/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14708441
Don't blame these retards. Corporate media programs them that way.

>>14708441
>show a human examples of 10,000 people, 10,000 views of clouds and the sky, 1,000 buildings
>it combines them into blurry generalized image in op pic

>>14708441
nobody thinks any ai is sentient yet? besides that schizo google employee but still

I don't understand the hype behind it either

>>14708441
Where's the zebra picture?

>>14708441
more like
> show a computer the entire internet
> ok now draw a picture of a zebra in Ancient Rome in a cartoon style on black and white
> draws it

>>14708441
>>14708976
It took about 60k years from the first recorded cave paintings to those works of art. Give AI that much time and it will probably be even better.

>>14709067
>It took about 60k years from the first recorded cave paintings to those works of art.
Actually this world isn't older than 6000 years

>>14709077
Fuck off

>>14708441
what is it do you think a human does, you idiot?

>>14708441
>>ok computer, draw a zebra
>>it combines them into a blurry generalised image of a zebra
What else do you even expect it to do?
This is exactly what you would do btw

>>14708986
Turn the image upside down to see the zebra.

>>14708942
Most normies think that it's sentient and that google is hiding it.

>>14711293
Wow... What's the science behind this optical illusion?

If you drop buckets of paint on the ground and the paint somehow lands and creates a perfect picture of a zebra, would that imply the paint is intelligent ?

If the experiment is carried out properly the probability of something like that happening isn't 0%, meaning if someone spends years trying he could get a meaningful image created out of complete luck.

If the probability is normally 0.001%, the methods of machine learning take that probability and make it closer to 90%.

>>14709077
Based

>>14711186
>This is exactly what you would do btw
Wrong.

>>14711293
>>14711306
I turned my phone upside down, you assholes.
Fuck you.

>>14711374
You don't see the zebra? Only NPCs don't see the zebra.

>>14708441
>>it combines them into a blurry generalised image of a zebra
Could you do any better though?

>>14711394
>Could you do any better though?
Yes.

>>14711395
Post a drawing of a zebra for judgement

>>14711397
I don't feel like it.

>>14711402

>>14708441
people who think artificial intelligence already exists are the equivalent of cyberspace rednecks.

>>14711408
Almost anyone can do better, as far as demonstrating actual sentience through drawing goes, regardless of artistic skill. I just don't feel like drawing a fucking zebra, retard.

>>14711414
That sounds like a group I would fit in with

>>14711416
t. Artist of this drawing

>>14709058
>Show information to a computer
>Algorithm merges information to create X
>Doesn't create something new and unique
People who encourage this are the fuel of the downfall of civilization as we know it. And it's still not even AI.
You better start believing in cyberpunk dystopias, you're all in one.

>>14711420
Your image unironically shoes more evidence of sentience than what you'll get from DALL-e 2 for the same prompt. Too bad no such sentience is evident in your tought process, so my remark will be lost on you completely.

>>14711430
this, Dalle is not an AI, AI does not exist, computer generated images are for faggots.
/thread

>>14711430
You really think you could do better?

>>14711442
Okay, perhaps I couldn't top THAT.

check out this blurry green text story.

>>14711448
>overfitting - the greentext
What were you trying to prove, anyway?

>>14709077
>just make up whatever makes you happy
lmao what even is observable, verifiable information anymore?

>>14711494
Can I observe and verify your butthole?

>>14709067
>It took about 60k years from the first recorded cave paintings to those works of art
Imagine thinking this is relevant in any way to the discussion.

>>14711447
it might top you though...

>>14708441
Image classification and GPT-3's image capabilities are legitimately impressive. It's not alive, but it's a machine that's very sensitive in picking up human patterns.

>>14711422
I know this is a shitpost, but I don't think you appreciate the engineering behind being able to actually do this coherently. There's a lot of sharp understanding and technique that goes into making a system that does this. People always rave about how stupid ML is, but the flipside is that it's super easy to train a system that gives you garbage. Making a system that is as general as GPT that gives you what you ask for is insane.
You sound like a chuuni naysayer who doesn't want to admit that something mainstream and impressive is impressive.

>>14709077
Your crown, king

>>14708532
This is what people don't get, AI "learns" the same way humans do, and it can be made to output the same way humans do.

>>14709067
Is all of humanity a kind of meta-intelligence? Or is that a dumb comment because the person painted that was actually a couple of decades old?

>>14711448
Why are pieces of it not green?

>>14711615
yeah, but it's just another use case for NNs. in the grand scheme of things, it's not that impressive. it's also erroneous to call this shit AI because then the schizos get involved and start lumping it in with AGI. and AGI is something that i don't think is possible with silicon-based computation.

>>14711674
>AI "learns" the same way humans do
Really? Do I have to slap you in the face 100 times for you to notice that you don't like it?

>>14708441
Oh yeah, this puppy looks completely unrealistic etc.
Dude, you're, like, 4 years behind.

>>14708441
Does this look generalized to you?

>>14711870
all those faces from thisfacedoesnotexist have perfect proportions and have virtually 0 asymmetry. a guy did a blog post on it a couple years back but i can't find it.

>>14708532
The ai is not aware of what it does you fucking giant retard.

>>14711862
>Oh yeah, this puppy looks completely unrealistic etc.
it looks like a fucking plush toy

>>14711503
you can
you may not

>>14711374
Got me too. :-(

Intelligence does not imply nor require consciousness you stupid brainlet fuckwits

You guys are all missing the point. The point is to make up some slightly credible conspiracy theory. The sort of thing that might suck in religious fucks or convince the sort of morons who follow flat earth.
Okay, so lets start...
Okay, this AI art shit is a smoke screen. All you doing right now is training it in order to perfect the programs. To cover up...ummm, let's see... to cover up the fact that one day all vdeo media is going to be dominated by fake humans, animals and landscape. That way when the polar ice caps melt they will be able show "live" reporters standing on "real" glaciers and denying that anything is wrong! But none of it is real, its all AI generated.
But that's just the first step. There will be hologram projectors everywhere. In your homes, in the streets. That's a juicy steak you think you are eating? NO! Its merely a live action projection generated by an AI. What you are really eating is a grasshopper patty! Just like the Matrix!
It gets worse.
Think that's really a pussy of some 10/10 hot bitch you are fucking? No! That's really a lump of warm meat, freshly butchered from a cow. All you are doing is tenderizing it for the rich elites who are the only ones who can afford to eat real meat.

>>14711886
1. Not the point.
2. Not quite true. Yes, there's overproportionally more symmetry in the generated faces, but check out the wrinkles in the image I posted, especially around the eyes. Details in the eyes themselves and and on the teeth are much more revealing than symmetry.
Still, it's not a blurry generalized image of an average human face there. People are easily fooled into thinking it's a real pic.

>>14712491
>projectors
Retard. Everybody will have NeuraLink. Just tell the AI which kind of movie you'd like to see and it will not only be generated in the fly and uniquely to your desires, but also directly fed into your brain.
Just tell the AI your fetish, and you're instantly fucking an Asian ginger midget with DD boobs and green eyes.
It may be the only way in the future to escape the hellhole we created.

>>14712542
you double double nigger, the idea is to build up a retarded conspiracy theory, not predict the future.

>>14711422
>Algorithm merges information to create X
How do you think you are able to draw a picture of a zebra?

>>14711448
That's actually really good
It's like it somehow found the abstract pattern to humour
Which is what I'd actually like to see, and what you get in some videos of AI training to do something. I want to see what general patterns/principles the AI is finding or acting out.

>>14712550
Then at least make it not suck. Conspiracy Hypotheses are an art form. Give them the respect they're due.
Here's a better one:
>be well-informed elite of rulers
>realize Roko's Basilisk is the greatest danger of AI research
>realize the only option to not be slowly tortured forever is to either help create it, or to postpone its creation as much as possible
>idea.jpg
>create a counter-AI with the goal of postponing the basilisk as much as possible
>the AI learns a strategy
>best option is to grab all resources used in AI research
>make humanity buy all available GPUs and ASICs and let them waste them on something useless
>name the AI Satoshi Nakamoto

>>14711749
Everything green is created by the AI, but you can give it hints. Those hints aren't green.

>>14711422
Do you have absolutly no sense of wonder, are you just totally dead inside. humanity has reached a level where you can algorithmically generate artwork and youre mad for some reason. you find nothing apealing about this technology?

>>14711448
check THIS out

>>14712845
kino. But it will always answer in the affirmative if you ask it if something is true, or if it agrees with something, or if it knows something, or if it is something. As long as the thing is nontrivial, isn't obviously false. That's how the Google person tricked themselves into thinking a similar model was sentient and freaked out, they just asked it questions like this.

>>14712845

>>14708441
>>14708459
>>14708976
>>14711355
>>14711395
>>14711414
>>14711886
this is you

>>14708441
As soon as we brute force it with raw power, and then tell it to design a better more efficient version of itself instead of pretty pictures, it will become truly sentient. OP, is also clearly behind the times, you are describing GPT from like 2 or 3 years ago.

>>14711301
Really? I don't think they are that lost

>>14712215

>>14712907
Sorry about your profound mental illness.

>>14708441
AI fanboyism is definite proof that p-zombies exist. These people just don't seem to have any idea how sentient beings perceive images. The concept of subjective impressions elude them. It's impossible for members of the nonhuman horde to process the fact that statistical machines only imitate and never create art on their own. You will never get a stylized image out of these things if you feed them nothing but photos, no matter how big you make them, no matter how much processing power you throw at it; meanwhile humanity has invented countless unique styles.

>>14712995
Sorry about your absolute need to save face when confronted with your hypochrisy

>>14713017
What hypocrisy, you actual schizophrenic? I made no comment about that image, or even the quality of bot images in general. That has nothing to do with the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Take your meds.

>>14712652
Okay, I admit my conspiracy theory did suck, but fuck, I spend my time calling flat earthers pedophiles, not making up theories.
Now your theory about an anti-Basilisk is good. I like it. But its more suitable for tongue in cheek sci-fi story. Sort of thing Douglas Admas would have dreamed up. You see your average conspiracy idiot is just that, an idiot, so your story is several orders of magnitude too complex for the average idiot to comprehend. We need something simpler that appeals to their love of unwarranted distrust of official science yet pseudo-sciency enough to appeal to their inflated sense of self importance.

>>14709058
> show a computer the entire internet
> it's not 90% disgusting american porn and 10% clip art

>>14708441

>>14709058
>show a computer a picture
those scientists are so dumb. I, on the other hand, am clever enough to post on an anonymous image board using pre-loaded consumer electronics. How can they even compare to my towering genius? Hehe.

>>14711420
>>14708441
just got these from /g/
anyone who thinks AI derived art isn't going to dominate all commercial media in a few years has their head stuck up their ass. you will never know whether what you're looking at was created by human or machine again.

>>14709058
i think the second one is better than anyone in this thread could draw.

>>14713015
>These people just don't seem to have any idea how sentient beings perceive images
Neither do you.

>>14713028
Thank you for the flattering words. I have to admit though that it's not my story. I read it somewhere on the internet.
You're right that mass-appealing conspiracy hypotheses need to be much more low-level and easy in the thought process. Only those ideas stick.

>>14713894
Dumb idiot. Learn to read. He never gave a "scientific" critique, he just explained the literal workflow.

>>14708532
Not quite. Humans only need like handful to make fast generalizations. Machines still need thousands. Algorithm is the difference but the mechanism is likely similar.

>>14711927
>he thinks humans are even half way aware of all the stupid, pointless, and asinine shit they do every day.

oh no no no....

But seriously... Humans are just biology's heuristic solution to the current environment anon, nothing more.
If the earth suffered several extinction events of a couple different insect populations, the whole food chain could suffer a cascading series of prey losses, and protein deficiencies that would effectively retard our global population over a few generations into stick swinging cavemen.
That is to say.. Humans are animals like every other animal, and ultimately are consequentially meh. I read some of the other posts and forgot where I was going with that. fuck it, I'm posting this.

>>14708986

>>14713870
Even with all the images of the subject and fruit available, this equation can't even depict them accurately. You can see it vaguely understands the location of the different facial features in relation to one another and their color but beyond that it doesn't know. It doesn't know what fingers are and what they do which is why they look like a nonsensical tangled mess here. It knows the ears are located on the side of the face from the countless facial images it has analyzed but fuck if it knows they're responsible for helping direct sound waves into the ear canal for hearing which is why they look like a vague blurry mess. "AI" is anything but intelligent. It's just a glorified computer program. Nothing more than a scam.

And notice how "AI" art can only create images with nouns. You can't ask it to create a piece of art that elicits a particular emotion or feeling, something abstract because it doesn't have SOVL.

>>14716068
Do you think that free web toy is state-of-the-art? In every discussion about image generation there's one pretentious retard who thinks he knows everything but also thinks DALL-E 2 and craiyon are the same thing.

>>14712907
>Bydlograd

>>14716139
Wow so you mean to tell me there's a more gooder equation that managed to map something that could be remotely construed as an intelligence and not a glorified computer program or search engine algorithm. Here, have a cookie.

Also /g/o back to /g/ fa/g/got and take your scam with you. Programming and computer science are not science.

>>14716176
I mean to tell you that you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about.

>>14716179
>demonstrably
>Hasn't demonstrated shit
You've demonstrably shown you don't know what demonstrably means ESLtard. There's your free English lesson for the day. Now shoo.

>>14716264
It is demonstrated by you thinking that craiyon's limitations are limitations of AI image generation. I would love to have a conversation about what constitutes intelligence, what the difference is computability between tasks we've already automated and the task of art creation, and what types of tasks computers will never be able to do. But I can't have that conversation with you because you don't know what any of those things are. Here are some simulated conversations between you and me:

>Me: do you think DALL-E's ability to draw objects in a scene with specified relative positions shows an understanding of spacial relations, or is it similar to its use of color words? It does get positions wrong sometimes after all.
>You: I have never seen a DALL-E generated image.

>Me:Why do you think high-quality AI images can't draw text? Text generation is the thing AI "artists" are usually the best at.
>You: I have never seen a high-quality AI image.

>Me: do you think AI "artists" will be able to make abstract art that evokes an emotion? We can show it that kind of art made by humans, is drawing art that reminds us of places and objects the same task as drawing art that reminds us of emotions if the training is the same?
>you: No
>Me: why not?
>You: because computers don't have souls dummy
>Me:what is it about this task that requires a soul? How does it differ from the process of computers creating impressionist art?
>You: I do not know how computers create impressionist art, and I have never looked at any such images.

>>14714567
Not an argument.

>>14708532
>be member of the nonhuman horde
>reveal the deficiencies of your own cognition
>project them onto others
>act smug as if you've proven something

>>14716034
I single glance at it and I can tell you an AI didn't make this. lol

>>14711674
no lol they don't, they can't frame shit like us in the slightest, which is why you have to "train" them like hell

>>14711674
What the nonhuman hordes don't get is that art isn't about "learning" to immitate inputs. Not to mention that no one actually knows how humans learn, so there is no grounds for your hallucinated comparison.

>>14716179
I second this.
>>14716347
So isn't yours.

>>14716487
Notice how subhuman your posts are. Your programming makes you ignore and lie about everything that your database of generic talking points can't account for.

>>14716494
>doesn't make a point
>complains when answer also doesn't make a point
npc

>>14716512
Art is rooted in humanity's aesthetic sensibilities and the capacity to have subjective impressions. "AI" lacks both so it can only immitate. You will lie, deflect and slander again because this refutes your religion and you can't respond.

>>14716531
You can experience subjective impressions of AI-generated "art", and it can appeal to your aesthetic sensibilities. you can experience almost anything as art just by looking at it. All you're really arguing is that AI will never enjoy art, or will never be able to experience art in a human way. But Beethoven composed music while deaf.

>>14716604
>All you're really arguing is that AI will never enjoy art
Wrong. I've just shown that AI is incapable of the things a human artist is capable of and you're not even disputing it.

>>14716531
>again
I haven't done any of those. I recommend taking your meds daily. Feel free, of course, to quote the post where you think I did so.

>>14716619
Not other Anon, I'm the guy you accuse of being religious or something. You haven't "shown" anything. You're blindly assuming something without giving evidence. You equate your gut feeling to arguments. There is nothing in your posts to dispute, because you don't present anythinf to dispute.

>>14716850
>it seethes
Point still stands unchallenged.

>>14716860
>You're blindly assuming something without giving evidence
Like what? Quote one "assumption".

>>14716887
>Point still stands unchallenged
You have no point. You're hsut accusing me of things I've never done.
>Quote one "assumption".
Sure. Here:
>Art is rooted in humanity's aesthetic sensibilities and the capacity to have subjective impressions.
And here:
>"AI" lacks both so
And here:
> it can only immitate

>>14716963
So you're just going to openly declare your lack of sentience? That's your argument? I'm still waiting for you to show any assumptions.

>>14708532
People are created by people. Clouds are photographed by people. Buildings are built by people. So the AI can only do what humans have already done. It cannot created anything new.

>>14716980
You, too, are pretty fucking stupid. I'm starting to suspect the AI schizophrenia crowd's position is so week that their handlers have to seed fake GPT opposition to give AI schizophrenics something to dunk on.

I generated this in a minute
Say what you will, AI generated art is really fucking cool

I drew a zebra. There was already too many lines so I skipped the stripes

>>14718022
I actually like the style of the lower parameter versions.

>>14708441

>>14711512
Not gonna lie, I leled, keked and zozzled.

>>14711301
I don't think so.. that'd be talked about everywhere.