The AI thread(t)

[janglesworthy]

I posted this in the wrong thread yesterday...


Some daily AI articles to feed your paranoia and 41 fe4rZ!

God Father of AI quits google...

‘The Godfather of A.I.’ Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead (Published 2023)

For half a century, Geoffrey Hinton nurtured the technology at the heart of chatbots like ChatGPT. Now he worries it will cause serious harm.

www.nytimes.com

The Fanfic Sex Trope That Caught a Plundering AI Red-Handed

Sudowrite, a tool that uses OpenAI’s GPT-3, was found to have understood a sexual act known only to a specific online community of Omegaverse writers.

www.wired.com

Google staffers praise engineers for I/O, poke fun at execs because they 'just kept saying A.I.'

Google shares jumped after the company's developer conference this week, and employees were quick to give the credit to engineers.

www.cnbc.com

As AI-generated fakes proliferate, Google plans to fight back

Google will track image provenance, label AI-generated images, display metadata.

arstechnica.com

Google’s AI pitch is a recipe for email hell

Please don’t make your emails longer with AI.

www.theverge.com

Google’s AI tools embrace the dream of Clippy

“It looks like you’re trying to write your entire paper with AI.”

www.theverge.com

Sam Altman: CEO of OpenAI calls for US to regulate artificial intelligence

Sam Altman says government regulation is "critical" to control the risks of artificial intelligence.

www.bbc.com

CNET Published AI-Generated Stories. Then Its Staff Pushed Back

Like Hollywood's striking screenwriters, the outlet's employees want protections against potentially job-killing automation.

www.wired.com

 

[Bloop]

The difference is the human element. Why pay for an artist to produce something when an AI with significantly lower costs can do some that’s “good enough”? Are you seriously not paying attention to the writer’s strike happening right now? The first one in over a decade? As for the art, why pay for someone to do something in their specific style—like Ralph McQuarrie, or Joe Johnston, or something like that, when you can have a computer scan their images and build a dataset out of that? Sure, a person could practice and develop a style similar to someone else’s, but that still requires the actual art skills. It still requires the same amount of human output.

Let’s put it this way. Let’s say you’ve got a prop you’ve kitbashed, or modeled yourself, or sculpted, or whatever. Sure, it’s “someone else’s design”, but you still made it. You start a run on the forum here. Next thing you know, you see someone on Etsy is selling cheap recasts of your work. They’re unfinished, there are seams and flaws in the cast, but some people are still more than happy to pay the much lower price for a close enough object. Do you see the problem? Do you see how AI is encroaching upon the human element of art and creativity? It can certainly be a good tool but it’s also unequivocally a very dangerous one that a lot of people in positions of power and wealth are more than happy to abuse for the sake of profit. It’s especially shocking for those of us in creative fields because we were always told “automation would come for the unskilled jobs first”. Now AI is on the brink of destroying the professions of so many. Writers, illustrators, concept artists, animators, voice actors, even actors. Why pay an up and coming actor that doesn’t have a lot of box-office draw yet when you can pay them almost nothing and slap James Dean’s face and voice on top of his? Or Orson Welles, or Jimmy Stewart?

Do you see the concern? I’m not asking you to agree with it, but just to see the point of view of those whose livelihoods are at stake.

I agree in part, but in your example, they're still profiting off of someone else's work. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that there are degrees of "wrongness." Like, obviously the model makers on Star Wars used parts from model kits that someone else sculpted, but, as in your example, used them in a different way. But the model companies paid the sculptors for their work, and, I presume, the companies didn't have any legal claim to prevent a movie production from using bits of their commercial model kits onscreen.
But making a model kit for sale based exclusively on kit-bashed parts might not really be legal, especially if the model kits used are of licensed properties like Star Trek, for example.
Say I take a refit Enterprise kit, rearrange the parts to make my own Star Trek type ship, make molds and do a kit run and sell it on Etsy. That likely violates copyright laws or "fair use" laws in some way. But the fact is, people usually don't get in trouble for making small runs of kits, even if they make a run of kits based on a specific Star Trek ship, because they're not really profiting enough from it to draw attention.

Back to your subject of "why pay an artist to do something." I've observed how companies have gone from employing skilled, experienced people to "good enough" people in my lifetime, often due to technological advancements. Years ago, major newspapers/news outlets fired their photography staffs and shifted the work to reporters who not only had to write the stories but take the photos as well, using iPhones to do it. You used to be able to tell the difference between an amateur photographer's work, who lacked the proper skill and equipment of professional photographers who had to study for years and buy expensive, specialized equipment to produce quality work. Now the tech makes it easy for anyone to produce "professional" quality work. This also brings up another point - a lot of people can't tell the difference between a skilled photographer and an amateur with an iPhone. So why pay more for a higher skilled person to do a job that you can pay less to a less-skilled person to do, which will end up being "good enough?"

"Good enough" is a big thing these days. And technology keeps improving and getting cheaper so that "good enough" can improve as well, so that ALL creative jobs are going by the wayside. I love tech, but I know how much it can take jobs from people. The music industry has gone further away from live musicians. Most popular music, TV scores, ads and even a lot of film scores use synth sound libraries to eliminate the need for musicians. Full orchestras can be realistically recreated by one person. Even live music that you may see is often "sweetened" or just full-on recorded tracks. Major singers use auto-tune, don't even sing when they have to dance in live performances. This has been going on for decades, but it's gotten to the point where it's commonplace. Often, people know and just don't care. That's pretty much where we're at. At some point, virtually EVERY job will be able to be eliminated by technology. It may not be as good as what humans do, but odds are it'll be "good enough."

 

[joberg]

No problem with facts & statistics tracking my work ethic. Follow the employer’s rules you agreed to when hired. Went to the court house to get a work permit at 14 because I needed A little more cash than earned by cutting lawns. If one is not sick, you get up in the morning and go to work. Simple: “Even a Cave Man can do it”

As a manager (in another life) I didn't care how my staff worked (or their ways of working). As long as, at the end of the day, the quality and amount of work demanded was on my desk by the end of the week...period.

 

[joberg]

I agree in part, but in your example, they're still profiting off of someone else's work. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that there are degrees of "wrongness." Like, obviously the model makers on Star Wars used parts from model kits that someone else sculpted, but, as in your example, used them in a different way. But the model companies paid the sculptors for their work, and, I presume, the companies didn't have any legal claim to prevent a movie production from using bits of their commercial model kits onscreen.
But making a model kit for sale based exclusively on kit-bashed parts might not really be legal, especially if the model kits used are of licensed properties like Star Trek, for example.
Say I take a refit Enterprise kit, rearrange the parts to make my own Star Trek type ship, make molds and do a kit run and sell it on Etsy. That likely violates copyright laws or "fair use" laws in some way. But the fact is, people usually don't get in trouble for making small runs of kits, even if they make a run of kits based on a specific Star Trek ship, because they're not really profiting enough from it to draw attention.

Back to your subject of "why pay an artist to do something." I've observed how companies have gone from employing skilled, experienced people to "good enough" people in my lifetime, often due to technological advancements. Years ago, major newspapers/news outlets fired their photography staffs and shifted the work to reporters who not only had to write the stories but take the photos as well, using iPhones to do it. You used to be able to tell the difference between an amateur photographer's work, who lacked the proper skill and equipment of professional photographers who had to study for years and buy expensive, specialized equipment to produce quality work. Now the tech makes it easy for anyone to produce "professional" quality work. This also brings up another point - a lot of people can't tell the difference between a skilled photographer and an amateur with an iPhone. So why pay more for a higher skilled person to do a job that you can pay less to a less-skilled person to do, which will end up being "good enough?"

"Good enough" is a big thing these days. And technology keeps improving and getting cheaper so that "good enough" can improve as well, so that ALL creative jobs are going by the wayside. I love tech, but I know how much it can take jobs from people. The music industry has gone further away from live musicians. Most popular music, TV scores, ads and even a lot of film scores use synth sound libraries to eliminate the need for musicians. Full orchestras can be realistically recreated by one person. Even live music that you may see is often "sweetened" or just full-on recorded tracks. Major singers use auto-tune, don't even sing when they have to dance in live performances. This has been going on for decades, but it's gotten to the point where it's commonplace. Often, people know and just don't care. That's pretty much where we're at. At some point, virtually EVERY job will be able to be eliminated by technology. It may not be as good as what humans do, but odds are it'll be "good enough."

Ah! The ever discussion about "Quality" We're a society of mass produced goods, from art to music, to clothes, etc...
Is automation making your car cheaper? Do stores without cashiers have cheaper food? If you could make clothes without human hands, would it be cheaper? What about the quality?

Automation has existed for many decades and when you connect it with AI it becomes even better...for the manufacturing bosses and the corps.
Not necessarily to the general population...The prices will increase year after year for complex reasons.

The AI part that's now inserting itself more and more in our world will have serious consequences in a very near future. You could put 10 engineers in a room and make them come-up with various scenarios concerning the good/bad things about AI and I'll bet you my fortune that one day, something will happened that wasn't foreseen by those 10 engineers.

That's the way it is: the human mind (no matter how intelligent) cannot see the future or future outcome and cover every single possible scenario

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

I guarantee that's already happening\happened in certain countries.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how no one wants to acknowledge that CRISPR is just science-glossed 'eugenics.' Which was, until recently, a decidedly morally bad thing.

 

[janglesworthy]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how no one wants to acknowledge that CRISPR is just science-glossed 'eugenics.' Which was, until recently, a decidedly morally bad thing.

yeah but you can engineer everyone to have big boobs and wangs, so take a little give a little?

Some more daily AI to scare or excite you all....

ChatGPT Scams Are Infiltrating the App Store and Google Play

An explosion of interest in OpenAI’s sophisticated chatbot means a proliferation of “fleeceware” apps that trick users with sneaky in-app subscriptions.

www.wired.com

China cracks down on AI-generated news anchors

Aims to 'clear' the network of unauthorized misinformation. Stuff from official sources can't be wrong!

www.theregister.com

Tesla Bot becomes less of a sideshow as impressive new footage of the robots emerge

Tesla gave an update on its humanoid robot program, which is known as Tesla Bot or Optimus. New images of...

electrek.co

 

[joberg]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how no one wants to acknowledge that CRISPR is just science-glossed 'eugenics.' Which was, until recently, a decidedly morally bad thing.

As you said; Eugenics was packaged by different governments around the world, under different eras. The young gen doesn't want to reproduce anymore because of "Climate Change"; less people on the planet = less pollution. Some AI programs are used to predict the next flood, or heat wave and analyze/intrepret data faster than a human operator. Scientists are relying more and more on those programs...
But, that's another discussion altogether.

 

[VanPersie]

As you said; Eugenics was packaged by different governments around the world, under different eras. The young gen doesn't want to reproduce anymore because of "Climate Change"; less people on the planet = less pollution.

I don’t think that is particularly true due to the trend of birth rates falling being around since the 1970’s. Biggest factors affecting birth rates amongst the younger these days, is simply not being able to afford to have them as well a negative impact on careers.

 

[janglesworthy]

You knew it was coming, and here it is...

AI in your pocket: ChatGPT officially comes to iPhone with new app

App brings popular AI assistant to an official mobile client app for the first time.

arstechnica.com

 

[dascoyne]

Here's a fictional person I just created using AI prompts.

It is too late for me. Carry on.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

I don’t think that is particularly true due to the trend of birth rates falling being around since the 1970’s. Biggest factors affecting birth rates amongst the younger these days, is simply not being able to afford to have them as well a negative impact on careers.

That, and the more advanced a society becomes, the more educated and healthy the populus, people will have fewer children and much later. I saw a program years ago on a mathematician giving a lecture how the global population will plateau at 11 billion people. The developing countries of the world picking up the slack in birthrate as they gradually progress and reach the plateau themselves. The population stabilizing as younger population lifespans balance the lifespans of older generations as they die out and replace them; the gap metering itself out.

That's not saying there won't be huge issues to resolve getting there and being at that plateau but the whole issue of global populations really is hyperbolic more than anything. If the US had the population density of, say, Bangladesh or India, the current population of the whole world could fit in its borders, and probably still have enough room to squeeze in the 3 billion more said to be on the way.

EDIT: Here's the program. Also, he's a statistician and not a mathematician.

 

[batguy]

Here's a fictional person I just created using AI prompts.

It is too late for me. Carry on.

 

[janglesworthy]

Apple releases chatgpt for it's phone but also apple....

Apple Has Restricted Employees From Using ChatGPT, Bard, Others, Over Fear Of Future Product Leaks

Apple employees are not allowed to use Large Language Models such as ChatGPT, or Bard as it may result in product leaks

wccftech.com

Artists deserve ‘fairness and control’ over AI use, says SoundExchange CEO

Michael Huppe, CEO of SoundExchange, speaks out about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's Senate testimony on AI regulation earlier this week.

venturebeat.com

 

[pengbuzz]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how no one wants to acknowledge that CRISPR is just science-glossed 'eugenics.' Which was, until recently, a decidedly morally bad thing.

I have to agree with you.

 

[joberg]

I don’t think that is particularly true due to the trend of birth rates falling being around since the 1970’s. Biggest factors affecting birth rates amongst the younger these days, is simply not being able to afford to have them as well a negative impact on careers.

You cannot compare "Eugenics" with "Feminism"

 

[joberg]

My biggest fear is this:

U.S. tech giant IBM (IBM.N) has said that it plans to make a quantum computer ready for commercial use in 2025 with a more-than-4,000 qubit processor. IBM has so far released quantum processors with 127 qubits.

Alphabet Inc's (GOOGL.O) Google is also aiming to develop a computer with 1,000,000 qubits by the end of this decade.

Chinese search engine giant Baidu Inc revealed its first quantum computer and is ready to make it available to external users, joining the global race to apply the technology to practical uses.

The Baidu-developed quantum computer, dubbed "Qianshi", has a 10-quantum-bit (qubit) processor, Baidu said in a statement. The Beijing-based company has also developed a 36-qubit quantum chip, it said.

So we are playing with the idea of creating a "God" (going full circle here) that will be able, at a certain time, to know everything, and to see everything. This could lead to some kind of a "Existential Wall": nothing else to discover and no "feeling" of awe.

No conquest nor new answer, eternal life...the AI will be bored with its masters and what they represent. Boredom is the future enemy

 

[pengbuzz]

My biggest fear is this:

U.S. tech giant IBM (IBM.N) has said that it plans to make a quantum computer ready for commercial use in 2025 with a more-than-4,000 qubit processor. IBM has so far released quantum processors with 127 qubits.

Alphabet Inc's (GOOGL.O) Google is also aiming to develop a computer with 1,000,000 qubits by the end of this decade.

Chinese search engine giant Baidu Inc revealed its first quantum computer and is ready to make it available to external users, joining the global race to apply the technology to practical uses.

The Baidu-developed quantum computer, dubbed "Qianshi", has a 10-quantum-bit (qubit) processor, Baidu said in a statement. The Beijing-based company has also developed a 36-qubit quantum chip, it said.

So we are playing with the idea of creating a "God" (going full circle here) that will be able, at a certain time, to know everything, and to see everything. This could lead to some kind of a "Existential Wall": nothing else to discover and no "feeling" of awe.

No conquest nor new answer, eternal life...the AI will be bored with its masters and what they represent. Boredom is the future enemy

In other words: V'Ger from ST:TMP.

 

[VanPersie]

You cannot compare "Eugenics" with "Feminism"

Sorry i’m probably being daft i’m not following you.

 

[Lightning]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how no one wants to acknowledge that CRISPR is just science-glossed 'eugenics.' Which was, until recently, a decidedly morally bad thing.

Crispr is mentioned in the very first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on eugenics, so its a known topic of discussion. Keep in mind that term eugenics is used so broadly that things like the personal choice not to reproduce if you have a genetic condition, and laws against incest are also considered forms of eugenics.

 

[joberg]

Sorry i’m probably being daft i’m not following you.

Lots of young feminist women are religiously applying some of the main Feminist lore to a T: get the high education + the well paying career + the well -to-do husband and suddenly, you're 40 and past your reproductive years (or you're all alone) and then you'll hit the ground hard when it comes to have children...very problematic. So, no; you cannot have everything! But's it's too late. "Unconscious Eugenics".

That's one type...then the other is also influenced by another type of Feminism called: Save the planet + climate change. Not to reproduce will pollute less (one less mouth to feed, clothe, etc) The carbon footprint will be less than normal families. It's a conscious choice and could be called "Conscious Eugenics"