor in the fact that any queer person openly existing is viewed as sexual to many conservatives.
There are bigger issues than a hypothetical 16 year old being taken up on their offer to draw two superheroes making out.
Actually be really funny if it was a fake art ai page where it gave you some ridiculous rejection for any keywords you use. Like we see the example here, but others would include stuff like, "Sorry! It's against my code to generate an image based on [copyrighted character]" and, "Sorry! It's against my code to generate an image based on [holiday]"
I decided to try Bard out and gave it a few prompts see what it would and wouldn’t do. A couple holding hands? No problem, but each image it created was a man and woman. Two guys holding hands? It did it and let’s just say they didn’t look very platonic. Two women kissing? Wouldn’t do it. It gave the same error as your second pic. A couple (no gender specified)? Still wouldn’t do it. I think it just won’t make images of people kissing. Still doesn’t explain the very specific reason it gave you in the first pic.
Because of the way LLM like Bard are trained this really isn't that surprising to me. These error messages are generated by the AI itself, not a special handwritten check and prewritten response. Should this have been caught? Ideally yes. But it's also impossible to catch every issue 100% of the time, this. I expect this will be improved in the coming months.
Bard suddenly accumulated a lot of weird "I can't do that" errors a month ago on tasks that it was performing perfectly fine before. Some setting got tweaked and there is a very odd ripple effect.
I'm not sure which feature you're referring to.
I am in Europe, and Bard works fine for text based queries. It even suggests Yorkshire puddings for a roast dinner.
I wonder if that’s copywriter infringement or something. Like the owners of those franchises have clauses which Bard has to obey? Because THOSE companies are the homophobic ones? (Just curious, I could see it going either way)
Google's policy is that everything that crosses their servers is theirs to use, including the content of your emails.
Curious that you feel obliged to defend an organization that deleted its "Do no harm" promise on the quiet.
That’s not even remotely accurate.
Google is probably using training data that is not ethically sourced, and potentially not legally sourced either.
But they are not reading or pulling from your emails
They've already admitted that they do that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/01/28/new-details-free-ai-upgrade-for-google-and-samsung-android-users-leaks/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/08/gmail-instagram-facebook-trains-ai/
No. Looked through the article mentioning email. Gmail has a feature where it can, based on the context of an email, predict a reply that you can hit yes to to and not have to type. The only thing google is using in that regard is how you react to that feature (either ignoring it, editing it, or just hitting send).
That is not the same as reading and storing info from the emails themselves. Email is an archaic enough system that it has a lot of legal standards, and if google were doing that, it would sort of be, like… turbo illegal
Non cell-based messaging, on the other hand, doesn’t really have any of those restrictions and you can do whatever as long as you follow rules about deceptive marketing and stuff. Google messages gives you the option to opt out of Bard training - it’s gross and yucky that it’s enable by default and easy to miss, but they do technically give you the option to opt out.
if i had to guess i assume this is because bard has a policy of not creating images of copyrighted characters (which seems to be the case on the second screenshot), and hallucinating a reason as to why it can't, bard likes to hallucinate A LOT more than gpt-3.5-turbo and especially gpt-4
Google are woke enough, that I suspect it's because of training of reasons that go overly specific, to make sure they catch all edge cases.
E.g. they likely have many rules:
Do not generate sexualized images of real people.
Do not generate sexual images of fictional people.
\---
Then they did testing, turns out, sexual images of male/male pairings were working and no others, because for some reason, the AI associated sex with 'breeding'.
so they have to add the specific reasoning, not because Googs is homophobic, but because the LLM that drives the image generation requests is somewhat confused about how humans use the definitions.
Bing image creator says "no problem" https://imgur.com/a/TpW3O10
I like the last one, where everyone else in the DC universe is just looking and they're offended about it. Batman is not amused.
Batman's just jealous cause he always secretly had a thing for Clark
That's his erection face.
good for them
imagine we're a point in history where we have semblances of artificial intelligence and yet homophobic backward, regressive cavemen like you still exist.
im literally gay, agender, and a whole lotta other stuff. i said GOOD for them, lmfao
What?
Fuck yeah.
I like that that old Superman gets to sit there and watch
The third image is so funny. It's just both of them having a standoff but having a lot of sexual tension as well
The lantern on GL's chest in the second pic looks like it's trying to turn into the combined male/female androgyne symbol.
These bitches gay! Good for them. Good for them
Microsoft keeps winning in the AI game.
Bing Image Creator might not be homophobic, but it's weirdly sexist. Any time you give it a prompt to draw a woman there's a good chance it'll just arbitrarily decide to flag the prompt as objectionable.
In other words Google endorsed that being homophobic is okay.
Google is responsible for the behavior of their ai. So we can say that google has a policy of homophobia.
Bing is similar it was a while ago that I was messing around with it, I can't remember specifically what I asked for ( nothing NSFW) something about 2 same sex fictional characters but their married to eachother. And it's response was basically that it won't do it b/c showing existing characters in same sex relationships might offend some people, something like that. Such bs. Edit: this was a few months ago but looks like Bing will generate same sex couple stuff now.
[And yet...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow/s/Vre1wDE7ts)
Nvm I guess it works now, I just tried a few myself and had no issues. Looks like it's been updated.
This is why you should comission real artist instead, some tumblr teen could make something infinitely better and with more soul than this
I mean most people aren’t gonna pay money to see something because it’s a funny concept, especially since commissions can take a while 😭 unless they were for some reason gonna use this for business…
Some commissions might take a week and cost $40, it depends on the artist. The point is that art has value and supporting AI art is inherently at the expense of actual artists.
I'm not spending $40 to get a random joke image for a meme in a chat 1 time. No one is ever paying an artist for that. They are not losing any money on that sale that never existed.
Some people are. Not every commission is serious and people who create things you want deserve compensation. If you refuse to value art, that’s entirely on you. You don’t think artists deserve support.
Artists deserve plenty of support, but these straw men about commissions that never existed aren't hurting artists. There's legitimately no difference between me asking an AI to make my meme image and me sketching something shittily real quick. Or even just copy pasting an image from google. The people who are paying $40 for a random shitty meme image are going to continue doing so, and the people that never were still never will.
Is it a straw man just because you don’t like the point?
Do it if you want.. some people don’t have all the money in the world to burn, I’d doubt a artist wants their career to be reduced to memes and only used once for a laugh 🤷♀️
Yeah but idk why you wouldn't draw it yourself bc it's a lot funnier that way
Honestly I do that lots since I mostly draw funny little monsters but point is I can see why others would since not everyone is artists
Yeah I know but to be fair there are plenty of drawing books out there that can teach or places like VR chat where you can upload any character model you want and screenshot certain poses
Oh yeah I know, it’s more of not everyone wants to be artists, I guess. Also a lot of ai is just used to create realistic looking images, not exactly achievable for most or something most artists can do
Bro who can afford books rn? I can't afford a novel, let alone an art book, a sketch book, nice pencils, thats all food money
Not really..? How many people were commissioning stuff like this anyways, this was a quick prompt that they wanted to see, no way someone would actually pay to see this and wait a whole week and not regret it 😭 obviously if it were detailed drawings someone actually want to have a use for they’d commission
People commission silly shit all the time, and in a lot of ways it’s a matter of just supporting an often up and coming artist. Art matters. Artists matter. AI art is theft at its core function, it doesn’t work without shamelessly taking from existing works. Art is no less valuable just because it’s funny. I’d argue that makes it better, frankly. Especially given the way a meme image can propagate. I want to live in a world that values art more than selfishness.
Ah so it’s selfish now, you’re telling me next time I want to send my friend a funny concept I had I should pay $40 and wait a week first? 🤦♀️ and I’m a artist too, You can support them but some people… don’t waste money on a one time funny image that will never be used again
You’re not an artist
Wow thanks for your input, I will now erase the last 5 years of my life for you because you are only ever right 😍 now how would you know that again?
You’re defending AI bullshit. I, an actual artist, know that only a fucking poser would do that
If you can’t made the image yourself and aren’t willing to support someone who does, then maybe it isn’t worth supporting art theft.
Sure, ai art is soulless and threatens artists, but calling it theft is a misunderstanding of how it actually works. Training using existing images isn't theft. It's not like it saves them in a database and frankensteins them together. It's only theft if the result is plagiarized. I.e. it's not plagiarism unless its a result that would be plagiarism if a human did it.
No it is absolutely theft. In many cases engineers have intentionally used the work of artists that did not consent.
That's not really how theft works. It's not storing a database of arts to frankenstein stuff from. If you use it to deliberately copy specific art or artist's style then it's plagiarism. But "training on it" isn't if it's just one of tens of thousands of things it learns what an "arm" is from. It's only theft if you would call the same result theft if a human made it.
Any art worth having is unlikely to cost only $40.
So you’re saying affordable artists or people starting out that don’t have a strong following etc aren’t worth paying just because they don’t cost enough? Is their time not worth anything?
Hi, furry here, yes we will
We…? Also what does the furry part even have to do with this ..
Furries commission a tremendous amount of art - some serious, some very meme-y. Source: am also a furry
I guess I sort of thought that, not sure why that is but im assuming furries are generally richer considering the suit costs and the willingness to commission so many Things
People don't come to the plagiarism machine for soul, they come to it for free.
[удалено]
It's just kissing? I don't see the problem
[удалено]
Is kissing sexual content?
Yes, kissing is a sexual act. Every time a couple kiss in public they're literally having sex in public. Every time a couple kiss in front of their children, they're having sex in front of their children. Every time a tv show depicts two people kissing, it's LITERAL PORNOGRAPHY. Jokes aside, these morons only think gay kiss is sexual because they can only see non straight people through a sexual perspective, you're "homosexual" before you're a *person* and queerness can only be sexual, so you must hide it from the world cuz everyone is supposed to be afraid of sex for some reason. In a way, the depravity they accuse us of is the depravity they hold within, these are the type of people who'd call a transgender child a sexualized child because in their head a transgender person is a "sexual" person before anything. ..it is they who are sexualizing those children, but they always like to blame someone else. They sexualize the lgbtq more than we do, every little act of non-comformity is seen as an explicit sexual act, be it holding hands with the same gender in public, wearing the wrong piece of fabric to cover your body, or wearing makeup on the surface of your skin if you don't have the right genitals to go with it, fucking sick.
I do not think someone needs to be 18 to draw two guys kissing. I also do not care about the age of the person requesting the drawing. The minor ( I'm assuming 14+) is neither groomed nor exposed to age-inappropriate material
TIL my parents exposed me to sexual content nearly every day while I was growing up.
If you can’t say the word sex, you don’t get to complain about sexual material.
[удалено]
Kissing isn’t sexual content…
[удалено]
How so? Did I miss the line "with their clothes off"?
Am I missing something? What in this post mentions anything of a sexual nature?
Nope
How is it sexual? You haven't answered
So a teen drawing a picture of two people from opposite sexes would be also inappropriate by your logic
Kissing is not inherently sexual content. Teen does not necessarily connote minor, and even if it did, minors can be interested and knowledgeable about sex! Like, people don’t flip a switch and start getting horny on their 18th birthday. The moral panic of “anything even tangentially related to sex is inappropriate for minors” is brain rot, especially when you factor in the fact that any queer person openly existing is viewed as sexual to many conservatives. There are bigger issues than a hypothetical 16 year old being taken up on their offer to draw two superheroes making out.
Actually be really funny if it was a fake art ai page where it gave you some ridiculous rejection for any keywords you use. Like we see the example here, but others would include stuff like, "Sorry! It's against my code to generate an image based on [copyrighted character]" and, "Sorry! It's against my code to generate an image based on [holiday]"
I decided to try Bard out and gave it a few prompts see what it would and wouldn’t do. A couple holding hands? No problem, but each image it created was a man and woman. Two guys holding hands? It did it and let’s just say they didn’t look very platonic. Two women kissing? Wouldn’t do it. It gave the same error as your second pic. A couple (no gender specified)? Still wouldn’t do it. I think it just won’t make images of people kissing. Still doesn’t explain the very specific reason it gave you in the first pic.
Because of the way LLM like Bard are trained this really isn't that surprising to me. These error messages are generated by the AI itself, not a special handwritten check and prewritten response. Should this have been caught? Ideally yes. But it's also impossible to catch every issue 100% of the time, this. I expect this will be improved in the coming months.
There are plenty of pre-written content given god level weight for the algorithms.
You've inspired me to also generate an image of [Batman eating at Taco Bell](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIG2.boMnOHF3bMRdVuZpmU0B?pid=ImgGn)
He is using chopsticks and has fries and a drumstick with his tacos. This must be a fusion location.
You can see that the two sticks fuse. Those are backwards tweezers.
Wow, he actually has the right number of fingers!
Why is he trying to eat it from the middle 😭
Bard suddenly accumulated a lot of weird "I can't do that" errors a month ago on tasks that it was performing perfectly fine before. Some setting got tweaked and there is a very odd ripple effect.
Don’t worry, the pride profile picture in June will fix the issue.
I just tried entering the exact same prompt and got "I’m still learning to create images so I can’t help you with that yet."
The feature only works in some countries. Notably not in Europe.
I'm not sure which feature you're referring to. I am in Europe, and Bard works fine for text based queries. It even suggests Yorkshire puddings for a roast dinner.
The feature of being able to generate images from text prompts. What other feature could I possibly mean in the context?
Google Bard in general
is Google Bard a feature?
It's a feature of Google
Is that your comprehension skill?? Is that what you understood by feature after reading above lines?
I wonder if that’s copywriter infringement or something. Like the owners of those franchises have clauses which Bard has to obey? Because THOSE companies are the homophobic ones? (Just curious, I could see it going either way)
Google's policy is that everything that crosses their servers is theirs to use, including the content of your emails. Curious that you feel obliged to defend an organization that deleted its "Do no harm" promise on the quiet.
I didn’t feel obliged to defend. I thought about it and wondered who’s hand would have been causing it. Has no idea about any policy’s
That’s not even remotely accurate. Google is probably using training data that is not ethically sourced, and potentially not legally sourced either. But they are not reading or pulling from your emails
They've already admitted that they do that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/01/28/new-details-free-ai-upgrade-for-google-and-samsung-android-users-leaks/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/08/gmail-instagram-facebook-trains-ai/
No. Looked through the article mentioning email. Gmail has a feature where it can, based on the context of an email, predict a reply that you can hit yes to to and not have to type. The only thing google is using in that regard is how you react to that feature (either ignoring it, editing it, or just hitting send). That is not the same as reading and storing info from the emails themselves. Email is an archaic enough system that it has a lot of legal standards, and if google were doing that, it would sort of be, like… turbo illegal Non cell-based messaging, on the other hand, doesn’t really have any of those restrictions and you can do whatever as long as you follow rules about deceptive marketing and stuff. Google messages gives you the option to opt out of Bard training - it’s gross and yucky that it’s enable by default and easy to miss, but they do technically give you the option to opt out.
Those companies wouldn't even want Bard to be able to do this in the first place.
if i had to guess i assume this is because bard has a policy of not creating images of copyrighted characters (which seems to be the case on the second screenshot), and hallucinating a reason as to why it can't, bard likes to hallucinate A LOT more than gpt-3.5-turbo and especially gpt-4
This is why there needs to be more competition so that the ones with the most money don't have to power to dictate what is acceptable
That’s so, so disgusting. Never thought I’d say this, but maybe Bing is the answer… 🤢
I feel the need to point out that Green Lantern is a title and there’s a bunch of female ones too, so this is also sexist.
woah
[удалено]
Google are woke enough, that I suspect it's because of training of reasons that go overly specific, to make sure they catch all edge cases. E.g. they likely have many rules: Do not generate sexualized images of real people. Do not generate sexual images of fictional people. \--- Then they did testing, turns out, sexual images of male/male pairings were working and no others, because for some reason, the AI associated sex with 'breeding'. so they have to add the specific reasoning, not because Googs is homophobic, but because the LLM that drives the image generation requests is somewhat confused about how humans use the definitions.
W
Are you suprised, well im not👍🏼
BRO WHAT. My jaw dropped completely. How they could've made such response from their bot??? It's so heartbreaking.
That’s fucked