|
TheNakedFantastic posted:In general the most profound changes the last couple of decades revolve around the internet and less tangible material shifts. We're living through one of the largest social and economic upheavals in human history but these changes are more subtle than a new electronic media player you can hold in your hand. Condiv posted:a neural net which can only reflect the biases of its creators.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Condiv posted:Yes I'm aware of how neural networks work, I've created one of my own. The desirable/undesirable answer is where the creators biases are introduced and why the network ends up reflecting those who train it. Ah, I think I just misunderstood you. My thinking was that the definition of what constitutes a desirable or undesirable answer is the entire motivation for creating the network, and not a mere reflection of bias. Regarding your second line, I wasn't arguing that artists are not cognizant in general. I do believe artists possess cognition (nearly all living humans do). I was saying that many have not come to any conclusions about what art is and how best to pursue their artistic endeavours. Sort of beside the point, perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Go take a bus. It will be a completely different world than what the same thing would have been 20 years ago. Everyone is looking at a tiny supercomputer in their hands, communicating with somebody either a few miles away, or possibly halfway around the globe. Everyone. This is extremely different from a bus ride in 1995.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Well that's true, but people are using those computers because of the internet. People started using mobile Internet because they already had their phones, and advanced technology gave them enough power to do additional tasks on them. And the internet is developing and changing because people use smartphones as much as smartphones and gadgets are changing to make an ever greater use of the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People started using mobile Internet because they already had their phones, and advanced technology gave them enough power to do additional tasks on them. And the internet is developing and changing because people use smartphones as much as smartphones and gadgets are changing to make an ever greater use of the internet. Yes they are being simultaneously developed and co dependent, but the biggest impact on society is from the internet, not the additional power of modern cellphones. I'm not saying society isn't still rapidly materially advancing but if we want to consider what's having the largest impact on society it's the social aspect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Well that's true, but people are using those computers because of the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Regarding your second line, I wasn't arguing that artists are not cognizant in general. I do believe artists possess cognition (nearly all living humans do). I was saying that many have not come to any conclusions about what art is and how best to pursue their artistic endeavours. Sort of beside the point, perhaps. The point is that although there is derivation in art, there is a lot more to it that involves the artists desires, life experiences, and personality which highly specialized neural nets cannot reproduce. Right now neural nets are only really good at creating derivative work based on the biases of its trainers. Cingulate posted:What What part of that quote do you have a problem with?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:The point is that although there is derivation in art, there is a lot more to it that involves the artists desires, life experiences, and personality which highly specialized neural nets cannot reproduce. Right now neural nets are only really good at creating derivative work based on the biases of its trainers. Yeah, but right now 99% of humans couldn't create great and meaningful art either and so that seems like a weird criteria for the measure of a man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but right now 99% of humans couldn't create great and meaningful art either and so that seems like a weird criteria for the measure of a man. Maybe you meant that 99% of people can't make art that appeals to a large amount of today's population? Cause people have been creating meaningful art for far longer than we have had writing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Maybe you meant that 99% of people can't make art that appeals to a large amount of today's population? Cause people have been creating meaningful art for far longer than we have had writing. Some people have. Some people haven't. You mention writing but 26% of adults can't do that either. None of these seem like good tests of human like AI if they are things plenty of actual humans fail at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Some people have. Some people haven't. You mention writing but 26% of adults can't do that either. None of these seem like good tests of human like AI if they are things plenty of actual humans fail at. Considering neural nets have a 0% chance of creating meaningful art on their own at the moment, it's a perfectly valid test. I'd argue that nearly everyone can make art that's meaningful to at least themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Considering neural nets have a 0% chance of creating meaningful art on their own at the moment, it's a perfectly valid test. I'd argue that nearly everyone can make art that's meaningful to at least themselves. If I say I could not make meaningful art would you just claim I was lying no matter what? What if I claimed I found a drawing a neural net made to be meaningful would you claim I didn't. I can easily find meaning in this  both artistically and semantically. A
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Go take a bus. It will be a completely different world than what the same thing would have been 20 years ago. Everyone is looking at a tiny supercomputer in their hands, communicating with somebody either a few miles away, or possibly halfway around the globe. Everyone. This is extremely different from a bus ride in 1995. That earlier poster's gotta be under 20. It never ceases to boggle my mind that I now walk around with a computer in my pocket that's connected to the internet 24/7, and I can bullshit with my friends from Australia on Skype or IRC wherever I happen to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If I say I could not make meaningful art would you just claim I was lying no matter what? Hmm so you never drew any pictures for your parents? quote:What if I claimed I found a drawing a neural net made to be meaningful would you claim I didn't. People can find meaning in all sorts of things that have no meaning. People used to think the howling winds outside their houses were banshees signaling someone's impending death. You can pretend there's meaning in that image if you want, but it's 100% certain that there isn't any meaning in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
The art discussion is really unproductive cause it will have to be about what art, particularly meaningful art, is. Andy warhol made soup cans art and some people have a really hard time keeping the difference between craftsmanship and art clear. This isn't gonna lead anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Hmm so you never drew any pictures for your parents? Why are you able to declare the scrawlings I made for my parents meaningful without seeing them but then declare any meaning I see in deep dream's interpretation of meatballs as animals as 100% certainly wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why are you able to declare the scrawlings I made for my parents meaningful without seeing them but then declare any meaning I see in deep dream's interpretation of meatballs as animals as 100% certainly wrong? Because you are the sum of your experiences and cognition of those experiences, either consciously or unconsciously. An AI is not. Everything you do has meaning, even if it's not readily apparent even to yourself. The same cannot be said about an AI. Humans are able to interpret meaning in what an AI does, but that doesn't mean that there is any meaning to actually be had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
The idea of technological progress being fast or slow is stupid. The reason things have changed so much faster over the last century compared to the previous century isn't because we started progressing faster along a spectrum of technology, it's because we developed certain specific technologies that could be iterated upon for quite a while, that were versatile enough to serve as the basis for a wide variety of other inventions, and which spurred the development of infrastructure that made many other technologies commercially viable. Eventually, with every one of those technologies, we hit a point where the returns on further innovation diminish dramatically, most of the things that can be derived from it have been invented, and the infrastructure has been exploited for just about every use that could be crammed into it, so the "progress" resulting from that invention slows dramatically. The same will eventually be true for computers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why are you able to declare the scrawlings I made for my parents meaningful without seeing them but then declare any meaning I see in deep dream's interpretation of meatballs as animals as 100% certainly wrong? Rush Limbo posted:Because you are the sum of your experiences and cognition of those experiences, either consciously or unconsciously. An AI is not. Everything you do has meaning, even if it's not readily apparent even to yourself. The same cannot be said about an AI. Humans are able to interpret meaning in what an AI does, but that doesn't mean that there is any meaning to actually be had. Was gonna respond but this was pretty much what I was gonna say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
When I look at a cloud in a certain way it may look like the face of the Buddha. It would be absurd to suggest that the act of precipitation of water is actively trying to convey the form of Siddhartha.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Because you are the sum of your experiences and cognition of those experiences, either consciously or unconsciously. An AI is not. Everything you do has meaning, even if it's not readily apparent even to yourself. The same cannot be said about an AI. Humans are able to interpret meaning in what an AI does, but that doesn't mean that there is any meaning to actually be had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Was gonna respond but this was pretty much what I was gonna say. You have a circular definition then, if everything I make is meaningful no matter what even if I say it's not and everything a computer makes is inherently not meaningful even if I say I find it meaningful then it seems your conclusion is simply because you decided it's true and all evidence counter to it is lies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
This is my confusing 2 cents, as someone that is interested in the subject but a complete layman: Im on the "we are not even close" field. As many others have said, we barely know how our own intelligence works The little we actually knows, it seems like our intelligence doenst works at all like a computer. All a computer can do, the way its built right now, no matter how advanced and powerful it is, is basically mathematics over data. Out brain is weak in performing mathematical calculus, the machine has been doing it a lot better since the beginning. But our brains do a lot more than mathematics A computer can recognize a face using a fuckload of advanced maths, while a human, even a baby, can do the same with no math at all. How do we do it? A computer is already way better than us at recognizing patterns, AFAIK, because it can be done with math. But it is terrible at interpreting a text because that's not something that is easy to reproduce with calculus, maybe is not even really possible. No interpretation can be really absolutelly "right" in objective terms Can intelligence really exists without a purpose, a will? Arent intelligent conclusions at its base affirmations about the world? Some truth that inst really there at the sum of the facts and experiences, but it is affirmed over it, by our creation? How could a machine achieve that? A computer can perform math better than any of us, but could it create a mathematical intepretation of reality like the theory of relativity? To me, it nseems "human-like AI" would have to
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:When I look at a cloud in a certain way it may look like the face of the Buddha. It would be absurd to suggest that the act of precipitation of water is actively trying to convey the form of Siddhartha. Why should the cloud's inner monologue matter? Why should an artist's? The important thing in art is what you, the viewer, sees; nobody values great intents and you can only infer them from the result anyway. An autistic AI with a rich inner life it cannot meaningfully convey wouldn't be meaningfully different from a pet rock. The problem with computer-generated art isn't the computer's presumable lack of a soul, it's that the output of any given algorithm is so basic, consistent, and unchanging; once the novelty of 'whoa haha look at all those eyeballs' wears off it's just white noise. I doubt even OOCC could amuse himself by looking at Deep Dream dogmonsters all day; once you've seen a couple you've pretty much seen all Deep Dream is capable of. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You have a circular definition then, if everything I make is meaningful no matter what even if I say it's not and everything a computer makes is inherently not meaningful even if I say I find it meaningful then it seems your conclusion is simply because you decided it's true and all evidence counter to it is lies. you do understand the difference between something having meaning and finding meaning in something right? the first requires cognition on the part of the creator, the second requires cognition on the part of the observer. a computer is incapable of cognition and therefore incapable of creating meaningful art on its own (it can be used to create meaningful art though). likewise, a computer is not able to find meaning in the dog spaghetti picture you like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you do understand the difference between something having meaning and finding meaning in something right? the first requires cognition on the part of the creator, the second requires cognition on the part of the observer. a computer is incapable of cognition and therefore incapable of creating meaningful art on its own (it can be used to create meaningful art though). likewise, a computer is not able to find meaning in the dog spaghetti picture you like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Why should the cloud's inner monologue matter? Why should an artist's? The important thing in art is what you, the viewer, sees; nobody values great intents and you can only infer them from the result anyway. the choices of the artist matter. i wouldn't read a novella written by a markov-chain because it would be unintelligible and meaningless. i would read slaughterhouse five though
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you do understand the difference between something having meaning and finding meaning in something right? the first requires cognition on the part of the creator, the second requires cognition on the part of the observer. a computer is incapable of cognition and therefore incapable of creating meaningful art on its own (it can be used to create meaningful art though). likewise, a computer is not able to find meaning in the dog spaghetti picture you like. It found a meaning, it found "hey, this meatball looks kinda like a dog" then altered the picture so it looked even more like a dog. It's more than any art I've ever made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It found a meaning, it found "hey, this meatball looks kinda like a dog" then altered the picture so it looked even more like a dog. It's more than any art I've ever made. no, an unthinking computer cannot find meaning. not yet at least. if it could we'd have a lot better translation apps than we do and we'd have true natural programming languages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, an unthinking computer cannot find meaning. not yet at least. if it could we'd have a lot better translation apps than we do and we'd have true natural programming languages. I can neither translate or be programmed in a natural language (except in extremely hand wavey "school is like being programmed MAN") so am I not able to create art till I learn french or something? Or is this another requirement that computers would need to follow that people don't to gain your approval?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Im on the "we are not even close" field. As many others have said, we barely know how our own intelligence works quote:The little we actually knows, it seems like our intelligence doenst works at all like a computer. All a computer can do, the way its built right now, no matter how advanced and powerful it is, is basically mathematics over data. Out brain is weak in performing mathematical calculus, the machine has been doing it a lot better since the beginning. But our brains do a lot more than mathematics The fact that it's even possible to run dynamic shunting software on static shunting hardware is because, as near as we can tell, computers are general purpose problem solvers, they're Turing complete, and we've haven't encountered a solvable problem that isn't decidable by a Turing machine (even if a particular machine is inefficient compared to other machines). Humans weren't designed so it's harder to crack open a skull and say "Ah ha! Here's the adder" (though people certainly try), so we can't apply your computer abstraction level to humans, but they look pretty similar at the electrical/chemical shunting machine level. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Can't this question best be answered by that great scholarly monograph "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I can neither translate or be programmed in a natural language
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Absolutely, man. Much better than any computer, in fact. I can control your brain and your behavior using certain words over a much wider spectrum than any computer. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the 2016 Presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Absolutely, man. Much better than any computer, in fact. I can control your brain and your behavior using certain words over a much wider spectrum than any computer. Nah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I can neither translate or be programmed in a natural language (except in extremely hand wavey "school is like being programmed MAN") so am I not able to create art till I learn french or something? uh, yeah you can dude. ever followed a recipe and made some food? congrats, you were just programmed in a natural language
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh, yeah you can dude. ever followed a recipe and made some food? congrats, you were just programmed in a natural language
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh, yeah you can dude. ever followed a recipe and made some food? congrats, you were just programmed in a natural language Okay so if I ask siri to make an appointment at 4 she's human then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:When I follow a recipe there's large probabilities I will gently caress it up. And not just gently caress it up like "Oh this could use some salt", but I could drink too much, pass out, and burn down the neighborhood. If we're expecting that sort of accuracy from computers, I'd say we've already got natural language programming. it's not about accuracy. being able to process instructions that are conveyed like normal human language is the point of true natural language programming
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Seriously this is a really dumb question. To use a natural language example it's like worrying about donut glaze recipes before you have invented agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:10
|
|