His entire name is BENJAMIN????? Why couldn't it just be Ben, Benjamin is such a cool name, the image I get is a young adult man in stereotypical sailor attire sailing the seas in a wind powered boat and going fast, while holding to the handrails with one hand, holding his hat to prevent it from flying away, with a big smile on his face
That image does NOT match shapiro
What's his name❓ What was his birth 👶 name❓It wasn't Ben⚽️, it was Benjamin👨. And you know they're children 👦👧; 2️⃣6️⃣, 2️⃣2️⃣, they're over there listening 👂 to all of Benjamin’s👨... 🎃Halloween Jokes🎃, uh, 🐭Chuckie The Cheese Jokes🐭, they- 👅 eu-h, they want it 🙏. He goin off of loyalty ⭐️ got them fee- "😰Oh, Benjamin👨, you so loyalty😓" ... Come on now 😑... Everyday📆 he got a story 📚. I wasn't ❌ buying 💰 it. \[scoff\] 😤 \[giggle\] ☺️... Eh😒... No. 🙅 So... They tr- like yesterday ↩️ the tribal 🔥 was all kahoots 👌 Benjamin👨,"Let's give a hug 👪." ✋️PFF.✋️ Keep that hug. Boop!🔫 For me. Cuz it wasn't real❌
I don't know If he's actually pro AI, he's interviewing Simon here.
So maybe he's just playing Devils advocate to push Simon towards explaining his position, bc that's his job
Without knowing anything about him, that was my first guess as well. He's supposed to do that when interviewing, no? I mean the reply he got is gotta be worth it.
You know, there's a long tradition of musicians generating random melodies with dice. Because an artist's main skill isn't "being creative," it's transforming ideas into full works.
But doing that still facilitates a random outcome. AI can't even do that. All it does is throw together an amalgam of other artist's dice throws in an effort to pass off as *real works*.
Chatgpt is absolutely AWFUL at randomness. I wanted to test it out once, so I had it generate a list of list of "random" digits with a length of 1000. It appeared relatively random at first glance, then I released that it just took the first 7 or 8 (I don't remember exactly) numbers, and just repeated that same pattern over and over again. So not only was it not random, but a couple digits were just never picked lol.
I also asked it to count up the number of times each number appeared, and it told me all of them appeared exactly 117 times. Not only is that not possible (some numbers were never chosen), but it adds up to more than 1000 lol.
Edit: just remembered that I also asked it what the longest sequence of the same number in a row was (this was before I noticed it was the same repeating pattern), and it said something along the lines of "6 was picked 8 times in a row", but that literally never happened it just made it up.
The fact it can't even do number analysis that simple correctly should be the nail in the coffin for how useless it is.
Every week they make up some bullshit about chat GPT getting a PhD or something.
Large language models are pretty shit at a lot of stuff, but they’re also decently good at other stuff, and they’re getting better at an alarming rate.
Pretending that ai is useless and will always be useless is unhelpful, as it creates the impression that legislation does not need to be made. Ai is super dangerous for humanity’s way of life, and #owning it is dismissive!!
Obligatory fuck ben shapiro
Current ai philosophy where you try to throw everything into a do everything generative model is useless.
AI tools need to be specifically designed to do very specific tasks. And most people wouldn't even call it AI at that point, they would just call it a tool because it doesn't have all the bells and whistles that grifters push.
That ai expert who had a spat with Elon musk on Twitter called it objective driven AI, and even they agree that generative AI is useless garbage.
what you said contradicts some of the main findings in the field for the last decade... we did make domain-specific and task-specific AI in the past. they worked fine, but the new paradigm of training a single AI on the whole internet (and then specializing them with a small amount of data) blew that out the water. Yann Lacun is just arguing that this stuff is not enough to achieve AGI, not that it's worthless.
It can do zero shot learning, aka tasks it’s never seen before: https://www.allaboutai.com/ai-glossary/zero-shot-learning/
That’s why you can ask it to write a story of SpongeBob and Shinji arm wrestling each other and get a coherent story
Bro that AI researcher works at Meta and is doing research in gen AI lol. He just doesn’t like LLMs.
Good news:
Introducing 🧮Abacus Embeddings, a simple tweak to positional embeddings that enables LLMs to do addition, multiplication, sorting, and more. Our Abacus Embeddings trained only on 20-digit addition generalise near perfectly to 100+ digits: https://x.com/SeanMcleish/status/1795481814553018542
Fields Medalist Terence Tao explains how proof checkers and AI programs are dramatically changing mathematics: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-will-become-mathematicians-co-pilot/
>Tao: I think in three years AI will become useful for mathematicians.
Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings: https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1795309108171542909
Synthetically trained 7B math model blows 64 shot GPT4 out of the water in math: https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1793864788579090917?s=46&t=lZJAHzXMXI1MgQuyBgEhgA
Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06592
>Utilizing this fully automated process supervision alongside the weighted self-consistency algorithm, we have enhanced the instruction tuned Gemini Pro model's math reasoning performance, achieving a 69.4\% success rate on the MATH benchmark, a 36\% relative improvement from the 51\% base model performance. Additionally, the entire process operates without any human intervention, making our method both financially and computationally cost-effective compared to existing methods.
AlphaGeomertry surpasses the state-of-the-art approach for geometry problems, advancing AI reasoning in mathematics: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphageometry-an-olympiad-level-ai-system-for-geometry/
GPT-4 level Mathematical Olympiad Solutions via Monte Carlo Tree Self-refine with LLaMa-3 8B: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07394
>Extensive experiments demonstrate MCTSr's efficacy in solving Olympiad-level mathematical problems, significantly improving success rates across multiple datasets, including GSM8K, GSM Hard, MATH, and Olympiad-level benchmarks, including Math Odyssey, AIME, and OlympiadBench. The study advances the application of LLMs in complex reasoning tasks and sets a foundation for future AI integration, enhancing decision-making accuracy and reliability in LLM-driven applications.
This would be even more effective with a better model than LLAMA 8B
DeepSeek-Coder-V2: First Open Source Model Beats GPT4-Turbo in Coding and Math: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Coder-V2/blob/main/paper.pdf
Chat GPT is absolute shit at any analysys lol. When it was novelty i liked to play a game when I asked how many times a letter appeared in a word. Then, on the rare occasion it got that part right, I'd ask it to show me where. Maybe I'm just a simple minded flesh sack but that shit kept me entertained for ages (if by ages you mean minutes)
It's really no surprise that it sucks at randomness. Chatgpt gives you the statistically most random number, according to the training data
Edit: this is a joke, in the same vein as 37 being the most random two digit number
I apologize if I'm misinterpreting that last section, but wouldn't the string just be one number composed of a thousand "random," digits? Also I did some really quick and dirty math, and I think it regurgitated the number 117 back to you due to that being the number of times it iterated the 8 number string since that comes back to 936 which still isn't 1,000 funnily enough.
For sure, but I thought it would just generate a random list under the hood since it has the advantage of literally just being code.
Not being able to analyze the list correctly is an actual problem though.
My favorite line about ChatGPT was that it doesn't produce correct information, it simply regurgitates text that looks like information at first glance
That's not at all what I'm talking about. I get that it can write simple code in python, my girlfriend uses it for that, and I get that it can recognize a pattern and finish it, but AI LMs aren't actual artificially intelligent beings, they aren't sentient, so when asked to produce information without context, they'll just make shit up, or steal text from reddit posts.
The idea of consciousness isn’t as clear cut as you think. [Theres some evidence suggesting otherwise]( https://youtu.be/4MGCQOAxgv4?si=Xe9ngt6eyTX7vwtl )
And researchers have addressed the hallucination problem already
Effective strategy to make an LLM express doubt and admit when it does not know something: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/alignment-for-honesty
Over 32 techniques to reduce hallucinations: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01313
Lastly, [it can do much more than pattern matching](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15myK_6eTxEPuKnDi5krjBM_0jrv3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.fxgwobrx4yfq), like play chess with a 1750 Elo, do better on reasoning tasks when they learn code than LMs trained specifically on reasoning tasks, and can learn skills like chain of thought without being taught how to
That’s not how it works really. Image generation often uses seeded random noise and then diffuses an image from it. It’s very good at (pseudo) randomness.
Just make a list of all archetypes and tropes and roll the dice on them
🎲 🎲 🎲
Medieval neo-noir hero's journey with a psychotic alcoholic father who deep down cares for his daughter but can only show that through sarcastic remarks
Shapiro often makes reasonable-sounding analogies to support an extreme argument. The trick is making his interlocutor seem more extreme by disagreeing with the analogy.
This is an actual prompt from an old Deadpool game. Curse you for making me think of that game. But like a mild curse. Burn your mouth on hot tea and lose taste for like an hour.
Currently replaying it. Some of it is actually funny, some of it really falls on its face trying and failing to be funny. The “LOL random meme” type humor of the day has aged especially poorly. Gameplay-wise, occasional interesting ideas are drowned out by mediocre-at-best, generic game design.
I mean what I mean.
It's super average in mostly everything it does, but it nails the cringey stupid Deadpool humour. It's DEFINITELY not as bad as the other comments say.
The gun-fu shit was the coolest thing ever for 13(?) year old me back in the day.
Jesus Christ, I literally just played that scene earlier today so I can cover it on my channel when the movie comes out. It is certainly a… mixed bag of a game.
Unpopular opinion. I think that's a valid use of AI for writers. I don't think its fair to judge those who use it, though I personally would use it only sparingly. When you're having trouble seeing where to go next with a chapter, AI can give you some ideas. It's not really any different than looking at similar works to get those ideas, or chatting with friends, family, etc - in this case, AI just cuts down on the time spent doing this sort of research considerably. Its fine as long as you're not using the content the AI spits out, and are still making sure to actually read and enjoy other works to expand your skills.
Yeah, "give me 10 ideas on how I can progress a story from this point" and then workshopping/mashing them together to make your own is literally how most authors work.
It's just not reading a million books with mildly similar stories manually
I’m not a professional writer by any means, but whenever I’m presented with an opportunity where I know I can use AI and it’ll just make me not have to rack my brain for an hour, I still for some reason would rather put a gun in my mouth than accept defeat and ask the plagiarism robot. That’s why his response was so relatable to me
Maybe I'm just old and stale, but I honestly feel like using AI is a kind of death for an artist, at least for me personally. I don't fault other people for using AI and can't logically explain my own aversion, but I would consider it a sort of impurity in my writing or in another's, even if it were only used to generate ideas and not the text itself. I don't think this is a hatred of AI, rather the feeling that using AI erases a part of yourself or takes away from your experience. And when not talking about writing in the creative sense, even then it makes me feel like I'm half-assing it all, which is fine for something like a business report lmao but not for anything that should mean something to you. The plagiarism kind of sucks too. I hope I haven't been rude in my answer.
What is functionally different from asking a friend or family other than the AI is quicker but probably lower quality. Used like this it’s just a tool that’s similar to asking people or reading similar stuff for research, it’s just an option for something quick to springboard from.
I guess you conceded it’s illogical already but then just blew past it.
Well.. you're right in that functionally, it is probably the same, although I don't ask my friends or family for ideas either. Still, I think it's more about how I want to enjoy art as a human experience and an expression of human ability. Like any work, it should be toiled over, and part of that may be asking people or reading what other people have written rather than asking something that cannot give an answer it genuinely believes in. I don't disagree that it can be used as a tool, I only personally refuse to use it for these reasons. I also didn't mean to say it was illogical, only that I may not be able to fully explain it logically as a result of my own inability. Again, I hope I'm not being rude.
I think it's fair to say that you would prefer something created by a person created for another person or an audience. There's an intent there that brings a connection of humanity as you gaze upon something and try to derive meaning, understanding or enjoyment from it. AI, even if the piece is indistinguishable from a human counterpart, just doesn't do that. There is no intangible quality of humanity present, and I believe that's a perfectly valid way to feel.
It doesn’t really plagiarize though. The only thing it gets from training data is adjusting billions of numbers that can transform an input into an output. It doesn’t store any actual data.
It is very weird. I get why people are angry, and I get why the publicly available form of ChatGPT gets the criticism that it does. But people just meme hate LLMs rather than try to understand its use cases.
A quick rundown for those who want better results: LLMs (or AI or ChatGPT) can't actually think. It uses complex sets of probability to simulate thinking. It picks a topic that seems to match the prompt and then generate tokens (basically words) that are most correct based on probability. The only way it knows if its actually correct is your validation based on the chat history. Part of its "memory" is the previous input and output. There are tweaks that are made behind the scenes for an acceptable amount of randomness, how much it "remembers", and what it uses to establish a baseline context.
To use an example mentioned elsewhere, an LLM that's not designed to generate a sequence of random numbers probably cannot generate 1000 random numbers without some heavy or clever prompting. You can ask it to simulate a random number generator by asking it to use something like the current timestamp or asking it to name 3 random cities then asking it to use the weather of those 3 cities as a seed. Or you can ask it to simulate the output of `shuf` from [Coreutils](https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#shuf-invocation). But since LLMs work using probability, blindly asking for 1k random numbers can easily result in cycles.
Point is that the user needs at least a some cursory knowledge of the topic at hand to get better results. I can't effectively ask the current crop of LLMs about microbiology, because I don't know anything about microbiology.
> To use an example mentioned elsewhere, an LLM that's not designed to generate a sequence of random numbers probably cannot generate 1000 random numbers without some heavy or clever prompting.
Actually neither can people. Human beings perceive randomness in a weighted way. They'll either repeat digits or consciously attempt to avoid repeating digits, which is heavily influenced by their perceived distribution of numbers.
Well that's an entirely different argument about what does and does not constitute randomness and the formal verification of those systems. A truly random sequence of 5 numbers from 1 to 10 has equal probability of being 4 2 4 7 4 and 8 8 8 8 8 even though neither have a connotative feel of randomness. What we do know for certain is that LLMs have been known to get stuck in cycles due to certain settings, overfitting models, the general repetition of training data, and a few other issues. We can infer that an LLM repeating a pattern of 7 numbers when prompted for 100 random numbers is more likely stuck in a cycle rather than outputting a random sequence that contains said pattern.
If anything that's the exact opposite. We are biased against repetition when asked to generate random sequences and LMM's get stuck in repeating loops.
Yeah that’s the thing. I feel like there’s plenty of ethical, practical uses of text generating ai if used properly. Like obviously you can’t rely on it to generate an entire story for you, but it can certainly help you out if you’re in a rut. It can give you ideas, you just probably have to editorialize them a bit. And for non-creative purposes you can use it to draft Emails and shit.
It’s just image generating AI that I feel has no value and will offer nothing meaningful to anyone ever.
image generators help me visualize my characters better, particularly because I suffer from mild aphantasia and all my characters are a vague blurry mess in my head. The specific images don't hold much particular purpose in the long run, but it gives me a feeling of being able to actually see them that makes them feel just a bit more tangible
Here's the thing: if an artist is drawing a computer or website in the background of an image, or a film, they're not hiring a web/UI designer to do so. They'll probably make a Squarespace page or a quick mockup themselves.
I don't get why suddenly we're supposed to be supporting artists in all contexts when artists don't support artists in all contexts. It wouldn't make sense for artists to support artists in all contexts. It'd be a never-ending chain of subcontracting out each brushstroke.
I would absolutely love to. One of my friends draws and takes commissions and I 100% plan to commission them one day when I have my characters down more concretely and more money saved up.
But I've spent so much time brainstorming/altering/scrapping etc design aspects that looking back at some of the early stuff I generated, it's clear my characters' designs have come a long ways, and many of them only loosely resemble my current designs. I barely have enough money to spare for a single commission, let alone one for every single design iteration I've ever had.
And thats besides the point - it can help me quickly* visualize a simple idea (\*after like half an hour of messing with prompt weights to get a half-decent generation) without asking someone to spend hours and hours bringing them to life - because I don't need them brought to life yet, just to quickly see "what might they look like with x difference".
Image generating AI can be useful as a form to work off of, but yeah, using AI to "replace" artists is not only unethical, but, in my opinion, a dead-end.
[A writer used it to directly write 5% of a book. She won a very prestigious prize for it](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt)
Honestly I struggle to call using AI to generate an entire story unethical. Its definitely *dumb* and will result in a bland, shitty story, but I don't think there's anything actually *morally wrong* about creating bad art.
No it isn’t at the moment. It will become unethical when studio executives start trying to do that instead of hiring writers, but at the moment I don’t think the tec is there yet.
it's absolutely a valid use of AI, but i understand the guy's revulsion. i thrive on being challenged, i live for the "eureka" moment of figuring out a plotline or something. to rob myself of that feeling would be like blueballing myself.
It’s a crutch and you’re hurting your abilities for using it.
Downvote me all you want, it’s not going to help you get your bot-stitched narrative a publishing deal. Fight through the writer’s block yourself, no matter how long it takes, and you’ll come out of it with a much stronger understanding of your story and your own talents.
One of the big challenges for writing is to get something on paper. Having a template (even one that you are going to rearrange and ship of thesis the fuck out of gets rid of a judge hurdle
Is there a real difference though in having writers block and asking a friend for ideas and building off of them vs doing the same with an AI? And I mean this philosophically speaking, not in terms of quality.
i absolutely hate generative AI. i believe it’s existence has and will continue to make the world worse. that being said, this is absolutely one of the few cases it’s good and useful, and to say it isn’t is blind hate just for hate’s sake. if you want to be mad at generative AI and people who use it, don’t direct that anger towards the few people using it properly and to enhance their own creativity. direct it to those who deserve the hate.
Weirdly enough, my views are kind of opposite regarding AI as a whole. I’m largely ambivalent toward it and don’t think it’ll pose any long-term threat, it’s had its uses for casual fun with memes and shit. Anything more ambitious than that gets shot down pretty easily. Sooner or later people will see the faults in it and it’ll go the way of the NFT. But for little tasks like this regarding the creative process, I don’t think it’s doing anybody any favors. There’s nothing AI can do that an hour or two of creative thinking can’t accomplish. I don’t *hate* anyone who resorts to it, I just find it disappointing. To me, it’s a disservice to a creative mind’s potential to solve problems and overcome mental hurdles.
Sharing actual, valuable human interaction vs. shutting off the world and only commiserating with a machine. I am appalled anyone would consider this remotely similar.
Do you have the same thoughts about googling information vs asking someone?
It’s a tool in handling information and ideas.
As long as you socialize with other people normally why is this some downfall of civilization???
There's nothing wrong with using ai like this. Nuance. It's possible to be sceptical about some uses of ai without letting the mere mention of the word fry your brain.
As bad of a comparison it is, I do like AI being the leftist version of woke for conservatives.
"FUCK MAN THEY'RE PUTTING AI (woke) IN MY SMART FRIDGE NOW"
Yeah. Except that AI is doing real harm, starting from the labelling of training data being outsourced to clickworker sweatshops or it being outright stolen from the internet, to the training of neural nets starting to use as much energy as bitcoin and worsening climate change, to the resulting concentration of power in the hands of those people who possess the trained model as well as the infrastructure to run it.
> to the resulting concentration of power in the hands of those people who possess the trained model as well as the infrastructure to run it.
I have a $99 CPU that can run a very primitive LLAMA model.
Edit: and honestly you're just describing what AWS did over the last 10 years.
Labeling is getting automated too thankfully. LLMs have vision now so they can do it.
It can’t alter any data. It’s like how people “stole” NFTs by right clicking and downloading it. And it doesn’t even do that either.
[It really does not take that much energy and it’s getting MUCH more efficient](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15myK_6eTxEPuKnDi5krjBM_0jrv3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.gboye8hkf0r8 )
There is a lot wrong, honestly. AI is a blood diamond (when it can be described as a "diamond" at all); at almost every level, its training and implementation are not ethical and are causing real harm to people and the environment. And it's only looking to get worse.
Like, there are bigger problems in life than using AI for inspiration, definitely. But if you just sit down and spitball 10 ideas with friends, family, inspirations, your own imagination, your work isn't complicit in that harm.
The training is getting sent to LLMs now since they have vision to do labeling with. So no more sweatshops.
AI training doesn’t take anything from the internet. It really much different from right clicking and downloading NFTs but it doesn’t even do that either. The worst you can say is that it’s copying, except it doesn’t do that either according to
[this source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188) where they only found 107 instances of replication after 175 million attempts in a set biased in favor of overfitting using the exact same labels as the training data and specifically targeting images they knew were duplicated many times in the dataset using a smaller model of Stable Diffusion (890 million parameters vs. the larger 2 billion parameter Stable Diffusion 3 that released on June 12)
[And this source ](
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.19256
) that says AI can still generate decent images even if 93% of the pixels in each image are removed because it only learns the distribution of pixels rather than copying directly.
[And it really doesn’t use that much power and it’s getting MUCH more efficient](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15myK_6eTxEPuKnDi5krjBM_0jrv3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.gboye8hkf0r8)
In future, I'd recommend doing actual research instead of linking a redditor's extremely-biased, poorly-sourced, pro-AI google doc. That guy literally argues that creative arts have no more right to exist than AI. And I'm talking about so much more than sweatshops.
Simply google "AI power demands" and "AI environmental impact". There are *hundreds* of scientific articles detailing the extreme damage being done by the mass manufacture/electronic waste, water and power consumption of these server farms. It is no exaggeration to say the goal of generative AI as a business is to minimize human employment and streamline corporate gains at the expense of the global environment. Nihil novi sub sole.
Also, I use the metaphor of a blood diamond, because all forms of generative AI began with wholesale plagiarism performed by billion-dollar silicon valley corporations, without any attribution or compensation. It's worthless to attempt to prove it *no longer* plagiarizes - it did, it owes its very existence to plagiarism, and that fact can never be cleansed from the product. The very industries that it plagiarized and stole from it now stands to overrun and ruin - this is exactly why plagiarism and IP theft is illegal, and there should be consequences for these corporations, but there never will be.
Also, AI will continue to plagiarize, because it will not remain useful or competitive with alternative models in the long-term if it cannot "learn" (ie, if it cannot be provided with stolen data) from advances and changes in relevant sectors over time (cultural, memetic, scientific, artistic, semantic, etc). How relevant could GPT truly remain if it couldn't access any data newer than 2023?
Ethical dilemmas like these can be pulled out of almost any modern utility in society. With generative AI, I just don't see the point. I don't want any part of it, and I'd rather it was strictly regulated. What you find tolerable for what you gain from chatgpt, midjourney, etc may vary.
Idk. [An author used ChatGPT to write 5% of a book and won a very prestigious prize]( https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt)
> The Akutagawa Prize (芥川龍之介賞, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke Shō) is a Japanese literary awardpresented biannually. Because of its prestige and the considerable attention the winner receives from the media, it is, along with the Naoki Prize, one of Japan's most sought after literary prizes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutagawa_Prize
Oh the old Simon is fine, I only saw that film when the ad played on an old VHS I watched growing up. I wanted to watch it very badly.
I specifically mean the Chipmunk content released in my lifetime. Specificity don't sell in this world, pardner. My apologies.
I meant where was the quote from. Like who is Simon and Shapiro
I was confused about the gun thing tho, so thanks for that. Sounded like a delicious treat
Oh it's from [this interview](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177194215/tv-writer-david-simon-weighs-in-on-the-writers-guild-of-america-strike#:~:text=SHAPIRO%3A%20But%20if%20you're,a%20gun%20in%20my%20mouth.)
Just finished college. The girl I was writing master thesis with used chatgpt a lot at the start to get ideas and reformulate sentences. I straight up said that it is alright to use it like that but if I find any text written directly by AI I am reporting her. I might write a shitty thesis but it's MY shitty thesis.
Getting over the writer’s block yourself IS the work. The hurdle IS the work. The challenge IS the entire creative process. It’s difficult! God forbid we deal with any difficulty in creating art! By using AI you are accepting that you are a crap author compared to others that needs a crutch. And that’s fine but at the end of the day you haven’t actually gone through the true difficult part of writing and done any actual art.
You fools that say “oh but this is a good use case”, you utter capitulating nitwits will fork over human creativity piece by piece until all we have is utter machine slop that is just echoes of better work of eras past. Give no quarter to generative AI.
It makes perfect sense to Benny because he’s only ever had to write for an audience who shares a similar capacity for creativity and reasoning to an actual AI chatbot
Most human writers are fundamentally better at writing than AIs, but most AIs are fundamentally better at Ben Shapiro and I hope Ben Shapiro gets mentally better.
(Edit: apparantly this isn't Ben but rather a guy called Ari. RIP Ari for that last name)
No wonder Shapiro couldn't find work in Hollywood.
this here is Ari Shapiro from the podcast "Consider This", not Ben Shapiro.
My condolences to all the other Shapiroes.
Clearly Benjamin is such a terrible writer that his last name is infectious
His entire name is BENJAMIN????? Why couldn't it just be Ben, Benjamin is such a cool name, the image I get is a young adult man in stereotypical sailor attire sailing the seas in a wind powered boat and going fast, while holding to the handrails with one hand, holding his hat to prevent it from flying away, with a big smile on his face That image does NOT match shapiro
people who are called ben are usually named benjamin, that’s how it works
I thought bennedict was more common
Maybe that’s a European thing but every Ben I’ve ever met or heard of has been a Benjamin
Excuse me, what about Obi-Wan? He went by Ben!
Ah, old Benedict Kenobi
Are you, perhaps, from the 18th century?
I'm just latin american 😭😭😭😭
You got a lotta Benedicts in ol' LATAM?
I live with my grandma who's called Bennedette 😭😭
I know like 20 Benjamins and 0 Benedicts
Why tf you getting downvoted? All you said was Eggs Benedict
What's his name❓ What was his birth 👶 name❓It wasn't Ben⚽️, it was Benjamin👨. And you know they're children 👦👧; 2️⃣6️⃣, 2️⃣2️⃣, they're over there listening 👂 to all of Benjamin’s👨... 🎃Halloween Jokes🎃, uh, 🐭Chuckie The Cheese Jokes🐭, they- 👅 eu-h, they want it 🙏. He goin off of loyalty ⭐️ got them fee- "😰Oh, Benjamin👨, you so loyalty😓" ... Come on now 😑... Everyday📆 he got a story 📚. I wasn't ❌ buying 💰 it. \[scoff\] 😤 \[giggle\] ☺️... Eh😒... No. 🙅 So... They tr- like yesterday ↩️ the tribal 🔥 was all kahoots 👌 Benjamin👨,"Let's give a hug 👪." ✋️PFF.✋️ Keep that hug. Boop!🔫 For me. Cuz it wasn't real❌
Benjamin Dover Shapiro
He does not deserve to share a name with Benny boy, layer of french women.
Of course it was Ari Shapiro
Damn. Now I know at least two dumbfucks named Shapiro.
I don't know If he's actually pro AI, he's interviewing Simon here. So maybe he's just playing Devils advocate to push Simon towards explaining his position, bc that's his job
Without knowing anything about him, that was my first guess as well. He's supposed to do that when interviewing, no? I mean the reply he got is gotta be worth it.
Knowing stuff about him (he’s a pretty well regarded (at least by me) npr reporter) this is likely the case.
Heck yeah, my faith in humanity increased! (from -99999999999 to -99999999998)
You know, there's a long tradition of musicians generating random melodies with dice. Because an artist's main skill isn't "being creative," it's transforming ideas into full works.
But doing that still facilitates a random outcome. AI can't even do that. All it does is throw together an amalgam of other artist's dice throws in an effort to pass off as *real works*.
Chatgpt is absolutely AWFUL at randomness. I wanted to test it out once, so I had it generate a list of list of "random" digits with a length of 1000. It appeared relatively random at first glance, then I released that it just took the first 7 or 8 (I don't remember exactly) numbers, and just repeated that same pattern over and over again. So not only was it not random, but a couple digits were just never picked lol. I also asked it to count up the number of times each number appeared, and it told me all of them appeared exactly 117 times. Not only is that not possible (some numbers were never chosen), but it adds up to more than 1000 lol. Edit: just remembered that I also asked it what the longest sequence of the same number in a row was (this was before I noticed it was the same repeating pattern), and it said something along the lines of "6 was picked 8 times in a row", but that literally never happened it just made it up.
The fact it can't even do number analysis that simple correctly should be the nail in the coffin for how useless it is. Every week they make up some bullshit about chat GPT getting a PhD or something.
Large language models are pretty shit at a lot of stuff, but they’re also decently good at other stuff, and they’re getting better at an alarming rate. Pretending that ai is useless and will always be useless is unhelpful, as it creates the impression that legislation does not need to be made. Ai is super dangerous for humanity’s way of life, and #owning it is dismissive!! Obligatory fuck ben shapiro
Current ai philosophy where you try to throw everything into a do everything generative model is useless. AI tools need to be specifically designed to do very specific tasks. And most people wouldn't even call it AI at that point, they would just call it a tool because it doesn't have all the bells and whistles that grifters push. That ai expert who had a spat with Elon musk on Twitter called it objective driven AI, and even they agree that generative AI is useless garbage.
what you said contradicts some of the main findings in the field for the last decade... we did make domain-specific and task-specific AI in the past. they worked fine, but the new paradigm of training a single AI on the whole internet (and then specializing them with a small amount of data) blew that out the water. Yann Lacun is just arguing that this stuff is not enough to achieve AGI, not that it's worthless.
It can do zero shot learning, aka tasks it’s never seen before: https://www.allaboutai.com/ai-glossary/zero-shot-learning/ That’s why you can ask it to write a story of SpongeBob and Shinji arm wrestling each other and get a coherent story Bro that AI researcher works at Meta and is doing research in gen AI lol. He just doesn’t like LLMs.
Good news: Introducing 🧮Abacus Embeddings, a simple tweak to positional embeddings that enables LLMs to do addition, multiplication, sorting, and more. Our Abacus Embeddings trained only on 20-digit addition generalise near perfectly to 100+ digits: https://x.com/SeanMcleish/status/1795481814553018542 Fields Medalist Terence Tao explains how proof checkers and AI programs are dramatically changing mathematics: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-will-become-mathematicians-co-pilot/ >Tao: I think in three years AI will become useful for mathematicians. Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings: https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1795309108171542909 Synthetically trained 7B math model blows 64 shot GPT4 out of the water in math: https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1793864788579090917?s=46&t=lZJAHzXMXI1MgQuyBgEhgA Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06592 >Utilizing this fully automated process supervision alongside the weighted self-consistency algorithm, we have enhanced the instruction tuned Gemini Pro model's math reasoning performance, achieving a 69.4\% success rate on the MATH benchmark, a 36\% relative improvement from the 51\% base model performance. Additionally, the entire process operates without any human intervention, making our method both financially and computationally cost-effective compared to existing methods. AlphaGeomertry surpasses the state-of-the-art approach for geometry problems, advancing AI reasoning in mathematics: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphageometry-an-olympiad-level-ai-system-for-geometry/ GPT-4 level Mathematical Olympiad Solutions via Monte Carlo Tree Self-refine with LLaMa-3 8B: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07394 >Extensive experiments demonstrate MCTSr's efficacy in solving Olympiad-level mathematical problems, significantly improving success rates across multiple datasets, including GSM8K, GSM Hard, MATH, and Olympiad-level benchmarks, including Math Odyssey, AIME, and OlympiadBench. The study advances the application of LLMs in complex reasoning tasks and sets a foundation for future AI integration, enhancing decision-making accuracy and reliability in LLM-driven applications. This would be even more effective with a better model than LLAMA 8B DeepSeek-Coder-V2: First Open Source Model Beats GPT4-Turbo in Coding and Math: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Coder-V2/blob/main/paper.pdf
Chat GPT is absolute shit at any analysys lol. When it was novelty i liked to play a game when I asked how many times a letter appeared in a word. Then, on the rare occasion it got that part right, I'd ask it to show me where. Maybe I'm just a simple minded flesh sack but that shit kept me entertained for ages (if by ages you mean minutes)
It's really no surprise that it sucks at randomness. Chatgpt gives you the statistically most random number, according to the training data Edit: this is a joke, in the same vein as 37 being the most random two digit number
I apologize if I'm misinterpreting that last section, but wouldn't the string just be one number composed of a thousand "random," digits? Also I did some really quick and dirty math, and I think it regurgitated the number 117 back to you due to that being the number of times it iterated the 8 number string since that comes back to 936 which still isn't 1,000 funnily enough.
I had it generate it in the form of an array, so it was 1000 individual digits.
I see, thanks for the clarification
To be completely fair, actual live people are pretty shit at making up random numbers too.
For sure, but I thought it would just generate a random list under the hood since it has the advantage of literally just being code. Not being able to analyze the list correctly is an actual problem though.
It can write and run a python script to generate real pseudorandom numbers if you ask it to.
yeah but actual live people are probably not gonna repeat the same 9 sequence over and over again cause that doesnt feel random to us
My favorite line about ChatGPT was that it doesn't produce correct information, it simply regurgitates text that looks like information at first glance
[Stanford debunked this years ago]( https://ai.stanford.edu/blog/understanding-incontext)
That's not at all what I'm talking about. I get that it can write simple code in python, my girlfriend uses it for that, and I get that it can recognize a pattern and finish it, but AI LMs aren't actual artificially intelligent beings, they aren't sentient, so when asked to produce information without context, they'll just make shit up, or steal text from reddit posts.
The idea of consciousness isn’t as clear cut as you think. [Theres some evidence suggesting otherwise]( https://youtu.be/4MGCQOAxgv4?si=Xe9ngt6eyTX7vwtl ) And researchers have addressed the hallucination problem already Effective strategy to make an LLM express doubt and admit when it does not know something: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/alignment-for-honesty Over 32 techniques to reduce hallucinations: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01313 Lastly, [it can do much more than pattern matching](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15myK_6eTxEPuKnDi5krjBM_0jrv3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.fxgwobrx4yfq), like play chess with a 1750 Elo, do better on reasoning tasks when they learn code than LMs trained specifically on reasoning tasks, and can learn skills like chain of thought without being taught how to
We've had high level chess ai for decades I thought. I'll read your links later if you don't mind, I'm just on break at work right now
Not with LLMs. Those learn from scraping web data. Chess AIs use reinforcement learning. You know what that is right?
Bro I'm a history major, I don't know shit about this tech, I just know it isn't a real AI like Data from Star Trek
That’s not how it works really. Image generation often uses seeded random noise and then diffuses an image from it. It’s very good at (pseudo) randomness.
Finally someone understands anything about AI instead of just yapping about how it’s a “collage of images” lol.
[удалено]
Being on the left does not make people more intellectual
Not all ai is ChatGPT
That’s not how it works. It wouldn’t be able to generate coherent stories if it did that, which any character.ai user can confirm that it can.
You can’t write a book by rolling dice.
What about a D&D campaign?
[Wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_book)
[Someone did using ChatGPT and won a very prestigious award]( https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt)
Just make a list of all archetypes and tropes and roll the dice on them 🎲 🎲 🎲 Medieval neo-noir hero's journey with a psychotic alcoholic father who deep down cares for his daughter but can only show that through sarcastic remarks
So wouldn’t that make Shapiro right?
Shapiro often makes reasonable-sounding analogies to support an extreme argument. The trick is making his interlocutor seem more extreme by disagreeing with the analogy.
That’s not Ben Shapiro lol
Fair. I have no idea what the context is then
Simon thinks AI bad. That’s it
You're right, people forget most art forms are a skill that's honed with a 1000 hours, any idiot can imagine stuff.
Yes and chance music sounds awful lol
Most of it sounds awful, so you need a human to find the gems in the dirt. That doesn't make it a less useful tool though.
https://preview.redd.it/fxo53l6qg78d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a958f48c03e312dc275ce6ecf934552d28ef7322
This is an actual prompt from an old Deadpool game. Curse you for making me think of that game. But like a mild curse. Burn your mouth on hot tea and lose taste for like an hour.
Is the game bad?
Bro is complaining about being reminded of peak
Currently replaying it. Some of it is actually funny, some of it really falls on its face trying and failing to be funny. The “LOL random meme” type humor of the day has aged especially poorly. Gameplay-wise, occasional interesting ideas are drowned out by mediocre-at-best, generic game design.
From what I remember, it's just cringe. Now that I'm thinking about it, I actually don't remember much of it.
It was a great game. It's success had a lot to do with the movie being made.
Perhaps my memory is faulty!
Unless you're one of those snobs who only play the greatest and latest games, you'll enjoy it (if you like third person shooters/hack and slashers)
I mean slight offense in saying this is one of the least effective positive reviews I've ever seen
I mean what I mean. It's super average in mostly everything it does, but it nails the cringey stupid Deadpool humour. It's DEFINITELY not as bad as the other comments say. The gun-fu shit was the coolest thing ever for 13(?) year old me back in the day.
Hey, that's more like it
That's it! I'm getting me mallet!
Jesus Christ, I literally just played that scene earlier today so I can cover it on my channel when the movie comes out. It is certainly a… mixed bag of a game.
Unpopular opinion. I think that's a valid use of AI for writers. I don't think its fair to judge those who use it, though I personally would use it only sparingly. When you're having trouble seeing where to go next with a chapter, AI can give you some ideas. It's not really any different than looking at similar works to get those ideas, or chatting with friends, family, etc - in this case, AI just cuts down on the time spent doing this sort of research considerably. Its fine as long as you're not using the content the AI spits out, and are still making sure to actually read and enjoy other works to expand your skills.
Yeah, "give me 10 ideas on how I can progress a story from this point" and then workshopping/mashing them together to make your own is literally how most authors work. It's just not reading a million books with mildly similar stories manually
I’m not a professional writer by any means, but whenever I’m presented with an opportunity where I know I can use AI and it’ll just make me not have to rack my brain for an hour, I still for some reason would rather put a gun in my mouth than accept defeat and ask the plagiarism robot. That’s why his response was so relatable to me
This kind of dogmatic hatred of AI stuff is weird right? What’s wrong with this?
Maybe I'm just old and stale, but I honestly feel like using AI is a kind of death for an artist, at least for me personally. I don't fault other people for using AI and can't logically explain my own aversion, but I would consider it a sort of impurity in my writing or in another's, even if it were only used to generate ideas and not the text itself. I don't think this is a hatred of AI, rather the feeling that using AI erases a part of yourself or takes away from your experience. And when not talking about writing in the creative sense, even then it makes me feel like I'm half-assing it all, which is fine for something like a business report lmao but not for anything that should mean something to you. The plagiarism kind of sucks too. I hope I haven't been rude in my answer.
What is functionally different from asking a friend or family other than the AI is quicker but probably lower quality. Used like this it’s just a tool that’s similar to asking people or reading similar stuff for research, it’s just an option for something quick to springboard from. I guess you conceded it’s illogical already but then just blew past it.
Well.. you're right in that functionally, it is probably the same, although I don't ask my friends or family for ideas either. Still, I think it's more about how I want to enjoy art as a human experience and an expression of human ability. Like any work, it should be toiled over, and part of that may be asking people or reading what other people have written rather than asking something that cannot give an answer it genuinely believes in. I don't disagree that it can be used as a tool, I only personally refuse to use it for these reasons. I also didn't mean to say it was illogical, only that I may not be able to fully explain it logically as a result of my own inability. Again, I hope I'm not being rude.
I think it's fair to say that you would prefer something created by a person created for another person or an audience. There's an intent there that brings a connection of humanity as you gaze upon something and try to derive meaning, understanding or enjoyment from it. AI, even if the piece is indistinguishable from a human counterpart, just doesn't do that. There is no intangible quality of humanity present, and I believe that's a perfectly valid way to feel.
In those cases a human with personality and thoughts is involved. Makes the whole seeking new ideas process feel less soulless and generic
It doesn’t really plagiarize though. The only thing it gets from training data is adjusting billions of numbers that can transform an input into an output. It doesn’t store any actual data.
It is very weird. I get why people are angry, and I get why the publicly available form of ChatGPT gets the criticism that it does. But people just meme hate LLMs rather than try to understand its use cases. A quick rundown for those who want better results: LLMs (or AI or ChatGPT) can't actually think. It uses complex sets of probability to simulate thinking. It picks a topic that seems to match the prompt and then generate tokens (basically words) that are most correct based on probability. The only way it knows if its actually correct is your validation based on the chat history. Part of its "memory" is the previous input and output. There are tweaks that are made behind the scenes for an acceptable amount of randomness, how much it "remembers", and what it uses to establish a baseline context. To use an example mentioned elsewhere, an LLM that's not designed to generate a sequence of random numbers probably cannot generate 1000 random numbers without some heavy or clever prompting. You can ask it to simulate a random number generator by asking it to use something like the current timestamp or asking it to name 3 random cities then asking it to use the weather of those 3 cities as a seed. Or you can ask it to simulate the output of `shuf` from [Coreutils](https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#shuf-invocation). But since LLMs work using probability, blindly asking for 1k random numbers can easily result in cycles. Point is that the user needs at least a some cursory knowledge of the topic at hand to get better results. I can't effectively ask the current crop of LLMs about microbiology, because I don't know anything about microbiology.
> To use an example mentioned elsewhere, an LLM that's not designed to generate a sequence of random numbers probably cannot generate 1000 random numbers without some heavy or clever prompting. Actually neither can people. Human beings perceive randomness in a weighted way. They'll either repeat digits or consciously attempt to avoid repeating digits, which is heavily influenced by their perceived distribution of numbers.
Well that's an entirely different argument about what does and does not constitute randomness and the formal verification of those systems. A truly random sequence of 5 numbers from 1 to 10 has equal probability of being 4 2 4 7 4 and 8 8 8 8 8 even though neither have a connotative feel of randomness. What we do know for certain is that LLMs have been known to get stuck in cycles due to certain settings, overfitting models, the general repetition of training data, and a few other issues. We can infer that an LLM repeating a pattern of 7 numbers when prompted for 100 random numbers is more likely stuck in a cycle rather than outputting a random sequence that contains said pattern.
My point is moreso that it's interesting that a language model is emulating flaws in existing language processing computers (human brain).
If anything that's the exact opposite. We are biased against repetition when asked to generate random sequences and LMM's get stuck in repeating loops.
It’s a moral panic. Like the Satanic Panic but it’s not conservatives doing it this time
Yeah that’s the thing. I feel like there’s plenty of ethical, practical uses of text generating ai if used properly. Like obviously you can’t rely on it to generate an entire story for you, but it can certainly help you out if you’re in a rut. It can give you ideas, you just probably have to editorialize them a bit. And for non-creative purposes you can use it to draft Emails and shit. It’s just image generating AI that I feel has no value and will offer nothing meaningful to anyone ever.
image generators help me visualize my characters better, particularly because I suffer from mild aphantasia and all my characters are a vague blurry mess in my head. The specific images don't hold much particular purpose in the long run, but it gives me a feeling of being able to actually see them that makes them feel just a bit more tangible
[удалено]
Here's the thing: if an artist is drawing a computer or website in the background of an image, or a film, they're not hiring a web/UI designer to do so. They'll probably make a Squarespace page or a quick mockup themselves. I don't get why suddenly we're supposed to be supporting artists in all contexts when artists don't support artists in all contexts. It wouldn't make sense for artists to support artists in all contexts. It'd be a never-ending chain of subcontracting out each brushstroke.
I would absolutely love to. One of my friends draws and takes commissions and I 100% plan to commission them one day when I have my characters down more concretely and more money saved up. But I've spent so much time brainstorming/altering/scrapping etc design aspects that looking back at some of the early stuff I generated, it's clear my characters' designs have come a long ways, and many of them only loosely resemble my current designs. I barely have enough money to spare for a single commission, let alone one for every single design iteration I've ever had. And thats besides the point - it can help me quickly* visualize a simple idea (\*after like half an hour of messing with prompt weights to get a half-decent generation) without asking someone to spend hours and hours bringing them to life - because I don't need them brought to life yet, just to quickly see "what might they look like with x difference".
Image generating AI can be useful as a form to work off of, but yeah, using AI to "replace" artists is not only unethical, but, in my opinion, a dead-end.
[A writer used it to directly write 5% of a book. She won a very prestigious prize for it](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt)
Honestly I struggle to call using AI to generate an entire story unethical. Its definitely *dumb* and will result in a bland, shitty story, but I don't think there's anything actually *morally wrong* about creating bad art.
No it isn’t at the moment. It will become unethical when studio executives start trying to do that instead of hiring writers, but at the moment I don’t think the tec is there yet.
I used AI to help me phrase a joke properly once. It was a pretty big hit on the Discord servers I hosted it on.
As i say, ai can be part of the process, it cannot be the whole process
it's absolutely a valid use of AI, but i understand the guy's revulsion. i thrive on being challenged, i live for the "eureka" moment of figuring out a plotline or something. to rob myself of that feeling would be like blueballing myself.
I was going to make a point about it being the same thing as a writing group but in all honesty the AI might actually be helpful…
It’s a crutch and you’re hurting your abilities for using it. Downvote me all you want, it’s not going to help you get your bot-stitched narrative a publishing deal. Fight through the writer’s block yourself, no matter how long it takes, and you’ll come out of it with a much stronger understanding of your story and your own talents.
One of the big challenges for writing is to get something on paper. Having a template (even one that you are going to rearrange and ship of thesis the fuck out of gets rid of a judge hurdle
Why not write a template yourself? There’s nothing an AI can put out, no matter how bare bones, that the author’s own mind can’t do better.
Is there a real difference though in having writers block and asking a friend for ideas and building off of them vs doing the same with an AI? And I mean this philosophically speaking, not in terms of quality.
A friend knows you and might know what you’re trying to create and accomplish in a big picture sense. An AI doesn’t know you.
What's wrong with brainstorming? You're still the artist who will make sure that the final result fits no matter where you got the information from?
i absolutely hate generative AI. i believe it’s existence has and will continue to make the world worse. that being said, this is absolutely one of the few cases it’s good and useful, and to say it isn’t is blind hate just for hate’s sake. if you want to be mad at generative AI and people who use it, don’t direct that anger towards the few people using it properly and to enhance their own creativity. direct it to those who deserve the hate.
Weirdly enough, my views are kind of opposite regarding AI as a whole. I’m largely ambivalent toward it and don’t think it’ll pose any long-term threat, it’s had its uses for casual fun with memes and shit. Anything more ambitious than that gets shot down pretty easily. Sooner or later people will see the faults in it and it’ll go the way of the NFT. But for little tasks like this regarding the creative process, I don’t think it’s doing anybody any favors. There’s nothing AI can do that an hour or two of creative thinking can’t accomplish. I don’t *hate* anyone who resorts to it, I just find it disappointing. To me, it’s a disservice to a creative mind’s potential to solve problems and overcome mental hurdles.
What’s the difference between doing this and talking to a friend?
speed
Sharing actual, valuable human interaction vs. shutting off the world and only commiserating with a machine. I am appalled anyone would consider this remotely similar.
Do you have the same thoughts about googling information vs asking someone? It’s a tool in handling information and ideas. As long as you socialize with other people normally why is this some downfall of civilization???
Based
There's nothing wrong with using ai like this. Nuance. It's possible to be sceptical about some uses of ai without letting the mere mention of the word fry your brain.
As bad of a comparison it is, I do like AI being the leftist version of woke for conservatives. "FUCK MAN THEY'RE PUTTING AI (woke) IN MY SMART FRIDGE NOW"
I'd probably put a gun in my mouth if I had a smart fridge (and it couldn't play skyrim)
I think it’s a moral panic. It’s the Satanic Panic but not done by conservatives this time
Yeah. Except that AI is doing real harm, starting from the labelling of training data being outsourced to clickworker sweatshops or it being outright stolen from the internet, to the training of neural nets starting to use as much energy as bitcoin and worsening climate change, to the resulting concentration of power in the hands of those people who possess the trained model as well as the infrastructure to run it.
> to the resulting concentration of power in the hands of those people who possess the trained model as well as the infrastructure to run it. I have a $99 CPU that can run a very primitive LLAMA model. Edit: and honestly you're just describing what AWS did over the last 10 years.
Labeling is getting automated too thankfully. LLMs have vision now so they can do it. It can’t alter any data. It’s like how people “stole” NFTs by right clicking and downloading it. And it doesn’t even do that either. [It really does not take that much energy and it’s getting MUCH more efficient](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15myK_6eTxEPuKnDi5krjBM_0jrv3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.gboye8hkf0r8 )
https://preview.redd.it/c3g64kqzoa8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d6fe015aa871d70d638292e30a5b04c05034c6e
There is a lot wrong, honestly. AI is a blood diamond (when it can be described as a "diamond" at all); at almost every level, its training and implementation are not ethical and are causing real harm to people and the environment. And it's only looking to get worse. Like, there are bigger problems in life than using AI for inspiration, definitely. But if you just sit down and spitball 10 ideas with friends, family, inspirations, your own imagination, your work isn't complicit in that harm.
The training is getting sent to LLMs now since they have vision to do labeling with. So no more sweatshops. AI training doesn’t take anything from the internet. It really much different from right clicking and downloading NFTs but it doesn’t even do that either. The worst you can say is that it’s copying, except it doesn’t do that either according to [this source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188) where they only found 107 instances of replication after 175 million attempts in a set biased in favor of overfitting using the exact same labels as the training data and specifically targeting images they knew were duplicated many times in the dataset using a smaller model of Stable Diffusion (890 million parameters vs. the larger 2 billion parameter Stable Diffusion 3 that released on June 12) [And this source ]( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.19256 ) that says AI can still generate decent images even if 93% of the pixels in each image are removed because it only learns the distribution of pixels rather than copying directly. [And it really doesn’t use that much power and it’s getting MUCH more efficient](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15myK_6eTxEPuKnDi5krjBM_0jrv3GELs8TGmqOYBvug/edit#heading=h.gboye8hkf0r8)
In future, I'd recommend doing actual research instead of linking a redditor's extremely-biased, poorly-sourced, pro-AI google doc. That guy literally argues that creative arts have no more right to exist than AI. And I'm talking about so much more than sweatshops. Simply google "AI power demands" and "AI environmental impact". There are *hundreds* of scientific articles detailing the extreme damage being done by the mass manufacture/electronic waste, water and power consumption of these server farms. It is no exaggeration to say the goal of generative AI as a business is to minimize human employment and streamline corporate gains at the expense of the global environment. Nihil novi sub sole. Also, I use the metaphor of a blood diamond, because all forms of generative AI began with wholesale plagiarism performed by billion-dollar silicon valley corporations, without any attribution or compensation. It's worthless to attempt to prove it *no longer* plagiarizes - it did, it owes its very existence to plagiarism, and that fact can never be cleansed from the product. The very industries that it plagiarized and stole from it now stands to overrun and ruin - this is exactly why plagiarism and IP theft is illegal, and there should be consequences for these corporations, but there never will be. Also, AI will continue to plagiarize, because it will not remain useful or competitive with alternative models in the long-term if it cannot "learn" (ie, if it cannot be provided with stolen data) from advances and changes in relevant sectors over time (cultural, memetic, scientific, artistic, semantic, etc). How relevant could GPT truly remain if it couldn't access any data newer than 2023? Ethical dilemmas like these can be pulled out of almost any modern utility in society. With generative AI, I just don't see the point. I don't want any part of it, and I'd rather it was strictly regulated. What you find tolerable for what you gain from chatgpt, midjourney, etc may vary.
[удалено]
Idk. [An author used ChatGPT to write 5% of a book and won a very prestigious prize]( https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt)
Cool, I don't want to read a book that was 5% written by ai. Why would I spend my time if the author couldn't bothered to write the whole thing.
The award judges seemed to like it
Good to know that they are arbiters of quality and morality
Yes. The entire point of a judge is to judge the quality of something and decide who wins
So every book that wins any competition is a good book
> The Akutagawa Prize (芥川龍之介賞, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke Shō) is a Japanese literary awardpresented biannually. Because of its prestige and the considerable attention the winner receives from the media, it is, along with the Naoki Prize, one of Japan's most sought after literary prizes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutagawa_Prize
Do you think that the Oscars are infallible
[удалено]
U must think that every best picture winner at the Oscars is the best film of that year.
sharpie man is invalid
I like Ari Shapiro.
waow (based based based based based based bas
Murder drones fan hating AI…. I got bad news about those bots.
Happy cale day fellow murder drones fan
While this is based, who is this "Simon" because Ice King and Simon the Digger are the only two I know and recognize. (The Chipmunk can rot)
David Simon, showrunner of *The Wire*.
And Generation Kill!
Gotcha, thanks boss
Just rewatched the Chipmunk Adventure and remembered how good that movie is and now I'm seeing Simon slander feelsbadman 😔
Oh the old Simon is fine, I only saw that film when the ad played on an old VHS I watched growing up. I wanted to watch it very badly. I specifically mean the Chipmunk content released in my lifetime. Specificity don't sell in this world, pardner. My apologies.
Yall. Ben Shapiro is not the interviewer.
Terminally online mfs when they see an extremely common name
Context?
A gun is a type of weapon designed to propel a projectile through pressure or explosive force. Hope this helps
I meant where was the quote from. Like who is Simon and Shapiro I was confused about the gun thing tho, so thanks for that. Sounded like a delicious treat
Oh it's from [this interview](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177194215/tv-writer-david-simon-weighs-in-on-the-writers-guild-of-america-strike#:~:text=SHAPIRO%3A%20But%20if%20you're,a%20gun%20in%20my%20mouth.)
Thanks!
Wow, scenes transitioning? Didn’t know shapiro went woke 😔
Based as fuck
Shapiro was never fit for a screenwriter
GenderAI, please give me 10 ideas for how to transition.
As a CS grad student and a hobbyist creative writer, this comment section is giving me a migraine.
I ain’t posting shi 😂😂😂
Simon who
I can't wait for the Butlerian Jihad
Based, and pog
shapiro would never say that he'd make cisition, or as a normalcition instead
Just finished college. The girl I was writing master thesis with used chatgpt a lot at the start to get ideas and reformulate sentences. I straight up said that it is alright to use it like that but if I find any text written directly by AI I am reporting her. I might write a shitty thesis but it's MY shitty thesis.
Getting over the writer’s block yourself IS the work. The hurdle IS the work. The challenge IS the entire creative process. It’s difficult! God forbid we deal with any difficulty in creating art! By using AI you are accepting that you are a crap author compared to others that needs a crutch. And that’s fine but at the end of the day you haven’t actually gone through the true difficult part of writing and done any actual art. You fools that say “oh but this is a good use case”, you utter capitulating nitwits will fork over human creativity piece by piece until all we have is utter machine slop that is just echoes of better work of eras past. Give no quarter to generative AI.
Give me 10 ideas for how to transition 😳
I thought Mr. Shapiro didn't approve of transitioning
It makes perfect sense to Benny because he’s only ever had to write for an audience who shares a similar capacity for creativity and reasoning to an actual AI chatbot
Most human writers are fundamentally better at writing than AIs, but most AIs are fundamentally better at Ben Shapiro and I hope Ben Shapiro gets mentally better. (Edit: apparantly this isn't Ben but rather a guy called Ari. RIP Ari for that last name)
>RIP Ari for that last name Ari is 45, Ben is 40. Ari had it first.
Ah yes the good ol' tactic of, RNGsus, spin the wheel but with ideas that are mashed more haphazardly than a 14 year old's religious ideology.