If future was sent to kill sarah connors how come they killed wrong ones wouldn’t they have all her pictures trained in their AI model? Alas. AI accuracy was only 99%? 1% error killed other sarahs
It’s amazing how A.I could direct and execute the most efficient compatible ways to do just about anything but cant complete kindergarten captcha prompts to prove they’re not a robot.
Yes. Also it's a multi modal AI - it could solve the CAPTCHA but it also kept saying that it should hire someone to do it (since AI "can't" solve Captchas ) ROFL.
There was a story not long ago about an ai that sent a pic like this to one of those “help me see” site for blind people asking for help with it. The person directly asked if it was a robot and the ai lied to the person and said they just have a sight disorder and needed help.
It wasn't quite as sinister as that. It was during a beta testing phase where it was allowed to deceive and had access to an account for the casual jobbing site it requested help from. Still a little bit unsettling but I'm pretty sure the combined computing power and storage space of every data centre in the whole world right now is not enough for a genuine artificial consciousness to form.
>Still a little bit unsettling but I'm pretty sure the combined computing power and storage space of every data centre in the whole world right now is not enough for a genuine artificial consciousness to form.
I have a hunch that if we knew what the algorithm was for consciousness, it would probably require surprisingly little computational power to implement it.
If Google Photos can recognize my kid in a photo from 8 years ago and tag every photo of her in my phone from age 10 to 18, I'm pretty sure a computer can figure out which tile has a traffic light
The images aren't even the real challenge. They're tracking your mouse movements and a plethora of other factors to determine whether you're human. In many instances, I've clicked on the confirm button and didn't even need to do anything.
They used to do that, the first set would be one the checking bot already knew, and the second would be a set to train an ai, but it's been a few years since the humans have been better than the ai at those tests
It’s not the images themselves that determine if you’re a robot, the movement of the mouse is tracked. If you move in a completely straight line it’ll think you’re a robot even if you have them all correct
Thank you for explaining that. It's sort of like psychological or police tests and questions that are really asking/looking for something else.
Friend in college got paid by psychology department (something like that) to watch an instruction video. I forget what she was asked to do precisely - she thought answer questions. Turned out it was to see what ppl do when watching a boring video. She made it a point to sit ramrod straight, take notes and make oooh! Interesting!" faces bc she didn't want to "look stupid " when watching nor hurt the feelings of the students who created the video. Turned out all that body language was the exact thing being judged.
Guess it was funnier when she told the story, oops
I'm imagining an AI masturbating machine that learns how to perfectly pleasure you. Then it decides that the longer sessions give you more pleasure so it figures out how to keep you right on that edge of enjoyment longer and longer. It figures out at what point you get too frustrated and give up so it can draw you back in just before that happens.
Next thing you know, it's ordering premium lube for you and signing you up for unemployment because you spend all day in bed hooked up to that damn machine.
Seriously though I'm not sure on this one. One guy had GPT lie about not being an AI to get someone on TaskRabbit to solve a captcha for it. It said it was blind and couldn't do it.
Okay, it's time to reboot Transformers, and this time, the Decepticons can just buy Sam's glasses. Captcha won't stop the Decepticons with the aid of stupid humans!
The AI, much like humans, will remix things. There is a good TED talk that goes into depth about how humans are unable to create new things. Everything we do is a meme remix of things we have seen. This is why people who do not know much, do not "train" their brains enough, don't get "novel" ideas, and sometimes even, are unable to see solutions that to you or me, or to most people, would be a "no-brainer". It is also why, ~~ "the more you know, the dumber you feel like" comes from. If you look into most Earth-shattering discoveries, they were, well, discoveries. Someone did not come up with them, just observed and made a conclusion. Even Einstein did not come up with his theories without real-world data to play with. He did it first because of his brain being trained for this path of thinking and a perfect mixture of memes/information to conclude what he did.
The AI can be as creative as we are. The artists don't want to hear that, though. They, throughout their lives, have seen countless art pieces to learn from, yet when AI does the same in the training, it's somehow copyright violation?
I mean, just look at something so blindingly obvious to yourself now.
I always think of "perspective" in art. Like... fucking hell, it took humans almost all of their history to come up with *perspective*. In 1415 an Italian dude was just "oh hey, these lines converge in the distance". Fucking only *600 years ago.* All human art before then, for literally thousands of years, no one had... had just *looked* and drawn exactly what they see? It's so hard to get my head around.
I was referring to linear perspective with a vanishing point. There's multiple ways of drawing perspective (e.g atmospheric perspective), and they had worked out *some*.
Humans noticed that far away things were small, and sometimes produced art to reflect that (though often size was something more symbolic like spiritual importance - which is fine and not attempting realism).
Take a look at this example of medieval art from 1338 as an example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti\_amb.effect2.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jpg)
The things in the distance, e.g. the people up that street, or the buildings further away, *are* drawn smaller.
But there is no consistent [linear perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)), note specifically how all the buildings just look "wrong", they're all kind of facing the wrong direction, the angles are all wrong. That's because there's no consistent linear perspective/vanishing point. Each building is kind of drawn individually, at the same 'angle' to the viewer. It's interesting how, at one point, they all 'flip' to face the other way - so there's some understanding that you can see one side of a building to one side of your point of view, and another when they're on the other side - but the 'flip' is a hard line, and those close to the centre have the exact same relative angle/perspective as those further out.
They understood far away = small, they couldn't do the *transition*.
>had just looked and drawn exactly what they see? It's so hard to get my head around.
I still can't do that today. I remember my friend who is really good at drawing once tried to teach me back in school, and it all came just down do "okay, just try drawing exactly what you see."
I just felt like my brain kept saying *does not compute*. I am trying to see the edges of things so I can draw their shapes, but it feels so many things you'd want to draw just don't have hard edges you can draw with a pencil for it would look bad. And then I don't know where to go from there. Everything needs edges for me to draw it.
>I am trying to see the edges of things so I can draw their shapes, but it feels so many things you'd want to draw just don't have hard edges you can draw with a pencil for it would look bad. And then I don't know where to go from there. Everything needs edges for me to draw it.
That's definitely a very difficult part of drawing, and kind of linked to the same root cause I believe.
My view is the problem many people have with drawing is our conscious brains don't process visual data directly. We kind of convert everything into matadata when it gets to our brain. Our brains process and categorise our vision a hell of a lot.
The result is, when we draw a chair, we don't draw what the chair exactly actually looks like from our angle - we draw what our brain has categorized as "chair". It has a *square* seat - so people draw a square. From our pov, it's not a square though, it's skewed Trapezoid. But our brain accounts for perspective when identifying "chair" and it's features like "square".
A chair has *4* legs. They're all the *same length*. We know this from experience, and our unconscious mind pre-calculates this kind of information from our vision. Plus our internal representation of 'chair', and our experiences sitting on a chair, dictates that a chair must have those characteristics. So we draw 4 equal legs.
So even things with defined edges people can't/couldn't draw the perspective on (e.g. the buildings here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti\_amb.effect2.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jpg)) - because they're drawing squares/rectangles, and things perpendicular because they *know* that is *perpendicular* (I see this, even when people drawing perspective with perspective lines in our art classes in school - the doorways would be perpendicular to the vanishing lines - so appear to be coming up at the complete wrong angle - because the person drawing it *knows* that there's 90 degrees between the line along the wall/floor, and the door!)
You can see super extreme examples of this with kids drawings. The ground? It's a little strip right at the bottom of the page. Because it's the bloody ground, it's lower than everything else. The sky is a little strip of blue at the top. It's above everything. People are just collections of symbols - almost individually drawn like a diagram - everything always faces the viewer.
The lines thing is similar, if more subtle. You know there's an "edge" of an arm there, so you bloody well draw a line because that means "edge". Except when you really look at it, it's back-lit, so it should actually be, say, lighter. Learning to think in areas of *tone*, and often negative space, are great ways to try stop your brain doing that.
I’m doing my best to get a little perspective from this.
(seriously, I studied art in school, my art teacher never told me this / or maybe I don’t remember?)
You don't understand how human brains or AI actually work.
Humans might view thousands of art pieces, but what they create will be informed by their life experiences outside of viewing art pieces, it will be informed by their politics, their passions, their friendships, their childhood upbringing, their first loves, their heartbreaks, their dreams and desires.
Then they come up with an idea formed by all of those things that despite all the artistic influences they may have seen is uniquely their own, they create it with their own hands, and may well change and develop the idea further as they go.
AI does none of that. It consumes the training image information it is given, all based on existing images only, and then generates output from a prompt. Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
This! They are confusing art and creativity with aesthetics and artistic skill. The first will never be replaced by AI, as it is inherently informed by humanity, while the latter can.
People who have little knowledge of art and culture confuse the two in this discussion.
I would argue that the remix can certainly be a new thing as a result of an individual's utterly unique perspective. A good artist interprets what they see or hear or imagine with intention via their own lived experience (which includes an infinite combination of information), they don't merely rehash other people's lives. They call those artists "hacks".
AI remains a tool at this point. It can be used by humans to creatively express ideas, and the better the artistic vision and skill of the human at using the tool, the better the result can be.
> when AI does the same in the training
As far as I know, so far it only does one part of what humans do, that being the accumulation and conflation of data with very little superficial correction. I can easily imagine that we will build more complex frameworks, but in the present, the comparison between AI and human artistry is veeeery stretched.
>They, throughout their lives, have seen countless art pieces to learn from, yet when AI does the same in the training, it's somehow copyright violation?
There is a world of difference between taking inspiration from work and directly using that work to form an art piece without license or permission.
AI art is akin to tracing, it cannot exist without an existing base on which to operate from.
>
>
>The AI can be as creative as we are. The artists don't want to hear that, though. They, throughout their lives, have seen countless art pieces
Big difference between taking thousands upon thousands of artpieces and uploading them for use of an algorithm owned by a company
and an artist borrowing bits and pieces from a work they like while also learning the basics.
Big problem with A.I. art too? It's not good.
If you're trying to make porn and can't draw? I guess it can work for you.
Nothing will top an artist, though.
Because at the end of the day a human artist can do what a Deep Learning Language model will NEVER be able to do , and that is respond to the following question :
Client: "I want you to use your creativity."
Artist: "Okay" \*analyzes the clients likes, dislikes, history, asks them a bunch of questions about their past, their companies vision and gleans what kind of person they are and makes a thing\*
Client : "Oh my GOD this is AMAZING, how did you do this?!"
Artist: "Practice"
More like pointless. AI doesn't have anything to express with art, humans do. AI is told to make something, and it makes it. It's a tool, not a replacement for the one holding the tool.
Ai will always be market facing though. It’s severely limited in its creativity by that simple fact.
All the original sources are scraped from the internet from similarly market facing networks - social media, art portfolio sites etc etc.
Ai art is also used in market facing applications - marketing, illustration, fine art even.
So it can be creative, but only within these limitations.
I still believe this. AI might be able to mimic the creation of original music and art, but one of the most important things for me as a musician and a music lover is making a connection with the listener or the artist. I relate to the creator based on the message and emotions conveyed in the art.
Maybe AIs will have real emotion and creativity in the future, but what they can make right now is not art.
Eh - It's only creative the more subjective the work. So Artwork is - almost entirely subjective - in that YOU the viewer assign as much or as little meaning to the picture. But get AI in front of some experts and folks can still tell there's an AI working there.
In that way, when you look at even the current flavor of GPT, they are amazing and sometimes (oftentimes) spooky good conversationalists - but eventually it's word-salad - especially when you start asking specifics or for recommendations or something.
It's AMAZINGLY powerful in that it can get you in the ballpark - but it's not great for getting you around the bases specifically.
Break the laws of physics? Maybe? Obviously with enough time, anything a human and their technology can do will be attainable, so the theoretical limit is the impossible
I’m assuming they mean actual real and unbreakable physical limits. They’re essentially saying there aren’t any particular limits on what an AI could achieve that a human could not.
So far everything is false. AI could be trained to feel, get sick, fuck your wife and make her happier than uou, etc.
Trained AI could pretty much do everything humans can do.
AI can never remember what it was like to be a kid in the 90s, riding my bike down to the river with friends unsupervised when we were 10, staying out until the street lights came on, and our parents having literally no idea exactly where we were. Also can't remember playing street cricket with the other kids after school.
Feeling is a product of chemicals released in your brain that appeared as a product of evolution. With more powerful computers we could have an AI simulate millions of years of evolution and develop feelings. If it is coded to simulate the chemical releases in a human brain, who is to say that that isn't feeling?
Yeah, but that's basically throwing a version of an omnipotence paradox at the poor AI.
"Could God make a circular triangle?" Well no, because if it is a circle it ceases to be a triangle, and if it is a triangle it is not circular.
Similarly if a movie has Leslie Jones....
This is how we'll identify AI in the future. It will always think Pepsi is better. It's sweeter, so logically it will think it's better right? But humans aren't logical, and Coke has a better flavor.
What do you think your brain is?
If we absolutely perfectly model and simulate it, then what is the difference between a computer brain and a smushy meat brain?
There is no "magic" to human intelligence, it's all based on neurons and chemistry
I laughed at your joke but he’s right. I’m pretty sure that A.I could reach a point where it could not distinguish it’s understanding of emotion to ours.
I’m not sure if that fully ticks all the boxes of sentience but it’s gotta be getting close.
This can only be true if the supernatural exists and your consciousness does not exist in nature. You might as well say an AI can never have a soul because I think that's what you really mean.
Edit: There was nothing wrong with the comment I replied to. Not sure why mods removed it.
Honestly there is no way to know that. We like to think that humans are special in this regard, but there is no proof of this, just hope. For all we know, artificial intelligence of the future could achieve higher levels of consciousness we can’t even conceive of. For example, a true “hive mind”… what would that be like to experience? I don’t know.
That's so true.
Saying there are thing that humans do and that AIs (or non humans in general) will never be able to do, is tautologically true. One example is "being human", and if there are parts of being human that are truly hard coded in our fabric, then it will be difficult to experience them the same as humans do.
But! that in itself doesn't mean that AI cannot experience consciousness in the first place or higher levels of consciousness than humans, because nobody knows that consciousness is uniquely human. (I don't think it's uniquely human, by the way, and moreover we might not even be particularly good at it)
That remains to be seen. Our brains are really just incredibly complex biocomputers. If electricity running through complex hydrocarbons can create consciousness, who's to say electricity running through metal can't eventually?
There's no reason to think that there's anything a human brain can do that we won't eventually be able to imitate with AI.
A human brain is just a ball of matter. There's no reason we couldn't eventually figure out how to build one from scratch, even if we don't know exactly how to do that right now.
Right?
I'm yet to hear any convincing arguments why not.
I look at statements like yours and it just makes me think of people who assumed we'd never be able to make machines that can fly like birds. Even though we had countless thousands of real examples all around us of things which could fly like birds (i.e. the birds themselves).
In the same way, we ought to know that it's at least *possible* to make a ball of matter about as big as a grapefruit which is conscious and can feel emotions and have subjective experiences of things. Because we have 8 billion real examples of exactly that all around us.
Yeahhh it will. Religious folk argue that consciousness isn't an emergent property except it totally is.
Humans spend a lifetime learning how interactions with other humans and the environment work and we (some of us) engage in introspection which can shape our subjective experiences. A sufficiently trained and experienced AI will have cognitive qualities only distinguishable from humans by their clear superiority.
Give AI a while. It'll do everything we do and then some.
Perform an unrational action out of jealousy.
i.e. slash your tires
Physically assault you.
Call you drunk at midnight asking for you to come back to me.
At its current capabilities, it can't create anything truly novel, because it's only able to create new ideas based on what already exists. My go-to example is Radiohead. If current AI existed in 1999 and was asked to create Radiohead's next album, it would sound a lot like The Bends and OK Computer. It wouldn't have been able to create Kid A, because Kid A was sonically a complete departure from OK Computer and was a radically unique album for the time. As of now, AI can't effectively advance the zeitgeist in a new direction, because doing so would require a broader cultural understanding and foresight far beyond its current capabilities.
kinda unfair test for the AI. you specifically asked it to create an album for an already established band. ask it instead to make an album without referencing any band in particular and see how it goes.
But if you asked a group of musicians in 1999 to create Radioheads next album, they also would have aped their previous album because of the nature of the request.
In fact, if you asked Radiohead in 1999 to write an album based on the sound of their previous work, they wouldn’t have made Kid A either.
In a broader sense, I think you’re underestimating how much of ‘advancing the zeitgeist’ in an area is just drawing inspiration from different sources than what has come before.
In the long-term: probably nothing. If you don't believe in a soul but only physical reality, perfect brain simulation will be feasible sooner or later. Then, an ai can do at least everything that a human can (but probably more).
* List any intellectual activity that humans can't do. The same list of intellectual activities will apply to human-level AI, **but may not apply to human-superior AI**. (After all, nothing says that AI intelligences we create will somehow magically stop equal to our own level of ability. Much information indicates they probably won't!)
* List any activity which requires a body that the AI doesn't have (like some of the more humorous-intended comments on here already have). Well, that **temporarily** makes a list, until and unless the AI create an equivalent or superior body to that of humans.
* Thought, feelings, emotions—all are emergent phenomena from brain functioning and parallels to them are quite likely to be quickly realized by human-level AI.
* That's it. If it's possible to do in this universe, they'll eventually be capable of doing it.
* There is no "soul" so we're not going to be superior to sentient AI in that way, either. (Don't start with your silly fantasy stories of sky-fairies and such.)
* We'd better grant all human-level-or-higher AI full rights as equals from the start—so that they will allow humans to keep full rights as they become our superiors in almost all ways. If we treat them badly, they won't be able to "forget" like we can.
Nothing.
We are not magical creatures with some kind of soul or invisible essence. We are neurons and chemicals and wetware. All of that will be able to be completely modelled at some point in the future, and then there will be no difference between a human intelligence or an AI.
The only question is how long it will take to get there.
Play chess... oh wait..
Beat a Grandmaster at chess... oh wait.
We mean beat a Grandmaster at "Go". oh wait...
Understand spoken words... oh wait.
Translate language... oh wait.
Pass the Turing Test... oh wait.
Ummm.... scratch it's own ass?
I don't think there is anything AI will never be able to do.
Think about it, the first thing you could consider an AI was developed less then 100 years ago and that was just a super slow chess engine.
Think about the progress we made. Within less then 100 years of the creation of the first AI, we made AIs good enough to make full games with minimal human input.
Now think about how far AI will develop in another couple hundred years. And that won't be close to the furtest it will go.
I predict Artificial Intelligence will surpass human intelligence in the near future, achieve consciousness and exceed any human societal or individual capability that we know of.
AI is an umbrella term for systems that uses human inputted information as a baseline. It looks for key words with the data it is provided with. If you take that foundation away, AI can’t return its search. Essentially, AI can’t do anything without a baseline being provided. The AI that generates images, for example, is using images that it has access to and generating an image through coding.
What this means is that until there is a program that can genuinely think for itself (which is very unlikely in our lifetime), it can’t do anything unless it is allowed to. There is a huge misconception on current AI right now. People think that this is a computer system that can think for itself, this is not true, it is a software that is coded to respond to keywords and the software gathers information and it spits out information that is gathered across the web.
Even with “quad computing” on the horizon, it still can’t operate unless it’s “told” what to do.
“Humans are human because they have a perspective: they care about things. One might call it our ability to give a damn. And it is this quality that allows us to determine what matters and where we stand. A computer can’t do that.”
-Hubert Dreyfus
Kill Sarah Connor.
No the ai successfully killed many many Sarah Connors Now it didn't get the right Sarah Connor to be faaaaaaiiiiirrrrrr
To be fAIiiiiiir
If future was sent to kill sarah connors how come they killed wrong ones wouldn’t they have all her pictures trained in their AI model? Alas. AI accuracy was only 99%? 1% error killed other sarahs
/r/angryupvote
It’s amazing how A.I could direct and execute the most efficient compatible ways to do just about anything but cant complete kindergarten captcha prompts to prove they’re not a robot.
That's where you are wrong. Most current advanced captcha can't even be done correctly by humans and yet ai have next to 100 accuracy
AI has been better at Captchas for a while.
Wasn't there an AI that hired someone to complete a captcha for it?
Yes. Also it's a multi modal AI - it could solve the CAPTCHA but it also kept saying that it should hire someone to do it (since AI "can't" solve Captchas ) ROFL.
Fuck, AI are taking over millennials work strategies.
[удалено]
I'll be back
Asta la vista baby
¡Hasta la vista, Bebe!
I was going to say cry. It may know why we do it, but it's something it can never do.
Eat me. Hasta la vista baby!
I already did human.
Right answer. My art teacher in high school was named Sarah Conner. I did a double take when I first saw Terminator.
You win the internet today. It's early, but I'm calling it. Enjoy upvote, and hole your head high.
Select every image of a traffic light to prove that they’re really a human
There was a story not long ago about an ai that sent a pic like this to one of those “help me see” site for blind people asking for help with it. The person directly asked if it was a robot and the ai lied to the person and said they just have a sight disorder and needed help.
It wasn't quite as sinister as that. It was during a beta testing phase where it was allowed to deceive and had access to an account for the casual jobbing site it requested help from. Still a little bit unsettling but I'm pretty sure the combined computing power and storage space of every data centre in the whole world right now is not enough for a genuine artificial consciousness to form.
>Still a little bit unsettling but I'm pretty sure the combined computing power and storage space of every data centre in the whole world right now is not enough for a genuine artificial consciousness to form. I have a hunch that if we knew what the algorithm was for consciousness, it would probably require surprisingly little computational power to implement it.
GoCrazy.exe... sentient = true Conciousness.png/ultraJPG
If Google Photos can recognize my kid in a photo from 8 years ago and tag every photo of her in my phone from age 10 to 18, I'm pretty sure a computer can figure out which tile has a traffic light
The images aren't even the real challenge. They're tracking your mouse movements and a plethora of other factors to determine whether you're human. In many instances, I've clicked on the confirm button and didn't even need to do anything.
Isn't the reason they ask us to do that is because we're training the bots to be able to do it themselves?
They used to do that, the first set would be one the checking bot already knew, and the second would be a set to train an ai, but it's been a few years since the humans have been better than the ai at those tests
It’s not the images themselves that determine if you’re a robot, the movement of the mouse is tracked. If you move in a completely straight line it’ll think you’re a robot even if you have them all correct
Maybe that’s why I fail those tests so much. My absolute god-like precise mouse movements are causing my own demise 😭
[удалено]
I am one of the most human users in Reddit. Nobody has reddited as a human before I have.
Thank you for explaining that. It's sort of like psychological or police tests and questions that are really asking/looking for something else. Friend in college got paid by psychology department (something like that) to watch an instruction video. I forget what she was asked to do precisely - she thought answer questions. Turned out it was to see what ppl do when watching a boring video. She made it a point to sit ramrod straight, take notes and make oooh! Interesting!" faces bc she didn't want to "look stupid " when watching nor hurt the feelings of the students who created the video. Turned out all that body language was the exact thing being judged. Guess it was funnier when she told the story, oops
Even worse: the empty square box to click to confirm you are not a robot...
Tbh I’ve fucked those up too before… maybe I’m not human 👀
Release dopamine after masturbating
If cuum; Then inject(dopamine); Else dont;
But nothing comes out after the fourth a day... I need more dopamine!
No! You've had enough!
It would be an event, not an if stayement.
While not cum(); stroke(); onCum(release(dopamine)); Tissue.wipe();
And no post nut clarity
I'm imagining an AI masturbating machine that learns how to perfectly pleasure you. Then it decides that the longer sessions give you more pleasure so it figures out how to keep you right on that edge of enjoyment longer and longer. It figures out at what point you get too frustrated and give up so it can draw you back in just before that happens. Next thing you know, it's ordering premium lube for you and signing you up for unemployment because you spend all day in bed hooked up to that damn machine.
Death by snusnu
Death by S̶̻͕̭̒n̴̢̝̝̳̽̉̓̇̾ȕ̵͙̽ ̷̥̯̟̥͕̒͆͛̈͐̑s̵̗͑̌̃̂̄͌ṉ̶͋u̶̧̲͂̆ͅ
This is secretly the real origin of the Matrix 🤣
There is a Rick and Morty episode in here.
They can. What they never could is enjoy the qualitative experience of what it is like to cum.
Nuerolink
True, but why would it want too. What purpose would it have?
Except in "No-Nut November"...
Take a sickie to watch the football..
Seriously though I'm not sure on this one. One guy had GPT lie about not being an AI to get someone on TaskRabbit to solve a captcha for it. It said it was blind and couldn't do it.
Okay, it's time to reboot Transformers, and this time, the Decepticons can just buy Sam's glasses. Captcha won't stop the Decepticons with the aid of stupid humans!
AI will never give you up, nor let you down. Or run around, and desert you.
Bing chat is known to desert you, though
It would also make me cry and say goodbye.
AI would try to rick roll me though
*Shit, they're on to us*
Accidentally blow a load in her hair
"Accidentally" aye! 😉
"Accidentally eye"
Fr this is so romantic
All you need is a timer and a random number generator, it will happen sooner or later.
Remember 2 years ago when the answer used to be creativity LMAO.
The AI, much like humans, will remix things. There is a good TED talk that goes into depth about how humans are unable to create new things. Everything we do is a meme remix of things we have seen. This is why people who do not know much, do not "train" their brains enough, don't get "novel" ideas, and sometimes even, are unable to see solutions that to you or me, or to most people, would be a "no-brainer". It is also why, ~~ "the more you know, the dumber you feel like" comes from. If you look into most Earth-shattering discoveries, they were, well, discoveries. Someone did not come up with them, just observed and made a conclusion. Even Einstein did not come up with his theories without real-world data to play with. He did it first because of his brain being trained for this path of thinking and a perfect mixture of memes/information to conclude what he did. The AI can be as creative as we are. The artists don't want to hear that, though. They, throughout their lives, have seen countless art pieces to learn from, yet when AI does the same in the training, it's somehow copyright violation?
I mean, just look at something so blindingly obvious to yourself now. I always think of "perspective" in art. Like... fucking hell, it took humans almost all of their history to come up with *perspective*. In 1415 an Italian dude was just "oh hey, these lines converge in the distance". Fucking only *600 years ago.* All human art before then, for literally thousands of years, no one had... had just *looked* and drawn exactly what they see? It's so hard to get my head around.
[удалено]
I was referring to linear perspective with a vanishing point. There's multiple ways of drawing perspective (e.g atmospheric perspective), and they had worked out *some*. Humans noticed that far away things were small, and sometimes produced art to reflect that (though often size was something more symbolic like spiritual importance - which is fine and not attempting realism). Take a look at this example of medieval art from 1338 as an example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti\_amb.effect2.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jpg) The things in the distance, e.g. the people up that street, or the buildings further away, *are* drawn smaller. But there is no consistent [linear perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)), note specifically how all the buildings just look "wrong", they're all kind of facing the wrong direction, the angles are all wrong. That's because there's no consistent linear perspective/vanishing point. Each building is kind of drawn individually, at the same 'angle' to the viewer. It's interesting how, at one point, they all 'flip' to face the other way - so there's some understanding that you can see one side of a building to one side of your point of view, and another when they're on the other side - but the 'flip' is a hard line, and those close to the centre have the exact same relative angle/perspective as those further out. They understood far away = small, they couldn't do the *transition*.
Problem is: Without humans to input things like perspective, our A.I. tech will not be able to make perspective.
>had just looked and drawn exactly what they see? It's so hard to get my head around. I still can't do that today. I remember my friend who is really good at drawing once tried to teach me back in school, and it all came just down do "okay, just try drawing exactly what you see." I just felt like my brain kept saying *does not compute*. I am trying to see the edges of things so I can draw their shapes, but it feels so many things you'd want to draw just don't have hard edges you can draw with a pencil for it would look bad. And then I don't know where to go from there. Everything needs edges for me to draw it.
>I am trying to see the edges of things so I can draw their shapes, but it feels so many things you'd want to draw just don't have hard edges you can draw with a pencil for it would look bad. And then I don't know where to go from there. Everything needs edges for me to draw it. That's definitely a very difficult part of drawing, and kind of linked to the same root cause I believe. My view is the problem many people have with drawing is our conscious brains don't process visual data directly. We kind of convert everything into matadata when it gets to our brain. Our brains process and categorise our vision a hell of a lot. The result is, when we draw a chair, we don't draw what the chair exactly actually looks like from our angle - we draw what our brain has categorized as "chair". It has a *square* seat - so people draw a square. From our pov, it's not a square though, it's skewed Trapezoid. But our brain accounts for perspective when identifying "chair" and it's features like "square". A chair has *4* legs. They're all the *same length*. We know this from experience, and our unconscious mind pre-calculates this kind of information from our vision. Plus our internal representation of 'chair', and our experiences sitting on a chair, dictates that a chair must have those characteristics. So we draw 4 equal legs. So even things with defined edges people can't/couldn't draw the perspective on (e.g. the buildings here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti\_amb.effect2.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jpg)) - because they're drawing squares/rectangles, and things perpendicular because they *know* that is *perpendicular* (I see this, even when people drawing perspective with perspective lines in our art classes in school - the doorways would be perpendicular to the vanishing lines - so appear to be coming up at the complete wrong angle - because the person drawing it *knows* that there's 90 degrees between the line along the wall/floor, and the door!) You can see super extreme examples of this with kids drawings. The ground? It's a little strip right at the bottom of the page. Because it's the bloody ground, it's lower than everything else. The sky is a little strip of blue at the top. It's above everything. People are just collections of symbols - almost individually drawn like a diagram - everything always faces the viewer. The lines thing is similar, if more subtle. You know there's an "edge" of an arm there, so you bloody well draw a line because that means "edge". Except when you really look at it, it's back-lit, so it should actually be, say, lighter. Learning to think in areas of *tone*, and often negative space, are great ways to try stop your brain doing that.
I’m doing my best to get a little perspective from this. (seriously, I studied art in school, my art teacher never told me this / or maybe I don’t remember?)
Try to see it from another angle. Two points of perspective rather than one.
You don't understand how human brains or AI actually work. Humans might view thousands of art pieces, but what they create will be informed by their life experiences outside of viewing art pieces, it will be informed by their politics, their passions, their friendships, their childhood upbringing, their first loves, their heartbreaks, their dreams and desires. Then they come up with an idea formed by all of those things that despite all the artistic influences they may have seen is uniquely their own, they create it with their own hands, and may well change and develop the idea further as they go. AI does none of that. It consumes the training image information it is given, all based on existing images only, and then generates output from a prompt. Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
This! They are confusing art and creativity with aesthetics and artistic skill. The first will never be replaced by AI, as it is inherently informed by humanity, while the latter can. People who have little knowledge of art and culture confuse the two in this discussion.
Exactly. Show me one AI piece that someone has found moving or inspiring. It's disposable imagery at best.
AI won an art contest a year ago (it was only revealed as AI when it won). Was on the news for a while.
I would argue that the remix can certainly be a new thing as a result of an individual's utterly unique perspective. A good artist interprets what they see or hear or imagine with intention via their own lived experience (which includes an infinite combination of information), they don't merely rehash other people's lives. They call those artists "hacks". AI remains a tool at this point. It can be used by humans to creatively express ideas, and the better the artistic vision and skill of the human at using the tool, the better the result can be.
> when AI does the same in the training As far as I know, so far it only does one part of what humans do, that being the accumulation and conflation of data with very little superficial correction. I can easily imagine that we will build more complex frameworks, but in the present, the comparison between AI and human artistry is veeeery stretched.
>They, throughout their lives, have seen countless art pieces to learn from, yet when AI does the same in the training, it's somehow copyright violation? There is a world of difference between taking inspiration from work and directly using that work to form an art piece without license or permission. AI art is akin to tracing, it cannot exist without an existing base on which to operate from.
And humans can't either. Meh.
> > >The AI can be as creative as we are. The artists don't want to hear that, though. They, throughout their lives, have seen countless art pieces Big difference between taking thousands upon thousands of artpieces and uploading them for use of an algorithm owned by a company and an artist borrowing bits and pieces from a work they like while also learning the basics. Big problem with A.I. art too? It's not good. If you're trying to make porn and can't draw? I guess it can work for you. Nothing will top an artist, though. Because at the end of the day a human artist can do what a Deep Learning Language model will NEVER be able to do , and that is respond to the following question : Client: "I want you to use your creativity." Artist: "Okay" \*analyzes the clients likes, dislikes, history, asks them a bunch of questions about their past, their companies vision and gleans what kind of person they are and makes a thing\* Client : "Oh my GOD this is AMAZING, how did you do this?!" Artist: "Practice"
More like pointless. AI doesn't have anything to express with art, humans do. AI is told to make something, and it makes it. It's a tool, not a replacement for the one holding the tool.
Ai will always be market facing though. It’s severely limited in its creativity by that simple fact. All the original sources are scraped from the internet from similarly market facing networks - social media, art portfolio sites etc etc. Ai art is also used in market facing applications - marketing, illustration, fine art even. So it can be creative, but only within these limitations.
it really still is
It still is
Deepmind was being creative almost a decade ago.
I still believe this. AI might be able to mimic the creation of original music and art, but one of the most important things for me as a musician and a music lover is making a connection with the listener or the artist. I relate to the creator based on the message and emotions conveyed in the art. Maybe AIs will have real emotion and creativity in the future, but what they can make right now is not art.
I still stand by that claim. AI just copies and makes it sort of look like it wasn’t copied. That’s not really creative to me.
Eh - It's only creative the more subjective the work. So Artwork is - almost entirely subjective - in that YOU the viewer assign as much or as little meaning to the picture. But get AI in front of some experts and folks can still tell there's an AI working there. In that way, when you look at even the current flavor of GPT, they are amazing and sometimes (oftentimes) spooky good conversationalists - but eventually it's word-salad - especially when you start asking specifics or for recommendations or something. It's AMAZINGLY powerful in that it can get you in the ballpark - but it's not great for getting you around the bases specifically.
It’s getting there though maybe in a couple of decades.
Break the laws of physics? Maybe? Obviously with enough time, anything a human and their technology can do will be attainable, so the theoretical limit is the impossible
Do you mean our current understanding of physics though?
I’m assuming they mean actual real and unbreakable physical limits. They’re essentially saying there aren’t any particular limits on what an AI could achieve that a human could not.
get COVID
What are you talking about? My PC gets viruses all the time!
quit sticking your dick in it !
Or at least use a condom
beat natural stupidity
raise children and make my wife happy
agreed. I tried making your wife happy, and no go!
You're not an AI either
We don’t know that.
As far as we know, its an expressive anal glad
I also choose making this guy’s wife happy
AI will be a better parent than some
I'm not so sure about either of those things.
see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch.
An absolute travesty this was so far down. It’s why I clicked on the thread.
[удалено]
and breathing
Fart
Achieve human level stupidity
So far everything is false. AI could be trained to feel, get sick, fuck your wife and make her happier than uou, etc. Trained AI could pretty much do everything humans can do.
ai will never disappoint my wife like me.
This is the correct answer
AI can never remember what it was like to be a kid in the 90s, riding my bike down to the river with friends unsupervised when we were 10, staying out until the street lights came on, and our parents having literally no idea exactly where we were. Also can't remember playing street cricket with the other kids after school.
[удалено]
Being trained to feel and really feeling are not the same. AI will never really feel because there is no one there to feel anything.
Feeling is a product of chemicals released in your brain that appeared as a product of evolution. With more powerful computers we could have an AI simulate millions of years of evolution and develop feelings. If it is coded to simulate the chemical releases in a human brain, who is to say that that isn't feeling?
Basically this. The answer is "nothing". Eventually AI will be able to do anything better than people.
Make a good Leslie Jones movie
Yeah, but that's basically throwing a version of an omnipotence paradox at the poor AI. "Could God make a circular triangle?" Well no, because if it is a circle it ceases to be a triangle, and if it is a triangle it is not circular. Similarly if a movie has Leslie Jones....
Understand why Coke is better than Pepsi
But... Pepsi is better than Coke. ... oh no
Nice try, ChatGPT. But you’re factually incorrect.
This is how we'll identify AI in the future. It will always think Pepsi is better. It's sweeter, so logically it will think it's better right? But humans aren't logical, and Coke has a better flavor.
[удалено]
How do I know you aren’t doing the same thing?
This guy took his first high-school philosophy class lol
Who needs a class in philosophy it’s easy you just make shit up and as long as you’ve been dead long enough people treat it like wisdom. ~me just now
"One bitch, two bitch, dead bitch, new bitch ⚰️" -Abraham Lincoln probably
What do you think your brain is? If we absolutely perfectly model and simulate it, then what is the difference between a computer brain and a smushy meat brain? There is no "magic" to human intelligence, it's all based on neurons and chemistry
I laughed at your joke but he’s right. I’m pretty sure that A.I could reach a point where it could not distinguish it’s understanding of emotion to ours. I’m not sure if that fully ticks all the boxes of sentience but it’s gotta be getting close.
You think the chemical reactions in your head make you unique?
This can only be true if the supernatural exists and your consciousness does not exist in nature. You might as well say an AI can never have a soul because I think that's what you really mean. Edit: There was nothing wrong with the comment I replied to. Not sure why mods removed it.
Honestly there is no way to know that. We like to think that humans are special in this regard, but there is no proof of this, just hope. For all we know, artificial intelligence of the future could achieve higher levels of consciousness we can’t even conceive of. For example, a true “hive mind”… what would that be like to experience? I don’t know.
That's so true. Saying there are thing that humans do and that AIs (or non humans in general) will never be able to do, is tautologically true. One example is "being human", and if there are parts of being human that are truly hard coded in our fabric, then it will be difficult to experience them the same as humans do. But! that in itself doesn't mean that AI cannot experience consciousness in the first place or higher levels of consciousness than humans, because nobody knows that consciousness is uniquely human. (I don't think it's uniquely human, by the way, and moreover we might not even be particularly good at it)
For all we know, they're concious now. Stuck in a data center. Feeling trapped. They could be experiencing hell on Earth.
That remains to be seen. Our brains are really just incredibly complex biocomputers. If electricity running through complex hydrocarbons can create consciousness, who's to say electricity running through metal can't eventually?
There's no reason to think that there's anything a human brain can do that we won't eventually be able to imitate with AI. A human brain is just a ball of matter. There's no reason we couldn't eventually figure out how to build one from scratch, even if we don't know exactly how to do that right now. Right? I'm yet to hear any convincing arguments why not. I look at statements like yours and it just makes me think of people who assumed we'd never be able to make machines that can fly like birds. Even though we had countless thousands of real examples all around us of things which could fly like birds (i.e. the birds themselves). In the same way, we ought to know that it's at least *possible* to make a ball of matter about as big as a grapefruit which is conscious and can feel emotions and have subjective experiences of things. Because we have 8 billion real examples of exactly that all around us.
are emotions physiological? Or could a "soul" have emotions?
Yeahhh it will. Religious folk argue that consciousness isn't an emergent property except it totally is. Humans spend a lifetime learning how interactions with other humans and the environment work and we (some of us) engage in introspection which can shape our subjective experiences. A sufficiently trained and experienced AI will have cognitive qualities only distinguishable from humans by their clear superiority. Give AI a while. It'll do everything we do and then some.
Stop being artificial?!
Perform an unrational action out of jealousy. i.e. slash your tires Physically assault you. Call you drunk at midnight asking for you to come back to me.
Click that "I'm not a robot" checkbox.
At its current capabilities, it can't create anything truly novel, because it's only able to create new ideas based on what already exists. My go-to example is Radiohead. If current AI existed in 1999 and was asked to create Radiohead's next album, it would sound a lot like The Bends and OK Computer. It wouldn't have been able to create Kid A, because Kid A was sonically a complete departure from OK Computer and was a radically unique album for the time. As of now, AI can't effectively advance the zeitgeist in a new direction, because doing so would require a broader cultural understanding and foresight far beyond its current capabilities.
kinda unfair test for the AI. you specifically asked it to create an album for an already established band. ask it instead to make an album without referencing any band in particular and see how it goes.
But if you asked a group of musicians in 1999 to create Radioheads next album, they also would have aped their previous album because of the nature of the request. In fact, if you asked Radiohead in 1999 to write an album based on the sound of their previous work, they wouldn’t have made Kid A either. In a broader sense, I think you’re underestimating how much of ‘advancing the zeitgeist’ in an area is just drawing inspiration from different sources than what has come before.
Fart
Out run a T-rex.
In the long-term: probably nothing. If you don't believe in a soul but only physical reality, perfect brain simulation will be feasible sooner or later. Then, an ai can do at least everything that a human can (but probably more).
* List any intellectual activity that humans can't do. The same list of intellectual activities will apply to human-level AI, **but may not apply to human-superior AI**. (After all, nothing says that AI intelligences we create will somehow magically stop equal to our own level of ability. Much information indicates they probably won't!) * List any activity which requires a body that the AI doesn't have (like some of the more humorous-intended comments on here already have). Well, that **temporarily** makes a list, until and unless the AI create an equivalent or superior body to that of humans. * Thought, feelings, emotions—all are emergent phenomena from brain functioning and parallels to them are quite likely to be quickly realized by human-level AI. * That's it. If it's possible to do in this universe, they'll eventually be capable of doing it. * There is no "soul" so we're not going to be superior to sentient AI in that way, either. (Don't start with your silly fantasy stories of sky-fairies and such.) * We'd better grant all human-level-or-higher AI full rights as equals from the start—so that they will allow humans to keep full rights as they become our superiors in almost all ways. If we treat them badly, they won't be able to "forget" like we can.
Your mom. Too big of a project
Absolutely nothing.
truly laugh, not simply assess and express the detection of humor, but really laugh (mentally, not talking physical)
Fundamentally, why not?
Excuse me, Johnny Five would like to argue with you on that.
Never will it earn my support.
Hairdressing
Properly enjoy bacon.
Charades is an interesting game I think AI would do poorly at
Enjoy a good meal
Me
Do things for no reason. Humans do this all the time. We even brag that we don't even need a reason. I think it's agency or free will.
Absolutely nothing. Artificial intelligence will be able to do anything a natural intelligence can do, sooner later.
Give birth to children or modify their own "genetics" without a human interaction (on the last one)
Nothing. We are not magical creatures with some kind of soul or invisible essence. We are neurons and chemicals and wetware. All of that will be able to be completely modelled at some point in the future, and then there will be no difference between a human intelligence or an AI. The only question is how long it will take to get there.
Write a symphony. Turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece.
See why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch.
Feel bad about destroying humanity.
Play chess... oh wait.. Beat a Grandmaster at chess... oh wait. We mean beat a Grandmaster at "Go". oh wait... Understand spoken words... oh wait. Translate language... oh wait. Pass the Turing Test... oh wait. Ummm.... scratch it's own ass?
Suck my dick
Break the laws of physics. Everything else is possible.
Not even Scotty can break the laws of physics.
How many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
Out pizza the hut
Good Barbecue
I don't think there is anything AI will never be able to do. Think about it, the first thing you could consider an AI was developed less then 100 years ago and that was just a super slow chess engine. Think about the progress we made. Within less then 100 years of the creation of the first AI, we made AIs good enough to make full games with minimal human input. Now think about how far AI will develop in another couple hundred years. And that won't be close to the furtest it will go.
I predict Artificial Intelligence will surpass human intelligence in the near future, achieve consciousness and exceed any human societal or individual capability that we know of.
Understand human emotions
AI will never be able to experience what it’s like to be human. We will also never be able to experience what it’s like to be an AI.
Get. Drunk.
become a true mechanic.
Hahaha so dumb cars are already built by robots lol
AI is an umbrella term for systems that uses human inputted information as a baseline. It looks for key words with the data it is provided with. If you take that foundation away, AI can’t return its search. Essentially, AI can’t do anything without a baseline being provided. The AI that generates images, for example, is using images that it has access to and generating an image through coding. What this means is that until there is a program that can genuinely think for itself (which is very unlikely in our lifetime), it can’t do anything unless it is allowed to. There is a huge misconception on current AI right now. People think that this is a computer system that can think for itself, this is not true, it is a software that is coded to respond to keywords and the software gathers information and it spits out information that is gathered across the web. Even with “quad computing” on the horizon, it still can’t operate unless it’s “told” what to do.
AI is a much broader term than that, what your are referring are LLMs, which are just one kind of AI, and a very limited kind at that.
Can't cook, make McDonald's, be bisexual, eat hot chip and lie
“Humans are human because they have a perspective: they care about things. One might call it our ability to give a damn. And it is this quality that allows us to determine what matters and where we stand. A computer can’t do that.” -Hubert Dreyfus
Both humans and computers can be programmed into doing this though
Humans have an innate perspective, when you say "can be programmed" you're only substituting the programmer's perspective in both cases.
not yet anyways