fart simpson posted:

wasnt outsourcing programming to india etc supposed to do something similar? did it?

git apologist posted:

those people will be redirected to yet another worthless and annoying task that doesn’t need to be done

Beeftweeter posted:

because the output is based upon prior work i'm not convinced it can come up with something truly original. in that sense looking at generated text is pretty instructive, i.e. you can see that, for example, in this style of writing this sequence of words is generally used with this lexical structure and these subjects usually go with these terms, etc.

fart simpson posted:

i mean honestly, how often are things completely invented from the ground up? mashing together existing things in new combinations is probably most of originality anyway

Beeftweeter posted:

ai graphics and texts are birds of a feather i think. looking at it from an artistic standpoint is very similar to reading ai generated text: it's convincing, and it might even be kinda good, but it's... off, somehow. you can tell

rotor posted:

most of the big money makers in the tech world have not made all their money because of their unique code.

fart simpson posted:

i mean honestly, how often are things completely invented from the ground up? mashing together existing things in new combinations is probably most of originality anyway

Beeftweeter posted:

true enough, and like i said, that's probably good enough for most

but if the need arises and nobody's capable of figuring it out, that's not good

echinopsis posted:

I often agree, but I think this is a case of seeing enough of it to get a human intuition for how it's off

I suspect if someone went back in time 10 years it would be nearly indistinguishable from contemporary digital art, I doubt people would question the integrity of the person producing it, but if we're talking about AI stuff from even 2 years ago? yeah that definitely looked wrong in a fundamental way


thing is, AI approaches human skill in a way that our intuitions don't serve us very well as far as judging it goes, I don't think it's reasonable to make assumptions about it's lack of ability because we really haven't seen what it's gonna be able to do, it's such an unknown.



even if AI can't do anything better than a human, it can certainly learn from the best human in every domain to become quite superhuman in it's totality of capabilities

fart simpson posted:

interesting placement of negatives in this sentence structure

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

don't know much about law, but suspect that this is the same sort of deal as in programming where people automatically think about the 2% of the time when one is writing actually important core logic/algorithm code, which wont get automated because it is both the interesting and most important part. as opposed to the other 98% which is dreary repetitive stuff which takes all the longer and has more errors because it is dreary and repetitive.

that is, the actual oral arguments being the actual human interaction core part of the proceedings i doubt there's any push for adding a bunch of ai nonsense to it. if i understand correctly though there's a ton of searching and collating documents, producing exhaustive filings, and summarizing up the relevant information in preparation involved, which all seems more amenable to ai (good automatic summarization and semantic search both seeming pretty plausible with current tech) and the kind of thing humans are pretty bad at.

rotor posted:

idk poo poo about the field but I suspect liability will be a serious issue here and the first couple times an AI produces an inaccurate summary or makes up case law out of whole cloth there will be some fireworks.

quote:

Dear Mark,

Since its launch in November last year many people, most buzzing with a kind of algorithmic awe, have sent me songs ‘in the style of Nick Cave’ created by ChatGPT. There have been dozens of them. Suffice to say, I do not feel the same enthusiasm around this technology. I understand that ChatGPT is in its infancy but perhaps that is the emerging horror of AI – that it will forever be in its infancy, as it will always have further to go, and the direction is always forward, always faster. It can never be rolled back, or slowed down, as it moves us toward a utopian future, maybe, or our total destruction. Who can possibly say which? Judging by this song ‘in the style of Nick Cave’ though, it doesn’t look good, Mark. The apocalypse is well on its way. This song sucks.

What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.

Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.

What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations.

It may sound like I’m taking all this a little too personally, but I’m a songwriter who is engaged, at this very moment, in the process of songwriting. It’s a blood and guts business, here at my desk, that requires something of me to initiate the new and fresh idea. It requires my humanness. What that new idea is, I don’t know, but it is out there somewhere, searching for me. In time, we will find each other.

Mark, thanks for the song, but with all the love and respect in the world, this song is bullshit, a grotesque mockery of what it is to be human, and, well, I don’t much like it — although, hang on!, rereading it, there is a line in there that speaks to me —

‘I’ve got the fire of hell in my eyes’

— says the song ‘in the style of Nick Cave’, and that’s kind of true. I have got the fire of hell in my eyes – and it’s ChatGPT.

Love, Nick

Beeftweeter posted:

i agree with the general sentiment (that ai is imitative) but i've been saying "all art is suffering" is objectively not true and at any rate a weird justification. no idea who he is but this guy seems up his own rear end

Cat Face Joe posted:

Cat Face Joe posted:

Rutibex posted:

yes humans become humans because they absorb language. the medium where their mind resides isn't the important part, it's the information relationships

I've worked with severely autistic people, and I never had a problem seeing them as human. gpt3 is much higher functioning than the people I've worked with

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)

rotor posted:

thats the bar for a permaban??