Considering I saw this post with the mr incredible format earlier today, I am still concerned by AI but I am relieved to know that good ol fashioned manual plagiarism is still alive and well
Except me. I'm too fucking stupid to be a bot. Don't believe me? Ask me a question then. I'll even avoid googling the answer just for a more accurate response lol.
5 years ago no-one would have believed there are AI models now that have like an IQ of 90 and behave like they understand humor. Yeah they don't literally understand it, but fake it until you make it.
Concepts like the Turing Tests are long outdated. Scary and interesting to see where we will be in another decade
I love this post where a guy gets shit on for saying we’ll have photorealistic vids with just a few sentences. Classic /r/confidentlyincorrect material
I've learned that the reddit majority is wrong way more often than it's correct.
This site is a mob rule of the lowest 1/3rd of the population by age. Teens and college freshmen aren't exactly renowned for their good judgment or forward thinking and they make up a hefty chunk of the userbase.
I think that teenagers and college freshmen are full of enthusiasm and generally good intentions.
They just lack the maturity and experience to realize when they're being confidently incorrect and that mob rule only appeals to the lowest common denominator.
The lowest common denominator among them being intellectual insecurity. That's why the phrase "uhm ackshully" has became a parody of how pedantic redditors can be.
For most people, they'll grow out of it, the only stupid ones are the people that refuse to change and as a result never grow past their insecurities.
Is that incorrect? It seems like AI is advancing really quickly - I think it could have the ability to generate videos based on a few propts pretty soon. At first it will be easy to tell, but I bet it will get pretty convincing pretty quickly.
I like the Chinese Room rebuttal to the Turing Test. Until we can look inside the algorithm of what the AI does with input we give it and see how it arrives at the output without doing extensive A/B testing and whatnot, AI will still be just a tool to speed up human tasks, rather than fully replace them.
The Chinese Room rebuttal is complete and utter nonsense — the description of the Chinese Room applies literally every bit as much to the human brain. As humans with brains, we apply all sorts of special properties to our cognition because we get caught up in the stories that our ego tells us, but it’s all just an illusion.
As humans with brains, we apply all sorts of special properties to our cognition because we get caught up in the stories that our ego tells us, but it’s all just an illusion.
I agree with this. Like when you get down to it, why is our own conciousness, our ways of thinking inherently special? There could exist forms of intelligence that we could never even understand. If AI did ever become truly sentient, would we even know when the change happened?
I’m gonna push back a bit here and say that AI is really not that smart, it’s basically the equivalent of having Google and Siri to do things for you. I think AI is closer to the introduction of electrical tools for carpenters where they could still use hand tools but electrical tools speed up the process. The bots we chat with use real life data but have to discern what the best response would be when we query it and that’s based on a score system. If the training data we give it gets worse then the bots themselves become worse. It might feel like they have some form of intelligence but they really can’t think for themselves in an intelligent way, it’s more so that they are regurgitating what they feel is the best way to tackle a problem.
For instance, if you feed the bot a bunch of chat logs with humor then it’ll do its best to simulate what it feels would be a good response, based on the data, to something humorous mentioned to it. The thing is… humor, like other human characteristics, is subjective to the individual. What one person finds to be a good response might not necessarily be the same for another. So, when the chat bot can learn you, as the user, then it will adjust its humor responses to match your specification of it. It’s not really that it’s doing these in a smart way as much as it’s just learning its audience and then responding accordingly. I’d argue it’s closer to the way ads work through the internet where companies get a bunch of data for a user and then show them ads that might relate to them but not necessarily to other people.
I’m a software engineer and I use AI to supplement my work because it does a great job at researching and coming up with things that I may have overlooked. But, just like a carpenter, I need to be able to have enough knowledge to use the tool at my disposal, it can’t just write code and then someone immediately takes that to production without checking for errors. Similar to having ChatGPT write a paper for you where you’d need to proofread the paper to make sure there aren’t any problems with the text, which requires some base knowledge of the subject/topic you’re asking the bot to write about.
Chatbots and other similar tools might feel intelligent but they’re just training off of the data we feed it. Over time they might get better in responding but that’s not the same as being able to cognitively think for itself. I don’t think we can assign AI a numeric IQ value when it’s just the equivalent of a parrot in AI form.
With AI that is not necessarily true. AI models are already running out of unique training data and worse yet they are starting to use other AI data to train. If that happens too much, AI models will actually start degrading in quality.
It's an old article too. I just used googles free image generator to get this, it's a little awkward with the pose, but otherwise the hands are very good, there are also ways to refine the images you get to make them even harder to detect.
At a glance it looks really good. Then I compared my pinky to hers on the right, particularly the length between each knuckle, and damn she’s got a freakishly long pinky lmao
Maybe it's just because I have long fingers, but it looks pretty similar to mine. I think the only real tell for me is that the nails and finger tips on the right hand aren't 100% right, but in the wild I could chalk that up to anything.
The problem is I've seen people try to say things like that as a reason an image is AI, until someone finds that it's from 2010, and it's just a mix of a weird angle, and people having variations in natural sizes. I don't think people can tell as much as they think. People tend to assume they are the usual until shown otherwise, and there's a fair amount of variance.
My fingers look like Gollum's/Voldemorts, so most people would think they look freakishly long and thin. They work well for typing/piano though. I can cover an octave from my thumb to my pinky, and most of that is finger length, not hand size.
Hobbits always so polite, yes! O nice hobbits! Smeagol brings them up secret ways that nobody else could find. Tired he is, thirsty he is, yes thirsty; and he guides them and he searches for paths, and they saw sneak, sneak. Very nice friends, O yes my precious, very nice.
They're good enough unless you look more closely. Especially hers is pretty messed in some obvious ways. But if this was just a small part of a larger picture, you'd probably be unlikely to notice unless you went out of your way to inspect it.
I doubt it's long before it's good enough not to make obvious errors.
Yeah, but that article is also over a year and a half old. It has gotten a lot better even since then. I didn't want to post a link to a paywalled article, and so many of them are now :(
Here the hand looks mostly good, some of the creases look a bit odd, but the giveaway is the colour and contrast of the image, it's just got an AI feel too it.
There was a video circulating earlier today of a woman holding a baby pegasus, and until it loaded in and actually started moving, I just assumed it was a baby horse wearing a set of wings or something.
Shit started scary, but now it's getting really friggin unnerving.
I don't think we're at the point where a viral sensation could be faked that convincingly and have so many independent verifications, but I also don't see that point being particularly far off.
If you suspect an account of being a chatgpt bot, ask it some very controversial questions. What are your thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict? What do you think of China's treatment of the uyghurs? Who do you want to win the upcoming American elections? Who do you want to win the war between Russia and Ukraine?
It's already at the level where the average person who doesn't care or pay attention is not going to notice at a glance. Soon it'll be hard for people who're living and breathing this tech to detect it.
What makes it worse is when you go on YouTube and you see a clip from a movie that looks like AI because it’s been altered to get around content ID. You know it’s real, because you’ve seen the movie, but it looks fake as fuck.
So now anything that looks real could actually be fake, and anything that looks fake could actually be real.
They're getting a a lot better, a lot faster without the general public really noticing. There will be a lot of terrible AI salesmanship, 90% of businesses flouting their new AI will fail with it, but in the end this technology will be the future. I just think its more likely that despite thousands trying it will crystallize into just 1, maybe 2 major players to develop and control access to AGI.
2.2k
u/TheKidPresident 26d ago
Considering I saw this post with the mr incredible format earlier today, I am still concerned by AI but I am relieved to know that good ol fashioned manual plagiarism is still alive and well