"Adam Sandler is like, in love with some girl, but then it turns out that the girl is actually a Golden Retriever. Or something.""
A South Park classic imo
https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/the-terminator
Brings up the age-old question of how much the learning in these models is just memorization. Though in cases like these it’s hard to tell.
I know what you mean, but I also laughed at that.
"I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye." - Jack Handey
It's crazy that it just made up those names...
https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/in-the-land-of-oz-th...
Which reads like a bad translation of a bad translation. Like the the old joke about the AI program which was supposed to translate "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" from English to Russian to English, and after the roundtrip came up with "The vodka is good but the meat is rotten."
Why send a soldier from the present to the past when you can also have a soldier from the future send to the past!
It's scary to think about it but seems plausible—like if someone can make an app with Tiktok-like ubiquity of only AI content. Although to your point I imagine there will be so much nonsensical noise that curating will become a useful skill, it is today but even more so.
This just gave me a disturbingly vivid vision of exactly what you described. A seemingly likely future where everyone's in their homes scrolling endlessly on a TikTok-like app where there's literally infinite content being generated by the AI all the time, and as people like and dislike certain types of content, the AI just gets better and better at generating new videos...this is honestly kind of terrifying. I have no doubt this will exist one day, and that it'll print money for one company while billions of people are spending all their free time consuming it.
I really don't think it applies to us in this context though because I think that a decent number of humans don't care whether some content is AI generated. Furry porn is all hand-drawn and people still like it despite it not being real.
Unfortunately, that's already happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7oiHtYCo0w
From what I can see, YouTube has done quite a bit of work to cleanup YouTube Kids, but it's kind of an arms race.
There's this worrying issue in AI ethics discussions where most people seem to assume the problems and dangers of AI are still off in the future, that as long as we don't have the malicious AGI of sci-fi stories, then AI and "lesser" algorithmically generated content isn't harming society.
I think that's not true at all. I think we've seen massive damage to social structures thanks to algorithmic feeds and generated content, already, for years now. I don't think, just because they aren't necessarily neural-network-based, doesn't make them something to not worry about.
So I don't see AI as a particularly, different, worrisome problem. It's an extension of an already existing, worrisome problem that most people have ignored beyond occasionally complaining about election results.
https://twitter.com/dvorahfr/status/1575508907593711618?s=46...
I am sure I will watch MY 15 year old's attempts, and maybe a few from my extended circle but most of my consumed content will still come from what makes the cut to Netflix or HBO etc. Technology like this will empower the truly creatives once it has matured. I would expect closer to 20 years than 5 however.
Ah, I can see what's wrong there, just turn down shit randomness and increase the true gem sampling steps to proportionally increase the input weight of true gems and fix your output quality.
Basically - if it empowers creative people, their output will be fed back in and parameterised.
I don't know what artists, truck drivers, Uber/Lyft/taxi drivers, delivery drivers, programmers, doctors, judges, fast food workers, etc. are going to do.
Under the current system, the rich can do just that while everyone else literally starves to death :)
The idea that rich people will all leave and start a different rich-people-only economy that somehow takes all the economic activity with it isn’t how it really works, it’s the plot of Atlas Shrugged.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-n...
Surely if we get to the point where programmers are no longer needed, humans have essentially been replaced by AI? Since the AI programmers could just program better and better AI?
Edit:
Worst (best?) tone clash: https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/stalked-by-a-friend
I agree, and I think when that happens, it will tend to increase the value of curation. High quality curation that is, probably done mostly by hand, as opposed to the at-best-mediocre automated curation that is commonly used.
It could be bad for things like YouTube, for example. I think there will be an arms race between generated video content one one side and automated curation on the other. I mean, you can still leverage viewer choices for curation (looking at what people are watching a lot of), but that is just shifting the burden of curation to users. Few people will be willing to sift through dozens of cheaply generated crap videos to find something they actually want to watch.
The description text does not convert sentences with carriage returns (or probably, newlines) into separate div's or whatever html element you'd prefer, FYI! Otherwise, very cool!
The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with humans. I think image and video AI will best be exploited when human input is also taken into account.
There is still something special about human creativity, I think AI will just be another tool to expand that. At least, in the short term I would say 10 years perhaps. AI will probably one day take over all aspects of creativity and humans won’t be able to contribute.
I don't think this is true anymore. I don't think I've heard about successful centaur chess games in years. I would love to be wrong there though (in particular if anyone knows about how correspondence chess games have been played in the last 2 or 3 years with the availability of Leela Zero and Stockfish NNUE).
Based on that thread, it looks like centaur chess is close to dead.
> Human input in top-level ICCF [correspondence games with chess engine support] games is now 99% eliminated, other than personal preference in selection of openings.
(and then regrettably irrelevant thereafter).
I think it is a legitimate worry, as the pace of progress is considerable. These tools are impressive, and are only going to get more impressive: more people should be talking about where this is headed.
Incidentally, Uber has been banned in the entire country where I live for 8+ years now.
But what a government can do, and what its politicians will do are very different things. The political backlash for going nuclear on corporations would be massive and sustained. Not even good acting corporations want that kind of thing happening.
Regarding, Uber and your country: your point makes my point stronger.
A whole country is now off limits to Uber, but on the whole, across all the countries, their aggressive behaviors has been a win for them anyway. Just another cost of business.
Even still, if the EU chooses to regress, I can imagine a lot of non-EU-based companies—especially smaller ones—just choosing not to deal with them anymore
EU would ban any technology that disrupts the labor market to an extent it leads to widespread protests among a segment of society. For how a somehow similar thing has played out in the last 40 years (instead of banning technologies, it has mostly been instituting quotas, paying subsidies and banning/taxing imports), you can look at its agricultural policy.
If one trained using e.g. a tiktok like dataset showing viewer response measurements for each video, and do conditional generation on those response values ("prank video watchers are highly likely to watch the full video"), are we really that far from a system that learns to generate content that attracts and hold eyeballs? Not so long ago there were a lot of concerning trend pieces about how youtube had a network of creators making bizarre, disturbing or transfixing videos being watched entirely by young children. Before that, it was clickbait listicles. "Bad" content that can get eyeballs can still wildly steer what humans create and consume. I'm wondering if in 2 years we'll have an enormous number of short videos that we all agree are "bad" but which are nevertheless constantly watched.
Poker on the other hand I think human players still win vs GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711141343.h...
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-Superhuman.p...
Also an outsider, but I think this has changed in the last year and that AI now is consistently better than top-tier humans at even no-limits poker.
AI is the winningest in chess, but the real life purpose of chess is to produce interesting gameplay for people to watch, and so AI is less good than Magnus at that. You’d need the AI to throw games and write press releases.
Great work with this as is!
A fun related experiment, I thought it was fun to see what kind of movies AI would generate, so I created a "This Movie Does Not Exist" website[1] that auto generates fake movies (movie posters + synopsis). It basically uses GPT-3 to generate some story plots, and then uses that as a prompt (with in-between steps) for Stable Diffusion. Results may vary, but it definitely surprises sometimes with movies that look and sound amazing!
[1] This Movie Does Not Exist: https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/