If you build a black box, and a bug that seems like it should have been caught in testing comes through, and there's limited documentation that the black box was programmed to do that, it makes me nervous.
But I'm more worried about the lack of transparency around the black box, and the internal adversarial testing that's being applied to it.
Google has an absolute right to build a model however they want -- but they should be able to proactively document how it functions, what it should and should not be used for, and any guardrails they put around it.
Is there anywhere that says "Given a prompt, Bard will attempt to deliver a racially and sexually diverse result set, and that will take precedence over historical facts"?
By all means, I support them building that model! But that's a pretty big 'if' that should be clearly documented.
> Google has an absolute right to build a model however they want
I don’t think anyone is arguing google doesn’t have the right. The argument is that google is incompetent and stupid for creating and releasing such a poor model.
In general I agree with you, though I would add that Google doesn't have any kind of good reputation for documenting how their consumer facing tools work, and have been getting flak for years about perceived biases in their search results and spam filters.
Granted, stupid fun-sy public-facing image generation project.
But I'm more worried about the lack of transparency around the black box, and the internal adversarial testing that's being applied to it.
Google has an absolute right to build a model however they want -- but they should be able to proactively document how it functions, what it should and should not be used for, and any guardrails they put around it.
Is there anywhere that says "Given a prompt, Bard will attempt to deliver a racially and sexually diverse result set, and that will take precedence over historical facts"?
By all means, I support them building that model! But that's a pretty big 'if' that should be clearly documented.