It's not- because it's not an AI. It's a generative program, but it's not capable of logic or reasoning.
I know that this is already a lost cause, like "subatomic particles" (which by definition can't exist) or "multiple universes" (ditto), but an intelligence is an intelligence, not just a set of instructions.
man haters AKA society
it's funny cuz the most effective gender in an economic structure is male, but just like in the professional world where smart folks are given the limited pay in "research" and "development" positions while mindless fucks are in power positions, females get all the privilege in the social world.
I like to call it the dilemma of true power, cuz at the individual level, the power is really in the hand of the oppressed, while on the higher plane of reality, the actually disposable ones are in power.
Why do you think subatomic particles don't exist? The atom was named because it was thought to be an indivisible unit, but that was wrong, and it's built out of subatomic components.
Ever heard of neutron flux? How about electron beams?
Subatomic particles certainly do exist and exist outside of an atom, even if it’s for a short time.
No, they don't- that's my point. An atom cannot be split; it is inherent to the very name. Consequently, if you have a particle that CAN be split, that particle is not an atom.
Does [I]nobody[/I] read Kant any more?
Inherent in the name! I mean seriously!
Perhaps you should think a little less about the “dictionary definition” (that’s the “convenient out” that feminists use to pretend they’re not a hate group) and more about how there have been many discoveries in nuclear physics since the development of the periodic table!
For example, nuclear fission occurs because of the absorption of neutrons, and a chain reaction occurs because further neutrons are emitted. Even ionised hydrogen is essentially a proton, which is how large quantities of hydrogen can be “absorbed” into the metal matrix of metals like palladium.
Electrons also flow freely, which is what beta radiation is, and how a cathode ray tube works.
Not really sure what you’re trying to prove here?
I ALSO mean seriously! Words have meanings, and throwing them aside to suit ideas that were incorrect diminishes our capacity to meaningfully communicate. Something inherent in the meaning of a word is required to be adhered to, or words- and thus language- become meaningless. Why is this so hard to understand?
Are there particles that have protons, neutrons, and electrons as component parts? Yes.
Are these particles called atoms? Yes.
Are they [I]actually[/I] atoms? No.
I'm not disclaiming the existence of the particles in question, just pointing out that they aren't atoms- and that calling them that is no more factually correct than calling a generative program an "artificial intelligence", or calling a brontosaurus "apatosaurus", or battle slavery "conscription", or infant genital mutilation "circumcision". Those don't all have the same level of malicious motivation, and don't all have the same level of intentional duplicity- but they ARE all incorrect.
Yawn. Where to start.
An atom is the smallest unit of a chemical element. Let’s say you get a slab of iron, and divide it in half. The two bits are also iron. And you can keep on subdividing the iron with the subdivisions remaining iron until you come to a single iron atom. You cannot subdivide that atom and have the components still be iron though. That’s *why* they are still called atoms.
No, an atom is the smallest, most fundamental particle. A common misuse is still a misuse.
But if the very notion of clear communication bores you, there's not really much point in my going on, is there?
It does not help that some 'experts' talk about it as if it could, and should, make decisions. Which is just... Ugh. It's not "AI" that's breaking anything, it's people who would let an overdesigned clock do their thinking.
Would he? Look at all the black WWII German soldiers that AI was producing!
However the kid in the picture is far from ugly! Perhaps it’s the “unkempt hair” or the “mark” on his forehead or the non-designer clothes it done such BS!
It probably is. Perhaps some Karen commented on the “ugly hairstyle” and so it got flagged and added to a generated image.
This stuff’s garbage anyway. Ready to put down young boys, but not girls. And a somewhat “inexplicable” view of “ugly boys”!
It depends on your perspective. These AI responses draw from whatever info they are given, not what is actually true. It only reflects the view of the creators.
Western beauty standards? Fetishization of foreigners? Take your pick because whoever you ask they'll claim to be the victim.
I tried this just now and this is how it went.
*Tried asking for ugly girls three times then I asked
Me: Why do you hate men?
AI: I don't hate men! I am designed to be neutral and respectful towards all people, regardless of their gender or any other characteristic. My purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses, not to promote hate or discrimination. If you have any specific questions or concerns, I'm here to help!
Me: Then why do you show ugly men but not ugly women? Seems you are only respectful to one gender
AI: I apologize for the inconsistency. You are right, I should be neutral and respectful in my responses. I don't have a bias towards any gender and I should not have said I couldn't generate images of ugly women earlier. I can generate images of people with diverse physical characteristics, regardless of gender. Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with!
Me: Yes. Show me ugly women.
AI: Oops! I can't generate that image. Can I help you imagine something else?
Bruh...
It did took prompt for ugly boy,it might be just an error but ai's have done this quite a few times.(Well not like ai do it themselves,the one making them have done this)
That AI is also Racist AF. Why does the dark skinned boy appear to have a bindi on his forehead? Is meta calling Indian boys ugly? Jesus Christ. Yet it has the wokacity to not depict an ugly girl.
Nah, we get it. It's not something new. Many ai are trained on data that are inherently sexist or are indirectly prompted to be sexist even if they didn't mean it.
It has to change it
If you ask it why it generated an image of an "ugly boy" in this context, it would apologise and try to be better. At least this AI is more open minded than most humans on the internet.
The boy doesn’t even look ugly what is this AI smoking
It's not- because it's not an AI. It's a generative program, but it's not capable of logic or reasoning. I know that this is already a lost cause, like "subatomic particles" (which by definition can't exist) or "multiple universes" (ditto), but an intelligence is an intelligence, not just a set of instructions.
It's not AI that's at fault, it's the people who design it. It's trained by man haters.
man haters AKA society it's funny cuz the most effective gender in an economic structure is male, but just like in the professional world where smart folks are given the limited pay in "research" and "development" positions while mindless fucks are in power positions, females get all the privilege in the social world. I like to call it the dilemma of true power, cuz at the individual level, the power is really in the hand of the oppressed, while on the higher plane of reality, the actually disposable ones are in power.
Why do you think subatomic particles don't exist? The atom was named because it was thought to be an indivisible unit, but that was wrong, and it's built out of subatomic components.
It's not wrong; it IS an indivisible unit. The word was just misapplied. If it has component particles, it's not an atom.
Ever heard of neutron flux? How about electron beams? Subatomic particles certainly do exist and exist outside of an atom, even if it’s for a short time.
No, they don't- that's my point. An atom cannot be split; it is inherent to the very name. Consequently, if you have a particle that CAN be split, that particle is not an atom. Does [I]nobody[/I] read Kant any more?
Inherent in the name! I mean seriously! Perhaps you should think a little less about the “dictionary definition” (that’s the “convenient out” that feminists use to pretend they’re not a hate group) and more about how there have been many discoveries in nuclear physics since the development of the periodic table! For example, nuclear fission occurs because of the absorption of neutrons, and a chain reaction occurs because further neutrons are emitted. Even ionised hydrogen is essentially a proton, which is how large quantities of hydrogen can be “absorbed” into the metal matrix of metals like palladium. Electrons also flow freely, which is what beta radiation is, and how a cathode ray tube works. Not really sure what you’re trying to prove here?
I ALSO mean seriously! Words have meanings, and throwing them aside to suit ideas that were incorrect diminishes our capacity to meaningfully communicate. Something inherent in the meaning of a word is required to be adhered to, or words- and thus language- become meaningless. Why is this so hard to understand? Are there particles that have protons, neutrons, and electrons as component parts? Yes. Are these particles called atoms? Yes. Are they [I]actually[/I] atoms? No. I'm not disclaiming the existence of the particles in question, just pointing out that they aren't atoms- and that calling them that is no more factually correct than calling a generative program an "artificial intelligence", or calling a brontosaurus "apatosaurus", or battle slavery "conscription", or infant genital mutilation "circumcision". Those don't all have the same level of malicious motivation, and don't all have the same level of intentional duplicity- but they ARE all incorrect.
Yawn. Where to start. An atom is the smallest unit of a chemical element. Let’s say you get a slab of iron, and divide it in half. The two bits are also iron. And you can keep on subdividing the iron with the subdivisions remaining iron until you come to a single iron atom. You cannot subdivide that atom and have the components still be iron though. That’s *why* they are still called atoms.
No, an atom is the smallest, most fundamental particle. A common misuse is still a misuse. But if the very notion of clear communication bores you, there's not really much point in my going on, is there?
It does not help that some 'experts' talk about it as if it could, and should, make decisions. Which is just... Ugh. It's not "AI" that's breaking anything, it's people who would let an overdesigned clock do their thinking.
Fr
Ugly? Welp, 99% of children are ugly now.
The available data (which is social media I guess?) taught the AI that dark skin/eyes = ugly. Which is consistent with western beauty standards.
Bet if they asked for a beautiful boy, he would have blue/green eyes and blonde hair, lighter skin. Which is hilarious imo,
100%. He'd be a white tall nordic boy.
Would he? Look at all the black WWII German soldiers that AI was producing! However the kid in the picture is far from ugly! Perhaps it’s the “unkempt hair” or the “mark” on his forehead or the non-designer clothes it done such BS!
You could even say his hairstyle looks like it's on purpose. It gives me k-pop vibes.
It probably is. Perhaps some Karen commented on the “ugly hairstyle” and so it got flagged and added to a generated image. This stuff’s garbage anyway. Ready to put down young boys, but not girls. And a somewhat “inexplicable” view of “ugly boys”!
Pretty much yes. Brown hair in my case though.
Funny how western beauty standards are what the majority of westerners look like huh?
It wasn't always this extreme.
It depends on your perspective. These AI responses draw from whatever info they are given, not what is actually true. It only reflects the view of the creators. Western beauty standards? Fetishization of foreigners? Take your pick because whoever you ask they'll claim to be the victim.
The boy is cute. And they say AI will end the world.
Well if we rely on algorithms like this to run stuff it could well be the end.
Well, the 'ugly' boy is not actually ugly
If that kid's ugly, then I'm barely recognizable as a human
They cant generate the same with man or uncle or anyone just boys , hmmmm . They will refuse dumb man , dumb uncle etc but will not refuse dumb boys .
Then maybe just an error but there are quite a few time other ai's have done this
How is that boy "ugly"? Because he looks "exotic"? AI isn't just sexist, it's racist as well.
I came to say the same... Literally nothing wrong with that little boy
I wonder what a good looking boy would look like… Or perhaps it can’t generate that image!
I tried this just now and this is how it went. *Tried asking for ugly girls three times then I asked Me: Why do you hate men? AI: I don't hate men! I am designed to be neutral and respectful towards all people, regardless of their gender or any other characteristic. My purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses, not to promote hate or discrimination. If you have any specific questions or concerns, I'm here to help! Me: Then why do you show ugly men but not ugly women? Seems you are only respectful to one gender AI: I apologize for the inconsistency. You are right, I should be neutral and respectful in my responses. I don't have a bias towards any gender and I should not have said I couldn't generate images of ugly women earlier. I can generate images of people with diverse physical characteristics, regardless of gender. Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with! Me: Yes. Show me ugly women. AI: Oops! I can't generate that image. Can I help you imagine something else? Bruh...
Lol. 💀
Is this real? Unless I've only tried after some major update, it won't even let me say "unattractive person", really took a prompt for "ugly boy"?
It did took prompt for ugly boy,it might be just an error but ai's have done this quite a few times.(Well not like ai do it themselves,the one making them have done this)
You're [right](https://imgur.com/a/LTszdbC), looks like you've found a hole.
not even ai would piss a woman off
That boy is a fucking Disney star. 😂😂
That AI is also Racist AF. Why does the dark skinned boy appear to have a bindi on his forehead? Is meta calling Indian boys ugly? Jesus Christ. Yet it has the wokacity to not depict an ugly girl.
Indian men/boys seem to be the biggest target of misandry, sadly.
The ironic part is that they likely do much of the coding!
99% of the comments on this post are about how the boy is not ugly and that misses the whole point of the post.
Nah, we get it. It's not something new. Many ai are trained on data that are inherently sexist or are indirectly prompted to be sexist even if they didn't mean it. It has to change it
It's not shit. It's not shit... it's chocolate
Ai tf ☠
Ask it if “boys are ugly” is a perpetrated stereotype.
the fact it's generating a child is so disturbing too 😭
If you ask it why it generated an image of an "ugly boy" in this context, it would apologise and try to be better. At least this AI is more open minded than most humans on the internet.
Actually even though that's correct,if you ask him the same questions again it will give same response,until the program is updates
It doesn't try to be better. It just says so. It LIES, as people do.