I think this makes a bit of sense though doesn’t it? They wrote “guy”. Given that training data is probably predominantly white “guy” would give you a white guy nine times out of ten without clarification of what the word means to the AI, i.e. ethnically ambiguous. Because that’s what guy is, ethnically ambiguous. The spelling is because DALL-E suuuuucks at text, but slowly getting better at least.
But they should 100% tweak it so that when a defined character is asked for stuff like that gets dropped. I think the prompt structure is what makes this one slip through. Had they put quotes around “guy with swords pointed at him” to clearly mark that as it’s own thing this wouldn’t have happened.
But I don’t think the software can differentiate between the ideas of defined and undefined characters. It’s all just association between words and aesthetics, right? It can’t know that “Homer Simpson” is a more specific subject than “construction worker” because there’s no actual conceptualization happening about what these words mean.
I can’t imagine a way to make the tweak you’re asking for that isn’t just a database of every word or phrase that refers to a specific known individual that the users’ prompts get checked against and I can’t imagine that’d be worth the time it’d take to create.
If they’re inserting random race words in, presumably there’s some kind of preprocessing of the prompt going on. That preprocessor is what would need to know if the character is specific enough to not apply the race words.
I get that the Simpsons are coded as white, but technically they are yellow.
IMHO one of the biggest mistakes in the Simpsons was adding non-yellow skin tones. “Yellow is white, but brown is brown”… should’ve stuck with yellow for everyone, green for alien, and could have added some blue. As it is, OP’s image is a “white” guy (yellow hand) in blackface.
I don’t like the idea of a prompt being subtly manipulated like this to “force” inclusion. Instead the training data should be augmented and the AI re-trained on a more inclusive dataset.
The prompt given by the user shouldn’t be prefixed or suffixed by additional words, sentences or phrases; except to remind the AI what it is not allowed to generate.
Instead of forcing “inclusivity” on the end user in such a manner; we should instead allow the user to pick skin tone preferences in an easy to understand manner, and allow the AI to process that signal as a part of it’s natural prompt.
Obviously; where specific characters are concerned, the default skin tone of the character named in the prompt should be encoded and respected. If multiple versions of that character exist, it should take a user’s skin tone output selection into account and select the closest matching version.
If the prompt is requesting a skin tone alteration of a character; that prompt should obviously be honored as well, and executed with the requested skin tone; and not the skin tone setting selection. As an example I can select “Prefer ligher skin tones” in the UI and still request that the AI should generate me a “darker skinned version” of a typically fairer skinned character.
Instead of focusing on forcing “diversity” into prompts that didn’t ask for it; let’s just make sure that the AI has the full range of human traits available to it to pull from.
“Ethnically ambiguous” is the last thing I’d call that. From 🧍🏻♀️ to 🧍🏿♂️, I still think the most “ambiguous” is🧍(lacking 🧞 and 🦄).
You don’t understand. It says “ethnically ambiguous” right there! It is impossible to associate any race with this picture!
