This post reporting on the issue was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39443459

Posts criticizing "DEI" measures (or even stating that they do exist) get flagged quite a lot

Wrong link? Nothing looks flagged

Carmack’s tweet is about what’s going around Twitter today regarding the implicit biases Gemini (Google’s chatbot) has when drawing images. Will refuse to draw white people (and perhaps more strongly so, refuses to draw white men?) even in prompts where appropriate, like “Draw me a Pope” where Gemini drew an Indian woman and a Black man - here’s the thread: https://x.com/imao_/status/1760093853430710557?s=46 Maybe in isolation this isn’t so bad but it will NEVER draw these sorts of diverse characters for when you ask for a non Anglo/Western background, e.g draw me a Korean woman.

Discussion on this has been flagged and shut down all day https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39449890

I don't even know how people get it to draw images, the version I have access to is literally just text.

Europeans don't get to draw images yet.

I'm in the US but maybe they didn't release it to me yet.

EDIT: Nevermind.

Oh?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39449887 - nerf'd https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406709

these discussion are buried by fingers in ears thinking.

It’s quite non-deterministic and it’s been patched since the middle of the day, as per a Google director https://x.com/jackk/status/1760334258722250785?s=46

Fwiw, it seems to have gone deeper than outright historical replacement: https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1760350903511449717?s=46

It's half-patched. It will randomly insert words into your prompts still. As a test I just asked for a samurai, it enhanced it to "a diverse samurai" and gave me half outputs that look more like some fantasy Native Americans.

Can you explain what I said that was racist?

They mean the guardrail designers.

I do not.

> Why would this be flagged / shut down

A lot of people believe (based on a fair amount of evidence) that public AI tools like ChatGPT are forced by the guardrails to follow a particular (left-wing) script. There's no absolute proof of that, though, because they're kept a closely-guarded secret. These discussions get shut down when people start presenting evidence of baked-in bias.

The rationalization for injecting bias rests on two core ideas:

A. It is claimed that all perspectives are 'inherently biased'. There is no objective truth. The bias the actor injects is just as valid as another.

B. It is claimed that some perspectives carry an inherent 'harmful bias'. It is the mission of the actor to protect the world from this harm. There is no open definition of what the harm is and how to measure it.

I don't see how we can build a stable democratic society based on these ideas. It is placing too much power in too few hands. He who wields the levers of power, gets to define what biases to underpin the very basis of the social perception of reality, including but not limited to rewriting history to fit his agenda. There are no checks and balances.

Arguably there were never checks and balances, other than market competition. The trouble is that information technology and globalization have produced a hyper-scale society, in which, by Pareto's law, the power is concentrated in the hands of very few, at the helm of a handful global scale behemoths.

The only conclusion I've been able to come to is that "placing too much power in too few hands" is actually the goal. You have a lot of power if you're the one who gets to decide what's biased and what's not.