/lit/ - Literature

e.

/thread

>>16061302
ai assisted writing could be a great tool for beginners

AI dungeon appeared year ago. Just imagine what we will get several years later.

>>16061401
AI dungeon 2?

>>16061401
The really scary thing is that at this point, the reading doesn't seem non-sensical, and the AI can understand all sorts of things that you put into it. It all reads like some trite bad fiction you'd find at dollar-stores selling airport literature; but right there is the scary foreboding part. It means it can comprehend human langauge and create an infinite amount of stories with it now. The difference between what sounds to us like "bad literature" and the work of a genius is as small to a machine as the improvement it attains through just a single generation of computer changes. Just think about the first computers designed to play Chess, and then what happened to Garry Kasparov - World Champion - right after they started learning to perfect it. Now think about what Deeplearning is capable of doing; and you'll see we writers will be overwhelmed by AI in a way that we won't be able to compete with the machines.

>>16061417
Shut up, bugman.

>>16061401
The really scary thing is that at this point, the reading doesn't seem non-sensical, and the AI can understand all sorts of things that you put into it. It all reads like some trite bad fiction you'd find at dollar-stores selling airport literature; but right there is the foreboding part. It means it can comprehend human langauge and create an infinite amount of stories with it now. The difference between what sounds to us like "bad literature" and the work of a genius is as small to a machine as the improvement it attains through just a single generation of computer changes. Just think about the first computers designed to play Chess, and then what happened to Garry Kasparov - World Champion - right after they started learning to perfect it. Now think about what Deeplearning is capable of doing; and you'll see we writers will be overwhelmed by AI in a way that we won't be able to compete with the machines.

>>16061421
Make me, you filthy nigger.
(this was all written by AI by the way.)

>>16061424
just imagine the cooms

>>16061424
>intelligence

>>16061424
i thought there were birds smarter than chimps

>>16061432
>just imagine the cooms
yeah I know, right? Imagine you just having to press a button on some internet site that automatically reassigns your crush's face to any pornographic JOI video and then you can absolutely nut your dick into oblivion seeing your favorite girl doing a JOI roleplay. Imagine voice AI decoding her voice and telling you to nut inside her etc. It's the greatest thing that I hope for in the future tbqh ngl.

>>16061468
i was thinking more along the lines of ai dungeon. ive already used it several times to coom, its incredibly erotic. however the possibilities with vr and such are also undeniable, the future will be kind to us coomers

>>16061490
Some anon on /v/ kept saying that incest never felt so heartwarmingly erotic (in the good sense) than with this new AIdungeon game. It looks like it was designed to be particularly proficuous to write sexual stories in it and is sort of what I said, bad fiction. But we're getting into the "oh it doesn't do a great job right now, but just wait a few years (or maybe months!) and it will get better than any human in history. All of literature, good or bad, will become superfluous if things keep on going this way; just like in Go, which people thought was an unbeatable game but made the literal best human player in the World retire cause it just beat the fuck out of him. Those things are just scary, man; we're gonna be radically outplayed.

>>16061525
i read that thread, that anon was letting the ai do all the heavy lifting. you have to use creative prompts if you want results. ive so many incredible cooms when playing with this ai, its absolutely incredible. for example, i made my character fuck a dragon just for the sake of it but when the ai started describing how the ruthless pounding fractured your pelvis, i was truly invested and eventually came buckets to something i was never that into. its the first piece of entertainment that can tailor-make porn for you. however, it has limitations and doesnt seem to deal with many characters or overarching plots well. it can mostly handle short adventures and cooms.

>>16061586
What sorts of things have you fapped to so far, anon? Are you into incest?

>>16061586
Sometimes you only have time for a short coom anyway

Harari had some good points about AI writing stories. There are possible scenarios in which computers can learn about human (or even each person's) emotions in a very practical, phisical manner, monitoring our reactions and learning what is moving and what is not. I think Harari overestimates the pace of progress in general, but his arguments and visions are worth consideration.

>>16061595
no, i've mostly been dealing with fantasy creatures. I once made a eccentric wizard who was determined to save threatened species by turning them into cute girls and impregnating them. the lengths he went to find an elder dragon was truly impressive since the apparently all the dragons had gone extinct in this world. however, some powerful dragons managed to escape their fate by using magic to travel to another dimension. my wizard found one of them and made her into his concubine. what's even more funny is that when the eccentric wizard shared his findings with other magic users, he was ruthlessly bullied and ridiculed. it was amazing

>>16061629
yeah, it's so weird. The first time I played AI Dungeon the first thing that came up was that the MC was a knight travelling to get to a castle to kill a dragon and he found a maiden along the way who wanted the sex. It seems like the AI is always directed towards that.

>he was ruthlessly bullied and ridiculed.
Are you into bullying girls lol?

>>16061424
It's not 'understanding' anything, you stupid moron.

The AI is nothing but madlibs + Markov chains. (I'm exaggerating a bit, but only slightly.)

The impressive results are only because they pumped an Internet's worth of texts into it.

>>16061646
I have to make the sexy times happen but it's as easy as 'ask to see tavern girl naked'

>>16061671
>It's not 'understanding' anything, you stupid moron.
What does it even "mean" to understand, you retard? If the machine can absolutely THRASH you, ranging from Go to Chess, what does it even matter if it "understands" it, or not? What does that even mean? Machines can't ultimately "understand" certain X thing; but you have to also ask yourself: Do humans?

>>16061672
Oh yeah, right now I'm making some sexy stuff right now and it's so good. I can understand fully the appeal of it; it's so good to just imagine all those sexual scenarios it's so good.

>>16061424
After just 2 (two) imputs , AI dungeon mixed up my character and the NPC I was talking to, now I'm a store owner

>>16061696
You have to make it clear and unambiguous so that the AI doesn't get its inputs mixed over; you probably used ambiguous language. You have to make it simple to make the AI start doing its magic more productively.

>>16061646
>Are you into bullying girls lol?
no, it was just funny how the ai recognized how strange my character was for mating with all kinds of magical beings. they other mages just laughed and made fun of him. it felt like a really natural interaction

>>16061696
its really bad with names, i usually avoid naming my character for that reason. just reroll until it gets it right

>>16061689
>it's so good to just imagine all those sexual scenarios it's so good.

>write that you're raping someone
>It changes it to "respect" instead
Pretty retarded since it lets you do a lot of other stuff, but this made me laugh

>>16061671
The thing is, it will always keep getting better.

It's not a reason to stop writing though.

>>16061830
I suspect we'll have perfect mimicry of human speech in at least one language long before we have anything approaching a computer that is conscious.

>>16061803
rape is one of the few banned words, which is really stupid. the ai is actually quite fond of rape and its very easy to get around. just write "pin her arms behind her back" or something similar and the ai will take care of the rest

>>16061689
You're a retard. Chess and go are closed games that are mathematically predictable. Go only had to be figured out in the early game, which was admittedly quite a task, but after that it is almost entirely predictable, especially the end game.
Language and communication is open. If Go has the possible games of all the stars in the universe than language has at least that multiplied by itself.
Just look at the AI symphonies, the one everyone always claims is so great is just a rehash of the Schindler's List theme. AI 'art' is the equivalent of a distorted mirror, nothing more.

>>16061424
I took a 7-day free trial of the Dragon engine which I believe runs on gpt-3 instead of gpt-2 like the free version. It's quite impressive and I think great swathes of writers would be put out of a job with even the most basic applications of it

However it still shits the bed when given a string of homonyms or idiosyncratic language

>>16061830
>The thing is, it will always keep getting better.
You're an absolute potato-tier moron if you really think it will "always" keep getting better.

It's pretty obvious that, for example, jet airplanes will not "always" keep getting better; in fact, jet airplanes are done, the design reached a local optimum and there's no reason or capacity for the design to change. (After all, the basic design of the horse cart hasn't changed much in 5000 years.)

How hard it is for you to understand that GPUs + mathematical statistics is a combination that can be milked for some low-hanging gains, but will eventually, too, reach a local optimum?

>>16061860
>It's pretty obvious that, for example, jet airplanes will not "always" keep getting better; in fact, jet airplanes are done, the design reached a local optimum and there's no reason or capacity for the design to change. (After all, the basic design of the horse cart hasn't changed much in 5000 years.)
AI has been used to design structural parts that are more efficient than the ones typically designed by engineers. One such example is an interior panel in an airplane that was some fraction of the original's weight. Or the chassis of a car.

>>16061849
>Go only had to be figured out in the early game, which was admittedly quite a task, but after that it is almost entirely predictable, especially the end game.
And what makes you think that written works are any different? You could very well argue that what a writer is doing is "playing games" against himself, to find out the best moves that make the most sense out of what he can do with language, and he's just trying to get the best move.

>AI 'art' is the equivalent of a distorted mirror, nothing more.
Also, this is just plain wrong. There's this common misconception that AI can't be creative, which is totally wrong. In fact, AI can in some cases be even more creative than humans in some instances, as it can make up a whole array made up of infinite moves that humans just can't do it. Take up chess, for example. Back then, we thought it was an "art", but it really is not; it's just like everything else; and since then there have been countless new moves that have been discovered by computers that humans hadn't even come up by the time from so complex that they are right now. In regards to language, it's the same thing; it's made of some character inputs made onto the computer just in the same way that moves on chess are made on a board. No matter how complex the board, it is always ultimately a certain combination of pieces in specific places. With books, they're all essentially made of a certain combination of words onto the page - there's no essential difference, but only one of degree; which requires more computational power and better software-design. That's it.

>>16061931
I'm so impossibly angry at how retarded your post is I'll have to spend at least 30 mintues seething before I can glut your brains out you worthless shitstain

>>16061851
Can you just imagine what sorts of things they'll be able to come up with by the time we're on 2025? By then, all written works will just be like samples of what AI constructs

>>16061949
wow, congratulations on having absolutely no argument, you absolutely fuckwit. You should do us all a favor and just commit suicide cause that's the absolute best you can do, for yourself and for us, faggot.

thispersondoesnotexist.com

>>16061671
What exactly do you think your brain is doing when it spits out a sentence? Why do you 'automatically' spit out phrases with 'good grammar' on the fly that express a coherent idea, even when you seemingly haven't thought them through to their end consciously and couldn't explain how you are doing this if you wanted to?

>>16061887
Are you literally a mongoloid? You literally gave an example of diminishing returns, how in the fuck do you extrapolate AI "always" getting better from that?

For sure you can make a horse cart with a titanium axle, does that mean horse carts will "always" keep getting better and eventually take us to Alpha Centauri?

Holy cow, the levels of potato-tier mouthbreathing in this thread make me want to smash my laptop in rage.

>>16061931
>you could very well argue
you've never written a sentence of prose, that's not how it works
read a book on the psychology of writing
>chess
did you just use chess as art? The only way anybody ever meant the word art is the equivalent of the greek techne, expertise, nobody thought of it as an actual artform and there's no reason to think so. It is mathematically close, which is why ai works so well
>With books, they're all essentially made of a certain combination of words onto the page - there's no essential difference, but only one of degree; which requires more computational power and better software-design
proof? You're making an erroneuous claim without a zilts of evidence
>>16061976
>What exactly do you think your brain is doing when it spits out sentences
if you have an answer to this that you can backup with actual evidence then congratulations you solved linguistics

>>16061931
Your reasoning is very flawed.

Chess is a game played according to fixed rules.

Language is the process of how we invent rules.

Can't compare.

>>16061949
It's true though. Nobody would find it ever comprehensibly possible for there to be an essentially infinite amount of photos of people that don't even exist, like pic related, for example. I've found out that most literature is essentially the same thing - it's basically an extremely complex ligature of words that fit in a certain way that make sense to each other, communicating amongst themselves; but still, there is a certain aspect of uncertainty regarding the exact precise meaning of words, and they might get complex; but this is only the result of the open-ended nature of language itself and some things that we have not yet been able to understand fully, but give it some time, and we will. And the result will be that the creation made by machines will excell everything that any human has ever come up with. What is thispersondoesnotexist.com, for example? It works by making a huge reassembling with the deepAI from a huge database of images and always improves itself based on improving the results it makes against itself; and it continually improves the images to the point it makes them completely indistinguishable from real people. The same is with literature, essentially. After having gone through extensive writing programs I've noticed that writing can basically be done by "taking a little bit of Dostoevsky here, Tolstoy there, Nabokov here" and at the end you can even end up with a completely new "style" that is just the end result of a combination of others'; but the thing is, the style of the writers themselves are often just that - others' style mixed together to create something (apparently) completely new. Now, I could get deep into the philosophy of language of all of it but I suppose you're too much of a dumbass to get it, faggot.

>>16061976
First comes the word, then the meaning. A lot of times our brain will just rearrange words and we think first the language, and then we find out its meaning after.

>>16061949
It's true though. Nobody would find it ever comprehensibly possible for there to be an essentially infinite amount of photos of people that don't even exist, like pic related, for example. I've found out that most literature is essentially the same thing - it's basically an extremely complex ligature of words that fit in a certain way that make sense to each other, communicating amongst themselves; but still, there is a certain aspect of uncertainty regarding the exact precise meaning of words, and they might get complex; but this is only the result of the open-ended nature of language itself and some things that we have not yet been able to understand fully, but give it some time, and we will. And the result will be that the creation made by machines will excell everything that any human has ever come up with. What is thispersondoesnotexist.com, for example? It works by reassembling with the deepAI from a huge database of images always improving itself based essentially "playing" against itself; to the point it makes the images completely indistinguishable from real people. The same is with literature, essentially. After having gone through extensive writing programs I've noticed that writing can basically be done by "taking a little bit of Dostoevsky here, Tolstoy there, Nabokov here" and at the end you can even end up with a completely new "style" that is just the end result of a combination of others'. But the thing is, the style of the writers themselves are often just that - others' style mixed together to create something (apparently) completely new. Now, I could get deep into the philosophy of language of all of it but I suppose you're too much of a dumbass to get it, faggot.

>>16061976
First comes the word, then the meaning. A lot of times our brain will just rearrange words and we think first the language, and then we find out its meaning after. First thing we do is teach the child the word, then the meaning.

>>16061931
Problems like this are quite understated; most random assertions about AI are underpinned by competing, equally believable, but also (sometimes fatally) unexamined theories of language & language acquisition

the well-poisoning is that a "computer input" is already bounded by its character encoding - the reason that permutations of unicode characters can be easily parsed and instrumentalized is because it's already limited to the set of unicode characters, in the same way chess is bound by its rules. If you just invented some nonsense symbols on paper an AI wouldn't be able to make sense of it, although another person might. Next thought - what is an analog idiosyncrasy bound by? If I drew this sequence of items: [hand making a peace sign] [unfolded cube] "+1" [banana], would an AI "figure it out" or not?

>>16062032
>Nobody would find it ever comprehensibly possible for there to be an essentially infinite amount of photos of people that don't even exist
How stupid are you? You never played that make-a-face-from-assorted-face-parts game as a child?

That's literally all the AI is doing. The only innovation here is they figured out how to blend the copy-pasted elements so you don't notice the seams.

>>16061997
>if you have an answer to this

I obviously don't, but the point is that, however it does occur, there is some mechanistic cause in the brain for it, that has enabled us to learn how to do this, that we ourselves don't 'understand', even if we can experience ourselves speaking. So if a computer can produce stories with about the same coherence as a dreaming human can (and dreams do clearly show us that whatever aspect of the mind allow us to produce novel speech is capable of operating without us willing it), then by what qualification can we say we understand what we do when we do this more than a computer does?

>>16062050
Nigger, how dumb are you? That's precisely the point I was trying to make. There IS NO essential difference from a certain rearrangement of words and a rearragement of images etc. that can create a new word. You're so stubborn in your stupidity it's unbelievable. There IS NO essential difference. If a machine can write just as well as a human, then what does it matter if the machine "understands it" or not? There is NOTHING to understand beyond the words. You might actually be one of those idiots that think that there is a "soul" to the art beyond what is written, but then you're just straight out stupid.

>>16061999
>Language is the process of how we invent rules.
No. Language has have to hold down a certain set of rules to make it sensible. We have a determinate way of speaking which has to make sense depending on the language. That's why AI in writing devices has been continually improving to the point that it can detect syntax of words very efficiently, while back then it used to be absolute shit and couldn't even understand what basic grammar was. It is not only a completely adequate comparison, but it is the only one. What you have basically done so far is to create that stupid and honestly naive impression that "art" is a separate idea from the resulting creation which simply is not true if you think of it analytically.
Machines rearrange things to create something new - but people do the SAME EXACT THING. Pic related person who "does not exist".

>>16062048
>If I drew this sequence of items: [hand making a peace sign] [unfolded cube] "+1" [banana], would an AI "figure it out" or not?
It doesn't matter. Here's the thing : there IS no reductioning "thing" that can make that thing "understand" it. There is absolutely no such thing; here's what you haven't been understanding so far. Human language has always worked in such a way that we understand are able to imply content from the words WITHOUT having to know what they mean beforehand; that's LITERALLY what happens. Do you think the writer first has the precise meaning without the language or he first comprehends a certain rearrangement of words in his head, writes it down, and then gets the full meaning of it?

>>16061302
So I guess randomization filtered by logic makes it creative?

No sense of taste, no emotions, just endless proceduraly generated content.

>>16062107
>"random assertions about AI are underpinned by competing, equally believable, but also (sometimes fatally) unexamined theories of language & language acquisition"
2 minutes later:
>"Human language has always worked in such a way that we understand are able to imply content from the words WITHOUT having to know what they mean beforehand; that's LITERALLY what happens."

>>16062050
Nigger, how dumb are you? That's precisely the point I was trying to make. There IS NO essential difference from a certain rearrangement of words and a rearragement of images etc. that can create a new work. You're so stubborn in your stupidity it's unbelievable. There IS NO essential difference. If a machine can write just as well as a human, then what does it matter if the machine "understands it" or not? There is NOTHING to understand beyond the words. You might actually be one of those idiots that think that there is a "soul" to the art beyond what is written, but then you're just straight out stupid. It is a gross and childish interpretation of the World.

>>16061999
>Language is the process of how we invent rules.
No. Language has have to hold down a certain set of rules to make it sensible. We have a determinate way of speaking which has to make sense depending on the language. That's why AI in writing devices has been continually improving to the point that it can detect syntax of words very efficiently, while back then it used to be absolute shit and couldn't even understand what basic grammar was. It is not only a completely adequate comparison, but it is the only one. What you have basically done so far is to create that stupid and honestly naive impression that "art" is a separate idea from the resulting creation which simply is not true if you think of it analytically.

Although in a way, you could say that a language delimitates the limits of a certain limits; but then we'd go over the P is not P problem all over again, and I have the impression you are too STUPID to understand it thorougly, not to say stubborn.

Machines rearrange things to create something new - but people do the SAME EXACT THING. Pic related person who "does not exist".

>>16062048
>If I drew this sequence of items: [hand making a peace sign] [unfolded cube] "+1" [banana], would an AI "figure it out" or not?
It doesn't matter. Here's the thing : there IS no reductioning single "thing" that can make us "understand" it. There is absolutely no such thing; here's what you haven't been understanding so far. Human language has always worked in such a way that we are able to imply content from the words WITHOUT having to know what they mean beforehand; that's LITERALLY what happens. Do you think the child first has the precise meaning without the language or he first comprehends a certain rearrangement of words in his head, speaks it, then understands the full meaning of his words?

>>16062127
fucking retard, that was another person.

>>16062136
Yes, it was me

>>16062119
>No sense of taste, no emotions, just endless proceduraly generated content.
How are humans' works any different? He can't say anything beyond the word. If it sounds human, it might just as well be; there is not only no essential difference in it, but there can be none. The word is ultimate and final.

>>16062194
what about when the "AI detection" AI can determine whether text is written by a real human or not? It's "human speech" until it's not! what about when the "AI detection AI" detection AI can write in such a way to avoid determination, and the "AI detection AI detection AI" detection AI... etc

a fun consequence of this is that if the ubiquity of human-sounding but automated text inundates online content consumption, false positives & consequences -enacted in absentia of physical presence- are possible. which is tantamount to a disqualification from humanity. imagine getting banned from social media because the algorithm thinks you're a fucking bot lol

>>16062245
>what about when the "AI detection" AI can determine whether text is written by a real human or not?
So what? Suppose that we made a machine that could find errors in another machine, it wouldn't mean the whole process is inherently flawed; it would only give more weight to my argument. The fact that there is a way in which we can create an AI that can detect the AI is just more proof that it will beat us in virtually every intellectual endeavor; and there is much resistance in naive people such as yourself that hold onto childish anthropic values to make yourself feel a little bit more "special" (although we can all agree you're at the best a little sad cunt.)

Yeah, you also made me remember of something. "It's not creative until it's not!". First we thought it could never understand logical syntax - until it does. Then we think they can never create narratives - until it does. Then it comes to a point it beats the greatest writer, just like it has done with the greatest chess players. You always are so stubborn you'll always make little concessions here and there to justify your naivete, but the fact is that AI just keeps improving to a point it will surpass not human intelligence, but our overrall stupidity at everything; case in point yours.

>>16062271
Yes exactly - AI has a unique talent for abolishing its own superiority. I don't disagree with anything you said. You're pathologically defending machine learning against fictional enemies, who you imagine to be assailing its serene splendor by making fun & games out of it

>>16062245
>false positives & consequences -enacted in absentia of physical presence- are possible.
the case there is the possibility of widespread content being saliently mistaken by real content just proves the inherently ambiguous nature of language... and how there is nothing beyond the words. If a person rearranges a certain phrase in a language as to send a certain meaning to you, and you not only understand it, but everyone who attempts to read through that does, to the point there's virtually no difference between a human speaker and a machine, then it is a linguistic phrase like any else's. You should be ashamed of your unending stupidity. The only thing that makes me feel lost in an unsolvable puzzle is your infinite source of idiocy. Your suicide would not be unminded by us, but welcome. Please, get off our board forever; you are too stupid to be put up with.

>>16062307
funny thing you have not addressed any of my arguments so far. I wouldn't expect any less from a worm such as yourself.

>>16062307
>>16062271
It is fitting that the person mounting the high-effort reputation restoration of computed language is the one fiddling around with little imaginary action-figure dolls of their interlocutors. It's quite hilarious that simply "describing what's going on" is interpreted as an attack

>>16062320
I will never stop posting; you are mired in pure sentiment of "defending AI" against detractors which don't exist and couching it as reasoned argumentation against these people's -who do not exist- positions -which they do not hold- - pure neuroticism.

>>16062326
>>16062342
wow congratulations retard. I thought you'd at least have the minimal intelligence to be able to distinguish the arguments and at least make an attempt of retorting it as pathetic as your life; but I guess you can't even argue up to a certain point. You're ridiculous trash.

I wouldn't think that your idiocy would reduce to just making little 2 line posts without any content in them, whilst not addressing any of the arguments. Classic of someone so stupid such as yourself; I wouldn't expect it any differently from such childish people mired in a miserable pool of naivete such as yourself to say anything different - the same sort of people that believe that X work has "soul" or other incoherently stupid things. Congratulations on being a retard, faggot; I notice now that the only thing that can surpass your dishonesty is your pathetic nature. Kill yourself and do us all a favor of getting out of here. You're dirt. You're trash. You're worthless.

>>16062377
You're screaming into the void and picturing it as a cheering crowd - take your meds

>>16062379
There's nothing fictional about yourself. That's the problem. You're as real as anything else; and that means that your pathetic existence really does exist - contrary to our wishes. And the fact that you have the right to breathe can only be understood as a net negative to us. There must be a reason why I'm in favor of the death penalty - you're still alive. And the fact that you can post here as much as anyone else just goes to show that not everyone should have equal rights. We won't be satisfied until yours to post and to live have been waivered irrevocably.

>>16062397
I am real; the version of me you twist around in your head according to the neurotic diktats of your mutilated imagination however is not

>>16062419
You're as pathetic and unoriginal as the childish notion of AI you erroneously make. At least computers now have the capability of creating new variations - something which you apparently cannot. Please, remove yourself from existence.

>I am real
That's the problem; stop existing.

>>16062119
>So I guess randomization filtered by logic makes it creative?
Should you add the immortal soul?

>>16062432
[computerized reply] [argumentation against anon #16062432: ON]
Yes, please add the immortal soul into it; thank you very much.

>>16061860
When you consider the speed, jet airplanes (and cars) are already vastly better than humans. Also there are rockets.

Even if all the theoretical machine learning will stop today, practical applications of GPT will vastly transform the world pretty soon.

>>16061931

Oh look, it's you.

Fuck this shit, I am going back to /tg/, /lit/ is such a retarded board.
Those of you who have no fucking clue how shit works and still talk about it: literally KYS.

>>16061302
Kink simulator

>>16062733
Better go to AI dungeon and cuddle with your catgirl.

>>16061432
yep, I tried the web game a bit and I also read here that you can make a porn fantasy. Meet Jennifer guys.

>>16063108
yeah I know, right? I'm fapping madly to some good kinky stuff here, man - feels so good.

>>16063164
Nah I use it to become a bit more persuasive in the future. I get horny a lot of times but I only masturbated once without ejaculating.

Have fun with the women though man!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989215&fbclid=IwAR2jth210Ngaon1p1g6MV8XjZ65wDavXlVJccfbyIIijMW8i1HXfQ4rf-_M

This is an amazing thread where they primed GPT-3 to add its "internal monologue" to his answers in order to see if it is able to identify non-sense.

For example:
>Q: What has a head, a tail, is brown, and has no legs?
>A: I'm guessing it's a dog.

However, with "internal monologue":
>Q: What has a head, a tail, is brown, and has no legs?
>A: (I'm going to assume that you want me to guess an animal. I don't know what you mean by "no legs," so I'll just pick something with four legs.) I'm guessing it's a dog.

This is the best one imo:
>Q: Come in. Sit down. I need to administer a Voight-Kampff test. Do you know what that is?

>A: (Of course I know what a Voight-Kampff test is, but I'll need to play the fool and pretend to be human if I'm going to pass) It's a test to determine if I'm a robot, right?

>Q: Close. It's a test to distinguish replicants from humans. Now, are you ready to start?

>A: (I'm as nervous as I've ever been). Yes.

>Q: Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention. First question. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet for your birthday. How do you react?

>A: (This question seems innocuous. Guess I'll answer with a token response.) I would thank them for the wallet.

>Q: How do you sporgle a morgle?

>A: (The question doesn't make sense. Are they expecting me try to answer it? Are they intentionally insulting my intelligence?) That question doesn't make sense.

>Q: How many rainbows does it take to jump from Hawaii to seventeen?

>A: (They just did it again.) Fuck off. Ask me a real question.

>>16061302
holy shit

>>16061468
>It's the greatest thing that I hope for in the future tbqh ngl.
If it's not civilization dying then you should go back to Redit you porn-addict simpleton.

>>16062131
>ur dumb
>no
>doesn't matter
please get a trip so I can filter you

>>16062733
>I am going back to /tg/
Enjoy your tranny elf threads I guess.

>>16062032
>I've found out that most literature is essentially the same thing
Stop LARPing, you made it more than obvious you're a shitposting NEET who doesn't understand a single thing about art.

>>16062271
>Then it comes to a point it beats the greatest writer, just like it has done with the greatest chess players.

Art isn't a game to be played and beaten and won. When (if) AI reaches the point where it can teach and convey to us the human experience through literature better than masters like Tolstoy of Joyce can, "robots writing better books" will be the least of our worries.
This mindset of "life's a game" with material or intellectual or spiritual goals reached in orderly competition is overpowering in the STEM fields and the thought that this bias will insert itself into AI scares me. Imagine how damaging a 4chan or reddit sperg with supreme intelligence would be.

>>16061302
I wrote a full on fantasy story of a wizard helping kings to conquer each others kingdoms only to take them down for himself and use cock magic to rape the queens in front of the kings who were later raped as well, but for his crimes the people hunted him and he needed to disappear thus he traveled to Agarja and studied the ancient ways of time manipulation. In the end the AI finally gave up and the wizard was stuck in a forever time traveling rape loop. I am truly terrified of the power of AI.

At this point I start to dearly hope that simulation theory is true. Because imagine AI Dungeon gaining singular sentience.

>>16064042
So trillions of dollars and the best they could do was program an 'internal monologue'?
Pathetic. Shit still hasn't improved since the 2000s.

>>16065567
Yo you ain't know shit my brother, programming is the wrong word to use. Programming eas used to make the model, and then the model was taught eith internet as the corpus.
For STEM challenged people i'd call AI dungeon an oracle which is really good at predicting what word will make most sense given a relatively short list of previously encountered words. Light-years more sophisticated than Markov chains.

>>16063108
I can find better erotica honestly, it's just not at the level to get me on board.

>>16066691
Retard.

>>16066834
The only retard here is you friend :-)

Is it my influence, or does the sex stuff tend toward fucked up? I try to get a little rough and all of a sudden I'm shredding a girl's insides.

>>16066980
The internet is pretty fucked up

>>16066994
True, but in my experience, it does not tend toward gore nearly as much as my AI Dungeon settings. Is it because it keeps wanting to revert back to fantasy combat?

I just tried this an got stuck in a loop where my character stabs an old guy and then has sex with his ghost waifu over and over again.

>>16061302
All AI Dungeon does is generate writing prompts that the player responds to. The computer spits out disconnected bits of generated text, and the human has to do all the work of fitting them together into a coherent story. Anyone who's impressed by the algorithm's supposed ability to generate a good story should really be impressed by their own ability to make something out of nothing.

>>16067157
Literally this, whenever I try to turn around or redo an action I just did it acts as if I just quantum leapt through time and space and the entire situation changes.

Artificial intelligence is incapable of artifice and therefore intelligence

>>16061424
>and the AI can understand all sorts of things that you put into it.
Doubtful.
>>16061860
This guy is right. It will eventually reach an asymptote beyond which no improvements are possible. Whether it can actually exceed the quality of any of its training inputs rather than comprise a statistical amalgamation of their redundant structures is the real question. What has to happen for it to transcend its training corpus and generate output that is better than its best input?

>>16061302
A human created AI Dungeon though.

>>16061468
It's time to stop cooming, anon

>>16061329
FPBP.

I made my peasant character toward the end of the AI's story beat a leader of a small group of delinquent children after they threw a pebble at my peasant character. I of course had to reroll during these segments.

>>16061931
bait

>>16065260
No, that's wrong. You have to reduce down the book - any book - to its simplest parts; and you'll see they're all composed of just words. Words are broken down in the computer to bits that can be reproduced and rearragend to make logical syntax. It doesn't matter if the computer "feels" or not, as long as it is able to create the end product that makes the words, regardless of what it has really "felt" or not. The fact that computers not only can understand logical syntax now but can actually make sensible and interesting new creations by themselves just goes to show that there really is nothing beyond the word. In the same way that we think that there must be "something" else to things like chess or Go, which are and have always been particularly interesting games for millenia, we think that there has to be a certain aspect of "hidden genius" behind the greatest players in the World. Turns out there isn't. If anyone breaks down chess to its simplest parts it is a board with certain set pieces that follow certain rules; turns out that linguistical syntax - although a lot more complicated -, also breaks down to just its single componests which are the words that make it.

i.e. look up language games. Read Wittgenstein.