Artificial Intelligence Is Killing the Uncanny Valley and Our Grasp On Reality (wired.com) 238
rickih02 writes: In 2018, we will enter a new era of machine learning -- one in which AI-generated media looks and sounds completely real. The technologies underlying this shift will push us into new creative realms. But this boom will have a dark side, too. For Backchannel's 2018 predictions edition, Sandra Upson delves into the future of artificial intelligence and the double edged sword its increasing sophistication will present. "A world awash in AI-generated content is a classic case of a utopia that is also a dystopia," she writes. "It's messy, it's beautiful, and it's already here."
"The algorithms powering style transfer are gaining precision, signalling the end of the Uncanny Valley -- the sense of unease that realistic computer-generated humans typically elicit..." the article argues.
"But it's not hard to see how this creative explosion could all go very wrong."
"The algorithms powering style transfer are gaining precision, signalling the end of the Uncanny Valley -- the sense of unease that realistic computer-generated humans typically elicit..." the article argues.
"But it's not hard to see how this creative explosion could all go very wrong."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:5, Informative)
I think they just mean that you can't tell the difference between reality and fakery.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've been high before, who hasn't?
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people have never been able to do that. I mean, just look at how popular religion is.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
What if you're working for a big company, and your boss Skypes you from his house, and says it somewhat irregular, but there's an important invoice that needs to be paid right now. He's e-mailing you the invoice right now, and he assures you it's legit and urgent.
Well, it's not your boss but a foreign hacker who used a couple of facebook photos to fake a live conversation.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:3)
No different than your boss sending you an email asking you to do the same thing. Except the email is spoofed and coming from a hacker.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of people that would trust a video call with someone they know is substantially larger than people who believe a random e-mail, especially if both are coming from a home address.
Re: (Score:2)
The giveaway will be that the boss is actually Spiderman, and a pregnant Elsa is in the background being menaced by the Incredible Hulk.
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy, really. We all learned that between 1993 and 2002.
Trust no one.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we learned this in the 1980s in the BBS scene!
Used to it vs. not (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently, not a lot of people are used to put doubt into video (or even real-time face-to-face video) because the technology to fake it realistically enough has only started very recently to become cheap enough to be a worthy try for an attacker: And it will still be a little bit more time until it start getting used in real-time (basically once " ${price of renting cloud GPU time to run the neural net} ${money that can be made in such attempts}" ).
Once awareness is raised, society will eventually adapt and only the most gullible will fall for the tricks while our successor on /. will wonder why not more people are using whatever authentication is the most common for video chatting.
A bit like how a couple of decades ago, every body was aware of signature forging and wouldn't trust a simply hand written note, but would fall for attempt at phone-calls social engineering (i.e.: impersonating a general role by being a good actor, back at a time where the phone quality would barely let you recognise a voice reliably).
Re: (Score:2)
People still fall for crude e-mail and phishing scams. As the attackers get more sophisticated that will only increase. And if we all stop trusting each other, it'll have a great impact on our daily life.
renting cloud GPU time to run the neural net
For now. It won't be long before you can buy special GPU cards that are optimized for neural net processing that you can stick in your home PC. Nvidia already has one. Still expensive, but it's only a matter of time before the prices come down and capability increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, not a lot of people are used to put doubt into video
I know, I was watching some music video and the artist showed her nipple, and everybody got really exited, and then some mean people were going to fine the broadcaster, and then when they went frame-by-frame to extract the evidence, they realized there was stage tape over her nipple, all they ever showed was stage tape and there wasn't gonna be any fine. That was like, `86 or something.
Before VHS and the pause button, there was no way to know what you were really seeing! And even with it...
I was watching so
Re: (Score:2)
When it arrives without his digital signature, the message ID gets forwarded to IA as a spearfishing attack and they pull it off the server and dissect it to find out where it came from. And even if it does arrive with his digital signature, the message ID gets forwarded to IA as a spearfishing attack, because invoices never come to me, and my boss knows that.
Re: (Score:2)
because invoices never come to me, and my boss knows that.
Obviously, they're going to target the person that deals with the invoices. It was an example. Feel free to come up with better examples that relate to your own life. E.g. wife calling up that she forgot the alarm code.
Re: (Score:2)
Shared alarm codes can be procedurally generated. If the procedure incorporates a time element (such as the current month), then it will automatically change as well. Sure it's security by obscurity, but it does mean that in this case you'd just have to say "It's December now, remember?" or something along those lines. To an attacker, that just indicates you change your codes every month, and won't directly give them entry. If she still "can't remember" something you've been doing for years, then I'd have t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're suspicious and want to confirm it, you'd turn around and call him back, wouldn't you? Right now, it's a lot easier to spoof a call to you than to intercept calls going to your boss's house, but how long will that remain the case? Once the spoofers can spoof the confirmation too, it's all over.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that many phone calls are now voip, I would not wonder about vulnerabilities in your router that can be exploited to reroute your calls elsewhere.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Sally Johnson
Sounds like appropriate slang for "chick with a dick" - going to start using that.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you took 10 minutes to think about philosophy (translated: the love of knowledge) you'd stumble upon the fact that the universe was clearly created.
If you took a fee years to study and really understand logic, reason, and the scientific method, you'd stumble upon the fact that all claimed "evidence" for a "created universe" is in fact nothing more than a gargantuan argument from ignorance.
If you reject religion you should also reject theists like Newton and LeMaitre and start from scratch.
Only theists think this way. Once you classify someone as a heathen, you must automatically reject anything they've ever done or said. Rational people do not think that way. I am perfectly fine with accepting Newtons contributions to mathematics and physics without also having to accept his musings on alchemy and religion. I don't subscribe to your absurd absolutism.
I'd say atheism is the hallmark of the uneducated.
That must be why scientists are far more likely to be atheists than the general public, and why elite scientists are more likely to be atheists than scientists as a whole. Because scientists are clearly far less educated than Jim Bob the plumber, and elite scientists are obviously the most uneducated of all.
As soon as I hear someone is an atheist I know they're still on the bottom rung of the thinking ladder. Science and religion do not conflict despite what an edgy meme on Reddit may have led you to believe. God bless.
What you know and what you think you know are obviously two very different things.
May the FSM embrace you with his noodly love.
Re: (Score:2)
People who dismiss religion so easily display a total lack of discernment and intelligence. If you took 10 minutes to think about philosophy (translated: the love of knowledge) you'd stumble upon the fact that the universe was clearly created. After that you're automatically a theist and just spending your time trying to describe the Creator.
If you took another 10 minutes to think about philosophy, you'd stumble upon the "Noble Lie" - a myth propogated to promote peace or harmony. Thus religion was born - a pious fiction created to calm man's terror of the unknown, and prevent divisive clash over questions like, "What is my purpose" and "What is the meaning of life" and "Where did we come from?"
You claim that atheism is the hallmark of the uneducated - I'd claim that sweeping generalizations utilizing logical fallacies are the hallmark of the
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
No, the biggest lie is that Satan as an external, independent evil exists. This is false, there is nothing as evil as what resides in the human heart. It is through constant vigilance and discipline that every one keeps their ill ways & thoughts in check.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have a vast amount of knowledge about Magic: The Gathering. Doesn't mean the knowledge is proof of anything. Same with your philosophical conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard atheists who claim to have the answers are rare. The problem are the ones that don't claim to have the answer, they just assert that your answer is wrong.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:3)
Why is that a problem? If you tell me that the distance between the earth and the moon is 5 miles, do I have to know the actual distance in order to tell you that you're wrong? Why do you think that "I don't know, and you don't either" is "a problem"?
Re: (Score:2)
The logical problem with it is that you only can know that you don't know, you can't know what anybody else knows.
Proving negatives isn't possible.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Sure I can. I may not know how far away the moon is, but I know it's not 5 miles. If he claims that it is 5 miles, then I know that he's wrong, and that he also doesn't know how far it is.
Unless he does know the real distance but is just lying to me when he says it's 5 miles. In which case he's still wrong, and also a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing for the metaphor to be literally true, instead of arguing that the thing it is a metaphor for is true.
That's why you don't comprehend your own argument; you bait-and-switched yourself.
Hard atheists who claim to have the answers are rare. The problem are the ones that don't claim to have the answer, they just assert that your answer is wrong.
Your metaphor regarding the distance to the moon is irrelevant to the discussion of Atheists. If the moon is 5 miles away is measurable; you don't have to prove a negative there. You can prove a positive to show the claim is false! Arguments regarding religion, however, are not falsifiable. You can't prove negat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I rather would prefer that all religious people agree that there is only one god, and that he/she walks in many avatars and names.
There is no need to hunt or convert other people to other religions.
Bottom line they are all the same anyway: worship your parents, love your kids, live a righteous life.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on the false premise they deserve worshiping.
Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity:
Don't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it the only possibility given a rational consideration of reality. All religions are delusional, and many are dangerous and deadly.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Atheism is a null hypothesis. If you do not understand that, you do not understand science.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas.
Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:3)
Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
No, atheism is the lack of a belief. The prefix "a" means "without". A-theism. Literally "without theism".
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
And in this case, the prefix "a" still means "without". A-gnosticism. Literally " without knowledge".
Ironically enough, the term "gnosticism" itself refers to religious ideas. Both gnosticism and theism effectively describe the same thing - religious beliefs and religious knowledge. So saying you're an atheist is saying you have no religious beliefs, and saying you're agnostic is saying that you
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Saying "no I don't believe in god" is not the same as saying "I believe there is no god". They are two completely different statements.
The vast majority of people who call themselves "agnostic" also do not believe in any gods.
Re: (Score:2)
Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas.
Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
Atheist as a word would seem to mean "non-Theist," but it really means anti-theist, and agnostic means non-theist. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
[Citation needed]
Atheist as a word would seem to mean "non-Theist," but it really means anti-theist, and agnostic means non-theist. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Apple as a word would seem to mean apple, but it really means banana, and orange means pineapple. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
No, man, we're not on wikipedia, and claiming that personal observations and opinions require citation is idiotic; the citation would point to the thing you replied to, it was the primary document!
Fuck an A, man. Fuck an A.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, it is the rational viewpoint that imaginary beings only exist in the imagination of deluded people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:3)
If you dumb down a populace enough, they can't tell the difference anyway.
The claims of anyone possesing a fully functional AI are laughable already, but I suppose if we keep telling folks we have them, they'll eventually believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, look at voters in the US. Facebook's algorithms helped influence the election...isn't that AI running the country?
You mean Gore? Nah, he invented the internet but has delegated the day-to-day operations of the country to his inferiors.
Re: (Score:2)
People who claim "thaaaa AI is gunna keeell us all" should be laughed at, instantly, and mocked until they leave the community at large.
The problem with that is that the idea that AI will kill us all is perfectly legitimate. It's not the only possible outcome, but it is a possible outcome. History is full of examples of technically superior nations becoming dominant. What happens when it's not a nation on attack, but a pervasive technology that can self-replicate?
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Re: Grasp on Reality, really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not signalling the end of the uncanny valley (Score:2)
They're not signalling the end of it, they might well be crossing it.
The uncanny vally will stil lexist even if we're capable of doing more than hitting the bottom of it square on.
AI vs AI (Score:2, Interesting)
If you can't tell it's AI generated just train another AI to recognize that it was generated.
Re: (Score:2)
A limitation on your intelligence is not necessarily a limitation on another's intelligence.
Iterative Improvements (Score:2)
Using Hill-Climbing [wikipedia.org] to escape the Uncanny Valley... it's such a bad play on words I can't look at it as ingenious.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow it makes me think of the porn industry moving from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
DOOOOOM!!! (Score:2)
As most people seem to have a SEVERELY tenuous grasp on reality as it is. So what?
As I see it, if there are any dangerous repercussions, it'll simply act as chlorination of the gene pool.
Re:DOOOOOM!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether the world is doomed or not is immaterial; what matters is whether you will wake up one day to find it doing things you don't like (especially to you).
Re: (Score:2)
There is preservation of the species in the genes? Does not look like it...
I think this stops at "tribe" level, basically the same as the limit of (tenuous, but somewhat there) insight into how things work in the average person. The average person is a moron that understands basically nothing. And then you have those below average and not so much above. Basically 90% of the population has no clue what is going on.
I, For One, Welcome Our New Robomimetic Overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not limited to text, a fashion or food instagram is even more trivial with current tools. Good example of this is Spiderman Elsa [reddit.com] (which I suspect is made with good old honest-to-god sweatshop labor, not a bot), but the model of social spam has shown an immense profitability potential already in a format far more sophisticated than appealing to lowest sexual urges.
The good thing about this is that this will spell an early end to shallow internet memetics once advertising world discovers chatbots and context-aware media remix bots. No more need to bribe lowkey ecelebs to astroturf your product, when you can just unleash fake users in number. Even if the quality on average will be sub-par, statistically some will always get a traction if you spawn population large enough.
It's a post-scarcity scenario for internet drivel in a cost model where people engaged in drivel for social bond and validation, both points being moot when it's a machine on the other end.
This can lead to two possible outcomes:
1. The cancer spreads, remember the south park episode about living ads? This is it. People will literally lose grasp on reality and will feel about adverts as if they were people..
2. It's a chemo which will bring us back to 1993. Folks will recognize low effort posts lost all of its shreds of utility for validation, pushing the bar for social network posts a lot higher (low effort posts being implicitly assumed a bot when it becomes a common case).
In either case, there will be constant market pressure for "better ads" as users adapt, there will be this arms race for ever better "living ad" until the bots start having so much grasp of context we'll enter a very weak GAI era.
Re:I, For One, Welcome Our New Robomimetic Overlor (Score:5, Interesting)
Or it might be the end of comments sections. Consider this scenario:
Someone develops and publishes a comment-bot AI. It's not a general-purpose AI, but you can configure it with a position to promote and point it to a site, and it will then start posting unique comments promoting the view, and posting rebuttals to anyone who opposes the view. It's not going to pass for human in a conversation, but in single posts it'll appear human most of the time.
First thing that happens? Joe's Pizza unleashes a hundred instances to tell the world how great their pizza is. AI spam. But this is hard spam to get rid of, because it's constantly changing: This AI learns how anti-spam measures work. CAPTCHA tests get even more annoying for a while. But that's ok: The internet is used to spam. Joe's Pizza gets a lot of hate.
Then an election rolls around. Say, a US presidential election.
Suddenly, millions of instances appear - half of them promoting the Republicans, and half the Democrats. Comment threads all over the internet become fifty-pages of almost fully automatically generated text, flooding out any human voice. Both parties deny such underhanded techniques, of course - and perhaps even truthfully, as fingers are pointed to independent pressure groups or the governments of other countries as a possible source.
Meanwhile, the Church of the Easily Offended gets their running. They set a few thousand running - their job is to identify 'inappropriate' material - anything that offends their religion, or standards of decency or of clean language - and submit reports or write angry letters to site operators. In an amusing irony, the church website shortly has to close their own comments section because of the millions of bots now searching the internet for church comments pages and posting about why Islam is the true religion.
In the end the only option is to drop anonymous comments entirely, and tie any comments into verified accounts established with proof of identity.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment threads all over the internet become fifty-pages of almost fully automatically generated text, flooding out any human voice.
You didn't need AI for that, without CAPTCHAs most comment fields would be overrun by bots already, even though it would be junk posts. And the nuclear arms race there continues.
In the end the only option is to drop anonymous comments entirely, and tie any comments into verified accounts established with proof of identity.
Maybe, but that alone doesn't make the public debate great. Very often it's taken over by extremists on both sides that aren't interested in a debate and are willing to post dozens of replies on a single issue. I've seen way too many comment fields essentially turn into a shouting match between the same dozen people or so. You still
Re: (Score:3)
And if you have that, AI pot shots wouldn't matter that much since they'd be very thin on substance.
Except that you're replying to someone who postulated
It's not going to pass for human in a conversation, but in single posts it'll appear human most of the time.
And therein lies the problem. Once bots can reasonably approximate the median person on a forum, I think humans chatting in forums will rapidly disappear. Bots will be able to post far faster than humans, and once you have a couple of competing bots, the bots will have hashed the point out and will have moved on before the human gets done pecking at the keyboard.
Now, I don't know if this is a bad thing or a good thing, to be honest.There are few places li
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I don't even know why Slashdot exists.
The whole point of "the future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed" is that "miles away" is not a viable unit of measure.
Generative adversarial networks are the Ajax of DNN 1.0.
I was reading O'Reilly's new book the other day, and he was talking about how little use was made of XMLHttpRequest because people were suffering
WHAT could go wrong? (Score:3)
"But it's not hard to see how this creative explosion could all go very wrong."
No. It is VERY HARD to see how this could go wrong.
You mean, computer can generate an entire movie without having to hire real actors? So Hollywood movie stars can't make millions anymore? Cry me a river.
This would be just as bad, which is to say not at all, as computers able to generate the sound of musical instruments which normal person cannot distinguish from real recordings. (Gee! Computer can generate a "fake" recording of an orchestra playing Bach symphonies! Aren't you afraid now?) It allowed music writers to compose and create music recordings (and put on YouTube) even though he cannot play any of the instruments in the score, including synthetic singers singing the song that goes with it. Is that bad?
In the future, there could be many more solo "movie creators" who would, by his/her own effort, create an entire movie. Much like writers writing up a whole novel. It will take out all the middle man like the movie studio. This can only be good for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, computer can generate an entire movie without having to hire real actors? So Hollywood movie stars can't make millions anymore? Cry me a river.
In a Hollywood movie, you know it's all fake, so it won't matter if the actors are fake. It's all about entertainment.
The danger comes from people manipulating things that are supposed to be true, like video recordings of political figures.
Re: (Score:3)
The danger comes from people manipulating things that are supposed to be true, like video recordings of political figures.
The only danger there is that actually genuine recordings may not be recognized as such. People will just assume "fake" after the first few ones have proven to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to make it much easier to avoid scandal though. Simply insist you didn't do it, and denounce any proof otherwise as fake. Seems to work already.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You're describing now. What this means is you say you didn't do it, and produce a video showing you not doing it. That's the real issue.
Of course, that will also be denounced as fake as well, and we're back to just insisting that things are true.
I have optimism that AI will be able to spot it if AI can make it. However, the real trick is going to be ensuring that the AI isn't manipulated to rule in your favor. AI auditing is going to be one hell of a challenge in the upcoming decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I have optimism that AI will be able to spot it if AI can make it
These fakes are made by GANs (Generative adversarial network). It consists of two parts. The first part generates fakes, the second part tries to identify the fakes. These two networks are then trained against each other. In the end, you get good quality fakes that can fool the AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not look at some [wikipedia.org] contemporary [wikipedia.org] writings [wikipedia.org] from those days? While certainly exaggerated for dramatic effect, they weren't science fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, there could be many more solo "movie creators" who would, by his/her own effort, create an entire movie. Much like writers writing up a whole novel. It will take out all the middle man like the movie studio. This can only be good for humanity.
Indeed. And music creators can do impressive scores all by themselves. Still requires the creativity and insight as before, nothing will change in that regard. Although as to movies, quite a few "AAA" productions seem to lack that creativity and insight as well. For example, after reading a few reviews, I am not even tempted to view the latest Star Wars movie. It seems to basically be a B-quality generic action flick with some Star Wars decor and references. I can do without that.
Re: (Score:2)
The procedural generators are pretty damn good. I can take the chords from an existing song, have Band In A Box generate a backing track along with two or three procedurally generated melodies, and two or three generated solos, and selectively stitch together my favorite pieces without changing a note. It will come off as cheesy because of a shortage of inflection, but you would most likely accept it as a "proof" of a human-composed piece.
The problem with the procedural generators isn't that they can't get
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen anything *beautiful* generated by AI. Useful yes, sometimes even amusing, but not beautiful.
reward offered (Score:2)
One barely needs to be awake to the present day to see how this can go wrong, because we're already living it.
Next to Samoa and Saudi Arabia (and one or two others), America is pretty much the most obese country in human history. Did the bariatric hover-chairs in WALL-E seem altogether implausible? No, they didn't. (Well, not unless unless you think too much about the hovering part.)
Evolution equipped us with a survival heuristic: pursue sugar.
And then,
In x years, MAGIC will happen! (Score:2)
I am sick and tired of these bullshit announcements. Usually, you just find somebody that wants to get rich without actually contribution to society or some "journalist: that wants a cheap story. Basically nothing of these predictions comes true in the time-frame announced, if ever.
The uncanny valley is as strong as ever (Score:2, Interesting)
We live in a world where Warner Bros. just spent millions trying to shop out Superman's mustache to spectacular failure. Disney's Grand Moff Tarkin was even worse. If these titans of the entertainment industry can't pull off a canny reproduction with their hand-crafted flagship products then I really think we'll have to worry about defeating Skynet before we'll have to worry about 'AI' defeating the uncanny valley.
Poor examples (Score:2)
None of the examples from the article are very convincing, even at these poststamp resolutions with massive compression artifacts. The whole point of the uncanny valley is that the last mile is very hard. I'm sure that it's all very impressive, but it's a bit early to say that they've crossed the uncanny valley. They better get close to the valley first.
Re: (Score:2)
https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/i... [cbsistatic.com]
Fake or real ?
Re: (Score:2)
I was just talking about the examples in the article. NVIDIA's work (as you show here) is much better.
This isn't A.I.'s fault alone... (Score:2)
...mostly our craving for more and more entertainment.
We're getting increasingly bored with our lives, we've never had it this good before in any century, we have all the luxuries of the modern world. From birth we're literally given a tablet computer where we can interact with whatever is crawling around on the screen, we're constantly connected to everything and everyone around us on an smartphone or similar devices - and it's addictive, and it's not necessarily in a good way.
A.I. can indeed create wonder
Re: (Score:2)
But all this sitting in front of a smartphone screen, computer screen - even at work, has some serious physical health implication
Compared to what? because if you go back even 50 years, our lifespans were a lot shorter. Go back another 50, and it was even worse.
Sure, activity is better than inactivity, but honestly, humans are doing better health-wise with every passing decade. Looks like that's going to be close to leveling off at this point, but it also looks like that's because we're reaching the limits of what the human body is capable of in terms of longevity. We might be able to genetically engineer around that, but we also may
An arms race against 'fake news' (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the claims about "fake news" could come to a head here really soon with more extreme left and right news sites/blogs putting out fake speeches and audio bites that have been created using this new technology. This tech is really going to muddy the waters on social media and will be utilized by movements and countries to spread disinformation. The more legitimate news outlets will spend more time fighting this disinformation instead of reporting on the actual events that are going on.
I think ultimately what we'll see is that other companies will come along offering services that archive and perform various match tests against sound bites and recorded speeches. You'll be able to confirm if the video clip you just saw actually happened and if so, when and where it occurred. Without something like this, we all will be lost in a see of fake speeches and events. I expect the government will get involved in this and the Library of Congress will be tangentially involved in the collection, storage, and verification; but I don't think any of this will be taken seriously until politicians on both sides of the aisle get burned by fake creations.
Re: (Score:2)
I think ultimately what we'll see is that other companies will come along offering services that archive and perform various match tests against sound bites and recorded speeches
I doubt it. Once you can fool people, it's a small step to fool a program. Besides, people don't like fact checking as it is. Authenticity is assumed if people agree with the content.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been happening for ages. Russians would get artists to "airbrush" people out of photographs. People fake UFO videos using basic computer animation software. Anyone can use GIMP and composite pictures together using "intelligent scissors", edge blurring and the airbrush.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot of money to do it by hand. And it's very hard to do it accurately on moving images. AI systems will make it quick and cheap. This allows it to be done on a much wider scale.
Left wing news sites don't post fake news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of the claims about "fake news" could come to a head here really soon with more extreme left and right news sites/blogs putting out fake speeches and audio bites that have been created using this new technology. This tech is really going to muddy the waters on social media and will be utilized by movements and countries to spread disinformation. .
Which will just highlight the problem we already have. We already have quite capable media lies with no need for AI, thank you.
Why should you just believe the crap that people beam to your house now? This phenomenon will just make that problem more obvious.
When is this going to happen? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Is intelligence real?
If so, why not AI? Which, by definition, is just intelligence that happens to be artificial.
And of course, just as certainly as their can be varying levels of natural intelligence, there should quite obviously also be varying levels of artificial intelligence as well.
But how do you define intelligence? As I said previously, is someone intelligent if they can memorize a sufficient amount of information and rules to be able to independently perform a complex task. What is the dif
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hear some people repeat that like a robot in a GOTO 10 loop or a parrot, whichever is the worst insult. The Uncanny Valley is real, the question is who's sliding into it from which side...
Abused term (Score:2)
It's not KILLING anything.
Killing means terminating the life of a living organism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's related to the fascination Americans have with guns and the military in general. Just look at their movies. There's a disproportionate percentage of war/violence movies compared to other countries.
Doublethink (Score:2)
Imagine the bullshit election propoganda of fake âhidden camerasâ(TM) published by the zealots on both sides so obsessed with winning at all costs thet they dont care about eviscerating and disenfanchising the voters. Eventually with all the accusations, denials, lawsuits for defamation; in the end we will be no better off than one run by big brother. And that will be double plus ungood.
For average folks, it's about one thing... (Score:2)
Governments, corporations and others who want to manipulate the public certainly have good reasons to develop AI's that pass the Uncanny Valley test.
For a lot of average people, though, I suspect a supremely uncomplicated use: make me a robot I enjoy fucking, maybe conversing with once in a while if I'm lonely, and that doesn't kick up a fuss when it gets turned off and put away in the cupboard.
Human relationships are complex and difficult. They usually require two very different individuals to compromise
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy the pasta ready made. Just like Spaghetti.
But the true trick is: use a really big pan, make enough for 4 or more meals. Just cook them like 75%, and freeze everything you don't need.
Now you have your home made super Lasagne, ready in your freezer.
Making your own pasta, especially for Lasagne is super easy as well.
uncanny wolves herding the sheep (Score:2)
..and we're the sheep. The singularity will arrive not with a bang but with the soft sound of us ceding little bits of volition and self-determination to AI because they "know best" - and likely truly will. What scares me most is the blind human faith in algorithmic certainty, where "certainty" is far from certain.
Re: (Score:2)
As "AI" is basically a marketing lie (there is no intelligence in machines and it is unclear whether that is even possible), artificial stupidity is all that is available. And even here, Humans are superior.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you suggest AI is impossible, unless you are also suggesting that intelligence is impossible, which would mean that the entire word "intelligence" doesn't actually even mean anything?
Humans are just biological physical organisms that follow the laws of physics to produce a behavior that we have presumed to be intelligent. These physical processes can, with sufficient processing power and memory, be modelled to any finite desired level of accuracy inside of the state of a computer, which in turn s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While true, humans are a visual species, so pictures are much more convincing than words.
OTOH, it's my understanding that handling things like faces and hair properly in a video is still so expensive that it will see minimal use...this year. Of course, it's already December.