There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I hate that I have to keep saying this- No one seems to be talking about the fact that by giving their AI a human-like voice with simulated emotions, it inherently makes it seem more trustworthy and will get more people to believe its hallucinations are true. And then there will be the people convinced it’s really alive. This is fucking dangerous.

VerticaGG ,

Please keep saying it.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I plan to. It really upsets me.

TheEighthDoctor ,

Doesn’t sound anything like Scarlett Johansson

k_rol , (edited )

Well it does have some resemblance but other people have voices like her. Are they not allowed to use their voice anymore?

Edit: I guess not

suction ,

It’s still just LLM and therefore just autocomplete

todd_bonzalez ,

This article is about their voice synthesis product, which works in tandem with their GPT LLMs, but isn’t itself an LLM.

suction ,

Moot point

MojoMcJojo ,

Some days I’m just an autocomplete

Alpha71 ,

“Yeah, let’s go up against the woman who sued Disney and won What could go wrong!?”

Cringe2793 ,

Scarlett Johansson is a troublemaker. “Sounds eerily similar”. It’s not like she has such a unique voice after all.

fukurthumz420 ,

our collective time would be better spent destroying capitalism than trying to stop AI. AI is wonderful in the right social system.

TheGrandNagus , (edited )

Exactly. I know it’s easy to automatically froth at the mouth with rage when seeing “AI”, and here anything mentioning it gets automatically rejected, but there are genuinely good usecases.

Amazing speech synthesis and recognition is useful for anybody, but especially people with certain disabilities.

Much better translation, spell checking, help with writing. Helping people understand texts that are written in a complicated way (legalese, technical jargon, condensing EULA’s, etc)

Infrastructure planning and traffic control.

Grid energy usage and distribution.

Image recognition, useful for anybody for things like searching a photo library for a specific thing, but also for people with visual issues who previously had to rely on awful screen reader software that can’t tell you the content of images unless it was properly tagged (as someone with a blind sister who uses computers - rare!)

Spotting fake reviews, a massive issue online. Flagging bot accounts.

The potential for them to take over some jobs and free up people to pursue other things in life.

This technology, if trained ethically, and not used to siphon more data from people, is amazing. It’s how megacorps are using it that’s the problem.

jj4211 ,

On the other hand, assuming the social system isn’t the right one, hypothetically AI fully realized could make it more unreasonable and more tightly stuck the way it is.

TheFriar ,

Not to mention, any other, more just social system wouldn’t be fucking decimating the environment, ultimately hurting the poorer nations first, for money. And AI is accelerating our CO2 output when we need to be drastically cutting it back. This is very much a pacifying tool as we barrel toward oblivion.

fukurthumz420 ,

AI is accelerating our CO2 output

Could you explain that a little bit more please?

TheFriar ,

ft.com/…/61bd45d9-2c0f-479a-8b24-605d5e72f1ab

technologyreview.com/…/ais-carbon-footprint-is-bi…

hai.stanford.edu/…/ais-carbon-footprint-problem

When the world needs to be drastically altering our way of life to avert the worst of climate change, these companies are getting away with accelerating their output and generating tons of investment and revenue because “that’s what the market dictates.” Just like with crypto/blockchain a few years ago, adding “AI” into any business pitch/model is basically printing money. So companies are more inclined to incorporate this machine learning tech into their business, and this is all happening while the energy demand for increased usage and the constant “updates” and advancements in the field are gobbling up way more energy than we can honestly afford—and really even conceive of. Because they’re trying to hide this fact, given, yknow, the world fuckin ending. Basically, the market and the entire system of media is encouraging and fawning over this “leap” in tech, when we can’t realistically afford to continue our habits we had before this market even existed. So they are accelerating co2 output, everyone cheers, and we all ride merrily to the edge of our doom.

It’s capitalism once again destroying us and the planet for profit. And everyone who mindlessly jumps on board, ooh’ing and aww’ing at the stupid new shit they’re doing (while they infringe upon the work of all artists without compensation, driving human creativity out in the job market in favor of saving corporations some scratch by firing their artists and using AI instead…I genuinely can’t really conceive of how people seem so on board with this concept.

fukurthumz420 ,

“Cutting-edge technology doesn’t have to harm the planet, and research like this is very important in helping us get concrete numbers about emissions. It will also help people understand that the cloud we think that AI models live on is actually very tangible, says Sasha Luccioni, an AI researcher at Hugging Face who led the work.

Once we have those numbers, we can start thinking about when using powerful models is actually necessary and when smaller, more nimble models might be more appropriate, she says.”

that’s a shame and i’m not surprised at all to see that corporations are using AI for completely unimportant things.

But one thing to consider is that AI could also lead to solutions that help save the planet, like solving problems with fusion technology. I still believe in science, and I still believe that capitalism is the root of the problem, not the technology itself.

TheFriar ,

I mean, sure, I agree with you. Capitalism is the problem, no question. I would love a job-replacing tech so people could live lives of leisure and art. But…this system is being built for capitalist ends. It’s built by, funding by, and being put in the hands of the exact people causing the problem.

I agree that in a hypothetical world, machine learning technology could very well help humanity. But the code and money is in the hands of people who aren’t interested in helping humanity.

I’m no fan of forced labor for basic necessities. And I’m not advocating for that system by any means, but this tech, in this world, will drive the cost of labor down, drive people from the jobs they’ve been forced to rely upon, and it’s literally taking one of the few job fields where people actually got to express their humanity for their wages: art. Creative writing and design/visual art were one of the few fields people actually dreamt of doing. Because it offered us a living for creating. For being human. And that tiny outlet of humanity in the vast contrivance of capitalism is being devoured by this tech.

That’s just one small part of my distrust of “AI.” But the underlying problem is as I stated first, which is that this tech, existing in this world at this point in time, isn’t going to free us. It’s another tool by the ownership class to cut costs, decimate the environment, and drive profit. While also killing the small little sliver of human creativity that was allowed to exist under capitalism.

So again, hypothetically, yes, the tech could be a force for good and for human liberation from meaningless work. But it’s actually making our work even more meaningless, while sequestering another huge chunk of power for the ruling class. It would be great if it could reach its potential as a force for good. But given everything, that is not how it’s being implemented.

fukurthumz420 ,

your points are completely valid, which is why we really need to start banding together to dismantle the ownership class

by

any

means

necessary

for the sake of humanity (and all other living things on the planet)

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

“We need you to reconsider… because we already did it and we’re just looking for your stamp of approval after the fact.”

DarkCloud ,

AI has barely started infecting things, it’s still avoidable… Yet even at this early stage it’s obvious these companies have no morality and are willing to break laws and violate social norms.

It’s obvious they’re evil and they’ve barely just begun.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

Corporations are as callous and mechanical as they have always been, with an ever expanding range of tools to exploit. They will do anything and everything they can unless it is less profitable to do it.

authorinthedark ,

asking for forgiveness rather than permission sorta just seems to be their policy these days, yeah?

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

If by “forgiveness” you mean an avoidance of legal liability, sure. :P

elias_griffin ,
@elias_griffin@lemmy.world avatar

Quote from the subtitle of the article

and you can’t stop it.

Don’t ever let life-deprived, perspective-bubble wearing, uncompassiontate, power hungry manipulators, “News” people, tell you what you can and cannot do. Doesn’t even pass the smell test.

My advice, if a Media Outlet tries to Groom you to think that nothing you do matters, don’t ever read it again.

logos ,

Closed it as soon as I saw the paywall anyway

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

The implication being that this is the deal that the AI boom is offering, it’s not necessarily an endorsement of that philosophy by the writer.

elias_griffin ,
@elias_griffin@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t care what the implication was, I didn’t read past the slight/insult to my character, morality and intelligence. Who is some MSM empty suit tank to play cognitive narrative shaping with me, absolutely zero.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

Okay.

fukurthumz420 ,

elias griffin ain’t fucking around. neither am i. weakling pacifists will be crushed under the heel of the coming dystopia.

fukurthumz420 ,

god, i love this statement. it’s so true. people have to understand our collective power. even if the only tool we have is a hammer, we can still beat their doors down and crush them with it. all it takes is organization and willingness.

VerticaGG ,

The Atlantic huh? Alright then, The Atlantic, I’ll remember your name and that you published a piece concluding people are powerless to affect change.

Now (steelman) can I square this with the sentiment from Propaghandi’s “A People’s History of the World”:

…we’ll have to teach ourselves to analyze and understand
the systems of thought-control.
And share it with each other,
never sayed by brass rings or the threat of penalty.
I’ll promise you- you promise me- not to sell each
other out to murderers, to thieves.
. who’ve manufactured our delusion that you and me
participate meaningfully in the process of running
our own lives. Yeah, you can vote however the fuck
you want, but power still calls all the shots.
And believe it or not, even if
(real) democracy broke loose,
power could/would just “make the economy scream” until we vote responsibly.

…

Does this apply here? The song is talking about ballot boxes and corporate explotation on a nation-state imperialist. The topic at hand is to do with the corporate exploitation on a worldwide colonization-of-attention level.

So i think the way I best square this question, do we have the ability to do something about it, is this:

Yes. You can do something. Not in the way that popular media depicts the french revolution. Revolution will instead be boring. In fact, IS: Change minds. Change your own mind about whatever forms of domination you have accepted as just. Demand to know who made OpenAI king. While you’re at it, demand to know why it was just for Imperialist campaigns by “superpowers” justified The Contras. It’s a history lesson we can learn from, believe it or not.

Will you stay down on your knees, or does power still call all the shots?

Rolando ,

OpenAI should have given some money to the people who own the movie “Her”. Then they could have claimed they were just mimicking the character.

CitizenKong ,

It doesn’t work like that. It will soon if Disney has their way, with actors selling away their likeness rights for perpetuity with their contracts.

Rolando ,

That’s very interesting… can you suggest a good article covering this topic?

CitizenKong ,

For example this: cnbc.com/…/disney-reportedly-creates-task-force-t… and this: rollingstone.com/…/sag-aftra-amptp-studios-contra… The second article details how due the strike the actor can consent to digital copies of themselves or not and reimbursed for their use but those digital actors are still coming.

Rolando ,

Thank you, that was very interesting, especially the second article. It’ll be worth watching the details of how this plays out over the coming years.

buddascrayon ,

What do you think the actor’s strike was about? And what do you think one of the key agreements the actors wrung out of the studios was? They were not about to allow their likenesses to be sold for all of eternity for pennies on the dollar.

CitizenKong ,

Oh I know, that’s what I was refering to.

mindlesscrollyparrot ,

I wish Altman would read Accelerando.

BertramDitore ,
@BertramDitore@lemmy.world avatar

Knowing people like him, he would probably take the obvious literary warnings from a book like that and use them as inspiration for how to build an even more dystopian nightmare.

frezik ,

Which this very story proves. The AI voice that they generated was specifically based on “Her”, a movie about a guy who falls in love with an AI voice assistant. I haven’t seen the movie, but I’m going out on a limb to guess this is another “don’t make the torment vortex” situation.

aesthelete ,

The movie is actually pretty non-dystopian and kind of sweet. It’s basically a romcom, just one with a very creative premise.

ColeSloth ,

Any pay wall that let’s you read that much article before showing itself to be behind a pay wall can burn in hell and would have no hope of getting my business purely out of spite.

Rolando ,

FWIW if you turn off scripts you can see the whole article.

ColeSloth ,

I need a hot key on my android phone to just flip off scripts real quick instead of having to go three pages deep in settings to turn it on or off.

Rolando ,

I just use the NoScript extension on Firefox, though it still takes a couple clicks to whitelist or temp-whitelist a site. Apparently uBlock Origin can do the same in Advanced mode, but I never got around to figuring it out.

ColeSloth ,

I want a blacklist instead of a whitelist. On by default, but always off on some sites.

KISSmyOSFeddit ,

you can do that with noscript, too.

ColeSloth ,

Now we’re talking. I wonder if I can set up the apk I use for Lemmy (Thunder) to use ff instead of chrome. Time to check some stuff.

interdimensionalmeme , (edited )

Yes just ask chatgpt to read it for you and give it the url

Like this

chatgpt.com/…/d9010273-9e39-4db0-b05d-0986d7044b7…

Abolish intellectual property, it is a mental illness that has infected our legal system.

dave ,
@dave@feddit.uk avatar

Just use Reader view or whatever that’s called in your browser. I use Arctic for Lemmy on iOS and it has a ‘default to reader’ for opening links. Can’t remember the last time I saw a paywall. There’s one news site that doesn’t work but it’s pretty obvious straight away.

homesweethomeMrL ,

The Johansson scandal is merely a reminder of AI’s manifest-destiny philosophy: This is happening, whether you like it or not.

It’s just so fitting that microsoft is the company most fervently wallowing in it.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

"AGI is going to create tremendous wealth. And if that wealth is distributed—even if it’s not equitably distributed, but the closer it is to equitable distribution, it’s going to make everyone incredibly wealthy.”

So delusional.

Do they think that their AI will actually dig the cobalt from the mines, or will the AI simply be the one who sends the children in there to do the digging?

foggy ,

It’s a big year in robotics, so, the former.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

It will design the machines to build the autonomous robots that mine the cobalt… doing the jobs of several companies at one time and either freeing up several people to pursue leisure or the arts or starve to death from being abandoned by society.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Big fail to forget the /s here…

WallEx ,

Why? This is a very real possibility.

aniki ,

AI cannot come even CLOSE to reasoning.

DarkDarkHouse ,

And a submarine can’t even swim.

leftzero ,

Proper AI definitely could.

LLMs…? Not a chance, absolute dead end, just a modern Eliza.

WallEx ,

Why? This is a very real possibility.

Mazoku ,

Work a blue collar job your whole life and tell me it’s possible. Machines suck ass. They either need constant supervision, repairs all the time, or straight up don’t function properly. Tech bros always forget about the people who actually keep the world chugging.

afraid_of_zombies ,

They suck because your employer wouldn’t pay me more for a better machine. Chemical is where it is at, outside of powerplants and some of the bigger pharms the chemical operator is a dead profession. Entire plants are automated with the only people doing work are doing repairs or sales.

leftzero ,

LLMs aren’t going to be designing anything; they’re just fancy auto complete engines with a tendency to hallucinate facts they haven’t been trained on.

LLMs are preventing real advancements in AI by focusing the attention and funding into what’s evidently a dead end.

KairuByte ,

AGI != LLMs.

Passerby6497 ,

AGI is a pipedream

nickwitha_k ,

I hope not. I want more types of sentient beings to exist. But, I also don’t believe any company is actually working towards AGI.

KairuByte ,

No, the existence of humans inherently disproves that. We just have hardware so advanced many still think it’s magic.

Now, if you said it was a pipe dream within the next decade? I’d agree.

leftzero ,

Exactly, but LLMs are preventing further advances in AGI.

essteeyou ,

Proof?

leftzero ,

All the money’s going into the LLM bubble, so there won’t be any left for actual AI research until it bursts.

essteeyou ,

Saying something like that doesn’t make it true. That’s not proof.

Are you claiming that absolutely nobody is working on AGI because LLMs exist and are hot right now?

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

TFW you realize you’re just a fancy autocomplete engine :P

leftzero , (edited )

No, I’m a self-referential pattern recognition machine.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

same same?

leftzero ,

LLMs are incapable of “recognising” any patterns they haven’t been trained on.

And they don’t really even recognise those, they’re just fancy auto complete engines, simply outputting the highest scored token from their training base based on their input.

They’re pattern matching machines; there’s no recognition, inner modelling of new knowledge, self referencing, or understanding of any kind, merely blind statistics.

They’re just bigger and fancier Eliza’s, and just as distant as Eliza was from any practical form of intelligence, artificial or natural.

While I personally do believe that achieving AGI¹, on a Turing machine is possible, LLMs and how they work are an excellent example in support of John Searle’s arguments against it with his Chinese room though experiment.

1— Or at least something equivalent to human intelligence, or better, in the measures by which we consider ourselves to be intelligent, though it’s arguable whether we can really be considered intelligent at all, or we’re just better, more complex, Chinese rooms.

lanolinoil , (edited )
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

But since we don’t understand how cognition works in living beings almost at all – who’s to say that’s not how ‘actual thinking’ works other than 'I know it when I see it!"

leftzero ,

Because there are many aspects of what we understand as “actual thinking” (understanding concepts, learning, or solving puzzles, for instance) that LLMs are fundamentally incapable of achieving no matter how larger or more complex we make them or how much we optimise them.

They do one single thing (which, granted, they do relatively well): they take an input, they apply it to every token in their training data, generating a score for each of them, and they output the one with the highest score. And that’s all they do.

And that’s why, for instance, you’ll never be able to make a LLM that’s any good at playing chess, because there simply wouldn’t be enough atoms in the universe for it to store all possible states of the game, which it would need to have in its training model in order to auto complete its next move (and that’s not even accounting for the actual score computation, both in space and time).

They’re a cool fancy gimmick, possibly useful in certain cases as long as you can account for their hallucinations, but they’re not any closer to actual intelligence than Eliza ever was.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

you’ll never be able to make a LLM that’s any good at playing chess,

They said that about machines and then we all laughed at the mechanical turk hoax. Now machines can almost beat you in Go.

I’ll say it again – It is hubris and you will obviously be wrong to try to predict the future or what will have value.

like come on – superpositioning exists and we’ve no clue how consciousness works (Bostrom thinks its just maths) but you have this crystal ball full of certainty. It smells…

leftzero ,

I’m not talking about “machines” or any other generic term.

I’m talking specifically about LLMs. And their limitations are evident. For instance, maths is one of the many things they can’t do (and will never be able to do in any efficient way).

We have indeed, developed programs that play chess better than people (though sadly, until the LLM bubble pops we probably won’t get any further). But they’re not LLMs, or anything resembling an LLM. Because one of the other many things an LLM can’t do is play games of skill. Or reason. Or solve puzzles. Or even have a concept of strategy.

LLMs, again, can only do one single thing. And that’s to pick up the one card from their deck that’s been picked up most often after the sequence of cards on the table according to their training model.

That’s all they do. That’s all they’ll ever be able to do. Because that’s how they work. And, sure, with that you can make it look like they’re holding a conversation (until you ask them something that isn’t in their model), but that’s it.

They’ll put words after another according to statistics (not, keep that in mind, according to meaning, or strategy, or anything like that; they don’t, and can’t know or care what the words mean, or whether the sentence they’ve put together makes any sense, or whether what it’s stating is true or false), and that’s that.

They won’t play chess, they won’t write good innovative code, they won’t write original stories, and they won’t drive your car.

We don’t need to know how what we call consciousness works to know that. We just need to know how LLMs work. And that we most definitely do.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

Sure steam engines may not fit every use but from them we learned to make other kinds of engines right? But yeah I’m sure ‘LLM’ will either change scope/definition or we’ll make new stuff to fit other use cases kind of like diffusion models for images vs llm for text generation.

Petter1 ,

Most LLM distributors analyze the output (or outputs) using another AI…

riodoro1 ,

Have you seen the real fucking world?

It’s gonna make the rich richer and the poor poorer. At least until the gilded age passes.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

I agree and I gave that option as the last one in the list.

funkless_eck ,

AI absolutely will not design machines.

It may be used within strict parameters to improve the speed of theoretically testing types of bearing or hinge or alloys or something to predict which ones would perform best under stress testing - prior to acutal testing to eliminate low-hanging fruit, but it will absolutely not generate a new idea for a machine because it can’t generate new ideas.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

The model T will absolutely not replace horse drawn carts – Maybe some small group of people or a family for a vacation but we’ve been using carts to do war logistics for 1000s of years. You think some shaped metal put together is going to replace 1000s of men and horses? lol yeah right

funkless_eck ,

apples and oranges.

You’re comparing two products with the same value prop: transporting people and goods more effectively than carrying/walking.

In terms of mining, a drilling machine is more effective than a pickaxe. But we’re comparing current drilling machines to potential drilling machines, so the actual comparison would be:

  • is an AI-designed drilling machine likely to be more productive (for any given definition of productivity) than a human-designed one?

Well, we know from experience that when (loosely defined) “AI” is used in, for e.g. pharma research, it reaps some benefits - but does not replace wholesale the drug approval process and its still a tool used by - as I originally said - human beings that impose strict parameters on both input and output as part of a larger product and method.

Back to your example: could a series of algorithmic steps - without any human intervention - provide a better car than any modern car designers? As it stands, no, nor is it on the horizon. Can it be used to spin through 4 million slight variations in hood ornaments and return the top 250 in terms of wind resistance? Maybe, and only if a human operator sets up the experiment correctly.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

No, the thing I’m comparing is our inability to discern where a new technology will lead and our history of smirking at things like books, cars, the internet and email, AI, etc.

The first steam engines pulling coal out of the ground were so inefficient they wouldn’t make sense for any use case than working to get the fuel that powers them. You could definitely smirk and laugh about engines vs 10k men and be totally right in that moment, and people were.

The more history you learn though, you more you realize this is not only a hubrisy thing, it’s also futile as how we feel about the proliferation of technology has never had an impact on that technology’s proliferation.

And, to be clear, I’m not saying no humans will work or have anything to do – I’m saying significantly MORE humans will have nothing to do. Sure you still need all kinds of people even if the robots design and build themselves mostly, but it would be an order of magnitude less than the people needed otherwise.

Beetlejuice001 ,

Maybe I’m pessimistic but all I see is every call center representative disappearing and that’ll be it

sailingbythelee ,

I agree that AI is just a tool, and it excels in areas where an algorithmic approach can yield good results. A human still has to give it the goal and the parameters.

What’s fascinating about AI, though, is how far we can push the algorithmic approach in the real world. Fighter pilots will say that a machine can never replace a highly-trained human pilot, and it is true that humans do some things better right now. However, AI opens up new tactics. For example, it is virtually certain that AI-controlled drone swarms will become a favored tactic in many circumstances where we currently use human pilots. We still need a human in the loop to set the goal and the parameters. However, even much of that may become automated and abstracted as humans come to rely on AI for target search and acquisition. The pace of battle will also accelerate and the electronic warfare environment will become more saturated, meaning that we will probably also have to turn over a significant amount of decision-making to semi-autonomous AI that humans do not directly control at all times.

In other words, I think that the line between dumb tool and autonomous machine is very blurry, but the trend is toward more autonomous AI combined with robotics. In the car design example you give, I think that eventually AI will be able to design a better car on its own using an algorithmic approach. Once it can test 4 million hood ornament variations, it can also model body aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, and any other trait that we tell it is desirable. A sufficiently powerful AI will be able to take those initial parameters and automate the process of optimizing them until it eventually spits out an objectively better design. Yes, a human is in the loop initially to design the experiment and provide parameters, but AI uses the output of each experiment to train itself and automate the design of the next experiment, and the next, ad infinitum. Right now we are in the very early stages of AI, and each AI experiment is discrete. We still have to check its output to make sure it is sensible and combine it with other output or tools to yield useable results. We are the mind guiding our discrete AI tools. But over a few more decades, a slow transition to more autonomy is inevitable.

A few decades ago, if you had asked which tasks an AI would NOT be able to perform well in the future, the answers almost certainly would have been human creative endeavors like writing, painting, and music. And yet, those are the very areas where AI is making incredible progress. Already, AI can draw better, write better, and compose better music than the vast, vast majority of people, and we are just at the beginning of this revolution.

essteeyou ,

It can solve existing problems in new ways, which might be handy.

funkless_eck ,

can

might

sure. But, like I said, those are subject to a lot of caveats - that humans have to set the experiments up to ask the right questions to get those answers.

essteeyou ,

That’s how it currently is, but I’d be astounded if it didn’t progress quickly from now.

funkless_eck ,

i would be extremely surprised if before 2100 we see AI that has no human operator and no data scientist team even at a 3rd party distributor - and those things are neither a lie, nor a weaselly marketing stunt (“technically the operators are contractors and not employed by the company” etc).

We invented the printing press 584 years ago, it still requires a team of human operators.

essteeyou ,

A printing press is not a technology with intelligence. It’s like saying we still have to manually operate knives… of course we do.

funkless_eck ,

the comment I originally replied to claimed AI will design the autonomous machines.

It will not. It will facilitate some of the research done by humans to aid in the designing of willfully human operated machinery.

To my knowledge the only autonomous machine that exists is a roomba, which moves blindly around until it physically strikes an object, rotates a random degree and continues in a new direction until it hits something else.

Even then, it is controlled with an app and on more expensive models, some boundary setting.

It is extremely generous to call that “autonomy.”

essteeyou ,

I was in a self-driving taxi yesterday. It didn’t need to bump into things to figure out where it was.

funkless_eck ,

Fair, I thought they all got recalled but I guess they’re back. but I’d also counter that Waymo is extremely limited about where it can operate - roughly 10 miles max - which, relevant to my original point was entirely hand-mapped and calibrated by human operators, and the rides are monitored and directed by a control center responding in real-time to the car’s feedback.

Like my printing press example - it still takes a large human team to operate the “self” - driving car.

FiniteBanjo ,

OpenAI themselves have made it very clear that scaling up their models have diminishing returns and that they’re incapable of moving forward without entirely new models being invented by humans. A short while ago they proclaimed that they could possibly make an AGI if they got several Trillions of USD in investment.

essteeyou ,

5 years ago I don’t think most people thought ChatGPT was possible, or StableDiffusion/MidJourney/etc.

We’re in an era of insane technological advancement, and I don’t think it’ll slow down.

FiniteBanjo ,

Okay but the people who made the advancements are telling you it has already slowed down. Why don’t you understand that? A flawed Chatbot and some art theft machines who can’t draw hands aren’t exactly worldchanging, either, tbh.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

This is such a rich-country-centric view that I can’t stand. LLMs have already given the world maybe it’s greatest gift ever – access to a teacher.

Think of the 800 million poor children in the world and their access to a Kahn academy level teacher on any subject imaginable with a cellphone/computer as all they need. How could that not have value and is pearl clutching drawing skills becoming devalued really all you can think about it?

FiniteBanjo ,

Anything you learn from an LLM has a margin of error that makes it dangerous and harmful. It hallucinates documentation and fake facts like an asylum inmate. And it’s so expensive compared to just having real teachers that it’s all pointless. We’ve got humans, we don’t need more humans, adding labor doesn’t solve the problem with education.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

bro I was taught in a textbook in the US in the 00s that the statue of liberty was painted green.

No math teacher I ever had actually knew the level of math they were teaching.

Humans hallucinate all the time. almost 1 billion children don’t even have access to a human teacher, thus the boon to humanity

FiniteBanjo , (edited )

Those textbooks and the people who regurgitate their contents are the training data for the LLM. Any statement you make about human incompetence is multiplied by an LLM. If they don’t have access to a human teacher then they probably don’t have PCs and AI subscriptions, either.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

yeah but whatever the stats about as N increases alpha/beta error goes away thing is

essteeyou ,

There are other people in the world. Some of them are inventing completely new ways of doing things, and one of those ways could lead to a major breakthrough. I’m not saying a GPT LLM is going to solve the problem, I’m saying AI will.

leftzero ,

Some of them are inventing completely new ways of doing things

No, they’re not. All the money is now on the LLM autocomplete chatbots.

Real progress on AI won’t resume until after the LLM bubble has burst. (And even then investors will probably be wary of putting money in AI for probably a few decades, because LLMs are being marked as AI despite having little to do with it.)

It’s quite depressing, really.

essteeyou ,

Who was making this “real progress on AI” that you mention? Why did they stop that when an LLM became popular?

rottingleaf ,

It can’t design.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

define design – I had Chat GPT dream up new musical instruments and then we implemented one. It wrote all the code and architecture, though I did have to prod/help it along in places.

pwillia7.github.io/echosculpt3/

you can read more here: reticulated.net/…/daily-experiments-gpt4-bing-ai/

rottingleaf ,

Thx, will read.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Neither can the majority of engineers I have meet, but that hasn’t stopped them. You really don’t need any design ability if your whole day is having endless meetings terrorizing OEMs.

IzzyJ ,

either freeing up several people to pursue leisure or the arts or starve to death from being abandoned by society.

You know EXACTLY which one it’s gonna be.

Grandwolf319 ,

Hahaha, current ML is basically good guessing, that doesn’t really transfer to building machines that actually have to obey the laws of physics.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

is it good guessing that you know when you step out of your bed without looking you won’t fall to your death?

afraid_of_zombies ,

It isn’t the intelligence of the machine designer that is the issue, it is the middlemen and the end user.

Continuously having to downgrade machines. Wouldn’t want some sales rep seeing something new.

Passerby6497 ,

if

This word is like Atlas, holding up the world’s shittiest argument that anyone with 3 working braincells can see through.

bungalowtill ,

it isn‘t delusional, it is a lie

frezik ,

AI might be the one to say “solving global warming needs a drastic reduction car-based infrastructure, plus heavy government regulation and investment in new infrastructure”. They’ll throw out that answer because it isn’t what they wanted to hear.

afraid_of_zombies ,

A point I have been repeating for a while. You can’t out-think every problem. Often the solution is right there and no one wants it.

How do you get in better shape? Diet and exercise. Ok? What exactly was confusing? It’s the same freaken solution that everyone has known forever. Hell Aristotle talked about the dangers of red meat. They hadn’t even gotten to the point where they thought leaches worked and they knew that people who ate red meat all the time had medical problems.

There are lots of great solutions to climate change from stuff that just buys us a little more time (plant a billion trees) to long term solutions (nuclear and renewables) to hell mary solutions (climate engineering). And we have tried none of them.

TrueStoryBob ,

Nah, they’re probably planning to do what Amazon did with their “Just Walk Out” stores… force children into mines and just claim it’s actually AI. As NFT’s, Cryptocurrency, and so many other hype tech fads have taught us: marketing is cheaper than development.

rottingleaf ,

They just mean “steal from the weaker ones” by “create”.

Psychology of advertising a Ponzi scheme.

They say “we are going to rob someone and if you participate, you’ll get a cut”, but change a few things so that people would understand, but would think that someone else won’t and will be the fool to get robbed. Then those people considering themselves smart find out that, well, they’ve been robbed.

Humans are very eager to participate in that when they think it’s all legal and they won’t get caught.

The idea here is that the “AI” will help some people own others and it’s better to be on the side of companies doing it.

I generally dislike our timeline in the fact that while dishonorable people are weaker than honorable people long term, it really sucks to live near a lot of dishonorable people who want to check this again the most direct way. It sucks even more when that’s the whole world in such a situation.

PoliticalAgitator ,

The very first prompt this AGI is given will be “secure as much wealth as possible without breaking any laws that might see us punished”.

logos ,

Just like the industrial revolution!

TheGrandNagus , (edited )

To be fair, that did improve things for the average person, and by a staggering amount.

The vast majority of people working before the industrial revolution were lowly paid agricultural workers who had enormous instability in employment. Employment was also typically very seasonal, and very hard work.

That’s before we even get into things like stuff being made cheaper, books being widely available, transport being opened up, medical knowledge skyrocketing, famines going from regular occurrence to rare occurrence, etc as a result of the industrial revolution.

We had been on a constant trajectory of everyone getting wealthier up until the late 1970s where afterwards we saw a sharp rise in inequality, a trend that hasn’t stopped. (Thatcher and her other shithead twin Reagan?)

In the mid 70s, the top 1% owned 19.9% of wealth. Now that figure is around 53%.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Even then it is “only” the west. China was starving only two generations ago. As a whole humanity just keeps getting richer and richer. No part of what I am saying is meant to excuse the damage neoliberalism did to wealthy equality in the developed world.

TheGrandNagus ,

Well yeah, the industrial revolution only helped the areas it affected. But that kinda goes without saying.

garibaldi_biscuit , (edited )

Let’s not forget this is all driven by people with the right skillset, in the right place at the right time, who are hell-bent on making vast amounts of money.

The “visionary technological change” is a secondary justification.

Permission granted to scrape this comment too, if you like.

FiskFisk33 ,

paywall.

pixxelkick ,

I mean, that’s just how it has always worked, this isn’t actually special to AI.

Tom Hanks does the voice for Woody in Toy Story movies, but, his brother Jim Hanks has a very similar voice, but since he isnt Tom Hanks he commands a lower salary.

So many video games and whatnot use Jim’s voice for Woody instead to save a bunch of money, and/or because Tom is typically busy filming movies.

This isn’t an abnormal situation, voice actors constantly have “sound alikes” that impersonate them and get paid literally because they sound similar.

OpenAI clearly did this.

It’s hilarious because normally fans are foaming at the mouth if a studio hires a new actor and they sound even a little bit different than the prior actor, and no one bats an eye at studios efforts to try really hard to find a new actor that sounds as close as possible.

Scarlett declined the offer and now she’s malding that OpenAI went and found some other woman who sounds similar.

Thems the breaks, that’s an incredibly common thing that happens in voice acting across the board in video games, tv shows, movies, you name it.

OpenAI almost certainly would have won the court case if they were able to produce who they actually hired and said person could demo that their voice sounds the same as Gippity’s.

If they did that, Scarlett wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court, she cant sue someone for having a similar voice to her, lol.

dwindling7373 , (edited )

Yes but also no, the whole appeal is tied to her brand (her public image x the character HER), unlike Woody who is an original creation.

It’s like doing a commercial using a lookalike dressed like the original guy and pretending that’s a completely different actor.

Glowstick , (edited )

I agreed with op, then i read your astute response and now I don’t know which position is correct.

Thinking it through as i type… If you photoshopped an image of Tom Hanks giving a thumbs up to your product, that would clearly be illegal, but if you hired an exact flawless lookalike impersonator of Tom Hanks and had him pose for a picture with a thumbs up to your product, would that be illegal? I think it might still be illegal, because you purposely hired a lookalike impersonator to gain the benefit of Tom Hanks’ brand.

I think the law on AI should match what the law says about impersonators. If hiring an indistinguishable celebrity impersonator to use in media is legal, then ai soundalikes should be legal too, and vice versa.

lanolinoil ,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

when you get into these nitty gritty copyright/ip arguments you realize it’s all just a house of cards to make capital king and the main ism

assassin_aragorn ,

I think what it comes down to is intention. Are you intending to mimic someone else’s likeness without that person’s permission? That’s wrong. But if you just like someone’s voice and want to use them, and they happen to have a similar likeness, that’s fine.

Where OpenAI gloriously fucked up is asking Johansson first. If they hadn’t, they would have plausible deniability that they just liked the voice actor’s voice. If it reminds them of Johansson, that’s even fine. What’s wrong is that they specifically wanted her likeness, even after she turned them down.

Chee_Koala ,

I get that she is grappling with identity and it’s not a clear cut case, but if the precedent is set that similar voices (and I didn’t even think it was that similar in this case) are infringement, that would be a pretty big blow to commercial creativity projects.

Maybe it’s more a brand problem than an infringement problem.

0x0 ,

That reminded me of Ice Ice Baby and the rip-off of Queen’s Under Pressure bass riff. Queen won i think.

I don’t think this is the same thing though. They asked her, she said so, they went for her cute cousin instead… typical.

xhieron ,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

She sure can’t. Sounds like all OpenAI has to do is produce the voice actor they used.

So where is she? …

Right.

Mango ,

You gonna just sit there and act like they don’t have someone? They aren’t coming here to reply to your fuckin Lemmy comment.

norbert ,
@norbert@kbin.social avatar

This entire thing would go away if they trotted out the person they used, until they do that we have no other choice than assume they ScarJos voice without permission.

Mango ,

Guilty until proven innocent. I see you’re clearly about that fuckshit. An accusation does it all for you.

norbert ,
@norbert@kbin.social avatar

Scumfuck corpos don't get the benefit of the doubt sucker. Sammy claimed they had another so just produce her and the issue goes away.

Unless he's a scumfuck liar getting high on his own farts and can't actually produce her.

Mango ,

Then neither do you, pedophile. Just prove to me you didn’t rape that little girl. Show me the proof and this will all go away.

norbert ,
@norbert@kbin.social avatar

Oh is there someone claiming that? Have I been in talks with little girls? Did they refuse to do business with me at which point I claimed I magically had a different little girl that sounded exactly like the one I was trying to hire?

Oh, no? Nothing that would indicate my intentions? That'd be a really strange assumption for you to make and probably says more about you than me.

Now, if I'd openly stated what I wanted to do and then it mysteriously happened you'd be right to suspect something. Like what happened here.

It's pretty weird for you to simp for some chucklefuck billionaire my dude. He's not your friend, in fact he's your enemy.

Mango ,

I don’t give a damn about that billionaire. I just came out of jail because nobody bothered to fact check. Go fuck yourself you bloodthirsty pedophile!

norbert ,
@norbert@kbin.social avatar

You could probably do a bit of fact checking yourself in between dick riding and quoting billionaires, you sound like a little Musky boy crying pedo when people don't want his help.

Fucking idiot.

Mango ,

Quoting? What did I say that’s the same as someone else?

You’re probably just some fucking troll. I’m done playing your game.

potpotato ,

Government administrations wanting to know the ingredients of how something is made isn’t exactly new.

Mango ,

Yeah, food and for safety.

xhieron ,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

That’s flattering, but I was actually just expecting a press release. So where is it?

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Get real. They have made it like her deliberately. Not anybody “nearly alike”. They even admitted it.

xhieron ,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

That was the point… Did you reply to the wrong comment?

PrincessLeiasCat ,

Wouldn’t the difference here wrt Tom/Woody be that Tom had already played the role before so there is some expectation that a similar voice would be used for future versions of Woody if Tom wasn’t available?

Serious question, I never thought about the point you made so now I’m curious.

Mango ,

Yeah, and there are so very few people who have literally any physical traits that aren’t also present in a million others. You can’t exactly copyright that.

catloaf ,

The difference is that apparently they asked ScarJo first and she said no. When they ask Tom Hanks (or really his agent, I assume) the answer is “he’s too busy with movies, try Jim”.

gaylord_fartmaster ,

You think celebrities need to consent to someone that sounds similar to them getting work? That’s insane.

catloaf ,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

gaylord_fartmaster ,

Having a talking woman in your phone is not stealing Scarlet Johansson’s likeness, even if they sound somewhat similar. US copyright law is already ridiculous, and you want to make it even more bullshit?

By that logic her role in Her was already stealing the voice actor for Siri’s likeness, and she should have sued for that too.

afraid_of_zombies ,

If you don’t own your image what do you own?

Also you know scale. There is a difference between an Elvis impersonation in Vegas vs a huge ass corporation.

gaylord_fartmaster ,

You own the pile of money you earned for the role you played in someone else’s creative project.

This isn’t back to the future 2 making a Crispin Glover face mask and putting it on an extra, its using a woman for a voice acting role for an AI speaking from your phone, and somehow that’s stealing from a movie with the same concept, but not stealing from the actual phone AIs voiced by women that existed before the movie.

afraid_of_zombies ,

How would you feel if I made wheelbarrows of money off your face or voice without your consent and not paying you a penny? What about your family, got a relatives you care about who would look great in my AI generated porno?

The world is schizophrenic about this. On one hand we know that data is king and knowing about a person and having access to what they produce is a super important very lucrative field. The biggest companies on earth buy and sell data about people. On the other hand we argue that your image and data has no value and anyone can do what they want with it.

gaylord_fartmaster ,

Then I’d have grounds to sue you for stealing my likeness, just like Crispin Glover did in the example I just gave.

Are you under the impression that’s what happened here? It isn’t. The voice is clearly not Scarlet Johansson’s, and she doesn’t have any kind of ownership over the concept of an AI in your phone using an upbeat woman’s voice to speak to you.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer ,

Well, in the “soundalike” situation you describe people were getting paid to voice things. Now it’s just an AI model that’s not getting paid and the people that made the model probably got paid even less than a soundalike voice actor would. It’s just more money going to the top.

athairmor ,

Scarlett actually would have a good case if she can show the court that people think it’s her. Tom Waits won a case against Frito Lay for “voice misappropriation” when they had someone imitate his voice for a commercial.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I wish I had enough bandwidth to be angry at a new voice actor being hired to play in a children’s movie franchise.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •