Technology

59534 readers

3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

488

Google apologizes for ‘missing the mark’ after Gemini generated racially diverse Nazis (www.theverge.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

198 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

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I have no idea what you're getting at, and I don't think you're writing in good faith. I'll stop here. Have a good day!

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -1 points 9 months ago

You just didn't understand the argument. How in God's name is he making bad faith arguments by refuting your points?