Outcry ensues after Google edits Gemini AI demo video

emorphy

Posts: 37   +0
Staff
A hot potato: It is hard to say whether Google was being deliberately deceptive but there are billions of dollars at stake in the race to be No. 1 in generative AI. Anything that smacks of being second-best in this race will hurt. Unfortunately for the tech giant, that could include a demonstration video perceived to be faked.

With much fanfare, earlier this week Google unveiled Gemini AI, its most advanced AI model so far. As part of the launch, it released several videos on YouTube, X / Twitter, and a post describing Gemini's attributes and performance. But now Gemini's story is moving in a new direction; one that Google surely doesn't like and probably didn't anticipate. The six-minute demonstrative video has been seized upon as painting a misleading picture of Gemini's capabilities, namely that some of the depictions of Gemini in action didn't actually happen in real time even though the video suggested that they did.

For example, the video (watch below) featured conversations between a user and a Gemini-powered chatbot and also showcased Gemini's ability to tell the difference between visual pictures and physical objects. The reality is that Google used still images and fed text prompts to Gemini to get these results, according to The Information.

It doesn't appear that Google was trying, or at least trying very hard, to be deceptive. For starters, there is a disclaimer on the video that says, "For the purposes of this demo, latency has been reduced, and Gemini outputs have been shortened for brevity." Also, a Google developer detailed the prompting approaches it used with Gemini in the demonstration video.

In response to an inquiry from CNBC, Google told the publication that "The video is an illustrative depiction of the possibilities of interacting with Gemini, based on real multimodal prompts and outputs from testing. We look forward to seeing what people create when access to Gemini Pro opens on December 13."

But whatever its intentions, for a global conglomerate like Google this was a serious misstep. Once the realization about the demonstration video hit, headlines and posts decried Google for "faking" part of its presentation with some suggesting that perhaps the company was already behind OpenAI. Indeed, billions of dollars are at stake in the race to deliver the best generative AI tools and in this race speediness will be a key factor. Anything suggesting that a tool requires complicated prompts or is not as fast as its competitors would be a death blow.

Permalink to story.

 
I can't get into the whole AI thing for personal use at the moment. But, I suppose it's going to directly affect me at some point in the future. Hopefully not my job...
 
I can't get into the whole AI thing for personal use at the moment. But, I suppose it's going to directly affect me at some point in the future. Hopefully not my job...
A lot of companies have been talking about AI replacing people at least 2 years back. It did to a very limited extend so far, but I agree the "hot air" is running out. Running the AI model cost a lot, because not just do you need the hardware, you need space to house the hardware, and running electricity and maintenance cost.
 
I guess Google did not learn from there initial rushed roll out of Bard where it had a factual error in first demo and was basically known as a "pathological liar".

So their follow up was to fake a video? Google is super desperate to look relevant. Again, in an attempt to steal the spot light, the have now got everyone's attention for the wrong reason. I wonder, do marketing people or whomever is in charge of this get fired?
 
Honestly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I mean, I remember the ads that Apple put at some point, advertising, one of their iPhones or whatever and they were showing maps, navigation or something like this, and even then there was a disclaimer saying that it has been shortened for the purpose of the demonstration or something like this, so it’s nothing new and everyone is doing it. So what’s all this fuss is about. Everyone is doing it, Microsoft did it, too. Considering that Google left the same disclaimer as other companies did in the past why are we even talking about it?
 
A lot of companies have been talking about AI replacing people at least 2 years back. It did to a very limited extend so far, but I agree the "hot air" is running out. Running the AI model cost a lot, because not just do you need the hardware, you need space to house the hardware, and running electricity and maintenance cost.

A computer with infinitely less power then a smartphone used to be the size of a house. Eletricity production used to be only from hydroeletric and thermoeletric sources.... Now we are developing tokamaks as power sources, and compute power is growing steadly. Every industrial revolution affected avaliable job positions, first there is the loss then after a period of time new jobs arise.

We are going to enter a new industrial revolution and AI could be it's reason or at least part of it. The crisis's not a matter of "if" it's a matter of "when". And the crisis will be real. While the old die the new is not ready.
 
A computer with infinitely less power then a smartphone used to be the size of a house. Eletricity production used to be only from hydroeletric and thermoeletric sources.... Now we are developing tokamaks as power sources, and compute power is growing steadly. Every industrial revolution affected avaliable job positions, first there is the loss then after a period of time new jobs arise.

We are going to enter a new industrial revolution and AI could be it's reason or at least part of it. The crisis's not a matter of "if" it's a matter of "when". And the crisis will be real. While the old die the new is not ready.

We'd need actual AI before that comes to pass. Right now we have r-tarded search engines backed up by human intervention behind the scenes. The fact that anyone feels threatened by it in anything other than menial tasks shows how little talent they actually bring to the table (all the whining in creative spaces). The biggest "threat" with any of this right now is video fakery.
 
We'd need actual AI before that comes to pass. Right now we have r-tarded search engines backed up by human intervention behind the scenes. The fact that anyone feels threatened by it in anything other than menial tasks shows how little talent they actually bring to the table (all the whining in creative spaces). The biggest "threat" with any of this right now is video fakery.
How many menial jobs there's out there? How many fast food workers, factory floor peons, gas station keepers, janitors, taxi drivers... how many of those jobs could be replaced by AI? All those menial tasks accounts for a LOT of jobs positions, so that would be a job crisis. Not the complex jobs, those would as you said "smarter" AI, but meanwhile we would have millions of jobless.

"In the US and Europe, as many as 300 million jobs could be threatened by some form of AI, according to a March research note by investment bank Goldman Sachs. Fully two-thirds of US jobs could be partially automated through AI, and up to one in four current work tasks could be completely automated by AI in the US and Europe, according to Goldman Sachs"
- that's what the rulers of captalism are saying, and they are stakeholders of an economy where there's more profit, no matter how much people die/starve/get poor in the process.
 
Last edited:
How many menial jobs there's out there? How many fast food workers, factory floor peons, gas station keepers, janitors, taxi drivers... how many of those jobs could be replaced by AI? All those menial tasks accounts for a LOT of jobs positions, so that would be a job crisis. Not the complex jobs, those would as you said "smarter" AI, but meanwhile we would have millions of jobless.

"In the US and Europe, as many as 300 million jobs could be threatened by some form of AI, according to a March research note by investment bank Goldman Sachs. Fully two-thirds of US jobs could be partially automated through AI, and up to one in four current work tasks could be completely automated by AI in the US and Europe, according to Goldman Sachs"
- that's what the rulers of captalism are saying, and they are stakeholders of an economy where there's more profit, no matter how much people die/starve/get poor in the process.

If you're staying at a menial job, you're imperiling yourself. That's no one's fault but yours. You should always be growing your skillset and looking for a new position, if not a new employer every 3-5 years. There's no benefit in staying in the same position for decades unless you're at the top of the ladder for the place you're working at it meets all of your needs.

Automation has always replaced the lowest tier jobs, yet society hasn't collapsed into rampant unemployment. Life owes you nothing more than a death. The mentality that everyone is owed a job, a house, healthcare, things, etc. needs to stop. You're only owed what is agreed to and what you earn. If you're worried about your job being replaced, put in the work and move yourself into a position where you can't be replaced.
 
If you're staying at a menial job, you're imperiling yourself. That's no one's fault but yours. You should always be growing your skillset and looking for a new position, if not a new employer every 3-5 years. There's no benefit in staying in the same position for decades unless you're at the top of the ladder for the place you're working at it meets all of your needs.

Automation has always replaced the lowest tier jobs, yet society hasn't collapsed into rampant unemployment. Life owes you nothing more than a death. The mentality that everyone is owed a job, a house, healthcare, things, etc. needs to stop. You're only owed what is agreed to and what you earn. If you're worried about your job being replaced, put in the work and move yourself into a position where you can't be replaced.

How much people can grow their skillset and have a new employer every 3-5 year? That's not the reality for 90% of people. We don't live in a meritocracy... There's people that work for 12 hours a day and have no resources to grow any kind of skillset, that barely can keep up.
 
How much people can grow their skillset and have a new employer every 3-5 year? That's not the reality for 90% of people. We don't live in a meritocracy... There's people that work for 12 hours a day and have no resources to grow any kind of skillset, that barely can keep up.
Information at your fingertips and you can't grow your skillset? You have access to information that people could only dream of 20-30 years ago, where you can find information on just about any trade online and learn from it, and you think almost no one can grow their skillset? It's there if you're not lazy and are dedicated to changing your situation.
 
Back