Notes on the coming AI-pocalypse (1 Viewer)

someone asked ChatGPT to script a little programme for Reaper DAW and it was able too using the Reascript language.

So. The computers will without doubt be able to programme themselves in the near future.
 
someone asked ChatGPT to script a little programme for Reaper DAW and it was able too using the Reascript language.

So. The computers will without doubt be able to programme themselves in the near future.
I was listening to a thing talking about how ChatGPT/AI will make very convincing looking code, but the 5% weirdness that's always built in ends up mucking it all up because code isn't like language where the odd crazy phrase or mad tangent is forgivable because you get the gist, with code if you make a mistake the mistakes just keep cascading from there.

But of course business, whether it's the steam loom or computer game landscape factory, is all about deskilling your workers, so this is definitely the future. Can't stop progress!
 
I was listening to a thing talking about how ChatGPT/AI will make very convincing looking code, but the 5% weirdness that's always built in ends up mucking it all up because code isn't like language where the odd crazy phrase or mad tangent is forgivable because you get the gist, with code if you make a mistake the mistakes just keep cascading from there.

They are wildy underestimatiing a computers ability to try something enough million times until it gets a positive in that.
 
Musings about AI with respect to content, no matter how good it is:
1. AI works off existing "content" from the Internet and the reprocessing of that. "Content" as we know it, while wide and varied, is ultimately based on human experience. E.g. an article on the health benefits of blueberries, even if it has been plagiarised off the internet, originally came from someone eating blueberries, or scientists observing it in the real world. Or in the arts, take "Hey Bulldog" by the Beatles - it's based off a bunch of stuff in John Lennon's head, and he wasn't even sure what. You could say it's a critique of the 'British bulldog' type hypermasculinity but John Lennon didn't think this - and that's because artists often don't overthink these things, the way, say, an AI might. So with the continuous regurgitating of existing content by AI, no matter how interesting at first, eventually what we'll get is really dull, unoriginal, samey content that nobody is interested in - even the plebs who like Fast & Furious and cetera. (And it's interest - people liking stuff - that drives the production of content.) That is, unless humans actually produce lots of fresh new content, which leads me to point...
2. People who produce fresh, new content - or just those who did this in the past - and who don't want it plagiarised for commercial reasons, will place it where AI can't get it, i.e., behind a paywall or just not on the Internet.
 
I dunno. I imagine you can train the ai to combine and regurgitate things in ways that align with what it's creators think it's a good result (probably lowest common denominator boring stuff). Or you could train it to avoid common patterns and potentially generate new and interesting stuff. Most art/music/whatever is bad anyway, i.e it's not to my particular taste. That could be true whether the content in question is generated by a human consuming and regurgitating other people's content or if an ai does it. The human or ai could also just as easily hit in something that resonates with me. Sifting through it all though ...
 
ok i'm not an artist, but i think that's a stupid take. I don't think someone at Marvel/Disney went "oh lets use AI instead of real artists to save us some money" - the credits look exactly like all the other shifting, dreamlike videos churned out by generative AI, and I think going for that aesthetic was a deliberate design choice in line with the themes of the series.

Could they have paid someone to paint/draw/animate it by hand? Sure - but they'd be paying someone to imitate the output of a computer that's imitating the output of people.
 
Didn't this happen in one of the Batman movies and everyone thought it was silly?
 
does a wi-fi router know which direction a signal is coming from. let alone to that degree of accuracy?

In this demo they used three routers which is enough source data for doing 3d using the doppler effect. Wifi is low frequency light/xray, two things that we already use to identify objects.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here

21 Day Calendar

Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top