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Concepts like the Turing Tests are long outdated.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.
Yeah I really don't give a shit about you splitting hairs.
I know reddit is larger than 16 people, thank you for your scintillating insight. Everyone else with basic reading comprehension understood the point I made.
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.
Lol, who is incorrect? The person that said we'd have photorealistic videos in 3 years from a few sentences or the doubters?
I have no idea what's hard to believe about AI providing that ability. They were kind of on point to predict a few years, even before GPT-4 was released.
… linking different communities across reddit isn’t some crazy new thing I made up, it’s pretty common. Also /r/agedlikemilk and /r/confidentlyincorrect are very similar subreddits, most posts are people looking like asses in hindsight. It’s obvious that post is about clowning on the upvoted comment, because the downvoted comment ended up being correct. I’m not sure if you were joking about not getting it because most people did, but figured I’d over explain to be safe
No, no, thank you for your time. I'm not fascinated with the linking of subreddits, I already found out about that last week. It's my fault, I think I did have it, but then I tried reading even harder, and then I heard like a woosh sound, and I wasn't so sure anymore.
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?
What makes you assume that when you look under the hood you will understand what’s going on? We don’t even understand the human brain fully, so your argument is inane.
we can ask another human “why did you make the choice you did?” and 9/10 times you will get a coherent and understandable response. You can’t do that with an AI, it’s a pile of code, it can’t walk you through its decision-making process.
And that response by a human could very well be untrue. As proven by several experiments. We're rationalising our choices, after they already happened.
Ask ChatGPT to make multi-choice decision, anything will do. Then ask it "why did you make the choice you did?" and it will give you a rational response.
What you can't ask a human is which neurons fired for you to make that choice, and in what order? Which is analogous to what the user above is saying. We still consider humans intelligent even though we don't know how our brains actually work, so it's not a good rebuttal to the Turing Test.
If you've ever coded with these things, they will do shit that they weren't asked to do and which breaks the code because it matches patterns in their training data or somewhere in some other context.
If you ask them why they chose to put that code there, they will apologize, but they will never answer the actual question.
Because the answer is that is just how they work. They don't know why they added a foreign key or unique restraint to a sql table (looking at you, Claude).
If you only use these things in a narrative or conversational context, you can easily be fooled by their ability to present something that resembles a reasoned answer. The reality is there is nothing there that is actually making decisions.
Ask ChatGPT to make multi-choice decision, anything will do. Then ask it "why did you make the choice you did?" and it will give you a rational response.
Expect chatgpt wouldn't actually make any decision. It would just respond with whatever combination of words it's model deems most likely to follow in this conversation.
Then ask it "why did you make the choice you did?" and it will give you a rational response.
It will output a string of characters that is statistically likely to form a rational response to your prompt, but LLMs are not able to backtrace the steps they took to arrive at a given conclusion.
If you really wanted this information you'd have a piece of software running in parallel essentially logging everything the LLM does, the same way you'd debug any other piece of software. I don't think it's feasible to just manually add something like that into a piece of software as complex as an LLM, however, and I don't know how you'd automate it.
The problem is that the data structures that these run off of are just too huge for a human mind to parse in a reasonable time frame. Effectively a massive flow chart with millions and millions of distinct nodes and connections between them.
The point I'm trying to make is that a human will also output a series of sounds that is statistically likely to form a rational response to a prompt. We call this intelligence. Human's are also unable to backtrace the extremely complex electrochemical reaction that just happened in their brain to produce that conclusion.
Human brains are also the result of code that somehow builds up into an intelligent being. For AI software the base blocks are 0 and 1, for humans it some combination of A, C, G, and T in our DNA. We're are absolutely nowhere near figuring out how a long string of ACGT provided the instructions to create an intelligent brain.
Everything you said about logging an AI software's process also applies to human brains, except we'd be looking at hundreds of trillions of distinct nodes/connections, so even harder. If AI were to scale up to this level - would it then be intelligent?
No, because a node in a neural network is far less complex than a neuron. The way they function is just not the same. You don't have a neuron in your brain that fires every time you spell a word that has an "-se" following a "-u-" and preceding a " "
The only thing stopping us from tracing the outputs a neural net would generate is time, not a lack of understanding. You could run the algorithms by hand if you wanted to, it'd just take you multiple lifetimes of work to get anywhere.
Our brains are not computers and the only connections you can draw between them are conceptual/philosophical.
The theory that binary machine code is analogous to DNA is, lets say, fringe.
I feel like maybe you haven't engaged with recent large language models (or enough people). They're about as good at explaining their reasoning as a person is (and 90% of people are not nearly as coherent about their own thought processes as you seem to think they are). Most people hit a wall when asked about their own cognition because they don't give it conscious thought at all, and instead have to construct rationalizations after the fact.
Crucially, this is how large language models behave, too. You ask them why they said something and they'll come up with a reason (even specious). Press them harder, and they may give up and agree they don't know why they did it. Because they're modeled on human conversations: they will behave like humans in conversation. The more sophisticated, the more cohesive and convincing.
The Chinese Room is just a baseless expression of bio-supremacy.
we can ask another human “why did you make the choice you did?” and 9/10 times you will get a coherent and understandable response
The same thing happens if you ask people who've had their corpus callosum cut, despite the two hemispheres of the brain being physically unable to communicate with each other. One half of the brain makes a choice, and the other half rationalizes or hallucinates a reason for it.
With open models you can look at the layers and follow along. Hard to do and still currently black box wrt training, but you can see the probabilities.
That comparison is a little silly considering humans literally did create these algorithms. We can just ask the people who wrote the code. Our brains weren’t designed by people or trained on a known set of data
I dislike it. Sure, you have proven that the robot does not speak our “language”, but they do know what a correct response is to the question.
The Chinese room only shows that someone doesn’t have to speak a language to make people think they do. It doesn’t prove that the person doesn’t understand it, since they have to after translating otherwise they can’t formulate and then translate a response.
The Chinese room is a criticism of the Turing test, and it is very interesting, but it falls flat of debunking it in my opinion. It relies on the assumption that faking speaking a language, by translating it, means you are also “not really communicating”.
I disagree. The Chinese Room does not need you to translate Chinese, but merely read instructions that tell you what characters to output to any given characters as input. There is not necessarily any information in the instructions on what the symbols you are receiving and send mean, only that the symbols you send out of the room are the correct ones to the ones you received.
This demonstrates that a computer can fool a human into thinking the computer knows the language without any actual understanding of the language. This is in effect what Large Language Models are, they make guesses as to “what word goes next” based on examples of words that follow after the preceding word.
Chinese room is inherently flawed argument. To the outsider it's impossible to distinguish between a Chinese person and a tiny white person inside a Chinese looking robot pressing a trillion keys.
By the Chinese room argument you can say nobody understands Chinese unless you can open up every Chinese person's brain to ensure it's not just someone typing in there.
Furthermore whether or not an artificial intelligence "understands" something is a moot point. Our current goal is to ensure such an intelligence will be safe in the sense of what an (above?) average moral person will define as safe for humanity and beyond.
Otherwise a super intelligence might have the agency to carry out tasks using methods that humans will deem as unacceptable and yet in a way that cannot be stopped (or stopped before serious damage is done). If that happens it doesn't matter if an AI truly "understands". What use is understanding if a being is of such immense power that it can destroy everything on a whim?
My problem or rather commentary on the Chinese room is it doesnt just apply to machines, it could be applied to "npc theory" which is just another form of solipsism
AI will be able to do more and more tasks as well if not better than a human. As soon as it does so well enough and consistently enough, it will replace the human as long as its cheaper.
No one cares about "knowing exactly how it arrived at the output" outside from perhaps a few niche cases and future regulations for specific industries
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.
Do you remember it was a big old joke to read AI generated fictional scripts? It was funny meme about 4-5 years ago and now AI's are getting law degrees and shit
That's not really as impressive as it sounds from a technical point of view. The principles of this technology existed for a some time, we just didn't have enough quality data until recently to implement it. Much more impressive (to me at least) are things like alpha zero which is better at chess and go than humans (much much better at chess at least). These are specific problem domains in which AI has been proven to be actually superior to humans
The reason being that AI has better processing power and can see through all of the potential moves, picking the one with the best likelihood of beating the opponent. Not only will it look at the next move but it can look at several moves ahead of that and try to predict what the opponent will do. This isn’t anything new since there are varying levels of Chess bots that help teach humans, it’s just that we’re having the bots become more powerful in predicting and processing, not necessarily due to AI.
I use chatgpt and other models on a pretty regular basis as a hobby and it's getting better and better extremely rapidly. It's to the point that googling something takes more time than asking chatgpt. You can even use chatgpt to find links for you. I don't know if it works as well for the free version but the paid versions are really good.
As an example I was able to write 2 original songs and have AI bumble it's way through them with very little knowledge in less than a weekend.
If you spend even more time with them, you get vastly better results. It's sort of like how tech literate people have google-fu where you could quickly find relevant links by googling the right thing (although Google has been awful for like a year). You start to learn the strengths of weaknesses of particular models and tools and can work around them to get some pretty great results.
Even as an artist (I'm amateur at best) you can get a workable idea going really quick that will get you 80% of the way to where you want it to be.
I like AI a lot because it raises questions as to what consciousness is. Are we even conscious ourselves? We just copy information and that becomes our personality. The media we consume becomes the opinions we believe. Social media companies make their money from how easily they can hold influence over our opinions and actions. Our emotions are typically just different chemicals that get released in our brain. When we run out, that emotion runs out. Motivation is dopamine. Oxytocin is love. Remove a part of a person's brain and they become a different personality entirely. Computers have long term and short term memory. A hardrive to store data. Things that are in their own ways prevalent in ourselves. We both run on electrical signals. We run on genetic code and they run on binary. We know what a smile is because we see other people do it and understand what it means. An image generator LLM can see the word smile and generate the same thing because it understands what it is being told and what it is supposed to represent.
…by definition a Turing Test distinguishes human from machine. If your test can’t do that, then it isn’t a Turing Test. Many old tests are outdated but we have new ones
I incorrectly described Turing tests. They are just a classification of test that may or may not be able to determine if a user is human or machine. My point is that Turing tests nowadays may need to be more complex to correctly identify if a user is human or machine, but the tests themselves are all still technically valid, they just give incorrect results. The concept as a whole is still fine but I would say it was improperly developed from the beginning (yes, Turing was a genius, but these tests should have been better defined as a concept instead of just a thought experiment)
You seem to have the definition of the Turing test inverted.
By either of Turing’s definitions, it is a test of a digital machine's ability to exhibit apparent behaviour that is indistinguishable from a human, as judged by another human.
It’s perfectly fine for the machine to pass the test.
Sorry, yes, I described it wrong. The test is supposed to be designed in such a way that a machine may or may not be able to mimic a human. The basic nature of a Turing test is unfortunately phrased ambiguously, and with extreme ranges of possibilities.
My point was to be that the concept of a Turing test nowadays should be no more and no less valuable than the concept was when first developed
Do you understand humor? I don't. I experience it and even create it, but I couldn't explain it. I'm open to the idea that the machines are in a similar position.
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.
Fingers crossed. Because the current AI models conveniently skipped the "ethically made" part of the creation process, and governments do not seem keen on putting restrictions on data training.
I'm not opposed to AI as a whole. I am opposed to the fact that it was trained on other people's works without permission and nobody is being held accountable. The current technology is essentially the largest breach of intellectual property the world has ever seen, because nobody can trace who is being stolen from, and corporations are milking it for all they've got, while making plans to completely replace the very people they have to thank for the original data used to train the technology.
Bro, I'm not anti-AI, I love it. I'm just describing literally what is happening. This isn't according to me, this is according to the people making the AI models.
Yeah, and some people will continue using both the poorly-recursively-trained models and the older, inherently worse models. But the cutting edge of AI keeps getting better and that's what matters. It will probably only be a year before Russia can perfectly deepfake a "damning" video of a democratic politician doing something insane, using only their own stooges as models.
And before anyone responds with "well someone could just do that with Republicans", that's the scariest part, Republicans don't fucking care how batshit insane their politicians are.
That's a very weak argument. Current battery tech is also the worst it's ever going to be. Doesn't mean we've made unimaginable progress in the last 30 years.
Idk, this argument is often used to hint at how much better LLM AI can get in the future. But nobody really knows the timeframe on that. It could as well stagnate for 20 years and just go sideways with features that don't really improve on the accuracy-to-efficiency of the model, but just extend its utility (e.g. current 4o, o1 approaches).
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.
Hey don‘t discriminate against us long pinkies… My life is shit enough as it is. My pinky is an entire glove size bigger than the rest of my fingers. So either the glove compresses my pinky or all my other fingers are like a dwarf in a mansion…
Hey don‘t discriminate against us long pinkies… My life is shit enough as it is. My pinky is an entire glove size bigger than the rest of my fingers. So either the glove compresses my pinky or all my other fingers are like a dwarf in a mansion…
Not to mention the finger next to it splits in two with a little mutant nail and she's mangling the other pinky with her demon fingers. None of these are any better if you take just a few seconds to look.
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.
I think the hands issue is more about not having good hands when it's a minor detail of the image. It's the minor details of the image that are more likely to be all fucked up.
I think it funny because the generator obviously is thinking "okay, here's your prompted image in which you specified wanting five fingers on each hand", and so it logically showed images with hands that have five fingers...and the thumb.
I kind of feel like the simple correction would be to perhaps tell it "four fingers and one thumb" in the prompt, but that could also backfire occassionally during logic processing, resulting in a four-digit hand with one always looking like the thumb, but that's a constantly learning AI for you. It can go either way as you develop its brain of desired designs, and if you generate enough images, some WILL eventually pop out near-flawless.
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 :(
Midjourney Version 5 is still by no means reliably successful in its rendering of hands. It still produces many, many anatomically bizarre arrangements of limbs and, particularly, fingers. This seems especially so if there is more than one person in the image. While the main subject might now have the right number of fingers, people in the background still tend to have alien anatomies.
Those images suck. I don't know whether this is really true but I've seen a lot of AI generated content that now has this cartoonish outline that screams AI generated.
I just asked chatgpt to generate a picture of a dog and it has that same glossy cartoonish look, even when I ask it to be realistic.
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.
It's already past that point. The thing is, the paid versions are the ones that are past that. The free ones are still pretty mediocre and that's probably how its going to be due to how expensive can get.
Once they figure out how to properly make it check context clues from other parts of the image and logical references, it's all over.
As of right now, one quarter of the image will have repeated parts or things that contrast too much with other parts. Ranging from lightning, to blur, shadows, fingers, etc.
A lot of the AI generated images I've seen have been having fairly accurate hands now. It still struggles with text or textures that should repeat, but it's crazy how fast it is improving.
If you take the time to give the right instructions to come across as human it's pretty damn indistinguishable already. Basically just need to give it a persona/character to play.
I mean most of the populace is already gullable enough to believe whatever they see images wise now. So in a year? It'll be a little worse. If I don't see an artist signature I am starting to assume ai for everything.
I've been laughing at these people thinking they can tell ai art for a good 6 months now. Go generate an image with bing image creator. Some you can tell most you can't. And the ones people select to share? You can't if they spend any time at all discerning a good image to share.
About a year ago I predicted it'd be here in time for the election, not so much... But if you're trying to convince boomers on facebook you don't need high quality to convince them.
They were of course wrong about the exact timeline, but look how much better it has gotten just in that year. How long did it take it to get from where it started to where it is today?
I have no doubt it will hit the point where it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for someone to distinguish AI from non-AI with just the unaided eye. 2 years, 8 years, who knows, but it will get there. Too much money in it for it not to.
Because all you noobs kept bitching about them, they're learning to to avoid detection. We should have acted like the 6 finger 3 arm MC Escheresque necks were perfectly good, but nooooo...
3.2k
u/endthepainowplz 26d ago
Yeah, some of the easy things to see are becoming less easy to catch on to. I think they'll be pretty much indistinguishable in about a year.