NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

That's kind of depressing, really. I know a fair amount of people who used their creativity to lever themselves to a better life, usually through writing or art. Some of them just make a few hundred dollars a month, but if you're grinding along in this economy, a few hundred bucks a month can make a real difference.

Good luck making a buck through writing when AI authors take off.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Hey, someone write a scifi story where in the future instead of netflix streaming a video file it just streams some 3D assets and a general script outline for a movie and then your personal filter bubble AI renders a realistic 3D movie out of it on the fly personalized to you the way like google news mostly only shows you news it already knows you'd like. So like, your own personal copy of Juno II does or doesn't go more into the anti-abortion angle depending on what it knows you'd want and you can only really intelligibly talk about movies with people that exist in your own personal sphere, the same way news now basically might as well be from an alternate universe if you talk to people from another political "tribe" and the news they consume.

Teal posted:

The critical difference between human memory and an autoencoder is that we build the representation on basis of abstract yet meaningful parallels and there's no proof this will ever work by feeding a "large enough" neural net based autoencoder of this type "enough data".

The foundation of your memory of a piece of cake you ate yesterday is understanding of cocoa which fills in the flavour, the colour, the scent, the likely texture cocoa based cakes have. You don't need to remember the angles the slice had, because you've seen a whole cake before and have seen a circle sliced into wedges countless times before. You don't need to think about if it came served on porcelain or a patch of snow, because you know cakes come on platters, and those are usually made of porcelain.

Feeding all those connections in a meaningful manner without "stubs" into a neural net might easily turn out to simply not work; even if you have the resources to make it huge and give it all the data and time it might possibly mean, NNs come without a guarantee of ever converging to the global minimum (e: of training error, which is in this case extremely hard to define); it might simply enough not figure out the right connections in stuff (and it's often the case, and the best you can do is shrug and keep trying new and new combinations of parameters and data representations and eventually something else to do).

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

A global weather style map of people's emotion would be really cool

paternity suitor posted:

Ew, now I'm imagining some sort of app that scans people's reaction to your appearance and gives you a ranking at the end of the day so that you know what to wear...those shoes cost you 2 attraction points Rachel.

Slavvy posted:

Sure, now imagine giving people something that objectively classifies how good looking people are (or is perceived to do so anyway) and you'll get actual social striation and not just casual ugly-bigotry. I just don't see any positives to mechanising people's differences.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I think you can talk about people being tall or short but if you tried to develop machines to be tall that would be like, a metal pole. A lot of attributes only make sense when only applied to similar things. The empire state building is not the tallest man on earth.

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Self driving cars on the other hand are clearly not saving lives

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Agreed, its good that we finally found a way to get people who can't drive to the hospital, which we've been struggling with for years

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Ah yes the insensitivity of pointing out that a thing already exists and that self driving cars doesn't actually fix the problem with that thing and instead creates new ones how dare i

SwissCM posted:

Ultimately the technology is designed to follow the road rules, perhaps it's possible to follow these rules to the letter and still wind up killing someone. In which case it may not be the technology's fault, but rather the legal and logistical frameworks it's designed to work with.

SwissCM posted:

"Don't run over people" is probably something they've already got programmed in. But to follow through on that it needs accurate information from it's environment, just like humans do. The environment a self driving car interacts with is a direct result of law, the design of the roads, the iconography, dealing with problems stemming from blind spots and other safety issues are all a responsibility of the state.

Perhaps roads and the laws governing them are just badly designed and result in deaths, even when drivers are "perfect"?

Teal posted:

I feel like the issue is an accident happened and lot of posters here are tripping over themselves to show their preexisting bias for or against self driving cars and it's kind of ridiculous and undignified.

Owlofcreamcheese posted: