Let's chat about AI!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's chat about AI!

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

SCheeseman posted:

AI generated art can truly be a full end to end replacement (which I doubt, at least not until things go full AGI), to the point where you go to a gallery with human and AI art and are unable to tell the difference, that only uncovers an possibly uncomfortable truth: art can be about subjective impression just as much as expression of the author. Not that this is news, humans have been putting meaning into random noise since the beginning, spotting clouds that look like dicks, seeing Jesus on toast. By viewing noise, you can bring meaning to it.

The more AI is used, and improved upon, the more people will realize there is absolutely nothing specialir unique about human existence or its artifacts.

# ¿ May 11, 2023 11:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 13:43

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

BrainDance posted:

They are very, very unlikely to be and I don't know many people who would say they were. Consciousness is super fuzzy, but usually needs some level of self awareness which ants really likely don't have.

They are probably sentient though, which is just there is an experience of what it's like to be an ant.

Plants act with intention and present some amount problem solving capacity. Whatever consciousness is, everything living appears to have a modicum of consciousness.

# ¿ May 24, 2023 11:29

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

BrainDance posted:

But a modicum of consciousness is not consciousness, that's why words like sentience or protoconscious exist.

Plants do generate action potentials though so I dunno. Though I don't think it matters and I'd take it even further because I think this is our best explanation for why things have experiece. As much as anyone can think panpsychism is true, like Chalmers even says it's kinda a "I believe this cuz I don't really believe all the other stuff so whatever" kind of thing.

Yeah I know the panpsychists talk about everything being conscious, I think that's really sloppy language because it contradicts the major definition of what conscious is. They're arguing for universal sentience, and they should say that. A microexperience is not self aware.

I don't think every living thing has self awareness, but on the spectrum of inanimate to sentient to conscious to self aware... well I'll just say I've seen and learned nothing that says living things aren't conscious.

What I have learned is that at least some plants can sense the sound of water and reach towards it with roots... that at least some plants can learn about safe and dangerous interactions and change their reaction to an action. That seems a whole lot like awareness and problem solving.

Not in any way suggesting they're all a form of Agrajag the bowl of petunias, so I agree that self awareness is a different thing.

# ¿ May 24, 2023 12:58

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Owling Howl posted:

Art can be described as the expression of creative skill and imagination but isn't the important part of that equation "expression of imagination"? Hypothetically, if we created tools that eliminated the need for any skill wouldn't that increase expression of imagination, ideas, emotion etc which is the whole point. Should skill be a barrier to expression and if so, why?

My question would be why mechanical sterile art would come to dominate most of the images you see? If most of the images you see are from corporate sources that control the creative output of artists then has anything of value been lost? If most of the images you see are from independent artists freely expressing their imagination in creative and original ways then how were they replaced by mechanical steril AI art?

Art doesn't require imagination. You can just create... just channel thoughtless id into a medium, and be as surprised by the result as anyone else.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2023 17:46

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Tree Reformat posted:

Apes being impressed by shadows of puppets projected onto the cave wall.

I do appreciate each new advance peeling back a layer we previously assumed was "essentially human" wrt sapient cognition.

Playing Go or Poker at a top tier level isn't it. Generating coherent language isn't it. Generating images or even animations isn't it.

I don't know what it is that crosses over from "mindless computation" to genuine self-awareness, but I'm both excited and terrified of the prospect of finding out. At the very least, long-term memory is clearly an integral part of it.

Don't forget to at least entertain the notion that you aren't genuinely self aware either.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 00:18

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

KillHour posted:

Two things:

First, if you say that everything is "x" then the qualifier x is inherently meaningless. If it doesn't mean anything, why even talk about it? What does it even mean to have the experience of being red if you can't reason about what it means to be red? That's just implied by the word red. If I say something is red, I'm saying it is in that state. If I say a red thing is sentient, I'm implying that the experience of being red is meaningful beyond that first fact. I don't know what it's like to be a dog, but I'm pretty sure it's not like anything to be a doughnut. You can't be a doughnut because a doughnut isn't a being.

Second, even if I granted you your first assumption, the model isn't a persistent physical thing like a photon. It's a static math equation. Maybe the electrons in the wire are experiencing whatever it is like to be part of a math calculation, but the abstract concept of math can't possibly experience anything. If I type "2+2" is there some inherent experience of 4-ness happening?

Also, seeds are pseudorandom, even if you generate them using truly random means. Discrete math is fully deterministic and repeatable. I can't ever have the same exact thought twice because just having the thought permanently changes the state of my brain. I'm influenced by my environment in a fundamental way that a bunch of linear equations and activation functions are not.

Topologically speaking, humans are doughnuts

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 06:35

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

The part that always gets me is that we're multiple thinking things that think they are a single thinking thing because of how quickly they can communicate with each other within the skull.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 22:32

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Mederlock posted:

Split brain research is spooky as gently caress

We agree with both of you

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 23:29

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Mega Comrade posted:

No.
This is all nonsense.

Yes we do. We know exactly what they are and why they are effectively 'baked in' to how LLMs work and why extensive fine turning can reduce them.
They are not really anything like human hallucinations, it's just a name that was coined.

If they hadn't been called hallucinations, but instead just been called prediction anomalies or something, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's kinda like those memes where the first and last letter of the word are right but the inner letters are messed up somehow but you read the word correctly.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2023 13:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 13:43

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Shooting Blanks posted:

Don't forget companies like Air Canada getting burned after they replace their customer service folks with AI - which decides to make up policy on the spot, because it wasn't trained properly.

Heh, I've had human customer service folks do that too...

# ¿ Mar 12, 2024 23:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's chat about AI!