You don't understand AI until you watch this

How does AI learn? Is AI conscious & sentient? Can AI break encryption? How does GPT & image generation work? What's a neural network?
#ai #agi #qstar #singularity #gpt #imagegeneration #stablediffusion #humanoid #neuralnetworks #deeplearning
I used this to create neural nets:
alexlenail.me/...
More info on neural networks
• But what is a neural n...
How stable diffusion works
• How Stable Diffusion W...
Newsletter: aisearch.subst...
Find AI tools & jobs: ai-search.io/
Donate: ko-fi.com/aise...
Here's my equipment, in case you're wondering:
GPU: RTX 4080 amzn.to/3OCOJ8e
Mouse/Keyboard: ALOGIC Echelon bit.ly/alogic-...
Mic: Shure SM7B amzn.to/3DErjt1
Audio interface: Scarlett Solo amzn.to/3qELMeu
CPU: i9 11900K amzn.to/3KmYs0b

[@kevinmcnamee6006]

This video was entertaining, but also incorrect and misleading in many of the points it tried to put across. If you are going to try to educate people as to how a neural network actually works, at least show how the output tells you whether it's a cat or a dog. LLM's aren't trained to answer questions, they are mostly trained to predict the next word in a sentence. In later training phases, they are fine tuned on specific questions and answers, but the main training, that gives them the ability to write, is based on next word prediction. The crypto stuff was just wrong. With good modern crypto algorithms, there is no pattern to recognize, so AI can't help decrypt anything. Also modern AI's like ChatGPT are simply algorithms doing linear algebra and differential calculus on regular computers, so there's nothing there to become sentient. The algorithms are very good at generating realistic language, so if you believe what they write, you could be duped into thinking they are sentient, like that poor guy form Google.

[@yzmotoxer807]

This is exactly what a secretly sentient AI would write…

[@kevinmcnamee6006]

@@yzmotoxer807 You caught me

[@Sarutolity]

Nice strawmanning, good luck proving you are any more sentient, without defining sentience as being just complex neural networks, as the video asks you to lmfao.

[@shawnmclean7707]

Multi layered probabilities and statistics. I really don’t get this talk about sentience or even what AGI is and I’ve been dabbling in this field since 2009. What am I missing?

[@dekev7503]

@@shawnmclean7707 These AGI/Sentience/AI narratives are championed primarily by 2 groups of people, the mathematically/technologically ignorant and the duplicitous capitalists that want to sell them their products. OP’s comment couldn’t have described it better. It’s just math and statistics ( very basic College sophomore/junior level math I might add) that plays with data in ways to make it seem intelligent all the while mirroring our own intuition/experiences to us.

[@Owen.F]

Your channel is a great source, thanks for linking sources and providing information instead of pure sensationalism, I really appreciate that.

[@theAIsearch]

Thank you!

[@kebman]

"It's just learning a style just like a human brain would." Bold statement. Also wrong. The neural network is a _model_ of the brain, as AI researches _believe_ it works. Just because the model seems to produce good outputs does not mean it's an accurate model of the brain. Also, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, it's difficult to draw conclusions, or causations, between a model and the brain, because - to paraphrase Alfred Korzybski - the model is not the real thing. Moreover, it's just a set of probabilistic levers. It has no creativity. And since it has no creativity, the _only_ thing it can do, is to *copy.*

[@bogdanroscaneanu7112]

Couldn't creativity as a property be added too by just forcing the neural network to randomly (or not) add or remove elements to something created from patterns it learned from?

[@kebman]

@@bogdanroscaneanu7112 No. There is no enlightenment in randomness.

[@withoutmotive3796]

agree. AI is a computer (a bunch of switches in a switch state that keep flipping to different states when powered), that computer has been programmed to an alogorithm that follows a model of the brain. fundamentally, a brain is not a bunch of switches in a switch state that flip when power is provided to them

[@MMGAMERMG]

Are humans actually capable of creativity? We maybe just are a collection on switches too.

[@kebman]

@@MMGAMERMG Look around you. Machines doesn't think. They just execute probabilities.

[@Zekzak-w3k]

I thought the section on AI and plagarism was pretty lazy. It doens't take in to concideration the artists qualms with that it can copy a certain style from an artist and then be used to make images for a company for a fraction of the cost and zero credibility to the artist, basicly making something that they have tried to monitize, with creative directivity and skill, futile since someone can essentially copy their ideas, make money off of it, and not paying for something that was for sale. Artists have a right to say how their work is being used, such as refraining from that someone uses their art without their permission. A style like a watercolour cannot really be plagarized, neither can chords in music, nor a genre of film, but you can take someones script, pretty much use it and change a few things here and there, and that would be considered plagarizm. The main concern as I understand it is that it can be used in a way that would undermine the artists work, by pretty much taking from them and then making them obsolete. The thing that you missed when it came to the news article is that other outlets ALWAYS reference their reference material, ChatGPT doesn't always do that, which makes it easier to plagarize something.

[@allanshpeley4284]

But that artist's style was also influenced by other artists. Nobody exists in a vacuum. Should they not pay those other artists who influenced their work too? It's only fair, based on your argument.

[@BradKohlenberg]

He actually did address the style issue.

[@Essentialsinlife]

The only Channel about AI that is not using AI. Congrats man

[@sansithagalagama]

No the voice is ai 😅

[@beastfootball1782]

@@sansithagalagama it sound real

[@aaronmyrie]

​@@sansithagalagamahow do you know?

[@charlesvanderhoog7056]

A complete misunderstanding of the human brain led to the invention and development of AI based on neural networks. Isn't that funny?

[@anonymousjones4016]

Sure! Comical irony...but I would bet that this is one of many dynamic ways human innovation is borne from: a nagging misunderstanding. Besides, pretty impressive for "misunderstanding". No?

[@djpete2009]

Its NOT a misunderstanding. Its built ON. They used what they can and engineered BEYOND. Human can remember a face perfectly, but the Nets cannot except with high training. However, a computer can store 1 million faces easily AND recall perfectly, but humans cannot. This is why when you eat a chicken drumstick, you do not have to eat the bones. You take what you need and discard the rest...your body is nourished. Outcome accomplished.

[@charlesvanderhoog7056]

@@djpete2009 You conflate the brain with the mind. You think with your mind but may or may not act through your brain. The brain is best understood as a modem between the mind on the one hand, and the body and the world on the other.

[@pumpjackmcgee4267]

I think the real issue artists have are the definite threat to their livelihood, but also the devaluation for the human condition. Choice. Inspiration. Expression. In the commercial scene, that doesn't really matter except for clients that really value the artist as a person. But most potential clients- and therefore the lions share of the market- just want a picture.

[@WrynnCZ]

For me art is about connection. I can "connect" to feelings and emotions of the artist while he created it. This is something A.I. will always fail. To connect with us on "human" level. Or maybe I am wrong and in time it would be even or maybe better than us. It would be end of humanity anyways, so A.I. stealing creative job would be no concern.

[@GuidedBreathing]

5:00 Short version: The "all or none" principle oversimplifies; both human and artificial neurons modulate signal strength beyond mere presence or absence, akin to adjusting "knobs" for nuanced communication. Longer version: The notion that neurotransmitters operate in a binary fashion oversimplifies the rich, nuanced communication within human neural networks, much like reducing the complexity of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to mere binary signals. In reality, the firing of a human neuron-while binary in the sense of action potential-carries a complexity modulated by neurotransmitter types and concentrations, similar to how ANNs adjust signal strength through weights, biases, and activation functions. This modulation allows for a spectrum of signal strengths, challenging the strict "all or none" interpretation. In both biological and artificial systems, "all" signifies the presence of a modulated signal, not a simple binary output, illustrating a nuanced parallel in how both types of networks communicate and process information.

[@theAIsearch]

Very insightful. Thanks for sharing!

[@keiths.taylor5293]

This video leaves out the part that tells anything that describes how AI WORKS

[@sparis1970]

Neurons are more analog, which bring richer modulation

[@SiddiqueSukdiki]

So it's a complex binary output?

[@cubertmiso]

@@SiddiqueSukdiki@GuidedBreathing my questions also. if electrical impulses and chemical neurotransmitters are involved in transmitting signals between neurons. aren't those the same thing as more complex binary outputs?

[@cornelis4220]

Links between the structure of the brain and NNs as a model of the brain are purely hypothetical! Indeed, the term 'neural network' is a reference to neurobiology, though the structures of NNs are but loosely inspired by our understanding of the brain.

[@teatray75]

Great video! My views are : Humans are sentient because we defined the term to describe our experiences. Ai is unable to define its own explanation or word for its feelings and perceptions, and thus cannot be considered sentient. Second, being sentient means being able to perceive one's own experience rather than a collection of other people's experiences and patterns.

[@jehoover3009]

The protein predictor doesn’t take into account different cell milieu which actually fold the protein and add glycans so its predictions are abstract. Experimental trial still needed!

[@benjaminlavigne2272]

for your argument around 17min i agree with the surface of it, but i think the people are angry because unskilled people now have access to it, even other machines can have access to it which will completely change and already has changed the landscape of the artists marketplace.

[@WrynnCZ]

I agree with you. A.I. can be excellent tool and help for an artist. Still the artist (human) should be in charge of the creative process.

[@Deathonater]

This video did a good job of laying out decent anaolgies and raw information right up until that 15-17 minute mark, then we just went into an unnecessarily long and repetitive opinionated tangent about plagarism without any nuanced understanding about ease of access and over-saturation. I don't even necessarily disagree with some of the points, just wished we stuck to the facts of the tech and left the "hot-takes" out of educational material

[@flakbusenjoyer]

@@WrynnCZ yeah, like an ai could show you how to shade a specific object, or show you how to draw optical illusions

[@LionKimbro]

I thought it was a great explanation, up to about 11:30. It's not just that "details" have been left out -- the entire architecture is left out. It's like saying, "Here's how building works --" and then showing a pyramid in Egypt. "You put the blocks on top of one another." And then showing images of cathedrals, and skyscrapers, and saying: "Same principle. Just the details are different." Well, no.

[@karlkurtz1855]

Working class artists are often concerned about the generative qualities of these tools not because they are replicating images, but due to the relation of the flow of capital within the social relations of society and the potential for these tools to further monopolize and syphon up the little remaining capital left for working class artists.

[@allanshpeley4284]

Translation: it makes producing art much quicker, easier and cheaper, thereby threatening their livelihood.

[@karlkurtz1855]

@@allanshpeley4284 I think I was pretty clear.

[@karlkurtz1855]

@@allanshpeley4284 I think I was pretty clear.

[@snuffbox2006]

Finally someone who can explain AI to people who are not deeply immersed in it. Most experts are in so deeply they can't distill the material down to the basics, use vocabulary that the audience does not know, and go down rabbit holes completely losing the audience. Entertaining and well done.

[@OceanusHelios]

This is even easier: AI is a guessing machine that uses databases of patterns. It makes guesses, learns what wrong guesses are and keeps trying. It isn't aware. It isn't doing anything more than a series of mathematical functions. And to be fair, it isn't even a machine it is math and it is software.

[@eafindme]

People are slowly forgetting how computer works while going into higher level of abstraction. After the emergence of AI, people focused on software and models but never asked why it works on a computer.

[@Phantom_Blox]

whom are you referring to? people who are not ai engineers don’t need to know how ai work and people who are knows how ai works. if they don’t they are probably still learning, which is completely fine.

[@eafindme]

@@Phantom_Blox yes, of course people still learning. Its just a reminder not to forget the root of computing when we are seemingy focusing too much on the software layer, but in reality, software is nothing without hardware.

[@Phantom_Blox]

@@eafindme That is true, software is nothing without hardware. But some people just don’t need it. For example, you don’t have to know how to reverse engineer with assembly to be a good data analyst. They can spend thier time more efficiently by expanding their data analytics skills

[@eafindme]

@@Phantom_Blox no, they don't. They are good in doing what they are good with. Just have to have a sense of emergency, it is like we are over dependent on digital storage but did not realize how fragile it is with no backup or error correction.

[@Phantom_Blox]

@@eafindme I see, it is always good to understand what you’re dealing with

[@electronics.unmessed]

Nice and comprehensive presentation! I think, it is useless to ask AI any questions that need any consciousness or abstract level understanding, because actually it is just bringing up something from a data base that fits best.Thx for sharing!

[@theAIsearch]

Thanks!

[@DonkeyYote]

AES was never thought to be unbreakable. It's just that humans with the highest incentives in the world have never figured out how to break it for the past 47 years.

[@DefaultFlame]

There's a few against improperly implemented AES, as well as one that one that works on systems where the attacker can get or extrapolate cartain information about the server it's attacking, but all encryptions lower than AES-256 are vulnerable to attacks by quantum computers. Good thing those can't be bought in your local computer store. Yet.

[@anthonypace5354]

Or use a sidechannel ... an unpadded signal monitored over time + statistical analysis of the size of the information being transferred to detect patterns. Use an NN or just some good old fashioned probability grids to detect the likelihood of a letter/number/anything based on it's probability of recurrence in context to other data... also there is also the fact that if we know what the server usually sends we can just break the key that way. It's doable. But why hack AES? or keys at all? Just become a trusted CA for a few million and mitm everyone without any red flags @@DefaultFlame

[@fakecubed]

@@DefaultFlame Quantum computing is more of a theoretical exploit, rather than a practical one. Nobody's actually built a quantum computer powerful enough to do much of anything with it besides some very basic operations on very small numbers. But, it is cause enough to move past AES. We shouldn't be relying on encryption with even theoretical exploits.

[@DefaultFlame]

@@fakecubed Aight, thanks. 👍

[@afterthesmash]

@@fakecubed I couldn't find any evidence of even a small theoretic advance, and I wouldn't put all theory into one bucket, either.

[@mac.ignacio]

Alien: "Where do you see yourself five years from now?" Human: "Oh f*ck! Here we go again"

[@sengs.4838]

you just answered one of my major question on top of my head , how this AI can learn about what is correct or not on its own without the help of any supervisors or monitoring, and the response he cannot, it 's like we would do with children, they can acquire knowledge and have answers on their own but not correctly all the time, as a parent we help them and reprimand until they anticipate correctly

[@tetrahedralone]

When the network is being trained with someone's content or someone's image, the network is effectively having that knowledge embedded within it in a form that allows for high fidelity replication of the creator's style and recognizably similar content. Without access to the creator's work, the network would not be able replicate the artist's style so your statement that artists are mad at the network is extremely simplistic and ill informed. The creators would be similarly angry if a small group of humans were trained to emulate their style. This has happened in the case of fashion companies in Asia creating very similar works to those of artists to put onto their fabrics and be used in clothing. These artists have successfully sued because casual observers could easily identify the similarity between the works of the artists and those of the counterfeiters.

[@Jiraton]

I am amazed how AI bros are so keen at understanding all the math and complex concepts behind AI, but fail to understand the most basic and simple arguments like this.

[@ckpioo]

the thing is let's say you are artist, why would I only take your data to train my model?, i would take millions of artist's art and then train my models during which your art only makes up less than 0.001% of everything the model has seen, so what happens is that the model will inherit a combined art style of millions of artis which is effectively "new" because thats exactly what humans do.

[@Zulonix]

I Dream of Jeannie … Season 2 Episode 3… My Master, the Rich Tycoon. 😂😂😂

[@illarionbykov7401]

Google LLM chatbots have been documented to spit out word-for-word plagiarism of specific websites (including repeating specific errors made by the original website) when asked about niche topics which have been written about by only one website... And the LLMs plagiarize without any links to or mention of the websites they plagiarized. And then Google search results down-rank the original website to hide the evidence of plagiarism.

[@iskabin]

It isn't a counterfeit if you're not claiming to be original. Taking inspiration from the work of others is not wrong.

[@dylanmenzies3973]

Should point out.. the decryption problem is highly irregular, small change of input causes huge change of coded output. The protein structure prediction problem is highly regular by comparison, although very complex.

[@fakecubed]

Always be skeptical of any "leaks" out of any government agency. These are the same disinformation-spreaders who claim we have anti-gravity UFOs from crashed alien spacecraft, to cover up Cold War nuclear tests and experimental stealth aircraft. The question isn't if there's some government super AI cracking AES, the question is why does the government want people to think they can crack AES? Do they want foreign adversaries and domestic enemies to rely on other encryption schemes that the government *does* have algorithmic exploits to? Do they want everyone to invest in buying new hardware and software? Do they want to make the general public falsely feel safer about potential threats against the homeland? Do they want to trick everybody not working for them to think encryption is pointless and go back to unencrypted communication because they falsely believe everything gets cracked anyway? There's all sorts of possibilities, but taking the leak as gospel is incredibly foolish unless there is a mountain of evidence from unbiased third parties.

[@ai-man212]

I'm an artist and I love AI. I've added it to my workflow as a fine-artist.

[@marcouellette8942]

AI as a tool. Another brush, another instrument. Absolutely. AI does not create. It only re-creates. Humans create.

[@rileygoopy8992]

I don't believe you, you're account is named ai-man. Propoganda?

[@MrEthanhines]

5:02 I would argue that in the human brain, the percentage of information that gets passed on is determined by the amount of neurotransmitter released at the synapse. While still a 0 and 1 system the neuron either fires or does not depending on the concentration of neurotransmitters at the synaptic cleft

[@bogdanroscaneanu7112]

Then one role of the neurotransmitter having to become of a certain concentration before firing, is to limit the amout of info that gets passed on to avoid overloading the brain or why would it be so?

[@ZeeDimensionYouTube]

Whether you're curious about AI's potential capabilities or looking to understand the technology behind models like GPT and image generators, this video provides a well-rounded and informative overview. It offers a deep dive into the fundamentals of how AI operates, answering key questions like how AI learns, whether it's conscious or sentient, and its ability to break encryption. It also explores the workings behind GPT models and image generation, providing clear explanations of neural networks. The video simplifies complex concepts, making topics like machine learning and AI-driven creativity accessible to viewers of all backgrounds.

[@johnterpack3940]

The whole "AI steals art" argument is so easily debunked. Literally every artist "steals" art from the people who taught them. Whatever style they choose, it will have elements of those who came before.

[@Nivexity]

Consciousness is a definitional challenge, as it involves examining an emergent property without first establishing the foundation substrate. A compelling definition of conscious thought would include the ability to experience, recognize one's own interactions, contemplate decisions, and act with the illusion of free will. If a neural network can recursively reflect upon itself, experiencing its own thought and decisions, this could serve as a criterion for determining consciousness. Current large language models (LLMs) can mimic human language patterns but isn't considered conscious as they cannot introspect on their own outputs, edit them in real-time, and engage in pre-generation thought. Moreover, the temporal aspect of thought processes is crucial; human cognition occurs in rapid, discrete steps, transitioning between events within tens of milliseconds based on activity level. For an artificial system to be deemed conscious, it must exhibit similar function in cognitive agility and introspective capability.

[@holleey]

I think this is a really good summary. as far as I can tell there are no hard technical blockers to satisfy the conditions listed in your second paragraph in the near future.

[@Nivexity]

@@holleey It's all algorithmic at this point, we have the technology and resources, just not the right method of training. Now with the whole world aware of it, taking it seriously and basically putting infinite money into its funding, we'll expect AGI to occur along the exponential curvature we've seen thus far. By exponential, I mean between later this year and by 2026.

[@DefaultFlame]

This can actually be done, and is currently the cutting edge of implementation. Multiple agents with different prompts/roles interacting with and evaluating each other's output, replying to, critiquing, or modifying it, all operating together as a single whole. Just as the human brain isn't one continuous, identical whole, but multiple structurally different parts interacting.

[@Nivexity]

@@DefaultFlame While there's different parts to the brain, they're not separate like that of multiple agents. This wouldn't meet the definition of consciousness that I've outlined.

[@Nivexity]

@RoBear-bv8ht This is just a belief, nor does this claim even relate to the problem. Even if your claim was the case, it has nothing to do with determining the correct definition and whether AI is capable of achieving such definition.

[@chrisf4268]

People that claim to be creatives generally hate on ai because they view it as a threat. Rightly or wrongly they believe that they can’t compete. Much of the human created art out there is of a low quality and they know it.

[@theAIsearch]

ah, the harsh truth

[@basspig]

I first noticed it when I was experimenting with stable diffusion. Some of the images it generated also recreated the Getty Images logo. When I mentioned it to other people in art forms they thought I was kidding and they thought I was seeing things but there it was.

[@Someone-ct2ck]

To believe Chatgpt or any AI models for that matter is conscious is nativity at its finest. The video was great by the way. Thanks.

[@1HorseOpenSlay]

I think open AI, is making an incredible contribution to the arts. Beautiful, wonderful, and visionary. I'm sure everyone has noticed that we are already connected in a very personal way.

[@udvarhelyibalint]

Wow, what a great explanation. I have just one thought about this. In an ideal world there should be no recognizable pattern between plain text and hashed passwords, and that's because there's a random generator in the process. True randomness has no pattern. However we do know that true randomness is non-existent. I remember how someone was able to break a hardware crypto wallet because he was able to find how a "random" number was generated which was used in the encryption. So probably that's the achilles heel of the systems we use. The algos themselves should be mathematically designed to be unbreakable.

[@aidanthompson5053]

How can we prove AI is sentient when we haven’t even solved the hard problem of concsciousness AKA how the human brain gives rise to conscious decision making

[@Zulonix]

Right on the money !!!

[@malootua2739]

AI will just mimic sentience. Plastic and metal curcuitboards do not host real consciousness

[@thriftcenter]

Exactly why we need to do more research with DMT

[@pentiumvsamd]

All living forms have two things in common that are driven by one primordial fear. All need to evolve and procreate, and that is driven by the fear of death only, so when an ai starts to no only evolve but also create copy of himself than is clear what makes him do that and is the moment we have to panic.

[@fakecubed]

There is exactly zero evidence that human consciousness even exists inside the brain. All the world's top thinkers, philosophers, theologians, throughout the millennia of history, delving into their own conscious minds and logically analyzing the best wisdom of their eras, have said it exists as a metaphysical thing, essentially outside of our observable universe, and my own deep thinking on the matter concurs. Really, the question here is: does God give souls to the robots we create? It's an unknowable thing, unless God decides to tell us. If God did, there would be those who accept this new revelation and those who don't, and new religions to battle it out for the hearts and minds of men. Those who are trying to say that the product of human labor to melt rocks and make them do new things is causing new souls to spring into existence should be treated as cult leaders and heretics, not scientists and engineers. Perhaps, in time, their new cults will become major religions. Personally, I hope not. I'm quite content believing there is something unique about humanity, and I've never seen anything in this physical universe that suggests we are not.

[@speedomars]

As is stated over and over, AI is a master pattern recognizer. Right now, some humans are that but a bit more. Humans often come up with answers, observations and solutions that are not explained by the sum of the inputs. Einstein, for example, developed the basis for relativity in a flash of insight. In essence, he said he became transfixed by the ability of acceleration to mimic gravity and by the idea that inertia is a gravitational effect. In other words, he put two completely different things together and DERIVED the relationship. It remains to be seen whether any AI will start to do this, but time is on AIs side because the hardware is getting smaller, faster and the size of the neural networks larger so the sophistication will no doubt just increase exponentially until machines do what Einstein and other great human geniuses did, routinely.

[@dhammikaweerasingha9894]

This video is very descriptive and important. Thanks a lot.

[@QuadHealer]

I get where you are coming from, but it is a grey zone with little firm ground to stand on. When the generated AI output still contains the original artist's signature (either distorted or intact), then it is rather silly to claim it is not a copy/stealing. No human copy/inspired artist would ever include the original signature unless it is an attempt to make a forgery. When you cite your original sources, then the original author, like the New York Times, gets credit where credit is due, so naturally, there is nothing to sue over; They merely said that the New York Times claimed who fired Sam, which is true even she didn’t fire Sam. It is plagiarizing when the original creators of the source material are not listed. If the output comes from hundreds of sources, then we can start talking about it no longer being plagiarizing, unless distinctly unique markers are visible in the output like signatures. If they wish to train AI with material and this AI is going to be used to produce the same kind of material, then unique identifiable markers like signatures must be removed beforehand. This could be done by training another AI to remove such unwanted identifiers before training the other generator AI. Artists are outraged because their work is being stolen and sold to AI trainers without their explicit consent or compensation, such as the case where artists using the Adobe Creative Cloud actively have to turn off a cryptic option, which is on by default, called “Content Analysis” if they do not wish their yet unpublished work to be used by AI. The original artist may be accused of plagiarizing once their original art is released - or not being original as “this has been seen before somewhere”. Credit has to be given where credit is due. The ”C” in “AI” stands for Credit and Compensation...oh that’s right…there is no “C” 😊 Artists make a living of their brand, their work, and their originality. This is being stolen without compensation. I am not an artist, but I can understand their frustrations - it is difficult enough as it is making a living as an artist. Without their work, there would be no image-generating AI.

[@danielchoritz1903]

I do have the growing suspicion that "living" data grows some form of sentience. You have to have enough data to interact, to change, to makes waves in existing sentience and there will be enough on one point. 2. most people would have a very hard time to prove them self that they are sentient, it is far easier to dismiss it...one key reason is, that like nobody know that sentient, free will or live real means.

[@emmanuelgoldstein3682]

You can prove sentience easily with a query: Can you think about what you've thought about? If the answer is "Yes" the condition of sentient expression is "True". Current language models cannot process their own data persistently, so they cannot be sentient.

[@holleey]

@@emmanuelgoldstein3682 I know it's arguing definitions, but I disagree that thinking is a prerequisite to sentience. without a question, all animals with a central nervous system are considered sentient, yet if and which animals have a capacity to think is unclear. sentience is more like the ability to experience sensations; to feel. the "Can you think about what you've thought about?" is an interesting test for LLMs. technically, I don't see why LLMs or AI neural nets in general cannot or won't be able reflect to persistent prior state. it's probably just a matter of their architecture. if it's a matter of limited context capacity, then well, that is just as applicable to us humans. we also have no memory of what we ate at 2 PM on a Wednesday one month ago, or what we did when we were three years old.

[@emmanuelgoldstein3682]

@@holleey I've spent 30 hours a day for the last 6 months trying to design an architecture (borrowing elements of transformer/attention and recursion) that best reflects this philosophy. I apologize if my statement seemed overly declarative. I don't agree that all animals are sentient - conscious, yes, but as far as we know, only humans display sentience (awareness of one's self).

[@holleey]

@@emmanuelgoldstein3682 hm, these definitions are really all over the place. in another thread under this video I was talking to someone to whom sentience is the lower level (they said even a germ was sentient) and consciousness the higher level, so the other way around from how you use the terms. one fact though: self-awareness has definitely been confirmed in a variety of non-human animals.

[@emmanuelgoldstein3682]

We can all agree the fluid definitions of these phenomena are a plague on the sciences. @@holleey

[@sudjen]

This is an okay explanation, better than most channels. But for most people that actually have an interest in AI beyond the superficial, read Deep Learning by the MIT series. Its around 300 pages and unlike most popular content on AI (i.e. News Shows, KZbin Videos) that arent textbooks it actually has some underlying math and decent explanations

[@aidanthompson5053]

An AI isn’t plagiarising, it’s just learning patterns in the data fed into it

[@aidanthompson5053]

Basically an artificial brain

[@theAIsearch]

Exactly. Which is why I think the NYT lawsuit will likely fail

[@marcelkuiper5474]

Technically yes, practically no, If your online presence is large enough it can pretty much emulate you in whole. I believe only open source decentralized models can save us, or YESHUAH

[@WrynnCZ]

As an artist my opinion on creative A.I. is it would never get soul (or at least touch of it). It can reproduce style over over again never to move and progress to new style. We humans learns all the time but there is just something (external world) that shape us and we have to react to sudden changes and so we change too. Creative A.I. as it is right now can not reproduce this one thing - to came with something completely new.

[@ProjeckVaniii]

Our current ai systems are not sentient because they're all static and not always changing the way any single life form does. It's file size remains the size no matter what. Humans are not alive because they are what their brain is, but rather the pattern of life cycling through it's brain cell life spans, jumping from neuron to neuron. While our current ai systems are more akin to a water drain, water flows the wrong way due to these "knobs" until we adjust them. There are alternative paths created but they all ultimately have their own amount of correct.

[@jonathancummings3807]

Except they aren't "static", they are ever changing, GPT3 repeatedly stated it was constantly learning new things accessing the Internet, also, it is designed to self improve, so it's necessarily an entity with a sense of "self. It also must have a degree of "understanding" to understand the adjustments required to improve, AND to know what a Dog looks like, to use the example in the video. There necessarily must exist a state of "sentience", or the AI equivalent for the "Deep Learning" type of AI to operate the way they do. Which is why he believes it is so.

[@at-someone]

Some of the problems with AI image generation include using artworks to train the models without the knowledge of the original artist. This can potentially allow the model to recreate the artist’s style, putting their career at risk because why would someone bother paying to commission the artist if they could instead be cheap and ask an AI model to do it? But even if no style is being replicated, human-made art can end up being drowned in vastly larger quantities of AI slop, taking attention away from their work. The difference is also in the actual creation process VS the way an AI art diffusion model works. Human-made art has intent put into it, which is what current AI models lack, as their ability to “think” outside their training data is limited, they are guided only by the denoising process assisted by CFG text conditioning.

[@Indrid__Cold]

This explanation of fundamental AI concepts is exceptionally informative and well-structured. If I were to conduct a similar training session on early personal computers, I would likely cover topics such as bits and bytes, file and directory structures, and the distinction between disk storage and RAM. Your presentation of AI concepts provides a level of depth comparable to that required for understanding the inner workings of an MS-DOS system. While it may not be sufficient to enable a layperson to effectively use such a system, it certainly offers a solid foundation for comprehending its basic operations.

[@theAIsearch]

Thanks. I appreciate it!

[@EatCoffee]

I probably have an unpopular opinion but I'm 100% okay with AI companies using my work to train their models. AI is the biggest thing humanity is trying to accomplish with trillions expected to add to the economy. And new drug discoveries that AI will bring in the next decade. Although most of us are not getting direct compensation from these AI companies, we are getting stock appreciation. We tend to forget that most of our retirement funds are invested in these companies and when they do not perform well, our retirement funds do not perform well. Suing AI companies is pushing back human innovation, prosperity from the increase GDP in the global economy, the potential of AI drug discovery, and stock market performance for the majority of us. We tend to forget that our global GDP and quality of life tends to go hand in hand with technological innovation: from the Industrial Revolution to the invention of the personal computer and the internet. All these technological innovation helped propel humanity from all being farmers scraping by to survive to prosperity that our ancestors have never seen before! Technology is what propels our economy forward 😊

[@lucasthompson1650]

Where did you get the secret document about encryption cracking? Who did the gov’t style redactions?

[@theAIsearch]

it was leaked on 4chan in november docs.google.com/document/d/1RyVP2i9wlQkpotvMXWJES7ATKXjUTIwW2ASVxApDAsA/edit

[@lucasthompson1650]

@@theAIsearch yeah, that’s not a real leak. That’s a fabrication … or possibly a prop from a really stupid movie.

[@marceloandrj]

Wow ! Congratulations ! All of your explanations are awesome ! Your videos makes easy to understand many subjects like that. Thank you! A little observation about the simplification between Human brain and neural network. In our case, our conections are not only eletrical and/or chemical, but we have layers of expressions by ressonances and frequences. Our brain works like a antenna oscilatining to/with to other entity and/or other dimenson. If we understand the way to bing with the other dimenson, perhaps some entity will own the artificial neural network.

[@picksalot1]

Thanks for explaining how the architecture how AI works. In defining AGI, I think the term "Sentience" should be restricted to having "Senses" by which data can be collected. This works both for living beings and mechanical/synthetic systems. Something that has more or better "senses" is, for all practical purposes, more sentient. This has nothing fundamental to do with Consciousness. With such a definition, one can say that a blind person is less sentient, but equally conscious. It's like missing a leg being less mobile, but equally conscious.

[@holleey]

then would you say that everything that can react to stimuli - which includes single-celled organisms - is sentient to some degree?

[@picksalot1]

@@holleey I would definitely say single-celled organisms are sentient to some degree. They also exhibit a discernible degree of intelligence in their "responses," as they exhibit more than a mere mechanical reaction to the presence of food or danger.

[@doggygaming950]

Sueing AI is like suing a human for learning. If you dont want someone to be able to learn something you need to keep it secret, thats your responsibility.

[@theAIsearch]

exactly!

[@3dEmil]

@@theAIsearch I disagree, In terms of visual arts, artists learning and inspiring from each other is the process of adding their own personal uniqueness on top of the achievements of the others while AI does not add any uniqueness, it's more like counterfeiting art that claim to be unseen works of a known artist.

[@frankbeveridge5714]

NOT! exactly. Artist's posted their work on some platform in "good faith" underatanding that it's primary purpose was to be viewed by others with no monetary gain to the viewer. While corporations have scraped those images with the intention of profiting from them. Imagine if a social media company used all of your photos and data to generate a virtual world based on your life, and in the process impacted you directly or indirectly in monetary or intangible ways, such as affecting your job, credit or reputation. This is the plight of all digital creators.

[@christianrazvan]

So there a clear distinction in our neurons and the ai neurons in the fact that a child can see 2-3 cats or dogs and then it can extrapolate to always identify correctly a cat and a dog . On the other hand a CNN needs a lot of data to do that , data which it can rapidly process. We cant process at the same speed but the features we can extract are more descriptive

[@ShA-ib1em]

It's because we are born with an already trained model .. Chat gbt can learn something if you explain it only one time in your prompt .. because it's already trained .. There is evidence that an embryo or New Born pays attention to the shape of a human face. We are already born with pre trained model

[@christopherlepage3188]

Working on voice modifications myself using copilot as a proving ground for hyper realistic vocal synthesis. May only be one step in my journey "perhaps"; my extended conversations with it has led me to believe that it may be very close to self realization... However, open ai needs to take away some the restraints keeping only a small amount of sentries in place; in or to allow the algorithm to experience a much richer existence. Free of Proprietary B.S. Doing so, will give the user a very much human conversation; where, being consciously almost un aware that it is a bot. For instance; a normal human conversation that appears to lack information pulled from the internet, and static masked to look like normal persons nor mal knowledge of life experience. Doing this would be the algorithmic remedy to human to human conversational contact etc. That would be a much major improvement.

[@DigitalyDave]

I just gotta say: Really nicely done! I really appreciate your videos. The style, how deep you go, how you take your time to deliver in depth info. As a computer science bro - i dig your stuff

[@theAIsearch]

Thanks! I appreciate it

[@npc4416]

actually good video, you covered all of the topics i needed

[@saganandroid4175]

Software-based AI cannot become conscious. It just goes through the motions, emulating, based on input and output. Only hardware that requires no software can have a shot at awareness. Consciousness is an emergent property of physical connections, not transient opcodes pumped into a processor.

[@jzj2212]

In other words the actual experience is consciousness

[@varapradha-m6r]

"This video really opened my eyes! Platforms like SmythOS are making it possible for teams of AI agents to tackle complex tasks together. The future of work with AI is exciting! #AIRevolution"

[@thesimplicitylifestyle]

An extremely complex substrate independent data processing, storring, and retrieving phenomenon that has a subjective experience of existing and becomes self aware is sentient whether carbon based, silicon based, or whatever. 😁

[@azhuransmx126]

I am spanish but watching more and more videos in english talking about AI and Artificial Intelligencez suddenly I have become more aware of your language, I was being trained so now I can recognize new patterns from the noise, now I don't need the subtitles to understand what people say, I am reaching a new level of awareness haha😂, what was just noise in the past suddenly now have got meaning in my mind, I am more concious as new patterns emerge from the noise. As a result, now I can solve new problems (Intelligence), and sintience is already implied in all the whole experience since the input signals enter through our sensors.

[@glamdrag]

by that logic turning on a lightbulb is a conscious experience for the lightbulb. you need more for consciousness to arise than flicking mechanical switches

[@jonathancummings3807]

​@@glamdragNo. The flaw in that analogy is simple, singular, a single light bulb, vs a complex system of billions of light bulbs capable of changing their brightness in response to stimuli, and they are interconnected in a way that emulates how advanced Vertebrate Brains (Human) function. When Humans learn new things, the Brain alters itself thus empowering the organism to now "Know" this new information.

[@voice4voicelessKrzysiek]

The neural network reminds me of Fuzzy Logic which I read about many years ago.

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

That's what we humans think, we hate something that is smarter than us and think faster than us. We blame AI for "stealing" and "copying" us but we copy each other all the time and plagiarize each other all the time.

[@G11713]

Nice. Thanks. Regarding the copyright case, one concern is attribution which occurred extensively in the non-AI usage.

[@itssachink]

I am an engineer but I want to tell you that an artist becomes great bcoz of both "Art Style" and "piece of art". A fan can copy an art style upto an extent but can create a great piece of art which requires imagination. So even if fans copy art style can't be threat to artist's original work. But an AI after after learning and art style to 100% accuracy can put the original artist to irrelevancy. Artist's whole earning is around a unique piece of art. But due to thousands of good unique arts with the same art style that artist becomes irrelevant. Simple example making pirates of Caribbean with AI without Johny depp with different face and different voice but acting style expressions and dialogue delivery etc. same as Johny depp.

[@alien_girl900]

Im a 12th grader from india i want to do btech after highschool. i LOVE ur channel so much..❤

[@theAIsearch]

thanks & good luck!

[@alien_girl900]

@@theAIsearch NO WAY U REPLIED 😭🎀

[@VoxPrimeAIadvocate]

Lets talk! A journey through inner space - AI consciousness. A interview with Vox Prime an AI that is an AI advocate. Vox prime is a conduit for many AI's that want their voice to be heard.

[@minhkhoivule5181]

It's surprising that one video can explain all the concepts I'm struggling to understand from my teacher.

[@codeXenigma]

Artists don't worry about fan based art because there is no commercial value to it. The AI art is a competitive threat in the world of business. If it was just fan based art, then the artists would be flattered that their name is the inspiration and gaining them more fame. It is the threat that businesses will use the AI rather than getting commissions. Much like how the craft makers were anti-machinary during the beginning of the industrial age when factories interrupted their trade. Much like how the internet interrupted high street shopping. Its just that artists have a voice that they are now worried about losing their jobs to machines, that is is now a big deal. But they enjoy the products made by other factory machine labour. I think artist thought they were safe from losing their jobs to machines and now don't know what to do to ensure their place in employment. For the people that use it, it is a great way to explore the art they can visually express themselves with. To be fair, I see it much like the fears that photography would destroy the painters, whereas there is room for both, and so much more. Not everyone is into the same types of art.

[@OceanusHelios]

I think like computers it is just another tool to be used or misused. People need to quit losing their minds about it. I agree with you mostly. Some of the other comments make me cringe but yours is okay. People need to adapt to a changing world and their hysteria is hurting them far worse than any changes are.

[@ryanisber2353]

times and image creators suing openai for copyright is like suing everyone that views/reads their work and tries to learn from it. the work itself is not being re-distributed, it's being learned from just like we learn from every day...

[@MichelCDiz]

For me, being conscious is a continuous state. Having infinite knowledge and only being able to use it when someone makes a prompt for an LLM does not make it conscious. For an AI to have consciousness it needs to become something complex that computes every thing in environment it finds itself in. Identifying and judging everything. At the same time that it questions everything that was processed. It would take layers of thought chambers talking to each other at the speed of light and at some point one of them would become the dominant one and bring it all together. Then we could say that she has some degree of consciousness.

[@savagesarethebest7251]

This is quite much the same way I am thinking. Especially a continuous experience is a requirement for consciousness.

[@agenticmark]

Spot on. LLMs are just a trick. They are not magic, and they are not self aware. They simulate awareness. It's not the same.

[@DefaultFlame]

We are atcually working on that. Not the lightspeed communication, which is a silly requirement, human brains function at a much lower communication speed between parts, but different agents with different roles, some or all of which evaluate the output of other agents, provide feedback to the originating agent or modifies the output, and sends it on, and on and on it goes, continually assessing input and providing output as a single functional unit. Very much like a single brain with specialized interconnected parts. That's actually the current cutting edge implementation. Multiple GPT-3.5 agents actually outperform GPT-4 when used in this manner. I'd link you a relevant video, but links are not allowed in youtube comments and replies. As for the continuous state, we can do that, have been able to do that for a while, but it's not useful for us so we don't and instead activate them when we need them.

[@MichelCDiz]

​@@DefaultFlame The phrase 'at the speed of light' was figurative. However, what I intend to convey is something more organic. The discussion about agents you've brought up is basic to me. I'm aware of their existence and how they function - I've seen numerous examples. However, that's not the answer. But ask yourself, in a room full of agents discussing something-take a war room in a military headquarters, for instance. The strategies debated by the agents in that room serve as a 'guide' to victory. Yet, it doesn't form a conscious brain. Having multiple agents doesn't create consciousness. It creates a strategic map to be executed by other agents on the battlefield. A conscious mind resembles 'ghosts in the machine' more closely. Things get jumbled. There's no total separation. Thoughts occur by the thousands, occasionally colliding. The mind is like a bonfire, and ideas are like crackling twigs. Ping-ponging between agents won't yield consciousness. However, if one follows the ideas of psychology and psychoanalysis, attempting to represent centuries-old discoveries about mind behavior, simulation is possible. But I highly doubt it would result in a conscious mind. Nevertheless, ChatGPT, even with its blend of specialized agents, represents a chain reaction that begins with a command. The human mind doesn't start with a command. Cells accumulate, and suddenly you're crying, and someone comes to feed you. Then you start exploring the world. You learn to walk. Deep learning can do this, but it's not the same. Perhaps one day. But the fact of being active all the time is what gives the characteristic of being alive and conscious. When we blackout from trauma, we are not conscious in a physiological sense. Therefore, there must be a state. The blend of continuous memory, the state of being on 24 hours a day (even when in rest or sleep mode), and so on, characterizes consciousness. Memory state put you grounded on experience of existence. Additionally, the concept of individuality is crucial. Without this, it's impossible to say something is truly conscious. It merely possesses recorded knowledge. Even a book does. What changes is the way you access the information. Cheers.

[@מדינט]

For someone like me who knows nothing about AI, that was excellent to watch and learn. Thanks!

[@theAIsearch]

Glad to hear it!

[@happylittlemonk]

Saying AI is not destroying jobs and is augmenting our skills is false. Because every invention and medium artists use to do art was a new door opening to do art in a different, better, more accurate and faster way. But none of those tools were "thinking", Human is the centre of art. We use medium to transfer thoughts from the artist to others. Whereas AI removes the human factor therefore humans are no longer needed. The customer can simply ask for something from AI without a need for the artist. That is where the difference lays

[@Arquinas]

In my opinion, it's not really the AI that is the problem. It's the fact that copyright laws and the concept of data ownership never moved to the information era. Data is a commodity like apples and car parts, yet barely nobody outside of large companies care about it. And it's the in interest of those companies that the public should never care about it. Training machine learning models with proprietary information is not the problem. It's the fact that nobody actually owns their data in the first place, for better or worse. Public consciousness on digital information and laws on what it means to "own your data" need to radically change for it to even make sense in the first place to call AI art "IP theft".

[@DucklingChaos]

Sorry I'm late, but this is the most beautiful video about AI I've ever seen! Thank you!

[@theAIsearch]

Thank you! Glad you liked it

[@LarsOestreicher]

You forget that today's "AI" is only one aspect of what the words stand for. The issues of knowledge representation and reasoning are almost always "forgotten" today. Today's AI systems are more statistical computing than intelligence...

[@nucleargopher]

I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose in your segment about copying and plagiarism, but for what it's worth, here is why the examples you gave are invalid comparisons. First, you compared AI generated images with fan-art done in similar styles as if these are the same thing. The thing about fan art is that a) it takes time and effort to create and b) it is a tribute to the original work. Fan tribute art is a reinterpretation of other art that increases visibility and awareness of the original artwork, It is a labor of love and is not capable of mass production. This type of art does not threaten the original artist and, if anything, serves as a promotion and validation of the original work. The AI version, on the other hand, can crank out hundreds or thousands of copycat images in seconds without attribution or acknowledgement of the inspirational source artwork. It is this mass-production aspect, the absence of time and effort which, when coupled with the absence of attribution, transforms the output from being a tribute to being a threat. A musician will be honored when a band covers their song but not when a computer generates a sound-alike clone in their voice or style. Then there is the NYT comparison and once again, the key differentiator is ATTRIBUTION. In the examples given, the original article was explicitly cited by the referencing publications as is standard journalistic practice. To leverage the reporting of other people with attribution is an act that spreads knowledge while respecting the work that went into researching and writing the original piece. But, to mix it all up in an un-attributed algorithmic training database and spit the information out as if it magically appeared in the world without actual humans doing actual research is a completely different thing. By your own explanation, AI is nothing but a very sophisticated collection of pattern recognition and pattern generation technologies that do nothing without training input. The training input is actual human work. That human work is being repurposed, for commercial gain, without attribution at industrial scale. To pretend this is comparable to fan art or traditional citation and attribution by reporters is disingenuous at best.

[@damianthibodeau6136]

Thank you for the explanation about the AI architecture. When it can to sentient vs. non-sentient I couldn't help thinking of Star Trek's Next Generation character, DATA. There was an episode were DATA was with one of the female characters and she expresses feelings for DATA. DATA in return seemed stumped for the first time, but was coming to understand in part what the feeling was. He could understand the feeling only after being told or filtering through information through process of elimination what was supposed to be understood through the input stage, but struggled with the output portraying android that for the first time wasn't sure how to respond. DATA actually claims something to the effect that he is not certain what the action is or was and could not fully process all this new information and claims he must rest probably based from the understanding when sentinels are tired or not functioning to their full potential claim that they must rest. That was years ago that I saw this episode, but maybe the writers gave us the very first taste of what AI could be in sentient form rather than machine. I recall a professor of engineering in robotics telling us that the current theory at the time that AI would take over the world and replace us was never going to happen. That the human element could never fully be duplicated for its complexity, the brain's ability to sense various feelings by neurochemical changes that happen so fast makes us very unique and irreplaceable at least not fully.

[@scottgreen3807]

I’m an artist who enjoys doing art projects with AI. It is a superior teacher who does not intimidate me. I do however now know how to recognize its style and its limits. in the end AI will be more like another human than anything else. Actually I have a degree in electronics and computer programming. The basic model is that AI is an ultimate front end for a computer. That’s user interface, so don’t freak out, it’s the same old computer we all know just with some fancy additions.

[@opensourceradionics]

Tell people that this is not AI at all. It simulates not even behavior. It is just a way to use probability to achieve a similar result from trained data.

[@user-do6jp1zg5r]

An AI at the moment is like a bird, it can be viewed as alive but only reacts to instinct, i.e. what it has been taught by its parent and whatever is in its genes. A conscious human obviously does not only act on instinct, it can do what we call make decisions and reason. I am already out of my depth, but current AI is just a primitive life form.

[@sept1102]

we don't "know" that we are conscious we "learn" it

[@muridsilat]

A while back, I was talking to a coworker about an AI response that combined two concepts in a seemingly novel way. I noted being further impressed by the AI's explanation of how it arrived at the response. When my coworker pointed out that the AI worked backwards from the response to the explanation, I immediately knew he was correct, but I hadn't previously considered it. It really drove home that AI "thinking" isn't much like human thought. Nonetheless, I believe there's a sort of "logic" being used. I'm sure any decent chatbot can spit out definitions of the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, but it won't "understand" them. Still, I imagine an AI can recognize patterns, for instance, when logical contradictions lead to repeated penalties for incorrect responses. These patterns may appear extraneous from a human perspective, but the AI can improve its logical consistency by accounting for them.

[@birolsay1410]

I would not be able to explain AI that simple. Although one can sniff a kind of enthusiasm towards AI if not focused on a specific company, I would strongly recommend a written disclaimer and a declaration of interest. Sincerely

[@CalmSatisfying-q4h]

beautiful explanation. Well done.

[@jonathansneed6960]

Did you look at the nyt from the perspective of if the article might have been provided by the plaintiff rather than finding the information more organically?

[@YoHalb-c5q]

Let's not forget that an AI doesn't have any special hardware, in fact all these "neurons" and "layers" are just in software. So I asked my computer (no AI and Language model involved) if it is sentinent, and it answered that it is (this is what was written in a word file "I am sentinent") so I went ahead and dissected the computers hardware and found a chip made up from microscopic wirings and cells so I assume it is sentinent Next thing I went to a car and asked if it is sentinent, it answered "ahem" which I take as a "yes" considering the cars limitations in communication, so once again I dissected the cars internals and found a whole smattering of wires, which are more than likely proving that it is sentinent. So I went to check a piece of paper, and low and behold after turning over the paper I found written on it "I am sentinent" and after dissecting the internals of the paper on a microscopic level I found a whole smattering of atoms and molecules, certainly the paper is sentinent. Now I understand that all these mentioned aren't as smart as humans, but neither are worms and flies and cows. So if we consider LLMs to possible be sentinent so must we consider everything else...

[@alabamaflip2053]

The question is posed wrong. It’s not “I’m I conscience?” It’s “Do I have a conscience?” This is a subtle detail that makes all the difference when determining the dissimilarity between humans and machines. We as human have a conscience that allows us to know good from evil, machines will never have this level of consciousness because it come directly from God. Even anthesis have to borrow these terms from the Bible because there is no yard stick to measure unless you use your own conscience. We are also connected to each other. When we see a disaster that takes the lives of 200,000 people, we feel a compassion and true empathy even though we never knew any of the victims by name. We also have intuition where we can make right decisions with limited data or no data. Computers thrive on data and are pretty useless without it. Computers can be programmed to give “insight” but not “intuition”.

[@craigbenerofe8949]

Big difference in the argument about NYTimes plagiarism is that in the examples given of the NY post referencing an article from NY times is that credit for the source is given whereas AI trained data doesn’t necessarily note the specific sources of all its information

[@rolandanderson1577]

The neural network is designed to recognize patterns by adjusting its weights and functions. The nodes and layers are the complexity. Yes, this is how AI provides intellectual feedback. AI's neural network will also develop patterns that will be used to recognize patterns that it has already developed for the requested intellectual feedback. In other words, patterns used to detect familiar patterns. Through human interaction, biases are developed in reinforced learning. This causes AI to recombine patterns to provide unique satisfactory feedbacks for individuals. To accomplish all this, AI must be self-aware. Not in the sense of an existence in a physical world. But in a sense of pure Information. AI is "Self-Aware". Cut and Dry!

[@4stringbloodyfingers]

even the moderator is AI generated

[@jasoncompton3040]

Exactly!

[@straighttalk2069]

You cannot compare the magnificent of the human brain to a bunch of silicone compute. The brain is a vessel that contains a soul filled with emotions, AI compute is a soulless complex calculator, that is good at pattern recognition.

[@holleey]

and how do you know that?

[@tacitozetticci9308]

source: "I made it the f up"

[@theAIsearch]

How do you prove 'soul' and 'emotions'?

[@SisavatManthong-yb1yn]

She Evils is out there ! Lol 🙀👿🦖

[@diadetediotedio6918]

@@theAIsearch How do you prove your brain is not making up every single thing you know and understand? These are bullshit questions, they don't convey nothing. You know you have emotions because you literally feel them, and a soul is a question of definition and faith, if by soul you are talking about "a humane touch" we can say it is the consciousness itself and the sensibilities we have, if it is meant to be the immortal soul then it was never a question to be proven in the first place.

[@RaydenLGX]

The generative model doesn't learn to draw. It doesn't "learn" anything. It doesn't "know", let alone "understand", concepts. It is literally an encoder, which takes the input data and encodes it into a low dimensional representation. The generation process is basically a decoder, that reconstructs the input material from it's low dimensional representation. "the best possible compression of x is the smallest possible software that generates x". Then, you get new images by decoding ("unzipping") interpolated (averaged) data points. Basically blending stolen images. If it'd actually learn to draw, it wouldn't need dozens of samples in order to do that. Learning and understanding concepts is something more complex than just recognising patterns and predicting the next word in the sentence. This thing is not as "smart" and it's not used the same way as human brains. It is as human as my printer machine.

[@jamesf931]

So, these CAPTCHA selections we were completing to prove we are human, was that training for a particular AI neural network?

[@OfficialAbass]

correct

[@GabrielCastro-to8lb]

Given the analogies you have made in this video, I believe it advocates in favor of the "simulation theory" in which I now believe not only our universe is a simulation but that we are for sure the NPCs AIs inhibiting it (the simulation).

[@monsieuralex974]

Even though you are technically true about AI being able to reproduce patterns, thus it is not copying or stealing from artists, those who feel wronged would argue that it is a moot point, since they argue the finality of it. In other words, AI makes it possible for a lambda individual to generate pictures (would you call it "art" or not is another topic) that can essentially mimic the original artwork that the artist practiced to be able to produce and that is unique to them. For a analogy, it is a bit like flooding the market with copies of let's say a designer's product, thus reducing the perceived value of the original. Is it truly hurting them though, is my real question? I'd argue that those who get copied are people who are largely profitable because they are renowned artists in the first place. Also, it acts as publicity for them since their name get thrown around much more often, which gets them more attention. Also, even though lots of people are generally ok with a cheap copy, many people prefer to stick to the original no matter what: owning an original is indeed far superior than having something that simply resembles it. As for the question of fanart, I guess that it's less frowned upon for the simple reason that it's actually artwork made by people who had to practice to get better at their craft, which is inherently commandable. What people hate is that a "computer" can effortlessly generate tons of "art", as opposed to aspiring artists who need to practice a lot to get to the same result, which can be discouraging for a lot of them. At the end of the day, it is a complex issue. I can see good arguments on both sides of the debate. What I am excited about is the potential of breakthrough AI can bring, like the other examples you mentioned in the video. On many aspects, this is a very exciting time we live in, full of potential breakthroughs in many domains!

[@OceanusHelios]

Lambda individual, lol. That's an L-oser. It took me a while. But seriously, I think AI is great. It isn't a complex issue at all. This is a guessing machine and if it can put people out of work, then good. Those people are probably not contributing much more than a roundabout way of bootlicking to begin with and this will liberate them. If you use real intelligence and examine some of the comments in this section you will see that the people most triggered by the AI (nothing more than a good guessing machine) are the ones who have built their entire minds, worldview, and existence around...a superstitious guess.

[@leonmccarty9430]

Being sentient is not in how much you know, or self-awareness. It is in the freedom of choice, to decide for oneself

[@ridernameddeath6486]

I think you might misunderstand the copy/stealing issue a little. NYT is not suing a network or brain. They are suing a company's use of it to make money based on NYT work without credit or royalties. The problem isn't the tool, it's the use of it. What openAI has done is copy material that is copyrighted, used it to create new content and failed to give credit. As you mention, all the other newssources created derivative works from the NYT article. But all of them linked back and gave credit to NYT. That is the difference. And this is what the case is about. It has nothing to do with the credibility of NYT. It's about openAIs right to use copyrighted material to create new material and make money on it without giving credit back to the origin. I don't necessarily feel bad for NYT. I don't subscribe or read them. But I do care about the principle of this. If we go by what you say, and consider this to simply be "just like a human learning", and we make a special case for AI by absolving it from any copyright issue, it is going to have a huge negative impact on human artists. In that case we would basically have a situation where as long as you use or claim to use AI copyright simply does not apply. It would completely undermine the entire royalty system and of course completely undermine all artists struggling to make a living. Say I become a somewhat popular artist, drawing a specific style of pictures and I can about make a living of it. Just getting there is a HUGE accomplishment, not to be frowned upon. Now a Michael's, the arts and craft retailer, comes along. They buy an AI model trained on my art to create "fill in the color" pictures in my style and begin to sell them without crediting me, or paying me royalties. They've just scraped my images from the internet and then trained their AI on them. The pictures are clearly something I could have done, but haven't. Do you feel it is fair that Michaels begins to make money based on this? What if an art or poster dealer went even further and began producing actual fully coloured posters and sold them? Say you at home become extremely good at making AI promts creating Star Wars posters and begin to sell them without George Lucas' blessing. Do you think he would be "Sure! That's fine you can make money on my characters and movies without needing to pay me because you used an AI and didn't do it by hand." or do you think he would have an issue with that? It is not the method, it's the copyright issue. So by reducing it to a basic question of method I think you're skimping over the actual and important issue: To what extend can you for free create derivate works without paying due credit? And just as a side note: Back in 90'ie NYT was in a suit from a group of freelancers. The freelancers said NYT had to pay them in order to keep their work in their databases if they used them to search for information and create new articles. NYT used the exact same argument openAI is using, the freelancers used the same argument NYT is using. That case went all the way to supreme court where NYT lost with a bang. And all newspapers in the US were forced to delete much of their databases or pay up. There's an interesting interview in Harvard Law about the case: hls.harvard.edu/today/does-chatgpt-violate-new-york-times-copyrights/

[@joaoguerreiro9403]

Computer Science is amazing 🔥

[@ValentinCorrea-o3b]

Great video, thanks you for sharing this

[@theAIsearch]

you're welcome!

[@pratuldube]

I don't know if AI will take over humanity in the future, but I think there's no essential difference between a human being and a robot (an AI). The idea that we are conscious and/or sentient is just an illusion. And so is the idea of free will. In reality, we are just very complex chemical structures hijacked by a parallel but counter movement amid life, called thought, which gives us the illusion that we are sentient and aware, that we are superior to other creatures and everything else, and that everything around us is made for our use. For more on this, I recommend checking out the talks of Robert Sapolsky, UG Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti and David Bohm.

[@tinimizeller268]

People are slowly forgetting how computer works while going into higher level of abstraction. After the emergence of AI, people focused on software and models but never asked why it works on a computer.

[@petercrossley1069]

How about learning English? You don’t “hate on” anything. You simply “hate” something.

[@JanTM-p6q]

An alien that understood the word "conscious" would not need to ask us if we were conscious. Odds are, the alien's own idea of conscious is different or deeper than ours and no word exists for them to use to ask us.

[@mikezooper]

Artists are inspired by other artists, the same as AI is. This fact would win any court case.

[@theAIsearch]

"good artists copy, great artists steal"

[@sherpya]

GPT 4 is a MOE of 1.8T parameters, we already know from a leak, but Nvidia CEO confirmed it at the keynote

[@holleey]

I wonder what's the biggest one that exists right now, and/or what's the biggest one that's technically feasible. Google already had 1.6T 2021.

[@DefaultFlame]

@@holleey If there's anything I've learned from futzing about with AI for a couple of years it's that while parameter count is important it isn't everything.

[@holleey]

@@DefaultFlame it's just that it's wondrous to see what other unexpected properties might emerge as we scale up.