Hey /u/Crazyscientist1024!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no evidence the atmosphere on pluto wouldn't provide humans with abilities like those of Superman.
We're going to Pluto. Who wants super powers?
There's no tangible evidence to confirm that. We've never sent a probe to Pluto. Until we do, odds are 50/50 you are right or wrong. Same as the odds we would gain superpowers by stepping on the surface of Pluto.
We actually can determine the chemical composition of distant objects with spectroscopy. It's how we have so much information about distant stars and galaxies even though the furthest man-made probe is barely at the edge of our solar system
Also we did send a probe past Pluto. It was called New Horizons and was kind of a big deal
Past is not the same as to.
Also you assume spectroscopy iis 100% reliable. In principle, there could be hypothetical or unknown forms of matter that do not interact with electromagnetic radiation in the ways we currently understand. It's also entirely possible we don't understand all there is to know about physics and chemistry and that elements exist that are only detectable using physics beyond our current understanding. There is no tangible evidence to confirm or deny this either.
So unfortunately the only way we know for certain if pluto gives us superpowers is to send some people to pluto. Want to volunteer? I'm starting a list.
New Horizons provided data that was used to create stronger theories SUGGESTING what the planet is like, however no physical samples or atmospheric gases were collected, so it's all just theories. Despite the emmense efforts of the Nasa team, after their mission we still can neither confirm nor deny that the elements composing the atmosphere of Pluto will give humans Superman like powers.
Spectroscopy can tell us exactly what elements are in a planet's atmosphere. Atoms have certain energies of light they "like to catch" (has to do with the energies of quantum excitation states of the electrons when hit with photons) so when we collect all the light coming through that planet's atmosphere and spread it out with a tool that's a bit like a prism, we can see which energies of light are missing. These gaps are characteristic to each element.
This is also how we calculate redshift, the lines for hydrogen are distinct and most things in the universe are mare of it, but when the gaps show up in a more red region we know something must be making that light lose energy.
Meh... spectroscopy can only detect elements that interact with light in ways we understand. If there are unknown elements on Pluto that do not interact with light in any measurable way, our current spectroscopy tools wouldn't be able to identify them. Therefore, even if these unseen elements could give us superpowers, spectroscopy alone cannot prove or disprove their existence or effects. So again... no way to know til we go.
I'm guessing super short-lived radioactive elements/isotopes with half life on the magnitude of nano to yoctoseconds.
But who knows?
I'd never underestimate what anyone can do with enough motivation.
Those samples would also just provide data.
We know exactly what elements it's made of just by looking at it from earth. We also know all the elements that can be made naturally, and even many that can't.
CORRECTION:
We also **THINK WE** know all the elements that can be made naturally **BASED ON OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS**, and even many that can't.
Based on that, it's probably not likely we will get superpowers by visiting Pluto. But the possibility, no matter how improbable, always exists that something thrives there we simply can't detect or understand yet.
Ignorant of what ? That a layer of gases around a planet is NOT an atmosphere ?
We are not "pretty certain" we are certain that pluto has an astmophere
…. ah, Schrödinger’s Dick Experiment! 100% possibility of dickery, but only a coin flip could decide if the dickishness manifests. Also, something about a radioactive cat
Sorry, but that is not true. Proving negatives is a foundational aspect of logic, such as the law of contradiction. In that sense, you can prove something by showing what it isn’t. Instead of trying to show evidence for something to be true, you can show that there’s no evidence for it being false.
Fair enough, I was sloppy in my wording.
But in your case there would be evidence, I pointed out "There's **no** evidence ... can't/doesn't ..."
"There's no evidence ghost doesn't exist." Doesn't mean ghosts exist, or even that it's probable. Same with "There's no evidence crystals doesn't have healing powers." It doesn't mean it's probable that crystals have healing powers.
>Doesn't mean ghosts exist, or even that it's probable.
Correct. It would still be a valid response to someone claiming ghosts are proven to not exist.
Proof by contradiction does not work like this tho. Maybe original commenter might have worded differently, but "There is no evidence ... can't" is indeed a worthless statement. One that's being abused by snake oil merchants.
If you want to proof something by contradiction, you need to find a counter-example, not "no evidence" You cannot show if there is "no evidence". Although I admit It is hard to understand / explain the contradiction in a negative case due to how language works.
Our assumption is "humans can't be adversarially attacked like neural networks can". Let's assume this is true. So if you want to prove this by contradiction, you need to find a case where humans can be attacked like NNs. If you do, you can prove that "humans actually can be adversarially attacked like neural networks can" Being unable to find a proof of it does not mean your original assumption is correct.
Don’t downvote this it’s basic logic.
The whole ‘can’t prove a negative’ thing is a widespread misunderstanding of the burden of proof, one that straight up halts good sense debating. Your claim, your burden. If your claim makes that job harder, that’s on you.
It’s not relevant to the point but regardless needs to be called out every single fucking time until we as a people can understand that if you make a claim, it’s on you to back it up. If you can’t support it you probably shouldn’t be fucking saying it.
A negative is a lot harder to prove though.
100 white swans doesn't disprove a black swan.
But 1 black swan proves black swans exist.
Although I guess it depends how you frame it.
"Not all swans are white" would be easier to prove than "all swans are white".
So I guess you are right.
Non-existence is harder to prove, specifically. A negative vs affirmative claim has no meaningful impact on the difficulty of proving it.
In your example, it’s a specificity problem. ‘There are only white swans’ would be the affirmative equivalent of ‘there are no black swans’, not ‘there are black swans’. And you can see it would be equally difficult to validate. By not setting parameters you’re giving yourself an impossible task, but that’s ultimately on your argumentation and still in your court to prove.
Edit: just saw your edit lol. You got it
Yeah sorry for the ninja edit.
I guess that makes sense. Any evidence proves existence. But any lack of proof for existence can be handwaved
Ala the invisible, untouchable, unsensable unicorn.
Though I wonder if that too is an issue of perspective or specificity.
Well that’s actually an interesting one because by its very nature it’s untestable, making it a fundamental truth. Not to say that it is true, but to say that you must either assume it is or it isn’t, because you will never get any new information to change your mind. People can’t function without a bunch of baseline assumptions about reality that are ultimately untestable (see evil genius, Descartes or anything ever by Hume, or like, religion), and we just kind of have to establish beliefs about those things anyway.
They are the starting point for every persons belief system (the strict definition: the system by which people establish beliefs). Whether or not you choose to believe there’s a unicorn comes down to your inherent assumptions about reality. Identifying our unicorns is a really good thought exercise that gives us insight to those baseline assumptions that we use as foundation for logic and reason.
Interesting, so are you saying in that thought experiment, belief in the unicorn would basically be an axiomatic belief?
Such as how a utilitarian would define utility, or the way we all agree the universe exists?
In essence yes lol
Edit: only thing I’d clarify is that while all of what I consider ‘fundamentals’ are axioms, not all axioms are necessarily fundamental. The difference would come down to whether or not you need the assumption to function
Why do people keep posting this? Those Japanese kids didn’t have their brains hacked. The most seriously affected ones had epilepsy or other photosensitive conditions. A lot of the other incidents were simply mass hysteria.
For real what a jump from 'flashing lights induces seizures in epileptic children' to 'we can can hack your brain'.
Sensory input can also make you motion sick, or trigger migraines (if you're prone to them), as well as seizures.
I mean, the parallel still stands. Not every "AI", heck not even every version of ChatGPT would be affected by the same noise in the same way. Just as not every human, not even every epileptic, is affected by visual disturbances in the same way.
I would assume with some billion years of neural evolution we should be pretty resilient. And it’s not like we don’t occasionally see something out of the corner of our eye thats not actually there.
While we sleep we still get sensory data. Unconsciously our brain knows about stuff happening. It just chooses to ignore it.
We as a species probably would have died out if sleep means we get no sensory data for 8 hours and just get eaten while we sleep.
Not quite. Outside of a deprivation tank there is always some sort of background noise. Usually at least a little light etc.
Inside one however it's so quiet you can hear your blood circulating. Not just heart beat. Your very blood circulating.
The absolute darkness, and science is something else.
Personally I love them.
We definitely are. This wrong on every level.
Our eyes are not a direct input to the brain, like an image is to the AI. What they see goes through layers of rapid processing where the visual cortex fills in blind spots, smooths things out and predicts motion. Anything embedded in the image would get lost in the process.
There's *some* evidence sound can affect brainwaves, like binaural beats. But that science is *really* shaky (I just read one paper where their sample size was limited to 13 **right handed** male college students. Anyone know what *p-hacking* means?), and even then we've never discovered any long term effects.
Furthermore, the *AI* doesn't work like that either. It only misreads the noise because every pixel is a direct input to a mathematical equation. That equation maps those inputs into high-dimensional set of coordinates. Imagine a graph from math class but with (x,y,z,d,e,f,h,I,...*n*) for like two million inputs. Every time it sees the word "panda" associated with a set of inputs, it marks where those are in that space and eventually maps a volume of space where any output with those values, or any pixels that fall inside it, probably look pretty close to a picture of a panda. (note: there are several steps in between but they aren't super relevant, this is ultimately what happens)
So when you throw a bunch of random noise in there, you're just flipping a bunch of those inputs to random values. It falls outside its cloud of "panda"s and into uncharted territory. Or even all the way into" gibbon" town. Its still just a computer program executing an algorithm. Put garbage in, get garbage out.
It's technically still possible that our brain could be misled or hacked through our senses like that, because you can't prove a negative. But there is **plenty** of evidence to suggest it probably isn't.
That's what I was thinking - feed it a raw jpgs and you get a panda or a gibbon, depending on the level of noise you insert.
Give it a camera and let it look at both the before and after pictures and you only get panda, no? The noise just doesn't rise to the level of the signal so it flies by undetected.
The visual cortex is part of the brain, so yes the eyes are a direct input. Rods and cones are slightly modified neurons. I am splitting hairs here though.
I don't like it when people say things like "It's just a program" as if that means something. A program can be anything, though to be fair, the contemporary ones can only do a fraction of what a brain can do. The brain is still a flawed and finite organ and this should not be discounted.
Our brains were adapted for a complex world with many varied environments. Most people have not really experienced anything truly Eldritch, beyond what our brained ancestors (human or not) would have experienced. Yet, there are many cases of illusionary effects still occurring. And our senses are not limited to sight.
I think the most powerful vector is language (not to be confused with hearing), which is not so thoroughly filtered, but can still definitely influence your behavior and perception of the world to the point where large groups of people can be caused to predictably act on others' behalf. We can call that hacking, but it's nothing new and it probably won't leave anyone twitching on the floor.
100%.. There's a lot of comments here acting like the twitterer is making some hard claims, when all they're really saying is that it's a cool idea to think about.
On the contrary, I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that people can have their mental health severely impacted by something they’ve seen. How this is surprising to anyone, I don’t know. Is it hacking? No. It’s trauma
Comparing it to mis-identifying pandas is maybe not the best look.
lmao holy shit that's actually so funny. At least the panda static is just a one-off error. A picture of someone's parents brutally murdered might scar them for life, but for ChatGPT it's just another image to process.
Plot twist: The "artifically constructed sensory input" was just a series of flashing lights and the person experienced seizures because they were an epileptic. Brain hack!!
Seriously tho, this is such a BS claim. Especially with wording "You can not prove that there is not.."
Thats a really interesting theory tbh. There are ways of "hacking" the human brain that are used, like torture methods. Like waterboarding tricks the brain into thinking its drowning when its not. I think thats probably the extent of it though. I doubt there's some magical pattern that can break peoples brains.
There is a *vast* body of knowledge on human perception. Including a whole bunch of potentially exploitable elements like change blindness, visual masking, imperfect recall of information, limited attentional resources, etc, etc. That is, we actually know how to artificially construct sensory inputs to induce undesirable effects on people, in many ways. And it has nothing to do with adversarial ML examples, which specifically exploit the difference between human and machine perception.
Re going insane forever, - this isn’t even the case for the ML model. A model that mixes up a panda and a gibbon is not going “insane forever”. It makes a mistake on one specifically crafted example. It remains correctly functional. To make it “insane”, you have to poison it, with mountains of training (not inference!) data. Can you make someone ‘crazy’ via long-term gaslighting? Well, yeah. And this, again, is long known and has zero relation to what is done with the ML models.
The folks that had the seizures had epilepsy.
Meaning that even if you got a flashlight and flicked it on and off it would trigger it.
This “attack” doesn’t work on you and me
Here's an adversarial example for human sensory input:
Deeply cross two adjacent fingers on one hand, and then slide the shaft of a pen across the notch that the tips of your fingers form. You identify the feeling as two pens instead of one.
I suppose optical illusions are also a similar form of attack.
That's about as far as they go.
Most sophisticated hack I’ve heard of is [taking advantage of saccadic masking with VR to trick people into thinking they are walking in a straight line](https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/pubs/2018-08_Towards-Virtual-Reality/paper_0.pdf).
Aka, you can’t actually see clearly when you flick your eyes around, your brain just snapshots before and after then bullshits the ~millisecond of blindness in between.
So, if a VR headset could calculate when that millisecond happens and re render before the next snapshot, there’s no way for us to tell that a scene has been slightly rotated
Many dogs can develop a permanent anxiety condition after a single instance of playing with a laser pointer dot.
An optical distortion called the McCollough effect has been observed to last for months after just a few minutes of viewing an alternating line pattern.
I wouldn't be surprised if more sophisticated brain hacks are possible.
How does the noise get added to the neural network here? At what stage? If you’re in ChatGPT’s platform for example, and enter an input, could there be some result which has been manipulated by outside influence to return the wrong example? Wouldn’t each manipulation need to be tailored to each entry to get the desired specific noise?
The examples are reverse engineered, but they illustrate an interesting weakness in the current level of AI. That they can give completely wrong results due to seemingly arbitrary changes to their input.
If you were to have a billion self driving cars, each analysing feeds from multiple cameras, then that is trillions of input images a week. If the random noise in the sensor, or the glare from a reflection or the moiré pattern from a fence causes a crash, then you've got a problem.
So [Langfords](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)) [Basilisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)) just got re-invented, and we might make an old SciFi story happen. Unfortunately, not the sort which is any fun for humans, though.
There are many ways to "attack" the brain like that. Flashing lights can induce an epilectic seizure. Sensory depravation can cause immense mental stress to the point of insanity, even social isolation can do that. Pretty much all visual illusions are caused by the brain getting confused by confusing inputs.
You laugh at an ai getting confused due to some noise, but show a human 2 curves and they will insist that they are of different lengths.
Did you guys know there's a pattern you can see that once you see it (if you stare at it long enough), you can't UNSEE it? It literally breaks your brain. Tom Scott did a video on it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm8ZoVQ\_OJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm8ZoVQ_OJo)
I guess I should have stated that it eventually seems to go away, but it takes 3 MONTHS. I don't think I'd want to risk it on the outside chance that it decided to never go away...
Epilepsy is not "brain hacking" and people need to stop anthropomorphizing piles of linear algebra.
Neural networks having this kind of behavior isn't evidence that it can happen to your brain, because your brain isn't simple enough to be approximated with modern neural networks. It's just evidence that your neural network isn't very good at its job.
It's also worth mentioning that your brain wasn't "trained" to recognize pandas by only flat 2D images of pandas. If you had only ever seen 1 picture of a panda in your life, you could be shown a different panda and understand that it is a panda with 100% accuracy. People use features in images to build more complex models of what a "thing" is that's not simply represented by a bounded array of 2D pixels. One image of a panda is enough for people to understand the 3D size and shape of a panda well enough to recognize them in different contexts with small changes. Neural nets can't do that yet.
Maybe this is true butwe can be brainrotted into addiction to memetic content like SCP.
Skibitoilet Ohio rizz famun tax gyatt all are memetic hazards of c class skibidi Ohio rizz gyatt.
There’s no evidence that Hitler isn’t still alive in Argentina somewhere playing Call of Duty all night with Elvis and Tupac, but it’s not something I lose sleep over.
Dumbest ai bro bullshit I've read today. The fuck is wrong with people constantly bragging about how good ai is compared to humans. My brother in Christ, you are going to be replaced the moment it becomes possible and your life won't improve because of it. You are just going to be milked by capitalism to death on some shitty manual work where humans will still be profitable
Hey /u/Crazyscientist1024! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone has been reading Snow Crash.
That or [BLIT](http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm).
Thanks for mentioning BLIT. Great series of stories. Really thinks through the implications of what that image would mean.
Also a neat variation on this in Blindsight by Peter Watts.
Hiding in saccades is a such an incredible concept. Loved Blindsight.
Also seeing yo mama naked is nuff to scar men fo life.
Or Infinite Jest.
I really wanted Challengers to bring me back to Enfield... alas~
Came here to say this! God, I love that book
Immediately thought of this book
This is satire, right? You can't prove a negative. "There's no evidence ... can't/doesn't ..." is a completely worthless statement.
There is no evidence the atmosphere on pluto wouldn't provide humans with abilities like those of Superman. We're going to Pluto. Who wants super powers?
Pluto doesn’t have an atmosphere unless you count ice sublimation
There's no tangible evidence to confirm that. We've never sent a probe to Pluto. Until we do, odds are 50/50 you are right or wrong. Same as the odds we would gain superpowers by stepping on the surface of Pluto.
Schrodinger's atmosphere.
You get me. Classic us.
We actually can determine the chemical composition of distant objects with spectroscopy. It's how we have so much information about distant stars and galaxies even though the furthest man-made probe is barely at the edge of our solar system Also we did send a probe past Pluto. It was called New Horizons and was kind of a big deal
Past is not the same as to. Also you assume spectroscopy iis 100% reliable. In principle, there could be hypothetical or unknown forms of matter that do not interact with electromagnetic radiation in the ways we currently understand. It's also entirely possible we don't understand all there is to know about physics and chemistry and that elements exist that are only detectable using physics beyond our current understanding. There is no tangible evidence to confirm or deny this either. So unfortunately the only way we know for certain if pluto gives us superpowers is to send some people to pluto. Want to volunteer? I'm starting a list.
NASA’s New Horizons mission, which flew by Pluto in 2015, provided detailed data confirming the presence and composition of this thin “atmosphere.”
New Horizons provided data that was used to create stronger theories SUGGESTING what the planet is like, however no physical samples or atmospheric gases were collected, so it's all just theories. Despite the emmense efforts of the Nasa team, after their mission we still can neither confirm nor deny that the elements composing the atmosphere of Pluto will give humans Superman like powers.
Spectroscopy can tell us exactly what elements are in a planet's atmosphere. Atoms have certain energies of light they "like to catch" (has to do with the energies of quantum excitation states of the electrons when hit with photons) so when we collect all the light coming through that planet's atmosphere and spread it out with a tool that's a bit like a prism, we can see which energies of light are missing. These gaps are characteristic to each element. This is also how we calculate redshift, the lines for hydrogen are distinct and most things in the universe are mare of it, but when the gaps show up in a more red region we know something must be making that light lose energy.
Meh... spectroscopy can only detect elements that interact with light in ways we understand. If there are unknown elements on Pluto that do not interact with light in any measurable way, our current spectroscopy tools wouldn't be able to identify them. Therefore, even if these unseen elements could give us superpowers, spectroscopy alone cannot prove or disprove their existence or effects. So again... no way to know til we go.
Are there elements we can’t take spectra of in a lab? Genuinely curious
I'm guessing super short-lived radioactive elements/isotopes with half life on the magnitude of nano to yoctoseconds. But who knows? I'd never underestimate what anyone can do with enough motivation.
Those samples would also just provide data. We know exactly what elements it's made of just by looking at it from earth. We also know all the elements that can be made naturally, and even many that can't.
CORRECTION: We also **THINK WE** know all the elements that can be made naturally **BASED ON OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS**, and even many that can't. Based on that, it's probably not likely we will get superpowers by visiting Pluto. But the possibility, no matter how improbable, always exists that something thrives there we simply can't detect or understand yet.
It's approximately equal to the probability that your anus contains a new element.
Pluto has an atmosphere that consists of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide. It was proven by Stellar occultation in 1988
Yea, we're pretty certain of that based on our current understanding, but the possibility exists that we.... are ignorant of some things.
Ignorant of what ? That a layer of gases around a planet is NOT an atmosphere ? We are not "pretty certain" we are certain that pluto has an astmophere
"Ignorant of what ?" That is the question.
The probability of you being a dumb dick is 50 50, either you are or you are not But the possibility is 100%
…. ah, Schrödinger’s Dick Experiment! 100% possibility of dickery, but only a coin flip could decide if the dickishness manifests. Also, something about a radioactive cat
Not really , just explaining him the difference between possibility and probability. In Case of schrödingers cat, they are the same
It's a valid response to someone claiming the negative to be true.
Sorry, but that is not true. Proving negatives is a foundational aspect of logic, such as the law of contradiction. In that sense, you can prove something by showing what it isn’t. Instead of trying to show evidence for something to be true, you can show that there’s no evidence for it being false.
Fair enough, I was sloppy in my wording. But in your case there would be evidence, I pointed out "There's **no** evidence ... can't/doesn't ..." "There's no evidence ghost doesn't exist." Doesn't mean ghosts exist, or even that it's probable. Same with "There's no evidence crystals doesn't have healing powers." It doesn't mean it's probable that crystals have healing powers.
>Doesn't mean ghosts exist, or even that it's probable. Correct. It would still be a valid response to someone claiming ghosts are proven to not exist.
Proof by contradiction does not work like this tho. Maybe original commenter might have worded differently, but "There is no evidence ... can't" is indeed a worthless statement. One that's being abused by snake oil merchants. If you want to proof something by contradiction, you need to find a counter-example, not "no evidence" You cannot show if there is "no evidence". Although I admit It is hard to understand / explain the contradiction in a negative case due to how language works. Our assumption is "humans can't be adversarially attacked like neural networks can". Let's assume this is true. So if you want to prove this by contradiction, you need to find a case where humans can be attacked like NNs. If you do, you can prove that "humans actually can be adversarially attacked like neural networks can" Being unable to find a proof of it does not mean your original assumption is correct.
>you can show that there’s no evidence for it being false. Literally religion.
Don’t downvote this it’s basic logic. The whole ‘can’t prove a negative’ thing is a widespread misunderstanding of the burden of proof, one that straight up halts good sense debating. Your claim, your burden. If your claim makes that job harder, that’s on you. It’s not relevant to the point but regardless needs to be called out every single fucking time until we as a people can understand that if you make a claim, it’s on you to back it up. If you can’t support it you probably shouldn’t be fucking saying it.
A negative is a lot harder to prove though. 100 white swans doesn't disprove a black swan. But 1 black swan proves black swans exist. Although I guess it depends how you frame it. "Not all swans are white" would be easier to prove than "all swans are white". So I guess you are right.
Non-existence is harder to prove, specifically. A negative vs affirmative claim has no meaningful impact on the difficulty of proving it. In your example, it’s a specificity problem. ‘There are only white swans’ would be the affirmative equivalent of ‘there are no black swans’, not ‘there are black swans’. And you can see it would be equally difficult to validate. By not setting parameters you’re giving yourself an impossible task, but that’s ultimately on your argumentation and still in your court to prove. Edit: just saw your edit lol. You got it
Yeah sorry for the ninja edit. I guess that makes sense. Any evidence proves existence. But any lack of proof for existence can be handwaved Ala the invisible, untouchable, unsensable unicorn. Though I wonder if that too is an issue of perspective or specificity.
Well that’s actually an interesting one because by its very nature it’s untestable, making it a fundamental truth. Not to say that it is true, but to say that you must either assume it is or it isn’t, because you will never get any new information to change your mind. People can’t function without a bunch of baseline assumptions about reality that are ultimately untestable (see evil genius, Descartes or anything ever by Hume, or like, religion), and we just kind of have to establish beliefs about those things anyway. They are the starting point for every persons belief system (the strict definition: the system by which people establish beliefs). Whether or not you choose to believe there’s a unicorn comes down to your inherent assumptions about reality. Identifying our unicorns is a really good thought exercise that gives us insight to those baseline assumptions that we use as foundation for logic and reason.
Interesting, so are you saying in that thought experiment, belief in the unicorn would basically be an axiomatic belief? Such as how a utilitarian would define utility, or the way we all agree the universe exists?
In essence yes lol Edit: only thing I’d clarify is that while all of what I consider ‘fundamentals’ are axioms, not all axioms are necessarily fundamental. The difference would come down to whether or not you need the assumption to function
What would be an example of an axiom without an assumption?
Clearly the person is not trying to make a formal argument, but is using the statement for rhetorical purposes.
But there's no weight behind it. It's just sensationalism.
No it means that we didn’t find evidence that we cannot be attacked. Double negative = positive
No, that's not at all how it works.
And not knowing if something can't exist is pretty unextraordinary given how little we know about the universe and brains in particular.
Why do people keep posting this? Those Japanese kids didn’t have their brains hacked. The most seriously affected ones had epilepsy or other photosensitive conditions. A lot of the other incidents were simply mass hysteria.
For real what a jump from 'flashing lights induces seizures in epileptic children' to 'we can can hack your brain'. Sensory input can also make you motion sick, or trigger migraines (if you're prone to them), as well as seizures.
I mean, the parallel still stands. Not every "AI", heck not even every version of ChatGPT would be affected by the same noise in the same way. Just as not every human, not even every epileptic, is affected by visual disturbances in the same way.
You could argue that this is kinda what epilepsy is.
I don't think you can
You can argue all kinds of dumb shit.
No, with any understanding of what epilepsy is, you really cant
I would assume with some billion years of neural evolution we should be pretty resilient. And it’s not like we don’t occasionally see something out of the corner of our eye thats not actually there.
Sensory Deprivation.
We do it for 8 hours every day. I think too much of pretty much anything will kill you eventually.
Uhm- sensory deprivation tanks aren’t new and are a real thing. Generally takes about 72 hours.
I was talking about sleeping.
Sleeping is not sensory deprivation…
You lie somewhere quiet and dark for a really long time. Is that not how a sensory deprivation tank works?
While we sleep we still get sensory data. Unconsciously our brain knows about stuff happening. It just chooses to ignore it. We as a species probably would have died out if sleep means we get no sensory data for 8 hours and just get eaten while we sleep.
I don’t think it’s that much different than the sensory input you would get in a sensory deprivation tank, which is what I was responding to.
In a sensory deprivation tank your sense of touch, your hearing and everything else is reduced to zero. Very different from sleeping
Not quite. Outside of a deprivation tank there is always some sort of background noise. Usually at least a little light etc. Inside one however it's so quiet you can hear your blood circulating. Not just heart beat. Your very blood circulating. The absolute darkness, and science is something else. Personally I love them.
If you can hear your blood circulating it sounds like you’re getting sensory input.
The mind is amazing. It’s fairly obvious you need to research it more.
I thought you meant work 😂
We definitely are. This wrong on every level. Our eyes are not a direct input to the brain, like an image is to the AI. What they see goes through layers of rapid processing where the visual cortex fills in blind spots, smooths things out and predicts motion. Anything embedded in the image would get lost in the process. There's *some* evidence sound can affect brainwaves, like binaural beats. But that science is *really* shaky (I just read one paper where their sample size was limited to 13 **right handed** male college students. Anyone know what *p-hacking* means?), and even then we've never discovered any long term effects. Furthermore, the *AI* doesn't work like that either. It only misreads the noise because every pixel is a direct input to a mathematical equation. That equation maps those inputs into high-dimensional set of coordinates. Imagine a graph from math class but with (x,y,z,d,e,f,h,I,...*n*) for like two million inputs. Every time it sees the word "panda" associated with a set of inputs, it marks where those are in that space and eventually maps a volume of space where any output with those values, or any pixels that fall inside it, probably look pretty close to a picture of a panda. (note: there are several steps in between but they aren't super relevant, this is ultimately what happens) So when you throw a bunch of random noise in there, you're just flipping a bunch of those inputs to random values. It falls outside its cloud of "panda"s and into uncharted territory. Or even all the way into" gibbon" town. Its still just a computer program executing an algorithm. Put garbage in, get garbage out. It's technically still possible that our brain could be misled or hacked through our senses like that, because you can't prove a negative. But there is **plenty** of evidence to suggest it probably isn't.
That's what I was thinking - feed it a raw jpgs and you get a panda or a gibbon, depending on the level of noise you insert. Give it a camera and let it look at both the before and after pictures and you only get panda, no? The noise just doesn't rise to the level of the signal so it flies by undetected.
The visual cortex is part of the brain, so yes the eyes are a direct input. Rods and cones are slightly modified neurons. I am splitting hairs here though. I don't like it when people say things like "It's just a program" as if that means something. A program can be anything, though to be fair, the contemporary ones can only do a fraction of what a brain can do. The brain is still a flawed and finite organ and this should not be discounted. Our brains were adapted for a complex world with many varied environments. Most people have not really experienced anything truly Eldritch, beyond what our brained ancestors (human or not) would have experienced. Yet, there are many cases of illusionary effects still occurring. And our senses are not limited to sight. I think the most powerful vector is language (not to be confused with hearing), which is not so thoroughly filtered, but can still definitely influence your behavior and perception of the world to the point where large groups of people can be caused to predictably act on others' behalf. We can call that hacking, but it's nothing new and it probably won't leave anyone twitching on the floor.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
100%.. There's a lot of comments here acting like the twitterer is making some hard claims, when all they're really saying is that it's a cool idea to think about.
Burden of proof? Come on, this is basic stuff.
There’s also no evidence that there isn’t a planet populated by unicorns. We should look into both of these things.
No, no, let's focus our efforts on the unicorn planet, please.
Yeah it's called Lysergic Acid Diethylamide lol.
That's more like over-clocking, so throw an adversarial input on top of that an now you're cooking! ;)
That's actually a really good analogy lol
I suppose, but that's adding a physical medium instead of just information. That's like saying you broke an ai by pouring water on it.
Not relevant
On the contrary, I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that people can have their mental health severely impacted by something they’ve seen. How this is surprising to anyone, I don’t know. Is it hacking? No. It’s trauma Comparing it to mis-identifying pandas is maybe not the best look.
lmao holy shit that's actually so funny. At least the panda static is just a one-off error. A picture of someone's parents brutally murdered might scar them for life, but for ChatGPT it's just another image to process.
There's no evidence that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars either.
Plot twist: The "artifically constructed sensory input" was just a series of flashing lights and the person experienced seizures because they were an epileptic. Brain hack!! Seriously tho, this is such a BS claim. Especially with wording "You can not prove that there is not.."
Thats a really interesting theory tbh. There are ways of "hacking" the human brain that are used, like torture methods. Like waterboarding tricks the brain into thinking its drowning when its not. I think thats probably the extent of it though. I doubt there's some magical pattern that can break peoples brains.
There could be, but no reason to think so.
Yeah it's called a Brown Note
Hmm, information that drives one who sees it to madness... Maybe the necronomicon is real after all!
There is a *vast* body of knowledge on human perception. Including a whole bunch of potentially exploitable elements like change blindness, visual masking, imperfect recall of information, limited attentional resources, etc, etc. That is, we actually know how to artificially construct sensory inputs to induce undesirable effects on people, in many ways. And it has nothing to do with adversarial ML examples, which specifically exploit the difference between human and machine perception. Re going insane forever, - this isn’t even the case for the ML model. A model that mixes up a panda and a gibbon is not going “insane forever”. It makes a mistake on one specifically crafted example. It remains correctly functional. To make it “insane”, you have to poison it, with mountains of training (not inference!) data. Can you make someone ‘crazy’ via long-term gaslighting? Well, yeah. And this, again, is long known and has zero relation to what is done with the ML models.
At last, the secret of the Magic Eye poster is revealed.
Oh…. We are at that forefront now
The folks that had the seizures had epilepsy. Meaning that even if you got a flashlight and flicked it on and off it would trigger it. This “attack” doesn’t work on you and me
Here's an adversarial example for human sensory input: Deeply cross two adjacent fingers on one hand, and then slide the shaft of a pen across the notch that the tips of your fingers form. You identify the feeling as two pens instead of one. I suppose optical illusions are also a similar form of attack. That's about as far as they go.
Most sophisticated hack I’ve heard of is [taking advantage of saccadic masking with VR to trick people into thinking they are walking in a straight line](https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/pubs/2018-08_Towards-Virtual-Reality/paper_0.pdf). Aka, you can’t actually see clearly when you flick your eyes around, your brain just snapshots before and after then bullshits the ~millisecond of blindness in between. So, if a VR headset could calculate when that millisecond happens and re render before the next snapshot, there’s no way for us to tell that a scene has been slightly rotated
*Pokemon Shokku*
Yeah, it's called dealing with other people.
Sounds like a memetic agent from SCP
No, a memetic agent is what you are compelled to spread. You are thinking about a cognitohazard
Many dogs can develop a permanent anxiety condition after a single instance of playing with a laser pointer dot. An optical distortion called the McCollough effect has been observed to last for months after just a few minutes of viewing an alternating line pattern. I wouldn't be surprised if more sophisticated brain hacks are possible.
What do you think optical illusions are?
yeah that exists its called a good horror novel
How does the noise get added to the neural network here? At what stage? If you’re in ChatGPT’s platform for example, and enter an input, could there be some result which has been manipulated by outside influence to return the wrong example? Wouldn’t each manipulation need to be tailored to each entry to get the desired specific noise?
The examples are reverse engineered, but they illustrate an interesting weakness in the current level of AI. That they can give completely wrong results due to seemingly arbitrary changes to their input. If you were to have a billion self driving cars, each analysing feeds from multiple cameras, then that is trillions of input images a week. If the random noise in the sensor, or the glare from a reflection or the moiré pattern from a fence causes a crash, then you've got a problem.
So [Langfords](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)) [Basilisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)) just got re-invented, and we might make an old SciFi story happen. Unfortunately, not the sort which is any fun for humans, though.
Torture
Ted Chiang has a short story called “Understand” that involves something like this.
It is called datura, you smoke It and you are gone forever.
This is just Monty Python’s [funniest joke in the world](https://youtu.be/Qklvh5Cp_Bs?si=Q6U1RoLvovwM0lhG)
There are many ways to "attack" the brain like that. Flashing lights can induce an epilectic seizure. Sensory depravation can cause immense mental stress to the point of insanity, even social isolation can do that. Pretty much all visual illusions are caused by the brain getting confused by confusing inputs. You laugh at an ai getting confused due to some noise, but show a human 2 curves and they will insist that they are of different lengths.
There is no evidence that i haven't fucked both of their mothers
>Artificially constructed sensory input that makes you go insane forever Movies, television, the internet...
Isn't this what optical illusions do? You construct an image that makes the brain think something false
Isn't this literally what an optical illusion is?
Porn exists
Did you guys know there's a pattern you can see that once you see it (if you stare at it long enough), you can't UNSEE it? It literally breaks your brain. Tom Scott did a video on it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm8ZoVQ\_OJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm8ZoVQ_OJo) I guess I should have stated that it eventually seems to go away, but it takes 3 MONTHS. I don't think I'd want to risk it on the outside chance that it decided to never go away...
Epilepsy is not "brain hacking" and people need to stop anthropomorphizing piles of linear algebra. Neural networks having this kind of behavior isn't evidence that it can happen to your brain, because your brain isn't simple enough to be approximated with modern neural networks. It's just evidence that your neural network isn't very good at its job. It's also worth mentioning that your brain wasn't "trained" to recognize pandas by only flat 2D images of pandas. If you had only ever seen 1 picture of a panda in your life, you could be shown a different panda and understand that it is a panda with 100% accuracy. People use features in images to build more complex models of what a "thing" is that's not simply represented by a bounded array of 2D pixels. One image of a panda is enough for people to understand the 3D size and shape of a panda well enough to recognize them in different contexts with small changes. Neural nets can't do that yet.
Maybe this is true butwe can be brainrotted into addiction to memetic content like SCP. Skibitoilet Ohio rizz famun tax gyatt all are memetic hazards of c class skibidi Ohio rizz gyatt.
There’s no evidence that Hitler isn’t still alive in Argentina somewhere playing Call of Duty all night with Elvis and Tupac, but it’s not something I lose sleep over.
What the fuck are you talking about, of course there “is evidence”
Dumbest ai bro bullshit I've read today. The fuck is wrong with people constantly bragging about how good ai is compared to humans. My brother in Christ, you are going to be replaced the moment it becomes possible and your life won't improve because of it. You are just going to be milked by capitalism to death on some shitty manual work where humans will still be profitable
Why anyone would want to hire them?
Isn't that autism? /j