• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Artificial Intelligence

Puppycow said:
That's amazing. The music sounds real. The Japanese is legit. At least it sounds legit (maybe easier to understand than real music. I often have trouble understanding lyrics, even in my native language.) The thumbnail image also looks pretty good to me at first glance. Until you look closer at the letters on signs and license plates. Then you realize that's not real writing, it just has a superficial appearance of it.
But if you told me this is City Pop, I would agree.

I got curious to see if there's something similar for Country Music, because that's in English. This sounds pretty generic but it's almost like the real thing:

ETA: I'm also amazed by how positive all of the YouTube comments are. I didn't read them all, but I don't see anyone calling it AI Slop or even mentioning that it is AI generated. Do they realize?
Click to expand...
A lot of them will be bots. If you're going to post computer generated music to siphon advertising revenue, you'll alao be getting bots to "interact" with the "content".
 
That's why I prefer outsider music -- no one in their right mind would try to generate that artificially.
 
alfaniner said:
I just saw his name come up in the Comic Swipes group on FB. I had definitely seen his "work" before but didn't realize it was so rampant and obvious.
Click to expand...
I first heard of him through Linkara videos, not the biggest comics guy myself. The man seems to have a fetish for drawing porn stars' fake o-faces.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The Mona Lisa isn't under copyright, he absolutely can do that, although to comply with French trademark law he has to call it "Sparkling Giocondo."

But even so, it wouldn't be the prints or pen or the mustache you'd sue, but the lad trying to sell copies. I'd encourage people worried about AI to sit down with these tools and give them a real try, because there's an important discrepancy between how they're depicted vs actually used. I say "tool," because tool is what they are. You need to understand how they work and where they fail and set our with a goal in mind if you want good results.

AI doesn't make Darth Vader. A user telling it "make me Darth Vader" makes Darth Vader. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to scam everyone else as hard as they can get away with.
Click to expand...
Problem is with the AI tools is that they've been obviously trained on copyrighted materials. Even if you wanted, and were very careful with your prompt, to avoid all copyright prolems, the likelihood is that what you get back is going to break it anyway, because the computer generating software is programmed to too closely imitate other people's art.
 
Steve Novella's take:

theness.com

The Real Risk of AI - NeuroLogica Blog

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is unavoidable. It's now a part of our daily lives as it has been steadily infiltrating the technology we use every day, whether you realize it or not. I remain somewhat in the middle in terms of the hype-to-technological-miracle spectrum. I don't think, as some...
theness.com
 
I see more and more people are getting comfortable inserting AI output into a conversation between humans - often without any thought to making it clear what's going on. Probably because not putting thought into what they're doing is kind of the point: Have an idea, let AI do the actual thinking, present the result as your own thinking.
dirtywick said:
www.thealgorithmicbridge.com

I’m Losing All Trust in the AI Industry

As a supporter, I would love not to feel this way
www.thealgorithmicbridge.com www.thealgorithmicbridge.com

interesting article about the direction of ai and the motives of the people directing it
Click to expand...
Why did they have any trust in a new and unproven (and poorly-understood) industry in the first place?

This clown should be too embarrassed about giving the AI industry so much unearned trust.
 
arthwollipot said:
Steve Novella's take:

theness.com

The Real Risk of AI - NeuroLogica Blog

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is unavoidable. It's now a part of our daily lives as it has been steadily infiltrating the technology we use every day, whether you realize it or not. I remain somewhat in the middle in terms of the hype-to-technological-miracle spectrum. I don't think, as some...
theness.com
Click to expand...
Two paragraphs that stood out to me:
How is the use of AI going wrong? One important way is that it makes it easy for people to be lazy. This is something I have long worried about existentially for humanity. I now think of this as the WALL-E syndrome – in a society run by AI and robots (or any such system) that can totally take care of your needs, it’s easy to sit back and do nothing. It’s possible we evolved a certain laziness as an efficiency mechanism – accomplish tasks efficiently, conserve energy and resources.
Click to expand...
Yeah, although to a larger extent this pre-dates things like ChatGPT. See the thread on the Obesity epidemic.
We also saw the laziness factor in RFKs recent health commission report, which contained citations to studies that don’t exist. It is overwhelmingly likely that some flunky used AI to generate portions of the report and no one checked the citations. Even worse is how little an uproar this caused. AI laziness has already been normalized to a frustrating degree.
Click to expand...
Why am I not shocked? The bar has been lowered to the point where this sort of thing hardly raises an eyebrow anymore.
 
Puppycow said:
Two paragraphs that stood out to me:

Yeah, although to a larger extent this pre-dates things like ChatGPT. See the thread on the Obesity epidemic.

Why am I not shocked? The bar has been lowered to the point where this sort of thing hardly raises an eyebrow anymore.
Click to expand...
I'm not shocked as the current raft of AI is all about mimicking human behaviour and humans lie, humans make things up, humans believe in the things they have just made up, humans are resistant to correction, humans cheat, humans are biased and so on. It should have come as no surprise that AIs will mimic what we say we don't want as the AIs have been trained on data that is chock-full of the bad behaviour we say we don't want. Even the best tool we have arrived at so far (for discerning the accuracy of our conclusions) - the scientific method - we know requires constant vigilance to protect it from typical human behaviour. As ever computers are giving us what we asked for, not what we wanted.

It's why I am dubious that current approaches are going to get us to the fabled "AGI" as I don't think humans have "natural general intelligence", so mimicking human behaviour isn't going to reproduce it "artificially".
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
It's why I am dubious that current approaches are going to get us to the fabled "AGI" as I don't think humans have "natural general intelligence", so mimicking human behaviour isn't going to reproduce it "artificially".
Click to expand...
I unsure I could say we don't have it as I'm not sure we can define it.
And Grok is doing a splendid job of poisoning the well by showing how much it can be swayed by its owner. Via George Takei on bluesky

https://bsky.app/profile/georgetakei.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3ltfocjlzln2z
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Problem is with the AI tools is that they've been obviously trained on copyrighted materials. Even if you wanted, and were very careful with your prompt, to avoid all copyright prolems, the likelihood is that what you get back is going to break it anyway, because the computer generating software is programmed to too closely imitate other people's art.
Click to expand...
It really isn't that easy. Give it a try yourself. Pick an image generating model and a static seed, ask it for "Dark Father, from Astral Conflict," and see how close your prompts have to get before it gives you Darth Vader. Keep in mind 99p Darth Vader doesn't count, legally speaking, we have a long and rich tradition of cheap knockoffs. It has to be unmistakably the real deal. For me, with sdxl, anything less than "Darth Vader," both words, didn't fully work.

Wudang said:
I unsure I could say we don't have it as I'm not sure we can define it.
Click to expand...
You don't have to define it to conclude we don't have it. The only people saying we do are the marketers, and the only reason they're saying that is because they need new buzzwords to keep the investment flowing. When the engineers' preprints say we have AGI, that's when you can start believing it. By then marketing will be calling it "Super Duper Hyper Intelligence" or something equally insipid.
 
I was impressed by the link Dirtywick posted in #1009 above. It makes a number of cogent points about the limits of what we have and how far off AGI is. Especially
If they truly believed we’re at most five years from world-transforming AI, they wouldn’t be switching jobs, no matter how large the pay bump (they’re already affluent). I say money, but I mean for whatever reason. I don’t want to imply they’re doing it out of greed; the point is that their actions don’t match their claims, regardless of the underlying motive.
Click to expand...
 
I thought I was having a good chat with someone on a dating app and at one point it suddenly hit me that I was talking with an AI bot. I did a couple test questions after that and was confirmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom