bingo

 

Last edited: Mar 5, 2024

Why anyone who can drive would want a Chauffeur is beyond me.

 

Blah...
"AI" is simply a tool these days - nothing more nothing less. To proclaim it the end-all-be-all of anything, especially at this stage of the game, is most certainly a scenario of putting the cart before the horse. The current state of "AI", boiled down, is basically nothing more than a sum of hard-coded presets. There's nothing "intelligent" about it. The implementations of it simply mimic some software engineers' predetermined perception of how something should be done with very little option for debate otherwise. Most of the stuff I have seen to date especially with respect to video and photography illustrate perfectly the inadequacies of "AI" as being something reliably useful in a wide variety of situations. It may in the future become something more (or maybe not). However, for the time being I put everything that is hyped to be "AI" the "raised eyebrow" category of usefulness, and use it with varying degree's of skepticism every time. Simply put, true "AI" should be something that can be used to accomplish a goal in the widest variety of situations, and one that learns each time it is used to facilitate further widening of it's intended scope. True "AI" is not something that simply mimics a predetermined set of parameters which only renders it capable in the narrowest of possible situations. To date the "intelligence" portion of the acronym leaves much to be desired...

 

Tell that to the voice actors,
https://www.thewrap.com/ai-dubbing-voice-actors/
Last year, Hulu won the rights to “Vanda,” a Portuguese crime drama series distributed by Legendary. Hulu viewers in the U.S. will automatically hear the English dub play over a cast led by Gabriela Barros, who plays a hairstylist who turns to robbing banks after the 2008 recession.

But after the main credits roll, the usual voice dubbing credits show a text card that reveals it was done not by human voice actors, but by the company Deepdub AI.

Artificial intelligence has taken root in the recording booth — and there’s no going back. The technology is already taking jobs away from voice actors in the U.S.,

 

That is NOT intelligence - that is simple transcribing. A task that PC's have been doing for decades. Are better software, sampling, and computer power doing a much improved job of the task? Sure. But give a real example of artificial INTELLIGENCE that is not simply the sum of it's programming. As computer power increases and software programming that interfaces with hardware improves more and more, human jobs will continue to be replaced by automation. As you said it's inevitable, and automation taking away human jobs is not a new thing. This is a topic that is in dire need of much conversation as to determining how to deal with the human factor in that equation.

But let's get the definition of "AI" (artificial intelligence), as it stands today, correct. A computer doing a job that that it simply has been pre-programmed to do is not intelligence. There are no innate decisions being made by any implementation (thus far) of "AI" for any practical application that isn't just presets taken into account beforehand and being acted upon by simple conditional logic.

The term "AI" is simply being used as a rubber stamp by the capitalist and advertising conglomerates to conjure up certain images in the heads of consumer monkeys to improve sales and induce greater profit margins. The term "snake oil" comes to mind every time I see the term stamped on anything.

 

Last edited: Mar 6, 2024

That is NOT intelligence - that is simple transcribing. Tell that to the voice actors that aren't getting jobs because of this.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
― Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible

 

I have these birds outside that mimic what they hear. They are very emphatic and a few of them are pitch perfect. It's fun to play out loud and listen to them sing along.

I made birdies sing along to Three Little Birds

 

I have no time to watch all these...just headlines:
Music Producer Vs. AI Beatmaker: Can you hear the difference?

How I Made A Track Using Only AI

you'll find thousands similar ones, and we're just in the very beginning of AI era...and this era promises to be very short, like tornado, what will left after nobody knows...

 

Skynet and Cyberdyne

 

Point missed.

 

Really? cos were all stupid and no ones discussing this in my industry. We've already had one technology revolution in the 90s that left many behind. And after it we creatively blossomed. We have been commercially exploring simulations, content generators and optimisation tools long before every other industry. Your fears have been discussion points for ages. People way smarter than you and I have already explored the outcomes and this 'AI does it all' is a bit of paranoid myth. Or I should say a profitable myth.

Now the AI age has arrived, they seem to be right. There's a lot of investment spin and hype around AI. People want to make big money by over selling its power.

Its undeniable massive workforce disruption is coming and society has to adapt to certain types of job disappearing. Which is scary because governments are inept buffoons.

But there is nothing near sentient AI and its a long, long way off. Artistic AI generation tools are powerful but they can only reflect what you feed them and without expert human guidance they deliver mediocre work. They are not creatively autonomous, they have no independent critical faculties. In Art and Music they have no idea what is good/exciting/beautiful/inspiring etc, key creative variables skilled humans intuitively decide in nanoseconds. AI needs a lot of steering, and a stream of fresh external content to learn from. Visual AI tools cannot learn from AI data sets, when it consumes itself the models corrupt.

My industry has been developing tools that remove peoples jobs for the last 25 years and ironically teams are bigger than ever as projects grew in ambition and development got more complex. We have hit maximum team size, and its financially unsustainable. We are now in the middle of a brutal staff cutting phase across the industry - 8000 jobs in just last 2 months. 10,000 + last year.

The harsh reality is, as teams and budgets inflated to obscene sizes, profit margins shrank, and innovation and creativity were massively stifled.

To foster new ideas and creativity we need to drastically optimise team departments down to single figures like they used to be. We need to be lean and fast again so we can take risks. AI will deliver that structure.

The Film industry is facing exactly the same issue. Its bloated, old and dying.

Creative AI manipulation and direction will be a huge industry for those who grapple with the tools.

But i can't say i have a solution for the drastic workforce cutting as production pipelines optimise across all industries.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2024

I've one, are the people participating on strong unions alongside with the rest their coworkers? No? Then people are fuck and the AI tech has nothing to do with it. Next time be in an union, and beat the ones who won't be in the union.

 

I've always supported unionisation in my industry. But apathy ruled because the job market was always growing. In our case I hope the current set of lay offs are a wake up call. They have surfaced fundamental workforce management issues within most corporate groups, and unions would help us lay the foundations for the new AI orientated production pipelines.

 

Everything is just transcription. Every stimulus you are exposed to is transcribed into electrical signals that trigger a chain of events.

Well, I'll pass the ball back to you:
Give a real example of a̷r̷t̷i̷f̷i̷c̷i̷a̷l̷ INTELLIGENCE that is not simply the sum of it's programming.

You are the sum of your programming. Your genetic, biochemical, physical programming. You have been exposed to stimuli, reacted to these stimuli and received feedback. You have avoided negative feedback and strived for positive rewards.

Correct.
However, since the whole point of developing AI is that it is not based on pre-programmed scripts, but on training and feedback, your argument somehow falls completely flat, right?

And that is factually incorrect. How do you think AI learns to walk? Through pre-programmed movement sequences? Shift weight to left foot, change right leg at right hip joint to angle x, bend right knee to angle y, change ankle to angle z, shift body weight to right front, etc, .... ?
A little hint: No. AI learns to walk the way you learned to walk. By trying and failing until it works. And on the way there, the agents get feedback. Just like you got feedback when you learned to walk.

 

We can keep moving goalposts until the end of all days, but the fact is that domain specific AI is already indistinguishable from human created works in those domains. We've all been unknowingly looking at, listening to and reading AI content.

And every month, AI conquers another domain.

And just like analog vs digital, people will unyieldingly claim they can hear 'something' about digital mixes even though every single digital/analog A/B test they take comes back as '98.3% chance you were just guessing'.

We simply don't know when or if domain spec. AI will come together to form general intelligence. And, perhaps worryingly, there's a very good chance we'll simply fail to understand that it did happen when it does happen.

It's not really relevant at this point I think.

Nobody in their right mind for the past 100 or so years has claimed children aren't really alive and intelligent because... they can't figure out some complex topic by themselves without several years of intense training and education by others?

(Paying for visual art as a musician borders on the absurd at this point)

 

Upton Sinclair once said, "
It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"

Ai is not like a typical program, contained, and finished until programmers start another version. AI is recursion with a feedback loop, that rewrites the rules and contents of the program. Currently humans massage this mess of data and rules to "optimize" it for human reasons, like more money or more stealth, or whatever the "team goals" are.

Don't you love teams, how they exclude any real human discussion or morality, and focus blindly on the goal, the carrot dangling, yet they don't see the donkey in the mirror, salivating for the carrot. - but I digress.

The whole goal of AI is to make it, its own programmer, no longer needing human interaction to get optimum results (who defines optimum is another discussion). When AI reaches this level, and there is an awfully grand, highly funded, program or 15 or 20 trying to accomplish this through software and optimized hardware, AI can do everything its creators can by simply parsing its own programming and emulating it recursively over multiple instances.
A human has but one brain, one life, one set of experiences. AI trawls the accumulation of all who upload their hopes, dreams and sins to the internet, through facebook,forums like this, business data bases, airline bookings and you know the 3 letter organization will use it to build profiles based on the data they intercept. Virtually all data accumulated can be parsed,patterns determined, predictions made, and new programming nodes, developed.

A human's intelligence is constrained by size of his skull, which limits the size of his brain, which limits the number of synaptic connections available. AI has no size constraints and no time constraints, his life is infinite, his scale is infinite, he can exist over multiple servers in multiple nations. Programmers are building a thing, that will replace them, and though they may think they know what they are doing, once they succeed, they have failed as their creation will replace them. They will have built the trapdoor that drops them into the dungeon and most will be so happy to get a paycheck or so happy to get prestige, for humans are very vain, that they will rationalize any dangers, to be the new heros, the new lords of silicon valley, the new kings of the financial universe.

No one in authority made a moratorium on atomic bomb development, to ask is this really what we want to do?
because.......... Programmers may be intelligent, but they are rarely wise. I've been a programmer, I've known a few handfuls and talked with many dozen more. They are fascinating, like a great artist in a wheel chair. Wonderfully talented in one aspect of their life and constrained in so many others. This leads to a peculiar blindness in their talent, that allows them to accomplish things without considering the implications of the things they are developing.

AI is a thing all of humanity will be affected by, it is something that will destroy civilization as we know it.
It is a topic that deserves intelligent discussion, a moratorium before going foward, to talk about what kind of world we want to live in and what kind of world we want for future generations.

That will not happen. and so we will get the future we deserve, not the future we need.

 

Sounds lovely and poetic. I think you've fallen for a rather romantic dark sci-fi narrative. I don't blame you, Silicon Valley have sold it hard to everyone. Stirred up all our imaginations of how far it could go.

But AI experts have emphasized its not aware, that its not remotely sentient, that its not even interesting yet. We give it the illusion of being interesting. Its a sales pitch.

We barely understand human consciousness, modern AI isn't even in the same room, its not even crawled out of the sea yet. It is definitely not a secret mega brain growing in power, waiting to take over.

It is however (even in this primitive state) a tool for bad actors to cause havoc on society...

Or the power to fix societies ills in the right hands...

Ill go with either, depending on my mood.

And I will agree that programmers and scientists are emotionally stunted ethical nightmares sometimes and I'm not happy they have so much influence on the modern world. We're all seemingly trapped between sociopathic politicians and detached robo boffins.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2024

Until you find those "helping hands" wrapped around your throat. I've always found it fascinating, how most humans have a blind spot. They can see a thing, but they cannot extrapolate how that thing will change all the things around it. Ai is like a ripple in a pond, that is not constrained by physical laws, the ripples will not diminish, they will accelerate. They will create tsunamis that will wash away lands, that aren't even near the sea.

Hope you live on really really high land, you can watch the destruction until it reaches your door.

 

Consider a virus. a very tiny bit of organic matter, it has no brain, it has no "intelligence". It can kill you.

some consider that something must be "intelligent" as defined by having great intellect, to be dangerous. That is a fallacious argument. an AI only needs a tiny bit of intelligence to become dangerous, it is an unknown land we are exploring.

trepidation rather than enthusiasm is advised.

 

Last edited: Mar 6, 2024

Some experts say so. Other experts say something completely different. I cannot comment on this. Firstly, I am not an expert in this field with decades of experience, and secondly, I do not have access to the internal, unpublished models.

Silicon Valley definitely has an interest in attracting investors and customers, yes. On the other hand, Silicon Valley also has an interest in downplaying AI, because otherwise they have to fear regulation. So Silicon Valley's interest is contradictory. And it's also not just about Silicon Valley.

These are two topics that have nothing to do with each other. Both are possible without the other necessarily applying.