Yes.

lmao.

This. On a long time scale it looks like a neat exponential line, but in reality there are many plateaus.

Remember how we had the 3D printing hype and everyone on Reddit was saying that in 5 to 10 years everyone was printing all their plates and cups. Then it turns out there are quite a few issues to get to that last step (ultrafast printing with incredible precision is still very far off for example, especially for a decent price)

As these AI models get better and better I personally think we will hit a gap where we just can't get to the next step. (for example reliable, well reasoning AI that can be used for purposes where failing can be costly or dangerous) .

> So the question is what is going on with AI art compared to what a human does to create CGI images that makes them seem different. Like I kind of get how CGI is done, it's like modelling and adding textures and all that different stuff but AI doesn't do that. It isn't building up a model from a sketch to a complete design it's doing something different.

This question is unfortunately both technical and deep, and it takes a lot of background to answer it well. It doesn't help that the technical details are changing fast, and the diffusion model architectures that are popular now are completely different from the GANs that were popular a few years ago; and maybe in the next year we'll have completely different models again.

But for a taste, look at the grid of horse images in this post or the sequence of drawing the beach in this one. It's a little bit misleading to show those as a description of the process, as it doesn't explain anything about what happens inside the U-Net to get from one step to another. But it does show that there is at least a sort of an iterative process and it does add detail over time.

At least with this architecture, anyway. GANs were different. Well, they probably still had internal representations that started off at a more sketch-like level, but that would have been harder to see in action. Recent models like MaskGIT do the process of adding detail in a completely different way yet.

Remember that technology advances in an S curve. First there is the current paradigm, then a major advancement causes rapid change. After that change has been explored, a new paradigm takes hold and progress slows down.

Right now looks very exciting like how the late 2000’s and early 2010’s looked very exciting. And the world did change drastically after the 00’s-10’s tech revolution. But the rest of the 2010’s was somewhat sleepy in comparison to that era.

We are now on a massive upward slope due to massive advances in machine learning. The exponential beginning of the new paradigm shift has begun, and will likely stagnate somewhat in a few years. We will get way more advanced in the coming years than most people expect, but less so than many people on this sub would hope for.

>The fact that you and Nick Bostrom and aparently every other person on this sub can't be bothered to understand the not so subtle difference between curing diseases and breading a fucking UBERMENCH indicates to me the dire need for such a conversation instead of letting the mods shut it down.

FUCKING YES!!!

That's already happened. The question is how long it'll take for them to be able to write one that's any good. The hard thing here is figuring out how to teach it to do something that very few people really have an understanding of.

AI is based on what it was trained on. The majority of stories are pretty dull and cliche. I’m guessing if you train an AI model on great stories it could generate great stories too.

Imagine an AI writing a story with Tolstoy, Kafka, Le Carre influences. Bonkers.

Should be possible at some point. But since GPT is so general, I think you have to coax it a little first, to get in the "mood" to be an author, or at least to make it be consistent in its style. Perhaps retrain or feed it with crime novels from a particular author to better understand what constitues a GOOD story written in a certain style.
Sort of like the tricks people use to make ChatGPT write code. ChatGPT isn´t (wasn´t) willing to write code, you had to sort of get it to accept certain rules first, a sort of framework, but when that was done it could output code.

Why don't we have more publically funded research groups like the private OpenAI, DeepMind, and Meta research making cutting edge progress? Seems naïvely like a easy to solve this problem, to me.

ChatGPT has improved on context and memory quite a bit over GPT-3 and I assume it will be the same for GPT-4. You can have quite a long conversation with it remaining consistent but plotholes still appear after 1-2 pages of words (and the story’s are dull). Increasing the coherency of a response is definitely a focus at the moment so I wouldn’t be surprised if GPT-4 has the capability to write 5-10 pages which form a believable story. So it all depends on when GPT-4 is going to release which I’m guessing will be Q3 this year.

[deleted]

You haven’t provided a shred of evidence for me to disprove. You’re the one making the claim that “studies all said” something. Which studies? Link ‘‘em and I’ll be happy to knock them down.

My comments are emotionally charged because 9/10 of the replies I’ve gotten are either pro-eugenics or incredibly ignorant about what Eugenics even means. It’s distressing. You seem to think it’s a synonym for genetic engineering. It’s not. You seem to think we should just redefine words on a whim so that nothing means anything anymore. It’s distressing to see how profoundly ignorant this entire community is about why Eugenics is bad. It’s distressing that the mods want to bury any discussion about it.

I’m not trying to signal shit. I’m not being cryptic. I’m being very direct. You don’t have to read between the lines. My thoughts are all there in black and white.

I know

They can't hear you, no one can, your post was removed, your'e shouting into an empty void.

I haven't had a problem accessing an excess of calories.

Facebook can try whatever they want. It'd be a brains arms race, and at a certain point, people would be smart enough to design and manufacture their own stuff, rather than being beholden to corporations.

The thing about intelligence, is that it tends to be freeing.

Oh I see what's going on now. You're using this latest Bostrom stuff as a platform for virtual signalling.

Ok, this makes sense why your comments are all so emotionally charged and you're dismissing what others are saying rather than trying to have a rational discussion about the subject. Cause you don't care what other people think.

[deleted]

Computing power isn't the barrier.

The barrier is that really good writing relies on experiences and emotions. I don't doubt an algorithm could churn out a passable Hardy Boys mystery by 2050. A procedural that sticks to a basic template with basic characters and no themes to speak of.

But an AI writing something along the lines of Blood Meridian, I am quite confident saying this will literally never happen. Not unless we get fully sentient robots like Data from Star Trek.

Never heard of it before.
I'll remember it next time.

Can confirm: ever since I became a woman I can’t remember anything

I am in the same boat. Ive been following machine learning/AI for 5 years now and its picking up speed so quickly. This past year alone felt like the beginning of the climb

That is awesome! Thanks

Maybe from technological standpoint but it will take time for humans to adopt it. You have long term contract signed and whole business models centered around people so this will take some time and when it comes to biology, medicine etc there are blockers such as FDA that will slow adoptions of new medicines a lot. Still i think we are reaching some kind of treshold point when things will really start to take off