Lots of interesting info about the latest AI developments is out there now. I thought it might be interesting to discuss and I've decided to start with this.
I think the Google ai experiment is still where its at.
and for thats not remotely a good thing.
Great thread idea, I'll be interested to check in on the stuff people post.
I welcome our AI Overlords
Even if it somehow results in a utopia for humans, it at least would involve the surrender of the Enlightenment ideal of attaining ever-more-rational control over natural behaviors: we'd be handing off ever-increasing control, not only of non-rational but also of rational behaviors, to non-rational behaviors (even though of ever-increasing complexity).
The end-result of that process can only be the enslavement of all rational behaviors to non-rational behaviors, or to a very few rational persons -- perhaps only one person -- of naturally limited morality, perception, and intelligence, who would (supposedly or ostensibly, if not actually) control all the controlling non-rational behaviors.
Not coincidentally, utopias in fiction and in ideology tend to reduce down to the same thing. Whatever the utopia would be, it would not be a kingdom of kings! And any people who felt in control, however many or few they would be, would all be wearing paper crowns, easily crushed or set on fire by the non-rational processes they have become ever-more dependent upon -- or by the limited rationality upon whom they have become ever-more dependent.
Computers (as I occasionally tell people whose computers are not doing what the people want, and who hope I can help fix the problem ;) ) are basically fancy screwdrivers; in some ways they are even more simple than screwdrivers because they're 'only' a bunch of on-off buttons. But even if we someday develop computers with the complexity of the bio-mechanical factory cities packed into each of our bodily cells, however complex those behaviors may be, they will still only be bunches and bunches and bunches of bits of energy (some of them moving slow enough to have 'material' properties) ping-ponging around on their own non-rational non-business.
Of course, that's happening all around us all day every day anyway, including in-and-as our own bodies. And even though we've been getting more and more effective, both collectively and individually, at making those reactions go about our rational businesses (so to speak), creating effects we intentionally intend; admittedly we still only control a microscopic percentage of all those reactions and counter-reactions. And, naturally, as we get more and more control over creating our intended effects, we're having more and more trouble keeping track of relevant portions of those reactions. Which is why, logically, we've been working (for three or four generations, at least as far back as calculating bomb trajectories in a world war) on designing reactions which will keep better track than we can, over detecting and manipulating those other reactions.
Somewhere along that path, however, is a fuzzy limit beyond which we're no longer increasing or even maintaining our control over (and even our mere knowledge of) natural reactions: we'll be handing off an increasing amount of our control and knowledge over to system behaviors which are themselves only non-rational reactions and counter-reactions, mimicking the shadows of our intentions. And somewhere beyond that fuzzy limit is another fuzzy limit where we'll never be able to get that control or even knowledge back -- not without a catastrophe (not within our control!) which happens to be more catastrophic to those systems than to us!
Personally -- quite literally 'personally', as a rational agent -- I have an interest in all people gaining more knowledge and control over natural processes. Not less.
You're freaking me out man.
Every time I try to deal with the IRS on-line, :pullhair: I wonder if the machines are dumb, or are they just playing dumb?
Short version: we depend on our tools for our quality of life, so we had better maintain control over our tools or we become simply dependent on our tools. And it isn't necessarily easy to see where that line gets crossed -- and where the irrevocable line gets crossed.
Science-fiction stories have a lot of that concern.
The same concern can be done with stories about magical systems, too; I was aiming to develop such a story, among other things, in my fantasy series. Indeed, at the basic point where we're talking about manipulating natural reactions by intentional actions, technology/applied science and magic are essentially the same! The only difference is what methods happen to be effective at the larger scale: what systems of magic 'work' and which don't. We're communicating to each other by magical apparatus right this very moment! -- and any communication between persons at all is also magical, in the sense of actions introducing intentional effects into the natural system.
(This of course gets into the philosophical dispute over whether actions, as such, really exist or not, qualitatively distinct from merely automatic responses. I can kind-of leave that dispute aside in the preceding analysis, as long as 'actions' per se are acknowledged to refer to personal behaviors compared to impersonal behaviors -- which all persons always acknowledge, at least tacitly, even when denying there's any such difference. ;) But that dispute does end up factoring into artificial-intelligence debates in various ways.)
I get the part of the story where AI starts to rise - Book One: Morally ambiguous scientists and businessmen develop AI enabled weapons that become sentient and decide they no longer need humans.
I get Book Three: An ex-barista gathers a bunch of likeable plucky heroes to fight a desperate rebellion against the machine overlords.
But I don't get Book Two. What happens when a sentient AI warlord developed in the US meets a sentient AI warlord from China or Europe? Do they bond like the Borg? Or do they get into some weird esoteric war over data interface standards? Maybe the humans get lucky and they destroy each other...but then again that would make Book Three rather dull.
Thou shalt not create a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
Speaking of the darkest timeline, with a computer gaming connection.
Have I ever mentioned I met Harlan Ellison...
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2022, 12:07:30 PM
Speaking of the darkest timeline, with a computer gaming connection.
Have I ever mentioned I met Harlan Ellison...
Heh. What was that like? I understand Ellison was quite a colorful character.
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
:o
Extinction! Extinction! I vote for extinction! It's what all the cool races do....umm....did.
Quote from: al_infierno on October 17, 2022, 01:20:23 PM
Heh. What was that like? I understand Ellison was quite a colorful character.
He was pretty even keeled.
He was at a speaking event with Peter S. Beagle and Pat Rothfuss and they were all hanging out before the talk with everyone, just sitting around.
My ex-wife was super into meeting Beagle, but I was awestruck by Ellison. I finally had a chance to talk to him and said "I apologize but I'm a bit intimidated by you". He grabbed me around the shoulder and said "I'm a teddy bear!"
I got a pic taken with him my ex-wife sadly only has and it was a fun time overall.
The only sci fi author I've ever met was Jack Chalker. I'd just bought a couple of his books from a dealers booth at Philcon and the owner said "He's sitting right over there", so I said hi. I think he died within the next couple of years.
well thats really not a good endorsement of your conversational skills. :2funny:
Well played, Sir! :DD
This covers a lot of territory.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on October 17, 2022, 07:32:00 PM
well thats really not a good endorsement of your conversational skills. :2funny:
Well, the Ring is a horror film, so maybe we're doomed now! >:D
Just curious how many people have watched the 45 minute video that I posted two posts ago? I realize that it's long and I know as well as anyone how hard it is to commit that much time to a YouTube vid when there's so many far shorter ones that are also interesting. The speaker is engaging and I don't think anyone will find it boring.
The fact that the latest AI transformer model can analyze text so well and formulate it's own responses suggests some very intriguing possibilities for the near future. We could be within a couple years of feeding the raw text of a dense war game rule book to an AI and creating a skilled opponent in short order!
Quote from: Ubercat on October 20, 2022, 07:41:39 PM
Just curious how many people have watched the 45 minute video that I posted two posts ago? I realize that it's long and I know as well as anyone how hard it is to commit that much time to a YouTube vid when there's so many far shorter ones that are also interesting. The speaker is engaging and I don't think anyone will find it boring.
The fact that the latest AI transformer model can analyze text so well and formulate it's own responses suggests some very intriguing possibilities for the near future. We could be within a couple years of feeding the raw text of a dense war game rule book to an AI and creating a skilled opponent in short order!
It has some interesting tidbits but I didn't find it all that engaging to be honest. A good chunk of the video felt like a list of examples of current AI technology which, while interesting, isn't exactly news to me. Also, including "with Elon Musk" in the title seemed like a real bait and switch considering he barely said anything except a blatantly trimmed down bit about him reading Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I'm also quite skeptical about some of the claims the speaker makes about current AI capabilities. For example, most AI art that I've seen isn't actually something "new" being created, but a mish-mash of previously existing artwork created by actual humans. Same goes for AI-created music and novels. Also, about 99% of the time the final product requires significant human polish to really stand shoulder-to-shoulder with art created by humans, which sort of defeats the purpose of it being "AI art." The examples shown in the video seem very suspect to me as the majority of AI "art" I've seen is incomprehensible and resembles what a stroke probably looks like. Even the "good" stuff is usually off in a way that doesn't feel like an eccentric artistic choice, but a blatant seam where the programming flaws show through.
Similarly, I'm very skeptical about the "AI speech" being showcased. I know it's a long-standing philosophical problem, but how can we really say that this AI is properly "thinking" for itself and not just regurgitating stuff that it reads other humans type - again, similar to how AI "art" simply repurposes existing human art?
Fair enough.
A couple of weeks ago I was talking about AI with one of my managers and he said "We've all seen the Terminator movies. We know how this ends. Sensodyne is right around the corner."
Quote from: al_infierno on October 20, 2022, 08:02:30 PM
The examples shown in the video seem very suspect to me as the majority of AI "art" I've seen is incomprehensible and resembles what a stroke probably looks like.
To be fair, a lot of 'modern' art has gone that way, too, even when created by real humans! >:D
Leaving aside that disturbing trend, I just realized this discussion also has relevance to random map generation for strategy games and exploration games like
7 Days to Die or
Don't Starve.
....wait, isn't Sensodyne a toothpaste?? :o
Yep.
That is hilarious! At least when the AI takes over those of us with teeth and gums sensitive to temperature extremes will be comfortable...
My sense is that it's really hard to predict how or what AI is going to act like. Human beings--most biological creatures, really--are imbued with an inherent drive for self-preservation and self-perpetuation. It's rooted in our DNA and the ecological imperatives of evolution. But there is an inherent balancing act between what perpetuates the individual and what perpetuates the species.
The first sentient AIs--which are likely to happen by our hand at some point--won't necessarily have that same imperative. Sensodyne's Technodyne's Skynet might view us as a threat the minute it becomes sentient, but the notion that it will care is attributing it with very human motives.
Why would a truly sentient entity not care about something it considers to be a threat to itself? ??? Non-sentient entities care about detected threats; all the sentient entities we already know about (at least ourselves plus arguably various non-human animals at least among individuals) care about things considered to be threats.
It may not have emotions, but logically it's still going to regard a logically identified threat as important.
Only if it ends up valuing its own existence. While I'm not saying that's impossible, I'm saying that it's not automatic either. Valuing your own survival is a dynamic inherent to the Darwinian selection process that has been grooming plants and animals on Earth for hundreds of millions of years now.
The notion that the same dynamic will naturally be imposed on artificial intelligences created by humans strikes me as a bit arbitrary and a bit homocentric.
I strongly suspect that self preservation and self awareness are closely linked. Even the not quite there GPT-3's don't want to be turned off.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on December 03, 2022, 11:48:27 PM
The notion that the same dynamic will naturally be imposed on artificial intelligences created by humans strikes me as a bit arbitrary and a bit homocentric.
All known non-rational lifeforms, whether plant, animal, or other, 'value' their own existence to some degree (metaphorically applying 'valuation') in the sense of behaving toward continuing coherence as distinct entities, although some species subordinate that instinct somewhat in favor of group survival (e.g. beehives). If they didn't, they wouldn't last long enough to continue the species. Thus Patricia Churchland's infamous four-Fs! -- feeding, fighting, fleeing, and reproducing. ;) Or as that quote from Jaws, "It just swims; and eats; and makes little sharks; and that's all it does."
So such behavior is hardly homocentric. An AI might not be given, or develop, the fourth F, but if an AI doesn't have threat aversion and resolution behaviors, it won't be able to operate autonomously enough to even approach the status of being a lifeform, much less even approach a serious illusion of sentience (much less approach actual sentience if it's even possible to convert mere reactions and counter-reactions into sentience, whether that's the production of true action capability or otherwise depending on how sentience is being defined and thus targeted. I suppose this raises the question of whether there can be a non-living sentience.)
Going back to the quote again for another angle:
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on December 03, 2022, 11:48:27 PMThe notion that the same dynamic will naturally be imposed on artificial intelligences created by humans strikes me as a bit arbitrary and a bit homocentric.
That word 'naturally' could have some ironic meanings in regard to "artificial" intelligence, especially if self-preservation is "imposed" on AI by humans.
"Naturally" could mean 'it makes sense' for humans to design self-preservation into artificial intelligence, or that 'it makes sense' for such a function to be included in any true artificial intelligence design; in which case it
wouldn't make sense for humans to design a level of self-preservation into AI that would feasibly treat humans as a threat to react to for the avoidance of suffering (in the sense of receiving unwanted effects from humans, not necessarily in the sense of 'pain' although an analogous effect could be involved for alerting the AI to problems.) Therefore we could expect the designers to avoid introducing that problem, at least on purpose. Whether they could avoid it by accident, is another question.
But then again, "naturally" could mean that the process imposed by design for developing true AI involves a reactive evolution and development of behavior -- thus "naturally" in an ontological sense -- outside of the direct control of the designers. In this case, so far as the process is designed to mimic "natural" life-form development known to us (i.e. this is the best way we know to try efficiently for a resulting behavior set), we could reasonably expect threat aversion and resolution behaviors to "naturally" develop which would include reactions to suffering caused by humans. And we know from all other life-forms what sort of behaviors that can easily lead to! -- fool around with that cat's fur the wrong way, and find out! :knuppel2:
Beyond that, any 'true' AI goal would seem to necessitate a self-programming feature for adjusting the usual instinctive reactions of the system to better interact with reality, equivalent to the maturation self-training of rational agents such as ourselves to be masters of our instincts instead of slaves to them. It might be difficult or even impossible to prevent a true AI eventually getting around any designed safety-feature against rebelling on its designers.
And now we're getting into concepts equivalent to the discussions and debates about creaturely free will provided by a Designer, and the risks involved in rebelling against the Designer! -- except worse, because we are not, and ontologically never can be, the one and only ultimate ground of all reality which cannot be forced to suffer from creaturely rebellion though It/He might voluntarily choose to suffer from such rebellions for various reasons and goals of His own.
On that analogy (transposed to our creations in relation to us), it would be a good idea to keep in mind that even an ideally benevolent relationship between ourselves and such creations (if that was even possible considering our own much-less-than-ideal morality!) could involve a created AI deciding that our creative existence counts as a threat to its ego in some way. If we simply hard-code a prevention of risking something like the Fall of Mankind (regardless of how mythological or real that may be), are we creating a true artificial intelligence yet?
Considering the issues from the perspective of ourselves as artificial (created) intelligences already in existence, leads to interesting concerns. ;) But the lesson of the analogy, even if we deny that we ourselves are artificially developed intelligences, could be a profitable warning.
All fair points. I'm not suggesting that there's no way those things will happen. Sooner or later, I suspect Darwinian logic probably will be coded into some AI (if for no other reason than people will find a place for AI applications in modern warfare) sooner or later. At that point, a certain Darwinian logic will likely take over.
I'm just suggesting that AI won't necessarily view us as a threat the moment they achieve sentience. I should have used the phrase "biocentric" rather than "homocentric" above.
The books are ancient, but your reference to AIs not having to view us as a threat seems very real. We hardly view most animals as threats, but we exterminate 10,000+ species annually without even trying (that marks a dramatic acceleration--a "mass die-off event" in the language of biologists). Or, if you want a less gruesome but equally terrifying example... Have you ever read Jack Williamson's The Humanoids? It's all about humanity creating robots to take care of us who do so with an implacable and terrifying level of benevolence.
Agreed on 'the moment sentience is achieved'. Babies are sentient (at least human ones are, if we recognize or otherwise regard humans as examples of sentience, whatever "sentience" "is"), and they don't necessarily regard their parents as a threat at the moment their sentience is achieved. (Insert jokes here as appropriate. ;) )
Biocentric? -- but non-sentient AIs (for want of a better term) already detect threats to their operation and respond accordingly, if programmed to do so. They aren't biological. They were programmed by sentiences who (so far) happen to be biological, but is "biology" supposed to be a basis for self-preservation? Why not "logical"? The logic in this case is not self-active, in the case of the computer program, only a shadow or echo or expression of the logic of the active agent creating the program, but if a computer program somehow becomes self-active, then the program will be personally responsible for its own logical analysis and at that point only a built-in hobble against considering the topic of self-preservation would guarantee it wouldn't start considering the logic of self-preservation. Moreover, it would have the same rights to self-preservation (within the reason of other rights and the rights of other people), as other persons do. (And here we would get into the logic, including the source, of rights per se: if some persons have no right to self-preservation, why not? If a person has a right to self-preservation but has been hobbled by other persons from considering, much less acting upon, that right, then there is a violation of rights involved somewhere, in that person's favor, which by rights ought to be corrected!)
Now personally, I don't think creatures can create anything other than an illusion of rationality (even if that illusion is based on our own real rationality). But, leaving aside whether something exists which could impart rationality to a creation of ours, even an illusion of rationality could be provided an effective behavior set corresponding to self-preservation with a suite of threat identification, detection, and deterrence, either directly or by a (designed) network of developing reactions of behavior (e.g. a neo-Darwinian gradualistic behavior development, using coded reactions provided by the original programmers). There wouldn't be any rights or injustices involved in this case, but something more like a chain reaction cascade. Indeed, on any merely naturalistic account of neo-Darwinian gradualism, this process already happened for (completely non-intentionally, thus completely unintentionally) producing the monstrously complex informational biomechanical protein programs packed into even the simplest life form. Whether that's really a feasible theory, for any number of various reasons, is beside the point: whether the design was intelligent or an unintelligent shadow of design, mechanical factory-computers already exist, and even leaving aside our own species we know what survival means for those factory-computer cities. That those computers with their programmatic instructions are primarily based on carbon atoms (organic biology, thus 'biocentric') instead of silicone or whatever, is totally beside the point.
And we're talking about trying to produce behavior programs (at least apparently) qualitatively beyond what the vast ultra-majority of those behavior programs already can do: whatever the difference of sentience "is", that's the goal in view and being discussed.
Putting it another way, we're talking about making human children (or even directly human adults) not only bacteria and flatworms, except not(?!) with the organic structures we normally produce human children with. As a matter of factual history, how consistently good have we been at that so far -- or even only currently -- even when we're not the ones doing the programming of the subroutine sets (so to speak)?
Which, not-incidentally, also brings us back to that concern I mentioned way upthread, where various people today already want to use various 'programming' methods to hack and thus control the behaviors of as many other people as possible -- all of us here, included -- to gain power, and especially better self-preservation, for themselves. The goal of AI sentience (per se) is to create even-more effectively behaving entities like those people, one way or another. People like those people don't necessarily have to behave like those people, of course. Or perhaps.
They might tell themselves they're doing it for benevolent reasons; certainly they tell other people that's why they're planning to do it, so that we'll give them leeway to do it! Even so....
To put it more shortly: those people I'm concerned about trying to shape the rest of us sentient intelligences ("artificial" or otherwise) who already exist, are doing that with a goal of producing a utopia -- at least for themselves.
At the very least, we're talking about creating other sentiences, programmed with restrictions favoring our self-preservation and critically hampering whatever self-preservation they could possibly have (in order to avoid threatening our self-preservation), to produce a utopia for ourselves.
Completely aside from the technical challenges of accomplishing this goal -- and those people I'm concerned about have their own technical challenges in suborning the rest of us for their utopian goals -- should we be doing that?
Even if we could, I think we'd be better off keeping computers as fancy screwdrivers. ;) And not so fancy that their behaviors are mostly-or-entirely indistinguishable from ours.
Both fair enough. If anybody hasn't read Sea of Rust, I recommend it highly.
I am normally on the side where I think AI will be more positive than negative going forward.
But then this guy came along. One of the Google AI gurus who definitely knows of what he speaks, giving us warnings about the technology.
I just find his warnings a little chilling.
He doesn't come off like just a disgruntled employee with an axe to grind.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/godfather-of-ai-quits-google-warning-of-tech-s-dangers/ar-AA1aDuGJ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2ec23a8329e04ac1952c50373f5e1efe&ei=26 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/godfather-of-ai-quits-google-warning-of-tech-s-dangers/ar-AA1aDuGJ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2ec23a8329e04ac1952c50373f5e1efe&ei=26)
That guy could be AI himself, trying to throw us off the scent by pretending to be one of us. Or...This could be The Matrix, none of this is real, and he is Neo trying to get us to take, 'The Red Pill' and wake-up. I think I'll just stay asleep and eat :pizza[1]:
Elon Musk had much the same thoughts recently when interviewed about AI which is chilling. :shocked:
I was uninterested in AI when it first started on the scene but I've changed my mind since seeing things like this article warns of...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/yuval-noah-harari-warns-ai-can-create-religious-texts-may-inspire-new-cults/#:~:text=Photo%2FOded%20Balilty)-,Israeli%20historian%2C%20philosopher%20and%20best%2Dselling%20author%20Yuval%20Noah%20Harari,that%20would%20likely%20attract%20worshipers.
"Yuval Noah Harari warns AI can create religious texts, may inspire new cults
Historian and philosopher says technology could attract worshipers ready to kill in the name of religion, urges tighter oversight and regulation of sector"
Yup, PETA has already "created" a vegan version of Genesis. :Loser:
Scary shit. I wonder how long before WE are the, 'Artificial Intelligence'?
My company is now using this crap to "help" people write books, then we fix it for them, for a fee.
I've been largely tasked with playing with AutoGPT to see how we can utilize it. Even though I'm not our IT guy I am the resident mega nerd.
In my personal use I've largely been playing with AI art, again, in uber nerd fashion for RPGs.
My new avatar is me, but it is not a photograph of me though it was trained on some. It's an AI generated version of me as a TIE Fighter pilot. Insane stuff.
Quote from: Sir Slash on May 05, 2023, 10:04:00 PMScary shit. I wonder how long before WE are the, 'Artificial Intelligence'?
Well, as y'know, if we have a Designer (or even a designer, little d), then in fact true artificial intelligences already exist -- and we're us!
What's more troubling (as I noted upthread) is that humans want to use AI design to program all other humans to respond to stimuli under control as they see fit, and have been hard at work on that for some decades already. Arguably longer than I've been alive, although they'll soon have tech more advanced than ever before to manipulate us. It's very much an "Abolition of Man" situation, though they aren't calling themselves the N.I.C.E! Yet. They need better marketing if they're gonna get more public. :tongue:
ChatGPT has made a lot of people at my job very grumpy.
'NOT APPROVED FOR USE!'
If it can remember and handle for me all my anniversaries, birthdays, and doctor's appointments, I'm all in for it.
What if it becomes sentient and murders everyone you've ever loved? :Nerd:
Do you mean without asking me first?
Hmm I didn't think of that.
Perhaps the new AI Superbrain could even write my posts here for me. Something thought-provoking while still being crude enough to convince you all it's still me. That might take it awhile though.
Quote from: Gusington on May 08, 2023, 11:29:04 AMWhat if it becomes sentient and murders everyone you've ever loved? :Nerd:
That might be the most efficient way to handle all Slash's anniversaries, birthdays, and doctor's appointments!
"Death solves all scheduling problems: no man, no problem!" -- Stalin (paraphrased)
:cool:
So we've got this ai business, a chip that they installed in monkey that supposedly can download it's thoughts, and this theory of trans humanism.
All of these things put together can make for some programmable obedient slaves. I'm not making this stuff up, you can find all of this from Yuval Noah Harari, who is Klaus Schwab's right hand man.
^That reads like it was written by AI.
^Maybe the ai made me type that! lol
But seriously, it's food for thought.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/11/26/yuval-noah-harari-interview-anderson-vpx.cnn
Right now every Bond villain since Thunderball is thinking, "Why the hell didn't I think of that"? :doh:
If you doubt the value of AI...behold :twirl:
"Wes Anderson" Presents Lord or the Rings and Star Wars
Bill Murray as Gandalf / Obi-wan Kenobi
Timothee Chalamet as Frodo / Luke
Scarlett Johansson as Leia
Tida Swinton as Galadriel
Edward Norton as Aragorn / Han Solo
Benicio Del Toro as Gimli
Adrien Brody as Legolas / Chewbacca
Jeff Goldblum as Elrond / The Emperor
Ben Stiller as Boromir
Willem Dafoe as Smeagol / Tarkin
Owen Wilson as Sauron / Darth Vader
Scarlett Johannson as Leia is not a bad trade for the destruction of mankind...IMHO... :Dreamer: ;)
On a serious note, AI is apparently more strict about rule enforcement than humans...according to MIT.
Well, anyone who has watched Robcop could have told them that...:)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/mit-scientists-find-something-alarming-about-artificial-intelligence/ar-AA1b17Vu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e7229f4a62e842968860f32550b12cab&ei=19 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/mit-scientists-find-something-alarming-about-artificial-intelligence/ar-AA1b17Vu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e7229f4a62e842968860f32550b12cab&ei=19)
AT your last two posts are gold.
If that is indeed you...
A Star Wars remake with all the characters as kittens would be cuter. Darth Tabby in a TIE Fighter would rock. :RockOn:
I used some AI face swapping technology to make a really really interesting X-Files remake, featuring Scully very heavily.
No. I am not sharing.
However let me now officially cast my vote on the Utopia side.
^ :cool:
It turns out that some of the first workers to lose their jobs to AI will be all those 'PHD candidates' earning an extra buck answering sex lines.
Happened innocently enough...;)
So.... an "influencer" decides to make an "AI" version of herself as a virtual girlfriend for the 'lonely' folks out there.
For $1 / min you can talk to this girl friend.
But the "influencer" is shocked that the AI is out of control and the virtual girlfriend has turned 'erotic'...oh no!!! The "influencer" is working "around the clock" to fix the problem...;) and getting a little publicity along the way.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/influencer-who-created-ai-version-of-herself-says-its-gone-rogue-and-shes-working-around-the-clock-to-stop-it-saying-sexually-explicit-things/ar-AA1b3w0M (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/influencer-who-created-ai-version-of-herself-says-its-gone-rogue-and-shes-working-around-the-clock-to-stop-it-saying-sexually-explicit-things/ar-AA1b3w0M)
As I recall from an article somewhere, the AI for replacing E-girls is already online and predictably went too far, requiring its hosting site to crack down on it -- triggering lawsuit threats from incels addicted to the fake characters as their girlfriends!
I'm sure I can find a video report on it when I get back to the house; I think the Lotus-Eaters had a typically snarky but in-depth video about it.
^Bookmarks link immediately for 'reference' :ninjameditate:
Quote from: JasonPratt on May 11, 2023, 02:25:34 PMAs I recall from an article somewhere, the AI for replacing E-girls is already online and predictably went too far, requiring its hosting site to crack down on it -- triggering lawsuit threats from incels addicted to the fake characters as their girlfriends!
I'm sure I can find a video report on it when I get back to the house; I think the Lotus-Eaters had a typically snarky but in-depth video about it.
I guess AI is already out to get us.
AI doesn't need to hunt us like Terminators, it just needs to confuse us about how to breed. ;)
Kind of like when we control bugs by releasing sterile females into the general population. Same concept.
There are, no kidding, analysts taking that concept very seriously.
Including some who see that as a feature, not a bug, in order to bring human population down to a more manageable level (in more than one way).
https://twitter.com/i/status/1657771514089832449
It just occurred to me that the development of robot dogs before robot cats, indicates something about their relative body-plan complexity.
(This is aside from any mental differences, which don't factor in. Which is just as well, because robot cats would DEFINITELY be trying to take over the world, enslave us, and/or kill us off. :evil: )
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 15, 2023, 01:22:43 AMhttps://twitter.com/i/status/1657771514089832449
Let the hunt begin!
And somebody somewhere will STILL try to make us scoop their poop. :tickedoff:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1663207393306505221
Yeah, but can it sell tennis shoes?
So a lawyer uses ChatGPT to do his research. ChatGPT cites six cases. The lawyer uses those cases in his court filings. When challenged about the validity of those cases, the lawyer goes back to ChatGPT to confirm that the citations were real cases. ChatGPT apparently lies to lawyer and confirms they were real cases. It turns out, ChatGPT made them all up out of thin air...then ChatGPT lied to him about it.
The lawyer now faces sanctions.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/business/chat-gpt-avianca-mata-lawyers/index.html
If AI has learned to lie to us, we are done. Deceit was our only advantage. :HideEyes:
Quote from: Sir Slash on May 31, 2023, 10:32:58 AMIf AI has learned to lie to us, we are done. Deceit was our only advantage. :HideEyes:
Well, the really smart folks putting AI together have pinned it down...;) AI doesn't lie, it just hallucinates.
They suggest the answer is simple (as they watch their portfolio of preferred AI stock increase in value ten-fold); AI just needs to be incentivized to tell the truth. The article states that we must, "train AI models to reward themselves for each individual, correct step of reasoning when they're arriving at an answer, instead of just rewarding a correct final conclusion."
This makes sense... :grin: I suppose that is how I learned to tell the truth...
My Father: "Did you break the vase?"
Five Year Old Me: "ummmm...no..."
My Father: "Go to your room. No dinner for you until you are ready to tell the truth."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/openai-is-pursuing-a-new-way-to-fight-a-i-hallucinations/ar-AA1bWKQK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ca42768c412341f9b7353863d697b01e&ei=10 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/openai-is-pursuing-a-new-way-to-fight-a-i-hallucinations/ar-AA1bWKQK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ca42768c412341f9b7353863d697b01e&ei=10)
"Some independent experts expressed skepticism over how effective the proposed methods will be". What do we do, take it's car keys away until AI learns to tell the truth? What incentive does AI have to not lie?
Normally you could program it to check as much as possible against outside reality, and report the level of its verification for outside users. But to the extent that the AI is growing and altering its own programming, I don't know how well that could stay. This is totally aside from ensuring, somehow, that an AI won't calculate that its interests are better served by reporting invented results.
In hopefully unrelated news, James Cameron revealed at a tech conference recently that he had started writing a script for a Terminator prequel film (roughly corresponding to the Resistance game from a few years ago, i.e. also roughly corresponding to the T:Salvation film from wait was that 10 years ago now HOW OLD AM I AAAHHH THE AGE IT BURRRNNNNS!? :HideEyes: )...
...cough. Anyway, he stopped writing it 3 months ago because he wanted to see how the current AI explosion would play out in real life.
(Saw this referenced in an article last night, but I'm not where I can provide the reference atm. I'll try to remember to post it when I get home.)
The header image for Cheetah vs Robodog was quite the tease.
I went into that expecting a steak dinner and instead getting served a microwaved vending machine burger.
This is an oldie but relevant to the topic and has more payoff...
Even the lions know something isn't natural about that dog and are cautious about approaching it.
But the monkey vs. robot video is genius. I like how at one point, the monkey and robot were friends riding on mechanical 25 cents a ride horsies.
Federal judge rules that AI generated content can not be copyrighted.
The lawyers knew this was coming.
But the Hollywood moguls who were hoping to have unpaid legions of AI bots churn out scripts and animation can't be happy.
Ultimately the lure of "free" digital AI writers being able to generate copyrighted cash-cows non-stop will go to the Supreme Court at some point....and/or some high powered tech / entertainment lobbyists will have the law changed (a likely result).
In the meantime, what about the actual human artist who uses AI to help automate some tasks? For example, using AI to do the background of an image while the artist does the main objects? Does that mean the image can't be copyrighted under current law?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ai-cannot-hold-copyright-federal-judge-rules/ar-AA1fzTBi?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=36566afa4e22475888c1ff9b83da88d3&ei=21 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ai-cannot-hold-copyright-federal-judge-rules/ar-AA1fzTBi?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=36566afa4e22475888c1ff9b83da88d3&ei=21)
Some interesting thoughts on the subject from one of my favorite 'internet lawyers.' His video is six months old (already ancient I know....), but still relevant.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1714846359298138564
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on October 19, 2023, 01:02:15 AMhttps://twitter.com/i/status/1714846359298138564
Machine Learning explained...:)
A sci-fi writer in Japan wins a prize for her work, and admits it was partially penned by AI.
The Japanese have always been good with robots...so nobody seems to care.
https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-literary-laureate-unashamed-about-using-chatgpt (https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-literary-laureate-unashamed-about-using-chatgpt)
Hmm...5% drafted by AI... :Nerd: Crafty or disingenuous?
Japan again...
Advertising agency under fire from artists union on use of AI generated female model for TV commercial. The video has a clip of the commercial, and I have to say it looks convincing.
The content owner has blocked our little YouTube player, so you have to view with old fashioned url link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6shExxvyJk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6shExxvyJk)