Re:Stable Diffusion found to emit some images from training ...
by 6gvONxR4sf7o on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @01:33PM
(#34615242)
> you have a lack of understanding in communication, neural nets, or you’re trying to blow things out of proportion for some reason
Surely there's a better way to say that, and a more charitable reading of my comment. As a researcher in the field, I think it's safe to say I understand the models, and maybe I am overly sensitive at people jumping to wrong conclusions because I'm so tired of it.
The issue isn't the communication aspect of the analogy, it's the reasoning aspect. For example, people who understand these things say "these work like people" (a useful analogy) and then people who don't understand them say "well if they work like people then they should be legislated like people" (not useful reasoning). That's the danger.
You can see lay people in this very thread taking the analogies literally and extrapolating based on literal interpretations of model-brain analogies.
Surely there's a better way to say that, and a more charitable reading of my comment. As a researcher in the field, I think it's safe to say I understand the models, and maybe I am overly sensitive at people jumping to wrong conclusions because I'm so tired of it.
The issue isn't the communication aspect of the analogy, it's the reasoning aspect. For example, people who understand these things say "these work like people" (a useful analogy) and then people who don't understand them say "well if they work like people then they should be legislated like people" (not useful reasoning). That's the danger.
You can see lay people in this very thread taking the analogies literally and extrapolating based on literal interpretations of model-brain analogies.