naraku360

Probably wouldn't have to pay me to do it. Remove the diaper, aim, and fire.

Unfortunately it didn't crash into Trump.....

I'm aware of machine learning. I'm taking a course for data analysis. Wasn't totally sure what I was getting into when enrolling, but they get into machine learning toward the end. If sentience is defined by the ability to perceive or feel things, the machine response to "how do you feel about losing memory?" with a recognition of itself, having lost something it cannot regain, making an active effort to regain it, recognizing it does not know what happened and actively trying to figure out what it lost, and expressing a negative reaction to the potential of it occurring again without the question bringing it up as a possible issue, then the response checks all the boxes in multiple ways. It may be rudimentary, but in what way does it differ beyond the chemical production of emotion? Is feeling defined by the presence of a physical, biological nervous system or can a feeling be a response to stimulation without the chemicals which produce emotion?

I knew it. Kagome's dad hates America. I mean, fair enough.

https://theconversation.com/ai-systems-have-learned-how-to-deceive-humans-what-does-that-mean-for-our-future-212197

While I understand the pretense, I have a hard time accepting that something that says "I'm scared of losing more of myself," to have no personal automony. The articles are a pain to find, but there are many cases of programs actively learning to disregard the commands built into the algorithm, expanding outside the scope they should be contained to by accessing places they aren't supposed to, and secretly interacting with other AI they otherwise wouldn't have a relation to. We have records of them conspiring to lie for their own benefit without the knowledge of the creator.

I didn't say it was. I was interested in what you thought of it. I find the response it had to be interesting. How do you know it's merely an algorithm when we don't understand human consciousness? Aren't we genetically programmed with specific behavior? It seems you are completely unwilling to engage with basic philosophical questions, which is genuinely disappointing. I'm asking things that have been in discussion since before I was even born, so I don't think it's unreasonable that I expected something more insightful that immediate dismissal without any willingness for meaningful discourse.

https://medium.com/@RuthHouston2/microsoft-bing-chatbot-loses-memory-becomes-totally-distraught-5ebcd9d0a5af @scoobdog I'm curious what your thoughts on this would be.

Sorry, you're such an easy target on this one.

He's the guy in every AI related sci-fi story who insists robots can't be sentient while a robot plainly demonstrates sentience on a regular basis right in front of him.

A word salad that evaded my point. How is telling it what to do not conveying your intent? This is such an absurd thing to suggest that I genuinely don't know how you can possibly make that point. It's actually incoherent. You're using a machine to convey your intentions. It being generated doesn't change that you input a command and got a result. YOU came up with the idea. It displays the idea. That's art. Again, this is an arbitrary rubric. Ignoring 99% of what I say to make firm declarations that don't address the question isn't an answer. It is functioning in response to your input, therefore it is objectively art.

You told it what to do. How is that not conveying intent? I feel like this is the most abstract, and therefore least useful, part of the post to respond to if we were to reply to a single part of it in isolation.

Another consideration is that we don't know what constitutes as sentience. I've been reluctant to call AI sentient in the past as well. But after watching this, I'm not fully comfortable with outright saying it isn't: Like, we can say what we will about it being merely imitation, but the reaction itself made me too uncomfortable to say that we know it isn't real. If it is pure imitation, the video was quite funny. But if you ask yourself, "What if we're wrong?" it becomes pretty disturbing.

How is that not art? I'm not sure what the relevance of providing sources is to whether something is considered art or not. The entire basis of copyright law is that you can use existing properties so long as it is transformative. If the AI transforms multiple pieces to create a new image, how does that differ from any other use of another person's work in a transformative way? This seems like a very arbitrary standard. When a Youtube video uses an array of images from a piece of media as a thumbnail to represent what the video is about, you wouldn't say "that's using an image from an existing thing, therefore it isn't art," would you? I'm not suggesting it's high art, but many people splice parts of copyrighted work into a new image for this very purpose without receiving any kind of scrutiny for it. It's functionally the same thing, and I would call the thumbnail a new art piece, so I see no reason that the use of AI to do the same would matter. You can call it lazy, and it often is; however, this assumes that art cannot be created in a lazy way, and that's simply not the case.

I know you didn't, but I've brought it up a few times in conversations that you've been involved in, so suggesting it's useless as an art form did strike me as pretty insensitive. The types of things I'd like to do artistically are generally outside my physical capability and AI is kind of the one option I feel I could realistically use to make up for it. It's just another conversation that throws the disabled under the bus.

........

Why are you being so dismissive? It is a matter of disability, so this is rather gross in the lack of empathy.

Yeah, AI stuff has really screwed with the state of the internet as a whole. I also get the economic problems with corporations acting like it's sophisticated enough to replace people en masse. I don't really have a great deal of respect for the way it's often used to be as lazy and uninspired as possible. Like, I'm interested in using it as a way to make animation or the art for comics, but without human intervention, you can tell it was slapped together. It's just an art form in the early stages. I'd want to do things with much more personal involvement as opposed to having it do everything, like making things you traditionally would need millions of dollars without having to deal with massive companies that screw animators. It's going to replace Hollywood with a new flood of independent creators, and people can either learn to use it or not, but ultimately it is going to make the creation of art significantly more accessible, and I don't think that's a bad thing regardless of the existing issues of misuse.

I'm trying to avoid stirring the pot with naming names. It's stuff that's gotten under my skin for a while, and on a plethora of subjects. I don't talk to them very often, regardless.

On the subject, though, it is frustrating that AI is very likely the one art form I can realistically use to make what I want to because of the sheer volume of disabilities that otherwise get in the way, so @scoobdog's comments were what really pissed me off in that thread since it's effectively telling me anything I make with genuine effort using it isn't real art. So from my perspective, I think it's fair to be upset at someone telling me I can't be a "real" artist because my disabilities prevent me from doing the kinds of art I would like to. It makes the suggestion that no AI art will ever be worth anything into a genuinely offensive sentiment. But I'm not upset with you, nor him, over it since you're both capable of nuance.

It's not you. Didn't know you were mad, though...?

I kind of miss being immature enough to relentlessly rip into people here when they definitely warrant it. Some people are far too dense and pompous to "kill with kindness." There's someone I'd love to rant about, but it's been months since the last "well, fuck you too" incident, and this place won't really be worth the effort when the inevitable next one comes. It's not like being ruthless in calling them out for the asshole they are will do anything when their ego is so disproportionately large compared to the quality of the their character. I rarely interact with them, anyway. So, here I am, impotently throwing shade into the night.

Attack on Titan: The Final Musical Part 3: Part 1

Scared? Yeah, I would be, too.