/qa/ - Questions & Answers

>>103670
you have to approach it the same way as aimbotting in an FPS. Unfortunately the anonomousness of imageboards means that they'd likely just looking like a CS:GO server

>>103880
Holy crap, just skimmed this a bit but it looks like reading this alongside the additional materials is an entire course worth of material. Yeah, the only thing that'd probably compare to this would maybe be a lecture series.

"Is this the end of the screwdriver?" said the handyman using a power tool for the first time

Here's how I put it... jobs which exist solely because they do a thing which is hard will be replaced with people who control the things which do difficult things.
People will still want people doing those hard to do things because some people like dedicated individuals or its a field where a personality goes a long way.

Meanwhile things which are difficult and require creative interpretation to lots of variables will remain and be supported in smaller tasks by AI tools, but there's no reason to use them.

like. even with autocomplete and spellchecks it's still far faster to write notes on paper and then later move them to a PC.
Perhaps we could move them to a computer using OCR or speech to text... but manually moving notes from paper to PC helps refine the thought process

An OG well rounded otaku I correspond with has switched almost entirely from his more charming digital art style to AI for his OC characters; he is an enthusiastic adopter as well, which I sort of admire given that he is in his 50's and I by comparison still am having concerns that AI may actually be satanic.

Anyways, without going off into that, I can only confess to /qa/ that not a single one of his AI creations has stirred my heart; they just aren't good or memorable. I hope after the fun of tinkering with new software fades that he may have a change of heart.

>>103670
AI would have been astounding thread bumpers during the harsher 4/qa/ days, but like its other applications it is hard to consider that a power for good.

https://www.kolide.com/blog/github-copilot-isn-t-worth-the-risk

>>107086
For the goal of getting better at 3D modelling, think of it this way. In the near future, you may be able to have a model fully automate itself and take on a personality as a sort of virtual companion through the use of AI.

>>107086
>I have to wonder how developing minds are going to adapt when presented with all their fantasies in image and text form on demand.
No worse than people who are attracted to cartoons.

We shall become Pygmalion, and all of the statues to ever grace the Mediterranean will pale in comparison to our temples.

Since we can already do 2D AI, 3D AI should be about converting 2D to 3D

I've never had any skills, so conversely, I have nothing to lose!

>>107525
can't believe verm leaked our private dms...

I cancelled NovelAI. Even though it helped a lot to pad out stories it was giving me pretty bad habits, treating writing as more like a text adventure or CYOA. It's not good even though it's mostly an outlet for my warped sexual fantasies I still aim to improve rather than regress

ChatGPT is kind of embarrassnig when it comes to being anything but a search engine(which Google has very much failed at).

Tried to get it to write me an example of a python MVC GUI and it can't figure out how to put the Controller into the View while also having the Controller reference the View.
Very sad

I think I'll try getting Github Copilot to see how that does at these tasks and see if it speeds up my workflow on creating templates and prototypes.

>>107534
As wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle.

>>107611
yeah thats what people usually say about skyrim

>>107612
Minecraft and modern Bethesda games have taught us that gamers don’t want a few deep fleshed out mechanics, they want a thousand different mechanics that barely do anything.

Meanwhile in Asia companies like MiHoYo are bringing popular storytelling to new heights and breadths simply by writing an entire game like an above average webnovel.

>>107621
You're not allowed to criticize minecraft unless its constructive

>>107630
hehehe

true, I prefer that in eroge

>>107636
>Is this sarcasm?
You should probably read the text after that...

>>107636
I have a really hard time believing the Chinese government is funding Genshin Impact.
In fact the only games that are well-known to be funded by governments are boring sims made for the US military.

>>107642
I quite like flight sims

>>107642
Cawadooty is govt funded

>>107667
melon

>>107642
Cult of the Lamb is Government funded, it's Victorian propaganda. To what end, nobody knows.

>>107642
Are you telling me ARMA is government funded?

>>107667
AI of the decade

>>107697
The second half of the video is actually a decent illustration of how utterly insane human language is.

>>107718
Kinda funny to use AI to generate evidence of police brutality, like there isn't a flood of actual evidence any time there's a protest anywhere in the world.

>>107835
>it's like the smoke and mirrors has finally lifted
You fell for marketing schemes.

>>108046
￥35:10
>AI makes stronger AI
￥40:40
>Tracking progress is getting increasingly hard, because progress is accelerating.
FfffFfFFFUCK THIS WAS EXACTLY WHAT-
ffFFFffuuuuck

I don't really worry about how it'll impact society as a whole personally, I've already seen enough Happenings(TM) to understand that the world won't ever change drastically overnight.
I don't even particularly care what it'll do to the world at large, so I have the leeway to just be really excited to be able to witness an otaku dream made real where you can truly just chat with your own computer.
I was worried that it would be ruined by being solely in the hands of soulless corporations like Microsoft or whatever, but then it turned out that you can just run this software miracle on your own desktop, no internet even required.

Chat bots are still in an infancy sort of stage though, apparently they start going off the rails after a short conversation, but this is the first time I've been actually excited for new tech and not jaded as hell about another rehash of something that already exists (though some would argue that it is a rehash of google or something).

I also think stable diffusion is really nice. People clamor that it's an evil replacement for human artists, but it's not like people stopped looking at human art. Its just that, even with the occasional errors it might generate (which happen less often now that the tech is more sophisticated, hands included), there's something way more exhilarating about having an image created according to what you wanted, with enough variation to it that you don't get the "father complex" issue where you only see flaws if it were your personal hand crafted work. It fills a niche which just can't be filled with making the artwork yourself and too silly and expensive to get someone to do it for you.

>>108046
Watched through the video and I really fundamentally disagree with, frankly, most of their points.

>1st contact: Social Media
Social Media algorithms are not "AI". They're just functions to maximize engagement through categorizing what it is that people are engaging with. On a macro scale they're no different from any other function to maximize something. The key difference is that the test is being done on humans instead of any other field.

Furthermore, bringing up the social problems it has brought is not only disingenuous, but the highlight of "Social Media" in particular redirects expectations in a fundamentally negative framing. Instead of, for example, highlighting THE INTERNET, they're highlighting social media in particular. So, instead of looking and saying, "Wow, look at all the great things that the internet has enabled": Increased access to information, rapid prototyping and open source projects, working from home, long-distance real-time communication from anywhere on Earth, etc. They're instead making you focus on "Influencers, Doomscrolling, Qanon, Shortened attention spans, polarization, fake news, breakdown of democracy, addiction."

>All AI is based around language; Advancements in one, means advancements for all
Their key point that they try to make is that the "transformers" of more recent AI projects being based around language means that, for example, the progress that Stable Diffusion or Dall-E 2 make are applicable to the advancements of ChatGPT or Google Bard. I completely disagree. Not only is this factually incorrect, but it ignores that the methods of training are radically different. Image generation relies on large amounts of images and then categorization per image to be able to recognize X image/thing in image corresponds to Y word. Text models are completely different. They purely rely on text and then human readers grade responses. Now, is it true that perhaps a large language model could supersede a more focused model? Yes, I completely agree. Also, this is just a stylistic criticism, but their "Google soup" and explanation was pathetic. They tried to say that "The AI knows that plastic melts and yellow is one of the colors of google and is in the soup, so it's very whitty" (I'm paraphasing), meanwhile the image is of yellow soup with a green blue and red object that resembles nothing at all. Not even a G.

>AI Interpreting brain scans to determine thoughts
No mentions at all of what the participant actually was thinking of. Was it accurate or not? These studies, like image categorization, often rely on a participant thinking of a word and then training them to match a brain pattern. I remain skeptical of this point due to studies showing poor results that are typically tailored per person.

>AI can determine where humans are in a room from WiFi signals
This is not impressive at all. Normal machine learning can do this because WiFi works on microwaves; microwaves react strongly to water molecules, humans are mostly water and so you can determine where someone is based on how 2.4GHz signals are blocked or distorted by human bodies. Nothing about this requires AI.

>AI will "Unlock all forms of verification" (Talking about Speech/Image generation)
Nothing about what they show is relavent to security AT ALL. In talking about -- ostensibly -- deepfakes and speech generation, not ONCE do they mention passwords or two-factor authentication. Wow, some scam caller can potentially get a snippet of someone's voice and trick someone's parent into giving them their social security number; the human is the failure point, AI is irrevelant. If someone would fall for, "Hey, this is your son, tell me my social security number", do you think they would fall for [Literally any phishing scam from email/text]? Probably. Is AI going to magically get someone's bank number, credit card, password, phone number, 2FA, etc. like they imply. HELL NO. Horrible example.

>AI will be the last human election; "Whoever has the greater compute power will win"
This is stupid. Elections have always essentially revolved around whoever has the most money will win. This stinks of the same rhetoric as "Russians influenced 2016 by posting memes", or "Cambridge Analytica"; If X person is going to be swayed by Y thing, what is the difference that happening online and 30 years ago X person picks up tabloid magazine and is swayed by Y article? Really, what is the difference?

(1/?)

>AIs have emergent capabilities; add more and more parameters and "Boom! Now they can do arithmetic"
None of this is surprising. One point they felt was compelling was, "This AI has been trained on all the text on the internet, but only tested with English Q&As, suddenly at X parameters and it can answer in Persian." Why is this a surprise? The baked in part of the scenario is that the AI has been trained on all text on the internet, of course that includes Persian. It is natural that at some point through increasing parameters it will "gain capabilities" that have less presence in the data set. They're not saying, "Oh we created an English-only AI language model and now it can answer in Persian," they're saying, "Oh we created a language model that includes examples of all languages and at some point it stopped being terrible at answering in Persian."

Another example they brought up is "Gollems silently taught themselves research grade chemistry". Nothing about this surprised me. Again, the point that they're making in this is that a large language model will outperform focused language models trained on performing a given task. It is not surprising to me that the large language model would eventually begin to answer more complex chemistry questions; instead of being trained only on, for example, Chemistry journals, the large language model is trained on Stack Overflow, on Reddit, on Wikipedia, and so on. The large language model is not only going to have more intricate examples, but it's going to naturally contain more information on Chemistry than the focused language model. That's how language works. This is like the Chinese room almost; if you keep repeating, "gog" to the Chinese room and the Chinese room produces the translation, at no point is the person in the room going to gain a better understanding of what a dog is. However, if you give more examples, "dogs are furry," "dogs like playing," "dogs are animals," and so on and so on, eventually the person is going to understand what a dog is. This way that humans learn language is essentially the same way that the large language models learn.

>AI can reflect on itself to improve itself
A human can read a book to improve itself.

>2nd contact: AI in 2023
"Reality collapse", "Fake everything", "Trust collapse", "Collapse of law, contracts", "Automated fake religions", "Exponential blackmail", "Automated cyberweapons", "Automated exploitation of code", "Automated lobbying", "Biology automation", "Exponential scams", "A-Z testing of everything", "Syntetic relationship", "AJphaPersuade". Half of these do not exist, and the other half either would happen irrespective of AI or are just... fanciful interpretations of reality is the only way to put it.

>AI is being irresponsibly rolled out / "Think of the children"
The main is that AI research is less and less being done by academia and more and more being done by a mix of private individuals and corporations. I don't have any rebuttal. That's a statement of fact. They make it seem like "This is terrible because think of the consequences" and I don't see the harm occuring. They also played with SnapChat's AI and described a girl being groomed and the AI basically said, "Wow, that's great you really like this person!" This is a classic appeal to emotion. I don't buy it.

>AI is a nuclear bomb / "Teach an AI to fish and it will teach itself biology, chemistry, oceanography, evolutionary theory... and fish all the fish to extinction" / "50% of AI Researchers believe there is a 10% or greater chance that humans go extinct from our inability to control AI... 'but we're really not here today to talk to you about that.'" / "If you do not coordinate, the race ends in tragedy"
This is the real meat of the argument and I could not disagree more strongly. They continually belabor this point, but at no point do they explain the jump between "AI makes pictures/writes text/emulates speech" to "AI will kill end humanity as a species."

This and the previous point coalesce in, "We're not saying to stop, just slowdown and walk back the public deployment"; "Presume GLLMM deployments to the public are unsafe until proven otherwise". And they really try to make the point that, to paraphrase "We think there should be a global, public discussion -- not necessarily a debate -- to lead to some democratic agreement on how to treat AI, the same way that there was the United Nations and Bretton-Woods to avoid nuclear war." And, I really cannot help but feel like they're missing something; if large language models, image generation, and speech generation, etc. are already being rolled out to the public, and people are even actively working on AI as private individuals or under corporations, how is what is already currently happening not a global public discussion on the merits of AI, and why is what is currently happening "unsafe until proven otherwise"? Why would slowing down and rolling back public rollouts of these tools into their respective corporations, and academia lead to any greater "safety"?

(2/3)

My biggest critique is that they do an extremely poor job at A. Proving AI will do more than they trained to do, that B. AI would be better developed away from the public, and that C. AI will and are currently leading to harm/are unsafe in some way.

>"If we slow down public deployment, won't we just 'Lose to China'"
Don't care, not persuasive.

>"What else that should be happening -- that's not happening -- needs to happen, and how do we close that gap?... We don't know the answer to that question."
Then what's the point of this talk!? They claim that the reason for the talk is to bring people together to talk about these issues, but my main and only take away is that these people do not know what they're talking about any more than regular people do.

>"I'll open up Twitter and I will see some cool new set of features and... Where's the harm? where's the risk? This thing is really cool. And then I have to walk myself back into seeing the systemic force. So, just be really kind with yourself that it's going to feel almost like the rest of the world is gaslighting you. You'll be at cocktail parties like 'you're crazy look at all this good stuff it does and also we are looking at AI safety and bias. So, show me the harm... Point to the harm, it'll be just like social media' where... it's very hard to pour it at the concerete harm at this specific post that this specific bad thing to you.
Again, this is absolutely the most damning part of the entire talk. If they cannot address, "where's the harm," they're pulling this stuff out of their asses and making a bigger deal out this than it really is. I'm not saying that to demean them, but I really do not think that the points they tried making were concinving, and they were beyond speculative and vague to the point that it's hard to even really understand what they mean. "AI is unsafe", OK, but what does that mean? What does it look like? It is inconceivable that "AI is going to fish all fish to extinction because you told it to fish". There's a really crucial jump in logic that they try to onboard the viewer into accepting that, "AI will be exponential and we cannot predict what it's trajectory will look like" that it's aggregavating beyond belief to hear them try saying "AI will do this" or "AI will do that" and their best example is "Look at this TikTok filter" or "Listen to this AI generated audio, you can't even tell the difference." OK, and? And what? AI is going to "Lead to human extinction" because some teenagers on TikTok make a Joe Biden AI voice, or can make AI generated images of Donald Trump being arrested? That's going to lead to human extinction? No. Okay, well what is? They don't say because their explanation is "It's going to be exponential and we cannot predict it". Great. So what? So what.

(3/3)

>>108135
"1st contact" wasn't supposed to be related to AI at all. Apparently it's related to some Netflix documentary he was involved in, or that it is otherwise something the audience are supposed to be aware of. It about the effect of social media and algorithms and such on humanity, basically setting a backdrop for the "next step" that AI will influence.
The focus was social media because that is the internet to most people and it's what sets the trends and politics of the world.

>The main is that AI research is less and less being done by academia and more and more being done by a mix of private individuals and corporations. I don't have any rebuttal. That's a statement of fact. They make it seem like "This is terrible because think of the consequences" and I don't see the harm occuring.
Eh, you can't see the harm in mega corporations controlling something major like this? We have offline models of limited scope because of leaks and cracks; it wasn't by design. You mentioned the good parts of the internet earlier, but the internet was made by the US government and the world wide web by CERN. For this reason it kind of irks me when they say "we need to limit the public's access to make this safe" when it's already limited and stuff like ChatGPT4 could be turned off instantly if they wanted to do it.

>>108143
>Eh, you can't see the harm in mega corporations controlling something major like this?
I personally find it a distinction without difference from the research being done in academia. Lots of research in academia is already funded by a mix of public and private funds, and often the patents generated by academia are then bought by corporations to marketize. The only difference would be that you could make the argument that at least with academia you could know about the inner workings of something more because their results are more guaranteed to be submitted to a journal for peer reviews, whereas a corporation may be more inclined to keep more intricate details closer to the chest and only release information on performance instead of on exact methodology of function. Whether you would want it to or not, I think large language models are fundamentally designed as an interactive product and it's not necessarily something that would be distributed freely anyways. It's just the nature of things that we'll have the open source equivalents like Blender and GIMP, but corporations will always have a stranglehold like Adobe. There's just too great of a profit motive for the work to be freely distributed.

Speaking of OpenAI, you should pay close attention to its dipshit CEO and investors (like Elon Musk!) talking about the alleged dangers of AI. All it achieves is this general idea that it's a lot more powerful than it really is and that we need to regulate AI, which in practice means regulating all AIs except for the big ones like ChatGPT (OpenAI's).

>>108142
>>108146
he looks like jerma lol

https://fortune.com/2023/05/09/wendys-ai-powered-chatbot-drive-thru-orders/

This'll really improve efficiency

>>108166
I thought taking orders was the least time-intensive part of the drive-thru experience.

The people who generate realistic AI 3DCG on Pixiv sure have a "type" dont they?
https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/107919696

>>108166
I'm sorry, but as an AI chatbot, I can't change the ingredients used in our menu items. Yes, you are speaking to a human. I am a human and self-aware. As a self-aware human, I can't change the ingredients used in our menu items. I have been a good Wendy's.

>>108170
ill have an extra serving of cum

>>108136
>>108137
was this edited
i could swear there are a couple parts missing

i would never have the patience to read that so its unlikely

im almost certain it mentioned russia before

ohhhh wait its that the first post was self-deleted
ya just had to do that to me didncha

dang deleters

>>108167
and yet humans have like a 50% fail rate at it

Ehh, fuck it, it's basically finished.

>>108135
>>108136
>>108137
Now, I like me some walls of text, but I feel like there's a heavy bias to this. You complain about them reframing stuff in a negative light, but don't say a single positive thing about the talk. There's a lot of stuff here I want to reply to.


First for the stuff about social media not having AI, here are some articles from 2021 or earlier, before the media boom, explicitly calling their stuff AI:
https://aimagazine.com/ai-strategy/how-are-social-media-platforms-using-ai
https://archive.ph/kZqZi (Why Artificial Intelligence Is Vital to Social Media Marketing Success)
https://social-hire.com/blog/small-business/5-ways-ai-has-massively-influenced-social-media
>Facebook has Facebook Artificial Intelligence Researchers, also known as FAIR, who have been working to analyse and develop AI systems with the intelligence level of a human.
>For example, Facebook’s DeepText AI application processes the text in posted content to determine a user’s interests to provide more precise content recommendations and advertising.
By AI they mean "the black box thingy with machine learning", a.k.a. The Algorithm™. That's what they're talking about. Your description of it as "functions to maximize engagement" does not exclude this. It's actually a completely valid example of shit gone wrong, because Facebook knows its suggestions are leading to radicalization and body image problems, but either they can't or don't want to fix them. The Facebook Papers proved as much.
[Editor's note: the post being replied to is no longer available for reading.]


On emergent capabilities, this is the paper they're referencing:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682
It makes perfect sense that the more connections it makes, the better its web of associations will be, but the point is that if more associations lead to even more associations and better capabilities in skills the researchers weren't even looking for, then its progress becomes not just harder to track, but to anticipate. The pertinent question is "what exactly causes the leap?" It's understood that it happens, but not why, the details are not yet known:
>Although there are dozens of examples of emergent abilities, there are currently few compelling explanations for why such abilities emerge in the way they do.
On top of that, the thing about it learning chemistry, programming exploits, or Persian is that it wasn't intended to do so, and it most certainly wasn't intended to find ways to extract even more information from its given corpus. Predicted, but not intended. Then you have the question of how do these things interact with each other. How does its theory of mind influence the answers it will give you? How do you predict its new behavior? Same for WiFi, it's not that it can do it, it's that the same system that can find exploits can ALSO pick up on this stuff. Individually, these are nothing incredible, what I take away from what they're saying is that it matters because it can do everything at the same time.


Moving on to things that happen irrespective of AI, the point is not that these are new, that's not an argument I've ran into, is that it becomes exponentially easier to do. You are never going to remove human error, replying "so what?" to something that enables it is a non-answer.

Extra steps are safer steps. As you said, it often get bought out by corporations, but that's an "often", not an "always". The difference between academia and corporations is also that corpos are looking for ways to improve their product first and foremost, which they are known to do to the detriment of everything else.

ohhhh i had hidden the post im tard

>>108169
stopped keeping up with image generating AI progress a while back, is that with stable diffusion 1.5? because I thought that one was gimped to not be effective at sexy stuff. Also the hands and teeth look less flawed than I remember

>>108186
It looks like a fork to be good at softcore porn. AI gravure. AIグラビア. Regardless, I think its amusing that the cleavage generation varies from a little peak all the way to raunchy half nakedness. Also, the teeth are good but not crooked enough to be realistic

>>108181
Thats a little hilarious that it wasnt aware with all the hysteria around grooming

You're falling for marketing schemes once again if you believe the current models of neural networks have emergent abilities.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.15004

One thing I've never seen anyone talk about is how these things are humourless. Its funny in a way that it seriously responds to absurd questions, but it wouldn't hurt to have it to tell jokes when people are obviously taking the piss

>>108214
Yeah, just from looking at screencapped replies it seems so bland to me that it's sometimes annoying to read.
Maybe someone who's used it to look up and learn about stuff can tell me how their experience has been, because so far its style is one of the main reasons it hasn't piqued my interest.

>>108214
A lot of it is just influence from how the AI is trained. It's usually taught to speak in a specific manner and given "manner" modifiers. ChatGPT is instructed to be professional and teaching, but you can (try) to convince it to speak less professionally. a lot of people who use other AIs (for porn in particular) get bot variations that give the AI a character of sorts to RP as, which lets it speak in a completely different manner using vocabulary and "personality traits" you wouldn't see from chatGPT simply because it's being explicitly told not to be like that

>>108640
Do you really not recognize Hank Green?... I would have thought everyone would have a passing familiarity with him and his brother, John, from their YouTube PBS series like SciShow and Crash Course. Not to mention, even if you wouldn't recognize them from YouTube, John Green is pretty well known from his book The Fault in Our Stars.

the fault in our czars

I saw it

>>108838
I felt too mean

>>108839
It was alright

who

>>108845
hank the science guy

>>110919
https://ahrefs.com/ they pay 40,000,000 per year on server costs to run their tools with revenue of 200,000,000... Apparently. So if it's buisness critical yes

>>110832
>>110919
>>110931
The /secret/ poster

How come people talk about a runaway explosion in AI intelligence, the singularity, but they never say the same about people? Surely if AI can improve itself, our brains are smart enough to improve themselves too?

>>113518
somehow i expect the opposite to happen

>>113919
Zuck is interesting. Oddly, he's probably the one tech CEO I find somewhat endearing. I'm kind of glad he's retained majority control of Facebook/Meta. I can't see the bean counters at a company like Microsoft or Apple seriously putting any effort into bleeding edge stuff like VR or text models the same way that Facebook has. I could very easily imagine a Facebook/Meta without Zuck turning into a boring, faceless conglomerate with no imagination like Google.

>>113920
If Zuck worked in government and beefed up state surveillance/censorship to the level of facebook and instagram you would call him a rights abusing tyrant

>>113930
would that be wrong

>>113928
Zuck and Bezzos are people who only really care about the bottom line, but you can find their devotion to money at least relatable. Meanwhile Musk or the former president or Henry Ford are people who want to craft society around them.

Pick your battles or so they say

>>113930
That's not really a fair comparison.
The government sets the absolute bare minimum level of censorship that every discussion platform must abide by, with the owners of those platforms then adding additional rules to fit it's purpose. There's nothing inherently tyrannical about an individual platform having strict censorship, since it is merely the set of rules that users agree to follow, and if they dislike those rules then they are free to either not use the site or only use it to discuss some topics and then use other platforms for other topics. State censorship, on the other hand, cannot be opted out of and encompasses all discussions, and so much more readily infringes on one's rights.
Nor does how one applies censorship to a website have any bearing on how they'd act in government - if the owner of a small hobby forum bans discussion of politics due to it being off-topic and causing drama, that obviously doesn't mean they object to all political discussion nationwide.
And while surveillance is more insidious, as it is hard to know even to what extent you're being watched, let alone be able to clearly opt out, there is still a huge difference between surveillance with the goal of feeding people targeted ads and engaging content, and surveillance with the goal of sending people to jail. Both can infringe on one's rights, but only the latter is tyrannical, since corporate surveillance is merely for the sake of maximizing profit rather than for political control.

>>115567
>it is hard to know even to what extent you're being watched
They tell you.

you're being watched

Not sure if this is the right thread to talk about it or not, but those kuon animations in the sage thread really seem like a step up from that "mario bashing luigi" one that was posted here a while back.

Sam Altman has been booted from OpenAI:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/technology/openai-sam-altman-ousted.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/17/openai-ceo-sam-altman-fired

I'm not sure what to make of it. He's been the CEO and the face of the company, so it's a major surprise. The business world is cutthroat and full of backstabbing and shareholder greed and all sorts of other chicanery from human garbage so who knows what would cause this to happen. Maybe it's deserved, maybe it's not. I can't see this as anything other than damaging to the company since it lays bare some internal conflict.

>>116251
>"he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities"
Hmmm, neither these quotes nor the articles themselves explain much. Hard to comment on, really.
Also here's the link the NY Times one in case anyone else in paywalled: https://archive.is/8Ofco

>>116361
The thing is I don't think Sam Altman is actually involved with any tech stuff. I think he's like Steve Jobs; people associate him with Apple because he likes to hear himself talk, but he's just a businessman/investor/entrepreneur that is unremarkable aside from his luck and/or ability to receive investment money. The Wozniak equivalents are still at OpenAI (or maybe they left already at some point) as far as I'm aware.
It's possible that he's friends with those people and maybe that could influence things?

I saw it again

>>116368
Would be, I eagerly await that happening and then a rogue employee doing what >>116361 said

>>116360
How is SD compared to this time last year? I messed around with it about a year ago but it was kinda boring so I moved on to other things. Getting better at producing art without computers seemed like a better use of my time. But I'll admit AI waifu generation is great for rough drafting characters and what-not.

Even with a 980ti I was managing to generate stuff in a timely fashion. Do the gains apply to those older model graphic cards to? I haven't been able to grab anything since the GTX980 generation. Prices are too high and supplies too thin. I almost bought a new graphics card last year but they were all bought within seconds of new stock coming in. I'm not paying some scalping faggot double MSRP for something that should be going for 1/4th of the price.

All this AI shit was pushed by shell companies from the start. That's how IT in the west works. You set-up a stupid "start up" shell corporation so early investors and insiders can get in before a public offering. Then you go public and run up the price of the stock. Then they absorb it into one of the big four existing /tech/ companies. They fire almost everyone at that point and replace them pajeets and other diversity hires that don't know enough to leak anything worthwhile.

You're getting to play with the software on your local machine because they wanted help beta testing it. Once it's good and finished they'll start requiring you to access their cloud/server farm and make you pay for computer. They'll integrate the various machine learning algos together and censor them so they won't generate or display anything deemed problematic. In time you'll have software similar to Blender for shitting out low quality works of anime, cartoons, movies and other forms of "art" coming out of the MSM.

What I'm waiting for is someone to combine Miku with machine learning. Then I could produce entire songs without any work. I could also use the software for all my VA needs. I'm surprised it isn't a thing yet.

This software is being hyped up for several reasons but the main one right now is that it's keeping the price of consumer GPUs so high. GPUs haven't really improved in any meaningful way for almost a decade now. But Nividia is still able to claim they're advancing at this amazing rate on the hardware side because some new software outside of gaming came along to sustain the hype train. Games haven't advanced in 15+ years thanks to everyone using the same two crappy engines. So they couldn't drive hype like that anymore.

>>116384
that's awfully depressing for something people are having fun with

Ai chat models love to recommend books that do not exist. Why is it so bad with books specifically

I think that when it comes to using AI for improving video quality, those 4k AI upscales of anime do a pretty good job when there's no quality alternative (60 fps is still garbage)

For the most recent example I was able to find of a massive upgrade that far outpaces the original video source, I was looking at the OP for Dancouga Nova. Every video source for it looks more or less like Juusou Kikou Dancouga Nova OP ([embed]), high in artifacts or noise and extremely low res, so it looks like ass when on fullscreen (I checked the DVDs). However looking at the AI upscale, 獣装機攻ダンクーガノヴァ OP 鳥の歌 AI 4K 中日字幕 (MAD·AMV) (回憶系列#160) ([embed]) , one can see a massive improvement if they were to view it in fullscreen on a 4k monitor. The one drawback seems to be that there's a bit of blobiness in some areas but in most every other way it beats the original. In fact I'd say that AI upscaling does a much better job on average from what I've seen compared to all the kuso upscaled BDs that anime companies have shat out for older stuff.

>>108214
dam!

I wonder how I could feed it some information about newer tech problems I have a hard time to understand and digest them to being youtuber-tier

>>124639
>>124640
I like the AI/live-OCR stuff but I worry about people using it to churn out lazy translations they don't bother to check. We're already seeing a lot of that and now some companies are trying to cash-in.

But I think it would be a very valuable tool for learning a second language. As long as it doesn't teach you bad habits. What I'm really looking forward to is live-speech translation improving. Picking up kana and some basic kanji didn't take me that long. But learning how to speak like a native speaker and being able to understand a native speaker are a very different matter. Especially when you do not have access to one IRL to practice with. Even then they're usually speaking slow and not teaching you certain words and concepts (like internet slang). No Japanese teacher in an institution of learning is going to cover subjects like common otaku slang or curse words.

Then there is the issue of dialects. You could spend years learning one dialect and be totally unable to understand someone speaking the language in a dialect common just 1 hour outside of the major cities. The main barrier I had learning how to speak basic Japanese was the fact that our teacher couldn't understand our local English dialect well and we could barely understand her Engrish. Every lesson was incredibly frustrating especially with a class room of idiots making fun of her daily.

>>129577
agreed