this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
141 points (81.9% liked)
Technology
59670 readers
3013 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How traditional? How statistically relevant is it? Most Indians i know do not wear turbans at all.
If these stats are trustworthy (and i think they are), the only Indians that wear turbans are Sikhs (1.7%) and Muslims (14.2%). I'd say 15.9% is not statistically significant.
I think you're looking at it wrong. The prompt is to make an image of someone who is recognizable as Indian. The turban is indicative clothing of that heritage and therefore will cause the subject to be more recognizable as Indian to someone else. The current rate at which Indian people wear turbans isn't necessarily the correct statistic to look at.
What do you picture when you think, a guy from Texas? Are they wearing a hat? What kind? What percentage of Texans actually wear that specific hat that you might be thinking of?
A surprising number of Texans wear cowboy and trucker hats (both stereotypical). A surprising number of Indians don't wear turbans since it's by far a minority.
Woosh
I think the idea is that it's what makes a person "an Indian" and not something else.
Only a minority of Indians wear turbans, but more Indians than other people wear turbans. So if someone's wearing a turban, then that person is probably Indian.
I'm not saying that's true necessarily (though it may be), but that's how the AI interprets it...or how pictures get tagged.
It's like with Canadians and maple leaves. Most Canadians aren't wearing maple leaf stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if an AI added maple leaves to an image of "a Canadian".
Imagine a German man from Bavaria... You just thought of a man wearing Lederhosen and holding a beer, didn't you? Would you be surprised if I told you that they usually don't look like that outside of a festival?
I don't picture real life people as though they were caricatures.
But AI does, because we feed it caricatures.
He was imaginary though.
Are you literally the second coming of Jesus? Hey everybody! I found a guy who doesn't see race! I can't believe it but he doesn't think anyone is changed in any way by the place that they grew up in or their culture! Everyone is a blank slate to this guy! It's amazing!
Point taken.
Ain't to me, couldn't care less. I was just trying to point out that most Indians do not seem to wear turbans (and based my reasoning on the religions dress alone).
What's the data that the model is being fed? What percentage of imaging featuring Indian men are tagged as such? What percentage of imaging featuring men wearing Turbans are tagged as Indian Men? Are there any images featuring Pakistan men wearing Turbans? Even if only a minority of Indian feature Turbans, if that's the only distinction between Indian and Pakistan men in the model data, the model will favor Turbans for Indian Men. That's just a hypothetical explanation.
You don't think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What's the lower bound on significance as you see things?
To be clear, it's obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it's likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.
For statistics' sake? Yes.
For the LLM bias? No.
5/6 not wearing them seems more statistically significant
The fact less people of that group actually wear it than do is significant when you want an average sample. When categorizing a collection of images then, naturally, the traditional garments of a group is associated more with that group than any other group: 1/6 is bigger than any other race.
so if there was a country where 1 in 6 people had blue skin you would consider that insignificant because 5 out of 6 didn't?
For a caricature of the population? Yes, that's not what the algorithm should be optimising for.
Except if they trained it on something that has a large proportion of turban wearers. It is only as good as the data fed to it, so if there was a bias, it’ll show the bias. Yet another reason this really isn’t “AI”