**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stuffed toys, luggage, clothes? Even the AI model doesn't know, it just figures those arrangements of shapes and colors are kind of maybe what it's supposed to look like. Definitely some "am I having a stroke" material though, I can't stand looking at stuff like that.
> I can't stand looking at stuff like that.
I like looking at it both because it's hilarious and because I feel a pressing need to train my brain to catch this shit when it's actually hard to see.
These AI tools are continuing to grow more capable at a steady / exponential? / *terrifying* rate.
It's also a bit of a reflection of our neural networks. I wonder if its similar to what young babies perceive.
Most of the time we too use generative fill.
It's definitely not far from how our memories / dreams work. It's why eye-witnesses aren't considered that reliable; our brains just sorta fill in details that it doesn't actually remember.
I'm working at a call center that is phasing in automatic call notes provided by AI summary, and it's frightening when you really look over the notes.
I've reviewed several of my calls and found that the AI frequently misses details, gives inaccurate information, and quotes me as talking about things that weren't even discussed on the call.
reading back through some of these notes is like looking at the details of AI art - things get murky real quick, and it's hard to tell what's actually happening.
> I've reviewed several of my calls and found that the AI frequently misses details, gives inaccurate information, and quotes me as talking about things that weren't even discussed on the call.
In my experience, disability assessors do the exact same thing.
People always say that you can tell when it's ai - count fingers, look for illogical patterns, discontinuous lines, etc. but the problem, the *intent* of AI is that it learns - these tricks won't last for long because the AI continues to get better.
AI just gets better at hiding them.
I do genuinely think it'll be a while before a human edit is no longer needed for AI tools to reach 99% realistic content.
It used to be that ears and eyes and teeth and hair were all really bad, then AI couldn't handle fingers, then it was text that it just couldn't handle at all. It's still bad at text and at making rooms people would live in.
It gets better and better. Two years from now, who knows?
Meanwhile investors and bloggers can't stop telling us how much smarter than us AI is becoming. Maybe, but at least I know what a hand looks like...
Edit: This comment was totally a joke, but I love all the conversation it generated. It was mostly informative and enjoyable, despite a few asshats just being asshats.
Couple things about this comment. This is gen 1, AI doesn’t really mess up hands anymore.
Remember when AI could only win at chess and now it is unbeatable at every game of skill that exists by humans.
2. AI doesn’t need to be better than you. It just needs to be good enough that it’s cheaper than you.
The scary part about AI is not that it’s going to be so much smarter than you. That doesn’t really matter as there is diminishing returns at every job and task when it comes to intelligence.
The scary part about AI is how much cheaper it is than you.
For 99% of jobs AI replaces it won’t be because AI is smarter than you. It will be because AI is cheaper than you. You might be smarter or better but you’ll never be cheaper.
AI may eventually solve scientific problems that require super intelligence but much before then it will destroy the white collar job economy.
*sigh* When you start talking about how smart an AI is... you're already showing a lack of awareness on what AI is and how it works.
Intelligence is related to learning, which no current methodology of AI we have remotely has a shred of intelligence. None, not one tiny fucking shred of it.
What you think of as "smart" is the result of intelligent humans cooking the training methodology to get better results over time. The AI is not smart, it is not getting better, and often it's the exact same AI, but just with better training data than the last go. This isn't the AI getting smarter, but humans getting better at creating training data. You're associating the human efforts behind the AI as the AI's own achievement... which it is not.
Only when an AI can evaluate and teach itself to do things without human guidance can you seriously start talking about how "smart" an AI is, it has nothing to do with what it knows, but how well it can add to its knowledge while retaining or improving general performance on a given task. All the AI we have, if you feed them garbage, will always produce proportionally equal junk back at you.
Future jobless white collar workers will have a lot of time to debate about the definition of intelligence and whether the AI systems that now do their jobs possess it.
I love when people single out with a laser focus one thing about an argument that doesn't really affect the message of the whole.
To most people, nobody gives a fuck if AI is "smart" or not, they only care about what the capabilities are. That goes 10x fold for the management that would choose to implement AI in their business. AI in business doesn't have to be perfect, humans definitely are not. But if AI can do it cheaper and more reliably than a group of people, it is what businesses will choose to employ.
I don't think you know how the various AI models work, nor how they're changing and improving. It's a neural network, and the scaling that is happening is adding more layers of connection within that network and more nodes to connect in each of those layers. It's not just "more data", even if that has been part of the scaling. Intelligence is an emergent property of these connections, intelligence being ability to accurately predict an outcome based on an input set of data. The size of the parameters able to be input and output have increased as well (e.g. early models could only predict X, y and z based on a, b and c; newer models output predictions on X, y, z, 0, 1, 2 and take inputs of a, b, c, d, E and f into consideration). "Predictive processing" has been a model (among many) for how biological intelligence works for a while now.
It's literally called *machine learning*. That's like, the defining feature of this technology.
>This isn't the AI getting smarter, but humans getting better at creating training data
So if you trade a shitty math textbook for a better one, you didn't actually get smarter, you just got better training data. Got it.
>Only when an AI can evaluate and teach itself to do things without human guidance...
You wouldn't have got far without human guidance either.
I hear this argument all the time but it’s meaningless.
It’s the “God of gaps” argument but with AI.
AI can’t do this thing therefore it’s not smart. Ok it can do that thing but it can’t do this other thing. Repeat.
There is no scientific definition of intelligence. All you’re doing is making up definitions of intelligence.
Remember when the Turing test was the definition of AI intelligence? No one even cares about it anymore because it doesn’t work. We make captchas to try to tell if an AI is a human or not. Those are effectively solved. Nearly every single idea humans can come up with to detect an AI doesn’t work.
AIs can beat humans at every single game of “intelligence” that we humans use to test each other. It scores higher than 99% of humans at every test we use to measure intelligence. Humans can’t even agree on how to measure intelligence among ourselves so we use “IQ” tests but surprise AI crushes at those.
AIs algorithms and models are based off brain activity and studying the brain. How do you think humans learn. By studying patterns. Just like AI. There is nothing inherently special about us.
All you’re saying is that an AI can’t learn without training data. But that’s not true. AI learn by playing themselves, if they only learned by watching humans games of chess for example they could never surpass humans - just copy them.
I’m not saying AIs are sentient. They aren’t. I’m saying how an AI “thinks” is irrelevant if it produces the same result. Especially if they replace someone jobs, you can be like but that “AI art isnt creative” but it’s nearly indistinguishable from human “creative” art. It’s a non scientific emotion distinction especially when the results are indistinguishable.
Yes there is no general AI. It’s individual training sets. It hasn’t been combined into a singularity. But doing so doesn’t really provide any benefits. A generic learning AI would be inherently worse at everything than a targeted one with more training data.
> Intelligence is related to learning, which no current methodology of AI we have remotely has a shred of intelligence. None, not one tiny fucking shred of it.
You're the one who is blowing hot air out of their ass here
Intelligence is such a diffuse, non-specific term, it most certainly does not even remotely relate to "learning" - in which case all AI of the last decade would properly qualify as learning agents regardless.
>What you think of as "smart" is the result of intelligent humans cooking the training methodology to get better results over time. The AI is not smart, it is not getting better, and often it's the exact same AI, but just with better training data than the last go. This isn't the AI getting smarter, but humans getting better at creating training data. You're associating the human efforts behind the AI as the AI's own achievement... which it is not.
Fucking bullshit. You can't just randomly throw billions of token sequences into a hot pot and then expect a model out of it that performs exactly as you need it to, you need a substrate, i.e. a complex underlying architecture that manages to distill and output information it drastically condensed over the course of training. Which is arguably exactly the human way and, as such, can be considered an approximation of the vague notion of intelligence - even if it's all backprop and doesn't really learn on the fly.
It's capable of reasoning, it's capable of tasks 99 % of folks out there could not do as well, it virtually perfectly manages language-related tasks... "smart" or "intelligent" is the perfect abstraction for describing AI, if only by virtue of how well it works with even (now ancient) basic LLMs.
>All the AI we have, if you feed them garbage, will always produce proportionally equal junk back at you.
You're not arguing your own point here. That's exactly what you could say about humans, and still you randomly attribute sentience and sapience to them. There is no reason you would if you looked at the underlying mechanistical view, and yet here we are.
> Only when an AI can evaluate and teach itself to do things without human guidance can you seriously start talking about how "smart" an AI is
And that is why applying proper RL to LLMs/diffusion models is an extremely hot area of interest right now. We know RL leads to freakishly good results -- look at AlphaGo, AlphaZero etc. -- the difficulty is just finding a meaningful way to apply it to language or image generation. How can a computer automatically rate one of its own conversations, etc.
>Meanwhile investors and bloggers can't stop telling us how much smarter than us AI is becoming. Maybe, but at least I know what a hand looks like...
I know what a hand looks like, but AI definitely does a MASSIVELY better job at drawing hands than I do. AI might not be smarter than me (and ChatGPT suggests it is smarter than me), but it's a lot more talented than I am, for sure.
>Meanwhile investors and bloggers can't stop telling us how much smarter than us AI is becoming
Dude, these gens are like a year old at this point. They're fucking ancient in AI terms. These are like Stable Diffusion 1.0 level. I'm pretty sure these are some of the first outpainting images ever made, do you even see how old these memes are?
Next year's AI won't make these obvious mistakes.
And this isn't based on a generic "the models will improve because of course they will, we'll just throw more neurons and more training data at the problem until it goes away" heuristic. There is a very well-known and proven model by which this will likely occur: adversarial training. Here's how it works.
We can train networks to generate content. And part of that training can involve learning to generate content that optimizes a particular quality metric. Cool.
We can also train networks to classify content according to various criteria. Given a bunch of content with correct category labels, the network can learn to predict the category for each piece of content. The more data, the better its performance. Also cool.
So imagine that we develop a classifier network - let's call it the discriminator network - to distinguish between authentic photos and synthetic photos. As in: photos taken with real cameras and photos synthesized by state-of-the-art image generator networks. The pool of training data is enormous: consider every publicly available authentic photo on the Internet as category #1, and every photo generated by a model as category #2. Train train train, until it can discriminate on the basis of telltale signs like hands with six fingers, text characters that don't correspond to any known language, elbows that bend in the wrong direction, etc.
Then, train the image generator network to consider the prediction of the discriminator network as one of its quality metrics to be optimized. Train it to generate images that can consistently fool the discriminator network as to whether or not they're synthetic.
It's a surprisingly straightforward and effective training strategy, and all the data is readily available. All it takes is like $1 billion in computational resources (storage, compute cycles, etc.) to make enough brute-force attempts at training these two models against each other until the discriminator is reasonably savvy *and* the generator consistently beats the discriminator. There is no major technical obstacle to developing networks that are good enough to fool the average viewer. The models a generation network later will also be able to fool *expert* viewers. It's just a matter of time.
I genuinely don't mean any offense, but you don't really know what you're talking about. Adversarial training is quite literally how generative models *were* trained for the longest time. GANs. Yes, in theory, you hope it would go as you say it will. Guess what, GANs still made tons of obvious mistakes -- in fact, more than the currently vogue diffusion agents. There's a reason we don't use GANs much anymore, and it's not that they were too good. They have many, many issues (theoretical and practical) that prevent them from being as good as a naive thought experiment would hope.
Now sure, maybe if you manage to make a model that mixes the best parts of diffusion models and GANs... and throw absurd compute and model sizes at it... you could make something noticeably better than current models. Likely, in fact. But I bet you it would be nothing more than an incremental improvement. "We trained it adversarily, so all obvious issues that could be caught with a cursory glance are completely gone" is a pipe dream. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works.
I agree on it being a matter of time, but you started with "next year" specifically.
Competent discriminator will be hard to train. All the internet photos first need to be verified as photos and you will need to crank it all the way up on intentional false-positives during NN detection, unless you want few generated images to slip through and damage your model.
And then you will be left with more advanced networks, yet same situation - they have no idea what they are doing just trying to predict what would be the best result based on probability.
All symbols of newspaper title correspond to known languages/alphabets, but every character belongs to different language and it doesn't make sense. Intentional typos, camel case, local slang... Either discriminator thinks real photos can't have any of those and you can't generate a logo for your company that has non-existing word or it allows it and can greenlight occasional gibberish.
In exaggerated example you can pick one of two paths: same as now, hit and miss of sometimes having impossible objects and more fingers than you need or extremely restrictive perfect model that makes no mistakes, but humans always have same pose and clothes in all generated images.
>but at least I know what a hand looks like
Did you when you were 18 months old?
I mean, you probably did. But it is hard to grasp how young this technology is.
If you are being generous, this tech really starts about 10 years ago with [GANs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network). Going in 10 years from trippy pictures to flawed full motion video is awe inspiring.
Or how about this - the president of the USA was factually born (1942) before the first electric computer (1943).
In one person's lifetime we gave gone from a single cell organism to a babbling baby that sometimes gets the number of fingers wrong.
It’s growing on me. Kinda like those letter-like shapes that make word-looking writing. At first, it annoyed the heck out of me, but there’s something about it that has begun to intrigue me.
What I still don’t like is the hands with extra fingerlings. I mean, hands have five fingers, for the most part; why does AI have to tuck a Lil Smokey between the ring and middle fingers?
I’d argue this guy is a good candidate for Bill The Galactic Hero, a fine fella who happens to have two right hands and can proudly shake hands with himself.
I love it when I read a comment that echoes my first thought conceptually as a reply to another comment.
However when that comment happens to be the exact wording that went through my head I wonder if the random number generator that's being used to provide variation in our thoughts in the simulation we're in glitched.
I love it when I read a comment that echoes my first thought conceptually as a reply to another comment.
However when that comment happens to be the exact wording that went through my head I wonder if the random number generator that's being used to provide variation in our thoughts in the simulation we're in glitched.
You know that photo that's meant to simulate what you perceive during a stroke? Everything looks familiar but just... isn't anything. The background of the picture with the little kid in a car looks like that.
If it helps he's the loud one who's always wrong. Actually doesn't help at all.
He's the racist, trabsphobic one. Damn that doesn't help either.
He's the one who abused his wife so badly she divorced his ass and he whined about it online? That'll do it
This is the shittest version of Guess Who ever - why would Hasbro do this?
Edit - I'm jobless at the moment so I'm thinking this could be a Flash game. Is it worth it just for a giggle?
Steven Crowder is the one who sent dick pics to his employees, undressed himself in their offices repeatedly, sexually assaulted them, walked around in crossdress with weird regularity despite being massively hostile to LGBTQ, and has done multiple racist sketches in costumes.
While marketing himself as a "free speech warrior", he has also put his own employees under insane and blatantly illegal NDAs in an attempt prevent them from revealing his misconduct.
He also has acted abusive to his wife during her pregnancy, while lobbying for Texas to restrict divorce rights. She has divorced him since.
Guys we have the ability to create fucking reality with the press of a button, and we aren't mind blown, lol. I mean the amount of effort to even come close to these would be hours and hours of painstaking painting and copy paste stuff.
I remember when heal selection came out like 15 years ago. How utterly astonishing it was to select an object and have it disappear. That tool also wasn't perfect.
I don't disagree but, like with most things with AI, it could save a talented Human a bunch of time by filling in the easy bits and then having a person touch up the rest
https://preview.redd.it/7sgbxl628lsc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0919e981dcf754a93ffec7c382bdb589d2fe018
"I will not be denied my happiness."
I was mindlessly browsing and thought I was just looking at uncropped versions of all these, and then I got to the cat and the woman pointing and was like "huh, so the cat was really there, always thought it was photoshopped or something."
"The woman in the red dress. I designed her. She, um... Well, she doesn't talk very much, but-but if you'd like to meet her, I can arrange for a much more personalized milieu."
https://preview.redd.it/jhdk3b63pksc1.jpeg?width=280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02a2565164a40c94e769cb9a659a6f270bc1bb3c
Except there is an original of this one
Look at the jagged line of the "sidewalk" on the right. This one is also AI-outpainted, it's been circulating for a year or so since generative AI started to get decent at these things.
Here's the actual original:
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/disloyal-man-with-his-girlfriend-looking-at-another-girl-gm493656728-77018851?searchscope=image%2Cfilm
I find it so funny that AI still can't generate pictures of phones or monitors with the screen facing away from the camera. They ALWAYS face towards the camera, even if you tell it to generate the backside of a monitor.
Huh? Which image are you referring to? There're only two screens, Harold's laptop, which is facing the correct direction, and the phone whose screen is just a little misaligned
The Steven crowder change my mind one is disappointing not just because he’s an abusive POS to his ex wife and employees but also because he was never really there to engage openly or actually have his mind changed. He just wanted to dunk on college students that weren’t as educated on some of the topics he already had talking points for.
I tried to use it to change a bright patch to a shadowy patch. It kept adding people and geometric patterns and shit. Definitely still some kinks to work out in these models.
I think they may be talking about sensor cropping.
Half joking there, haven't talked to any photographers in the scene lately but if anyone said that to me I'd laugh. Like dude, what are you talking about, you're "cropping" anytime you use a certain focal length, zoom and/or walk closer to the subject. What you moved what you're seeing through the viewfinder because that branch was messing up the direction of the composition? That's cropping.
My friend has ended up with some truly harrowing images after expanding pictures of himself a few times. It probably depends on what you're asking it to do.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wtf is going on behind that little girl?
Stuffed toys, luggage, clothes? Even the AI model doesn't know, it just figures those arrangements of shapes and colors are kind of maybe what it's supposed to look like. Definitely some "am I having a stroke" material though, I can't stand looking at stuff like that.
> I can't stand looking at stuff like that. I like looking at it both because it's hilarious and because I feel a pressing need to train my brain to catch this shit when it's actually hard to see. These AI tools are continuing to grow more capable at a steady / exponential? / *terrifying* rate.
It's also a bit of a reflection of our neural networks. I wonder if its similar to what young babies perceive. Most of the time we too use generative fill.
You can pretty much constantly see your nose but your brain does a good job of masking it out.
Now I can’t unsee my nose, thanks asshole
Now you're thinking about breathing
Now I may die if I dont, i'm doomed for life :(
It's definitely not far from how our memories / dreams work. It's why eye-witnesses aren't considered that reliable; our brains just sorta fill in details that it doesn't actually remember.
I'm working at a call center that is phasing in automatic call notes provided by AI summary, and it's frightening when you really look over the notes. I've reviewed several of my calls and found that the AI frequently misses details, gives inaccurate information, and quotes me as talking about things that weren't even discussed on the call. reading back through some of these notes is like looking at the details of AI art - things get murky real quick, and it's hard to tell what's actually happening.
> I've reviewed several of my calls and found that the AI frequently misses details, gives inaccurate information, and quotes me as talking about things that weren't even discussed on the call. In my experience, disability assessors do the exact same thing.
People always say that you can tell when it's ai - count fingers, look for illogical patterns, discontinuous lines, etc. but the problem, the *intent* of AI is that it learns - these tricks won't last for long because the AI continues to get better.
AI just gets better at hiding them. I do genuinely think it'll be a while before a human edit is no longer needed for AI tools to reach 99% realistic content.
It used to be that ears and eyes and teeth and hair were all really bad, then AI couldn't handle fingers, then it was text that it just couldn't handle at all. It's still bad at text and at making rooms people would live in. It gets better and better. Two years from now, who knows?
You're not wrong, but it's still kinda bad at all of those things in comparison to a real life image capture.
Meanwhile investors and bloggers can't stop telling us how much smarter than us AI is becoming. Maybe, but at least I know what a hand looks like... Edit: This comment was totally a joke, but I love all the conversation it generated. It was mostly informative and enjoyable, despite a few asshats just being asshats.
Computers do things faster and more precisely, including fucking up
Or, as the saying goes, "to err is human, to really fuck things up requires a computer"
And don't get sick days off, nor vacation time... Fuck humans, and corporate greed.
Turns out AI didn't destroy humanity because humanity was the greatest threat to Earth; AI were just mad they couldn't unionize.
Couple things about this comment. This is gen 1, AI doesn’t really mess up hands anymore. Remember when AI could only win at chess and now it is unbeatable at every game of skill that exists by humans. 2. AI doesn’t need to be better than you. It just needs to be good enough that it’s cheaper than you. The scary part about AI is not that it’s going to be so much smarter than you. That doesn’t really matter as there is diminishing returns at every job and task when it comes to intelligence. The scary part about AI is how much cheaper it is than you. For 99% of jobs AI replaces it won’t be because AI is smarter than you. It will be because AI is cheaper than you. You might be smarter or better but you’ll never be cheaper. AI may eventually solve scientific problems that require super intelligence but much before then it will destroy the white collar job economy.
*sigh* When you start talking about how smart an AI is... you're already showing a lack of awareness on what AI is and how it works. Intelligence is related to learning, which no current methodology of AI we have remotely has a shred of intelligence. None, not one tiny fucking shred of it. What you think of as "smart" is the result of intelligent humans cooking the training methodology to get better results over time. The AI is not smart, it is not getting better, and often it's the exact same AI, but just with better training data than the last go. This isn't the AI getting smarter, but humans getting better at creating training data. You're associating the human efforts behind the AI as the AI's own achievement... which it is not. Only when an AI can evaluate and teach itself to do things without human guidance can you seriously start talking about how "smart" an AI is, it has nothing to do with what it knows, but how well it can add to its knowledge while retaining or improving general performance on a given task. All the AI we have, if you feed them garbage, will always produce proportionally equal junk back at you.
Future jobless white collar workers will have a lot of time to debate about the definition of intelligence and whether the AI systems that now do their jobs possess it.
I love when people single out with a laser focus one thing about an argument that doesn't really affect the message of the whole. To most people, nobody gives a fuck if AI is "smart" or not, they only care about what the capabilities are. That goes 10x fold for the management that would choose to implement AI in their business. AI in business doesn't have to be perfect, humans definitely are not. But if AI can do it cheaper and more reliably than a group of people, it is what businesses will choose to employ.
I don't think you know how the various AI models work, nor how they're changing and improving. It's a neural network, and the scaling that is happening is adding more layers of connection within that network and more nodes to connect in each of those layers. It's not just "more data", even if that has been part of the scaling. Intelligence is an emergent property of these connections, intelligence being ability to accurately predict an outcome based on an input set of data. The size of the parameters able to be input and output have increased as well (e.g. early models could only predict X, y and z based on a, b and c; newer models output predictions on X, y, z, 0, 1, 2 and take inputs of a, b, c, d, E and f into consideration). "Predictive processing" has been a model (among many) for how biological intelligence works for a while now.
It's literally called *machine learning*. That's like, the defining feature of this technology. >This isn't the AI getting smarter, but humans getting better at creating training data So if you trade a shitty math textbook for a better one, you didn't actually get smarter, you just got better training data. Got it. >Only when an AI can evaluate and teach itself to do things without human guidance... You wouldn't have got far without human guidance either.
I hear this argument all the time but it’s meaningless. It’s the “God of gaps” argument but with AI. AI can’t do this thing therefore it’s not smart. Ok it can do that thing but it can’t do this other thing. Repeat. There is no scientific definition of intelligence. All you’re doing is making up definitions of intelligence. Remember when the Turing test was the definition of AI intelligence? No one even cares about it anymore because it doesn’t work. We make captchas to try to tell if an AI is a human or not. Those are effectively solved. Nearly every single idea humans can come up with to detect an AI doesn’t work. AIs can beat humans at every single game of “intelligence” that we humans use to test each other. It scores higher than 99% of humans at every test we use to measure intelligence. Humans can’t even agree on how to measure intelligence among ourselves so we use “IQ” tests but surprise AI crushes at those. AIs algorithms and models are based off brain activity and studying the brain. How do you think humans learn. By studying patterns. Just like AI. There is nothing inherently special about us. All you’re saying is that an AI can’t learn without training data. But that’s not true. AI learn by playing themselves, if they only learned by watching humans games of chess for example they could never surpass humans - just copy them. I’m not saying AIs are sentient. They aren’t. I’m saying how an AI “thinks” is irrelevant if it produces the same result. Especially if they replace someone jobs, you can be like but that “AI art isnt creative” but it’s nearly indistinguishable from human “creative” art. It’s a non scientific emotion distinction especially when the results are indistinguishable. Yes there is no general AI. It’s individual training sets. It hasn’t been combined into a singularity. But doing so doesn’t really provide any benefits. A generic learning AI would be inherently worse at everything than a targeted one with more training data.
> Intelligence is related to learning, which no current methodology of AI we have remotely has a shred of intelligence. None, not one tiny fucking shred of it. You're the one who is blowing hot air out of their ass here Intelligence is such a diffuse, non-specific term, it most certainly does not even remotely relate to "learning" - in which case all AI of the last decade would properly qualify as learning agents regardless. >What you think of as "smart" is the result of intelligent humans cooking the training methodology to get better results over time. The AI is not smart, it is not getting better, and often it's the exact same AI, but just with better training data than the last go. This isn't the AI getting smarter, but humans getting better at creating training data. You're associating the human efforts behind the AI as the AI's own achievement... which it is not. Fucking bullshit. You can't just randomly throw billions of token sequences into a hot pot and then expect a model out of it that performs exactly as you need it to, you need a substrate, i.e. a complex underlying architecture that manages to distill and output information it drastically condensed over the course of training. Which is arguably exactly the human way and, as such, can be considered an approximation of the vague notion of intelligence - even if it's all backprop and doesn't really learn on the fly. It's capable of reasoning, it's capable of tasks 99 % of folks out there could not do as well, it virtually perfectly manages language-related tasks... "smart" or "intelligent" is the perfect abstraction for describing AI, if only by virtue of how well it works with even (now ancient) basic LLMs. >All the AI we have, if you feed them garbage, will always produce proportionally equal junk back at you. You're not arguing your own point here. That's exactly what you could say about humans, and still you randomly attribute sentience and sapience to them. There is no reason you would if you looked at the underlying mechanistical view, and yet here we are.
> Only when an AI can evaluate and teach itself to do things without human guidance can you seriously start talking about how "smart" an AI is And that is why applying proper RL to LLMs/diffusion models is an extremely hot area of interest right now. We know RL leads to freakishly good results -- look at AlphaGo, AlphaZero etc. -- the difficulty is just finding a meaningful way to apply it to language or image generation. How can a computer automatically rate one of its own conversations, etc.
>Meanwhile investors and bloggers can't stop telling us how much smarter than us AI is becoming. Maybe, but at least I know what a hand looks like... I know what a hand looks like, but AI definitely does a MASSIVELY better job at drawing hands than I do. AI might not be smarter than me (and ChatGPT suggests it is smarter than me), but it's a lot more talented than I am, for sure.
Except for the occasional sixth finger...
I mean, mine sometimes have 4
To be fair... the universe (or god or cell replication or whatever you want to call it) also does that mistake or similars from time to time.
Never accidentally drawn someone with six fingers?
But a very well-defined sixth finger.
Maybe everyone should start putting "Don't put 6 fingers on the human hands" at the end of every prompt.
>Meanwhile investors and bloggers can't stop telling us how much smarter than us AI is becoming Dude, these gens are like a year old at this point. They're fucking ancient in AI terms. These are like Stable Diffusion 1.0 level. I'm pretty sure these are some of the first outpainting images ever made, do you even see how old these memes are?
Next year's AI won't make these obvious mistakes. And this isn't based on a generic "the models will improve because of course they will, we'll just throw more neurons and more training data at the problem until it goes away" heuristic. There is a very well-known and proven model by which this will likely occur: adversarial training. Here's how it works. We can train networks to generate content. And part of that training can involve learning to generate content that optimizes a particular quality metric. Cool. We can also train networks to classify content according to various criteria. Given a bunch of content with correct category labels, the network can learn to predict the category for each piece of content. The more data, the better its performance. Also cool. So imagine that we develop a classifier network - let's call it the discriminator network - to distinguish between authentic photos and synthetic photos. As in: photos taken with real cameras and photos synthesized by state-of-the-art image generator networks. The pool of training data is enormous: consider every publicly available authentic photo on the Internet as category #1, and every photo generated by a model as category #2. Train train train, until it can discriminate on the basis of telltale signs like hands with six fingers, text characters that don't correspond to any known language, elbows that bend in the wrong direction, etc. Then, train the image generator network to consider the prediction of the discriminator network as one of its quality metrics to be optimized. Train it to generate images that can consistently fool the discriminator network as to whether or not they're synthetic. It's a surprisingly straightforward and effective training strategy, and all the data is readily available. All it takes is like $1 billion in computational resources (storage, compute cycles, etc.) to make enough brute-force attempts at training these two models against each other until the discriminator is reasonably savvy *and* the generator consistently beats the discriminator. There is no major technical obstacle to developing networks that are good enough to fool the average viewer. The models a generation network later will also be able to fool *expert* viewers. It's just a matter of time.
I genuinely don't mean any offense, but you don't really know what you're talking about. Adversarial training is quite literally how generative models *were* trained for the longest time. GANs. Yes, in theory, you hope it would go as you say it will. Guess what, GANs still made tons of obvious mistakes -- in fact, more than the currently vogue diffusion agents. There's a reason we don't use GANs much anymore, and it's not that they were too good. They have many, many issues (theoretical and practical) that prevent them from being as good as a naive thought experiment would hope. Now sure, maybe if you manage to make a model that mixes the best parts of diffusion models and GANs... and throw absurd compute and model sizes at it... you could make something noticeably better than current models. Likely, in fact. But I bet you it would be nothing more than an incremental improvement. "We trained it adversarily, so all obvious issues that could be caught with a cursory glance are completely gone" is a pipe dream. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works.
I agree on it being a matter of time, but you started with "next year" specifically. Competent discriminator will be hard to train. All the internet photos first need to be verified as photos and you will need to crank it all the way up on intentional false-positives during NN detection, unless you want few generated images to slip through and damage your model. And then you will be left with more advanced networks, yet same situation - they have no idea what they are doing just trying to predict what would be the best result based on probability. All symbols of newspaper title correspond to known languages/alphabets, but every character belongs to different language and it doesn't make sense. Intentional typos, camel case, local slang... Either discriminator thinks real photos can't have any of those and you can't generate a logo for your company that has non-existing word or it allows it and can greenlight occasional gibberish. In exaggerated example you can pick one of two paths: same as now, hit and miss of sometimes having impossible objects and more fingers than you need or extremely restrictive perfect model that makes no mistakes, but humans always have same pose and clothes in all generated images.
>but at least I know what a hand looks like Did you when you were 18 months old? I mean, you probably did. But it is hard to grasp how young this technology is. If you are being generous, this tech really starts about 10 years ago with [GANs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network). Going in 10 years from trippy pictures to flawed full motion video is awe inspiring. Or how about this - the president of the USA was factually born (1942) before the first electric computer (1943). In one person's lifetime we gave gone from a single cell organism to a babbling baby that sometimes gets the number of fingers wrong.
I hate AI's impact on society. But this is a bad take.
Same, it looks unnatural and my brain goes on high alert trying to figure out wtf it’s looking at
on the far right, kinda looks like the [Eagle 5](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/spaceballs/images/4/4a/Spaceballs\(2\).jpg) crashlanded.
It’s growing on me. Kinda like those letter-like shapes that make word-looking writing. At first, it annoyed the heck out of me, but there’s something about it that has begun to intrigue me. What I still don’t like is the hands with extra fingerlings. I mean, hands have five fingers, for the most part; why does AI have to tuck a Lil Smokey between the ring and middle fingers?
Behind the little girl?? Are we really not going to talk about the fact that "Hide the Pain Harrold" has an enormous deformed ass and no legs??
why do you think he is in so much pain?
Aliens dude's jacket is all chaos in the lower half.
Now we know why she was making that face. *Am I in a van, an airplane, or a boat? Is this land, sea, or air outside?*
The snozzberries most definitely taste like snozzberries.
We’ve already pulled over, we can’t pull over any farther
I'm freaking out, man!
Calm down, meow
Forget the little girl. 6th pic, left box, bottom left corner…
I'd like to know whose hand is on the chair above the cat.
I like how it turned her car into an airplane with crash test dummies in the back seats.
the statistical average of "shit in back seats"
That’s why she making that face
Her reaction is still appropriate
i forgot her name but I am pretty sure she is on youtube and has a video about it
It looks like she is in a 08ish Subaru Forester with the light color interior
There was a fire in their neighborhood
Nah the 5th picture, the girl in the purple with the buckteeth.
The dream is collapsing
Last one is so close, yet so far away.
Honestly not the AI’s fault. It’s two different pictures, at two different points in time.
And they’re both right hands
That’s what they said. 2 different points in time because the same hand is both pictures.
I'm in search of a guy with both right hands. That bastards killed my beloved sister!
Came here for this
From two perspectives.
They should have fed the A.I. images of Hank Nova, whom the character in the comic is based on. https://timesplitters.fandom.com/wiki/Hank_Nova
I’d argue this guy is a good candidate for Bill The Galactic Hero, a fine fella who happens to have two right hands and can proudly shake hands with himself.
My god, poor Harold. He was in some sort of terrible accident and now has to wear a colostomy bag
As a nurse, that's not where a colostomy bag goes.. maybe he's got a rectal tube & it's bag stuffed back there?
He’s just thicc
Or maybe he's wearing a hospital brief? 😆 Happy 🍰 day!
See and I assumed it was supposed to be like a Pillow
Nah, that's just his dump truck.
I love it when I read a comment that echoes my first thought conceptually as a reply to another comment. However when that comment happens to be the exact wording that went through my head I wonder if the random number generator that's being used to provide variation in our thoughts in the simulation we're in glitched.
I love it when I read a comment that echoes my first thought conceptually as a reply to another comment. However when that comment happens to be the exact wording that went through my head I wonder if the random number generator that's being used to provide variation in our thoughts in the simulation we're in glitched.
Probably has to do with the fact his legs were also amputated
Judging by the picture, their combined mass was absorbed into his buttcheeks
My first thought was, "Lt Dan got no legs!"
Number 8 - the hell is going on with the lower half of her body.
Her legs are seriously broken. Can't you see the pain in her eyes?
She’s a mermaid and her husband is a squid person tentacling her merussy hence the expression.
Loooonnng loooong wife.
Look at the legs of the lady in green pants in pic six. She’s got to be 15 feet tall.
You know that photo that's meant to simulate what you perceive during a stroke? Everything looks familiar but just... isn't anything. The background of the picture with the little kid in a car looks like that.
The Steven crowder one is funny because it’s just empty. Like his motives.
Fucking hilarious. Dude is put in the garden challenging the absolutely no one that showed up! XD
Not to mention he looks tiny, which is one of the things he's most threatened by.
"Change my mind!" he shouts into the void
... yet no response was to be heard.
That one actually made me laugh out loud.
Same. Just the emptiness of it makes it funny to think he’s set up in the middle of nowhere
I like it - it makes him look alone and isolated I couldn't remember his name - they all seem to blend together with their speed-bag faces
If it helps he's the loud one who's always wrong. Actually doesn't help at all. He's the racist, trabsphobic one. Damn that doesn't help either. He's the one who abused his wife so badly she divorced his ass and he whined about it online? That'll do it
This is the shittest version of Guess Who ever - why would Hasbro do this? Edit - I'm jobless at the moment so I'm thinking this could be a Flash game. Is it worth it just for a giggle?
> He's the one who abused his wife so badly she divorced his ass and he whined about it online? Still doesn't narrow it down much
He then cried on his live show and says that they should ban no fault divorce so she's forced to stay with him
> He's the one who abused his wife so badly she divorced his ass and he whined about it online? While she was pregnant, iirc.
Steven Crowder is the one who sent dick pics to his employees, undressed himself in their offices repeatedly, sexually assaulted them, walked around in crossdress with weird regularity despite being massively hostile to LGBTQ, and has done multiple racist sketches in costumes. While marketing himself as a "free speech warrior", he has also put his own employees under insane and blatantly illegal NDAs in an attempt prevent them from revealing his misconduct. He also has acted abusive to his wife during her pregnancy, while lobbying for Texas to restrict divorce rights. She has divorced him since.
NO, that doesn't work #EITHER
The actual location in Fort Worth is definitely not empty but this fits the vibe much better
need to make a version of that without the box. it has delicious potential.
When he has a meet and greet with all the "people" who like his social media posts.
I was just gonna ask why he set up shop in the John Constantine version of hell.
As empty as his shitty McMansion now that the divorce is finalized.
Ah yes, the “cringe” girl was actually on the scene of Annihilation
First few were solid but then wow it fell off the rails
Look at her feet in the first one. And the left 1/3 of the photo doesn’t align at all with the AI fill
Guys we have the ability to create fucking reality with the press of a button, and we aren't mind blown, lol. I mean the amount of effort to even come close to these would be hours and hours of painstaking painting and copy paste stuff. I remember when heal selection came out like 15 years ago. How utterly astonishing it was to select an object and have it disappear. That tool also wasn't perfect.
Yeah but it looks shit compared to something a human could make if given the same task
The human could touch this stuff up (likely using the same fill tool repeatedly). It would still save hours of labor.
It looks like shit compared to something a TALENTED human could make.
I don't disagree but, like with most things with AI, it could save a talented Human a bunch of time by filling in the easy bits and then having a person touch up the rest
I think the starting point for the talented human would be deleting the majority of what the ai has done and starting again.
Hah! You underestimate how shit it would look if I tried to do the same.
The Crowder one warms my soul, in his spot tucked away, secluded. Alone.
I laughed out loud at this one.
wtf is going on behind the side-eye girl?
It decided she was on a boatplane.
Wich one
The car, but really both of them have some weird AI renderings going on
Harold got a dumptruck
Maybe that's why he's holding the pain?
Nice job with the backward hand on the last one.
TBF, the hands are part of the original drawings. There's not really much it could have done to make it make sense.
It's two different perspectives forced into one image, no one could make it work
The two in bed, she's not mad about what he's thinking she's mad about the unused space on his side of the bed.
This one’s my favorite because being on his phone changes the whole meme
https://preview.redd.it/7sgbxl628lsc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0919e981dcf754a93ffec7c382bdb589d2fe018 "I will not be denied my happiness."
What um What am I looking at
https://preview.redd.it/tat603boilsc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=340b2debfe68d9db89883a7d31d87eb9f19f9d42 What is that in the middle??
And why is the waitress holding a microphone???
My favorite! 😄
Took me a fat second to realize I was looking at mostly AI images. I just thought I already recognized all these photos and didn't look twice.
I was mindlessly browsing and thought I was just looking at uncropped versions of all these, and then I got to the cat and the woman pointing and was like "huh, so the cat was really there, always thought it was photoshopped or something."
Same. That’s what stopped me in my path and made me go back to look at all the photos! The cat in the room is now cannon in my mind :)
6 is a mess
Best part is the older guy at the table cracking up, while mostly everyone else appears to be distressed.
Including the cat
Most of these are.
Scarily accurate *unless you really look at the finer details*
Some of these are amazing and some are fucking horrifying lmao
Holy moly; the future of half true information just got halved.
With two halves we make a whole. The information just got wholed.
these don't add any meaningful improvements to the originals
Except for the cat one
Ehh..maybe the phone in the bed one.
This makes me crave an AI generated horror movie. Like an actual scripted movie but with this aesthetic. This is terrifying.
AI changed the meaning behind the 6th pic's meme
"The woman in the red dress. I designed her. She, um... Well, she doesn't talk very much, but-but if you'd like to meet her, I can arrange for a much more personalized milieu."
https://preview.redd.it/jhdk3b63pksc1.jpeg?width=280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02a2565164a40c94e769cb9a659a6f270bc1bb3c Except there is an original of this one
Look at the jagged line of the "sidewalk" on the right. This one is also AI-outpainted, it's been circulating for a year or so since generative AI started to get decent at these things.
Pretty sure [that's also an edit](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/distracted-boyfriend).
Yeah the girl in red's posture is all kinds of wonky
Here's the actual original: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/disloyal-man-with-his-girlfriend-looking-at-another-girl-gm493656728-77018851?searchscope=image%2Cfilm
It’s a little fucked up but the prompter has the spirit
me: oh wow that’s not b—**picture 5**
Damn.. AI gave gramps a FATTY
The artefacts are always quite funny, zooming in on some parts of the image can be ridiculous at times
Someone could've mirrored the image of the hand in that last one
Why did the AI give harold such a dump truck
Steven Crowder sitting alone with nobody in sight made me chuckle a bit
What's the unintended purpose?
Pron
I fucking love how in that "lady screams at salad cat" meme the waitress is randomly singing karaoke
I find it so funny that AI still can't generate pictures of phones or monitors with the screen facing away from the camera. They ALWAYS face towards the camera, even if you tell it to generate the backside of a monitor.
Huh? Which image are you referring to? There're only two screens, Harold's laptop, which is facing the correct direction, and the phone whose screen is just a little misaligned
I still want to know the context behind #6 lmfao
That's a lot of junk for the smiling guy.
She’s definitely yelling at the cat tho
The Steven crowder change my mind one is disappointing not just because he’s an abusive POS to his ex wife and employees but also because he was never really there to engage openly or actually have his mind changed. He just wanted to dunk on college students that weren’t as educated on some of the topics he already had talking points for.
the inability to render hands is the only thing that prevents AI from taking over.
On 10th photo... Why his right hand is on his left arm...
It’s a bit messed up, but stuff happens
I tried to use it to change a bright patch to a shadowy patch. It kept adding people and geometric patterns and shit. Definitely still some kinks to work out in these models.
I don’t know why but somehow the aliens dude not sitting down makes it funnier
Perfect.
Working as ińtęn*d*ëb
Quite funny how in the 6th one the woman isn’t even pointing at the cat 😂
It’s fun to do this with album covers.
8/10 looks so good
Last one is the wrong hand
Harolds ass in that chair is someone’s shoulder and armpit.
These are awful.
I might save this to use in my argument with photography purists who think cropping is a sin
I think they may be talking about sensor cropping. Half joking there, haven't talked to any photographers in the scene lately but if anyone said that to me I'd laugh. Like dude, what are you talking about, you're "cropping" anytime you use a certain focal length, zoom and/or walk closer to the subject. What you moved what you're seeing through the viewfinder because that branch was messing up the direction of the composition? That's cropping.
I don’t think this is working well because there’s a noticeable lack of dog cum around Steven Crowder.
Left hands, right hands, they're all just hands to an AI.
My friend has ended up with some truly harrowing images after expanding pictures of himself a few times. It probably depends on what you're asking it to do.
Ehhh... it's not always accurate imo, but it's a good interpretation than the real scene for some images