Recent comments in /f/Futurology

The_One_Who_Slays t1_jdn2ac5 wrote

Reply to comment by elehman839 in A recently submitted paper has demonstrated that Stable Diffusion can accurately reconstruct images from fMRI scans, effectively allowing it to "read people's minds". by iboughtarock

I mean, Rome wasn't built in a day. Just the fact that it's possible to do speaks volume. As for seeking press coverage, it's understandable: could be them trying to secure more funding by getting more publicity, could be them being genuinely passionate about their tech, could be both. The time will tell.

Still, it's an interesting application for the image gen technology, it's never even crossed my mind to my surprise.

2

ErikTheAngry t1_jdn193d wrote

Reply to comment by i0i0i in ChatGPT Gets Its “Wolfram Superpowers”! by Just-A-Lucky-Guy

We don't really need a rigorous definition, when we already have a general definition that it fails.

Intelligence is the ability to gain and apply knowledge and skills.

You're very right that human behaviour involves a lot of mimicry. I've noticed more than just words being influenced in my behaviour, when I'm getting to know someone. Part of that is an evolved behaviour intended to aid in socialization (as humans are social creatures).

I write code every now and then while I'm working. That code is from scratch. I'm applying knowledge to solve a task. And I choose coding, specifically, because ChatGPT is remarkably good at developing code.

Until it isn't. It makes mistakes, because it's just regurgitating code that seems to fit. It can get me 80% of the way there, and it's a wonderful tool for that, but that other 20% has to be corrected because it doesn't understand what the code does, it's just "copying and pasting" (and that's an oversimplification, but only slightly so).

The difference between my coding and ChatGPT's coding is that when I read code, I know what I'm trying to do. I can apply my knowledge to say "this will work" or "this won't work" or "what the fuck is this?" even before I even try to compile.

1

BonFemmes t1_jdn0j4f wrote

Reply to Goodbye Google. Welcome AI. by OmegaConstant

They are two different things.

Google: When is tony's pizza open

AI: as a pizza maker, how do I make a neopolitan pepperoni pizza. list the steps.

We will continue to ask google questions that have definite answers. AI can be wrong. AI can be a valuable assistant. It writes stories and code. We need google to check its work.

5

grundar t1_jdmzbxs wrote

Reply to Goodbye Google. Welcome AI. by OmegaConstant

> They will easily disrupt the [business] model with zero risk.

How often are grandiose statements like these made by anyone who is not woefully naive (or trying to con investors)?

Serving requests takes computers and electricity, which costs money. Even if chatGPT took over from Google search, OpenAI would still need to pay its bills. Just as Google didn't fundamentally change the search ecosystem when it took over from Yahoo et al., OpenAI would be almost certain to operate within the existing paradigm due to a need to pay its expenses.

13

FuturologyBot t1_jdmz6oz wrote

Reply to Risk of the hydrogen economy for atmospheric methane by stesch

The following submission statement was provided by /u/stesch:

Submission Statement: “Hydrogen (H₂) is expected to play a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, hydrogen losses to the atmosphere impact atmospheric chemistry, including positive feedback on methane (CH4), the second most important greenhouse gas.”

With more and more governments subsidizing hydrogen production, we need to really be certain it won't cause more problems than it will solve.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/121qawy/risk_of_the_hydrogen_economy_for_atmospheric/jdmupji/

1

gjallerhorn t1_jdmz6n0 wrote

Reply to Goodbye Google. Welcome AI. by OmegaConstant

No. I keep seeing this argument and it doesn't make sense. Google is a search engine. Language AI are not. They can regurgitate summaries of stuff they've been fed and have some limited ability to remix it into new forms.

But their data sets are often very sparse with info from the last several years. And they don't point you to actual sources. Just info-which can be completely fabricated/wrong

2

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdmylin wrote

Reply to comment by NoDimension1757 in Who do you think will be the winners and losers of the coming AI revolution? by tshirtguy2000

Stuff will become dramatically more affordable. One person's job will be able to support an entire family. Later on, one person's job will be able to support multiple households. And so on and so forth. So, fewer and fewer jobs will be needed in the first place. Remember, we don't want jobs, we want goods and services.

Also, UBI is a horrible idea.

0