|
post research papers, projects, theory, hopes, fears and nightmares about A.I here. This field is moving at a ridiculous pace so there should be more than enough to sustain a thread This thing is probably my favourite from the past year: Two neural networks, one an image synthesizer and the other an image classifier are connected to each other in an "adversarial" setup. The classifier assesses the synthesizers output. The results shown in the video aren't realistic by any stretch but you can see the roots of truly mindblowing results on the horizon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAbhypxs1qQ
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21728614-machines-read-faces-are-coming-advances-ai-are-used-spot-signs researchers from Stanford have trained a neural network to classify people's sexuality based on facial features, with 81-95% accuracy for males. Impressive result, but also clearly dangerous in a world where being gay is illegal in many places. sifting through online discussions, I've found very little on its ethical implications. automated human profiling is a part of our daily lives in cyberspace. We seem to have come to terms with this. Soon we will be asked to come to terms with it in meatspace, as we walk the streets. If you think I'm over-reacting to a neat little result, check this out: a facial classifier that grades criminality: https://www.rt.com/news/368307-facial-recognition-criminal-china/ Amethyst fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
so it's modern phrenology except that it works?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Suspicious posted:so it's modern phrenology except that it works? Pretty much
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
the special effects for the second two matrix movies were lame even for the time but its fun none the less
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
i wish AI could improve you're posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:post research papers, projects, theory, hopes, fears and nightmares about A.I here. oh my god that is so loving cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:oh my god that is so loving cool it's a great channel, full of interesting results
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
holy loving poo poo https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03242.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
true AI is impossible like time travel
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:true AI is impossible like time travel sentience is overrated. it's a transitional trait that can be discarded like gills on a land creature
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
if we build a machine that can classify any input stimulus one million times faster than we can, and react to it based on an evolving expert system several times larger and with much better efficacy than a human brain, can we really say it's not "true" intelligence just because it's not aware
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
computers don't have souls so they can never be truly intelligent ok? hth but i know it won't so i'll pray for you
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:if we build a machine that can classify any input stimulus one million times faster than we can, and react to it based on an evolving expert system several times larger and with much better efficacy than a human brain, can we really say it's not "true" intelligence just because it's not aware yes, because it can't correct an error
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:if we build a machine that can classify any input stimulus one million times faster than we can, and react to it based on an evolving expert system several times larger and with much better efficacy than a human brain, can we really say it's not "true" intelligence just because it's not aware congratulations, you just discovered p-zombies
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:yes, because it can't correct an error of course it can. consciousness has very little to do with correcting for errors and it has far less to do with basic decision making than you believe. "Make a conscious choice. Decide to move your index finger. Too late! The electricity's already halfway down your arm. Your body began to act a full half-second before your conscious self 'chose' to, for the self chose nothing; something else set your body in motion, sent an executive summary—almost an afterthought— to the homunculus behind your eyes. That little man, that arrogant subroutine that thinks of itself as the person, mistakes correlation for causality: it reads the summary and it sees the hand move, and it thinks that one drove the other."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:congratulations, you just discovered p-zombies don't act like this stuff is everyday. i know we're jaded here but we're allowed to be confronted by weird results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
point taken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:of course it can. consciousness has very little to do with correcting for errors and it has far less to do with basic decision making than you believe. consciousness isn't exclusively pattern matching
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
cool tricks aside i just don't see how we're going to program a general ai that learns, and learns how to learn, given our rudimentary understanding of how we do those things at the level of the brain. intelligence isn't just going to emerge because we stuff in more transistors, and it feels to me like we're pretty far away from the level of knowledge to bootstrap the system. what even is intelligence, surely it's more than just being a really good classifier? i'm not an ai researcher but we've seen this hype before and i'm not convinced it's any different this time
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:cool tricks aside i just don't see how we're going to program a general ai that learns, and learns how to learn, given our rudimentary understanding of how we do those things at the level of the brain. intelligence isn't just going to emerge because we stuff in more transistors, and it feels to me like we're pretty far away from the level of knowledge to bootstrap the system. what even is intelligence, surely it's more than just being a really good classifier? i'm not an ai researcher but we've seen this hype before and i'm not convinced it's any different this time true AI is impossible
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
it's impossible like time travel and free energy
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:cool tricks aside i just don't see how we're going to program a general ai that learns, and learns how to learn, given our rudimentary understanding of how we do those things at the level of the brain. intelligence isn't just going to emerge because we stuff in more transistors, and it feels to me like we're pretty far away from the level of knowledge to bootstrap the system. what even is intelligence, surely it's more than just being a really good classifier? i'm not an ai researcher but we've seen this hype before and i'm not convinced it's any different this time even if this is true, mass deployment of even contemporary classifiers will still change our collective experience massively
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
and like, i'm not sure how anyone can look at the results of the paper I posted in the OP and not start to question assumptions about the potential of current A.I techniques.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:true AI is impossible i wouldn't go that far... while i can't define intelligence, it's definitely a thing humans have, and there's no evidence that our brains use anything but the normal matter of the universe to produce it. so in principle it should be something we can build, but no one has ever come close to convincing me that they have the slightest clue how to go about that
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:and like, i'm not sure how anyone can look at the results of the paper I posted in the OP and not start to question assumptions about the potential of current A.I techniques. ya i'm not arguing that these aren't powerful techniques, just pushing back against the notion that general ai is somewhere around the corner, which has dominated popular science media lately (most people don't read primary research papers)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
it would be easier to go faster than light than to make an AI
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
conscious thoguht is an inefficient kludge to get us over an awkward period of physical environment discovery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:it would be easier to go faster than light than to make an AI what makes you think so? as far as we know, general ai is only a practical improbability given our current technological capabilities, while ftl travel is (according to our best theories) a physical impossibility that we will never surpass
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:conscious thoguht is an inefficient kludge to get us over an awkward period of physical environment discovery. lol stop taking peter watts so seriously
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
i wonder basically how many rules are laid down when our brains are first made, vs how much is making sense of the inputs and creating intelligence on the spot over years of learning how to think i'm saying, if we make a large enough "network" and feed it input for long enough, and with some ability to interact with the world, would it slowly learn how to do something
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:lol stop taking peter watts so seriously i will not. Watts is smart and cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i wonder basically how many rules are laid down when our brains are first made, vs how much is making sense of the inputs and creating intelligence on the spot over years how is this even a question? click the vid in the op to watch a neural network learn to see
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i wonder basically how many rules are laid down when our brains are first made, vs how much is making sense of the inputs and creating intelligence on the spot over years ultimately our brains come from dna and the environment it's expressed in (an pre-bootstrapped adult woman, but we'll ignore that problem for now)... so in principle i'd say so, but nobody knows how the gently caress that poo poo works either so
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
your consciousness isn't just your brain, every minuscule part of you is a sensory organ, that's impossible to artificially recreate
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:your consciousness isn't just your brain, every minuscule part of you is a sensory organ, that's impossible to artificially recreate i don't see any concrete basis for this claim there are physical laws that prevent FTL travel. You seem to think there is a similar law regarding sentience. I dont see it
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
what makes it impossible? are my sensory organs made of special magic stuff that nobody can ever replicate? we already have workable artificial limbs, and all we had to do to get those was start a couple wars, imagine if the combined effort of humanity was put into this
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:here are physical laws that prevent FTL travel. You seem to think there is a similar law regarding sentience. I dont see it what technology could exist that could artificially replicate every nerve ending in a human body?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:what technology could exist that could artificially replicate every nerve ending in a human body? a computer
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Amethyst posted:a computer what materials would the computer use? cloning doesn't count
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:42
|
|