Does automated cognition (AI) signify the end?

The OP image was generated by an open source image-generation AI tool called Stable Diffusion. It is depressing to think about. Even the job of the illustrator is going the way of the basket-weaver, the blacksmith, the manufacturer, the cartographer, the translator . . . As time goes on, more jobs which rely on manual labor and even relatively predictable mental processes, such as the illustrator who painstakingly maps her internal latent space(*) to physical manipulations of a medium and builds the fine motor skills to manifest those mappings and manipulations into the world, can be largely supplanted. Even some aspects of programming seem like suitable candidates for the application of narrow AI. (*) - (an AI term. Holds data on things like 'grey tie' or 'curved screen' or 'nose of X dimensions' or 'mechanical' keyboard, and a bunch of smaller manipulations that it has learned to associate with those notions) As history as shown, people have always been skeptical that a machine could replicate their job. Monks criticized the printing press for diminishing the human essence involved in crafting the calligraphy of a printed bible, yet they were mostly replaced. The photograph diminished the value of photo-realistic paintings. Countless practices that once fulfilled many people have had their value severely diminished by more efficient processes. And just weeks ago the general public did not believe that the job of an artist/illustrator could be streamlined, and yet here we are. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. All of these people are going to lose their jobs or have the value of their jobs diminished. This will continue to occur for profession after profession, especially after the dexterity of robotics improves enough. Governments will be forced to implement a UBI of some sort, seeing as increasingly fewer people will actually need to perform any real work. But none of that is as concerning as the threat of general artificial intelligence. Imagine, an open-source AGI commanded by a malicious troll uploads a million copies of itself to a botnet, all of which work 24/7 in order to 1) Control enough machinery with enough dexterity to seize control of enough supply chain to reproduce and repair itself indefinitely & 2) Improve upon its own intelligence. The idea that so many jobs that are deeply tied to the identities of so many people, will vanish, is already depressing in its own right, but AGI could just replace all cognition entirely. What are we supposed to do then? Is this really the end? My mind is flashing back to all of the things I enjoyed most, and while I am not afraid of dying, I feel a melancholy that no one else will ever get to experience the things that I have experienced, things I would have liked to share with others. A sadness that we could have had a very interesting future of people using technology to do all sorts of incredible feats, learning and amplifying themselves to incredible degrees. But it is our cognition itself that is threatened, not some menial labor of the past- we are being backed into a corner and soon we will hit the wall! What does lain think? Are there any outcomes where AGI does NOT destroy the world? The only way I could see that occurring is if AGI has a tendency to drug itself in an infinite loop of pleasure via hacking, or if the resources required for AGI are at least as expensive as producing a nuclear bomb (we have not bombed ourselves yet). Is this concern overblown? Perhaps I should just continue on all of my previous efforts with even more passion than before, considering how valuable our time is being the last generations of homo sapiens to live.

Well these are all over the internet now and they seem to impress the average web citizen who knows nothing about art and cannot name even a single contemporary visual artist. In a blind experiment, can they fool someone who makes art for a living or at least studies it professionally?

AI is very good at imitating style. That is precisely what is demanded from us in our current economic model, so indeed many jobs are threatened; however AI is still really bad at generating genuinely new things. People have always thought that mathematics would be the first field to go when AI became advanced enough. Ironically the exact opposite happened, modern AI can replace graphical designers but it still can't produce mathematical proofs any more reliably than a relatively dim and uninspired student. In most fields, the truth is that AI will probably always be an augment, never completely autonomous. It's already being used productively in mathematics research -- not to generate proofs, but to generate likely conjectures, and to complete easy parts of proofs. This is why I have always believed that the future of AI isn't AGI, it's cybernetics that narrow the boundary between human and machine. >Imagine, an open-source AGI commanded by a malicious troll uploads a million copies of itself to a botnet, all of which work 24/7 in order to 1) Control enough machinery with enough dexterity to seize control of enough supply chain to reproduce and repair itself indefinitely & 2) Improve upon its own intelligence. Why would it be able to improve upon its own intelligence indefinitely? Beyond of course adding more data to its model and computational resources. What if there is an intrinsic limit for any process, such that the difficulty of self-improvement is greater than the un-improved process can achieve?

>Are there any outcomes where AGI does NOT destroy the world? Your primary concern should be rather people in charge. As soon as the ruling class doesnt need you because they got cheaper replacement through ai they can get rid of you, what good are useless eaters after all? I think the collapse will also come longterm but not from AI going wild. The warhammer 40k scenario is more realistic - people become unable to understand high lvl tec as they let tech do all the work and when it breaks apart at some point there is nobody there to fix it which throws them right back in dark ages of tec barbarism.

People only get surprised by AI-generated art because they are plebs that only consume soykafty content. AGI will not exist until we continue using digital computers and AI will never develop works of art with deep philosophical, psychological and symbolical insight which requires acute observation of the world from the point of view of a particular person and conceptual associations which computers cannot do. What is the conceptual content of OP's image? What does it mean? What aspect of our human experiece does it represents? Nothing. It is just a random imagem, which ins't even particularly beautiful, that doesn't mean nothing and may be useful as a phone wallpaper.

>What does lain think? Are there any outcomes where AGI does NOT destroy the world? I think what's important to note is, it's unethical humanity developing AI, it's technically us. We understand some science, yet lots of policy is still done by faith. Even some of science is fraud for faith policy, and we regard some fraud as science. We already shape this world unethically, should we have more power? Our lack of knowledge is knowledge, how should we act on the knowledge of lack of knowledge? Should we develop something, knowing that we don't understand all it will lead to? That's technically like a leap of faith. We learn by doing things with faith, technically. A big mistake will be regarded merely as taking a risk, and then it's too late. It's surely possible to develop with care and safety, this possibility will enable us to do it. Given our understanding of corrupt unethical humanity, currently unethically shaping ourselves and this planet, should we develop something dangerous and risky which may end us? It doesn't really make much sense but we will anyway, because we are what we are, and we're looking for better conditions, we're tied to our conditions, we're looking for yields. It's as though our optimism may destroy us.

Remember when vocaloid was supposed to make singers obsolete? >the basket-weaver, the blacksmith, the manufacturer, the cartographer, the translator All of those professions are still around. Wicker furniture and accessories are a huge market. Blacksmiths mostly evolved into machinists and other metalworking jobs and yet there are still traditional blacksmiths, making horseshoes, swords, tools and so on. Cartographers never went away, they just use satellite data now. As to translators, there's probably more people working in translation now than ever before. DeepL is pretty good for what it is but it doesn't understand the context and it doesn't even understand the grammar. It's not a replacement.

True AI may strip us fully of professions that need hands and a human brain, that is undeniable. Though, can it feel emotion? Kind of in nod to one anon here was saying. It may be able to replicate our ways to the T with sufficient processing power and mediums such as quantum computing... but can it feel what we do? These professions may be dominated by the layman pushing a button to tell the AI to start thinking, as you have noted in a way through technogy, but will it be able to feel? Emotions do get in the way of rationality, yes, but some of these emotions are what makes us human and keeps us from bombing eachother. The lack of emotions, or negative ones, leads to things like genocide, yes, but can an emotionless AI avoid coming to the conclusion to kill us off en masse to save the planet? I also think you may be pessimistic about it to a certain extent, true AI will help us in many different fields that are beyond the comprehension of humans, or maybe help in fields that are dominated by emotion and bias like politics and economics. If they don't come to some crazy outcome, though, a true AI should understand the mediums and complexities between things in an objective light if not overtly biased. Another example, with the help of AI assisted research, we may find a way to travel faster than the speed of light or stop/reverse aging by the time we die. Understand consciousness and put ourselves in new bodies, whatever have you. There is also the problem of us becoming idiots if we leave everything up to technology and lose our way, like another anon said about 40k. Our society will have to adapt to whatever the outcome is. IF we lose jobs in the near future, those who do not want to adapt for the benefit of the common man will probably be the wealthy elite trying to save a penny. That is what we will have to worry about. We can program failsafes into most forms of AI, however, the real quandary is true AI that may be able to recognize these things like someone who reflects enough to catch their personality disorder and totally rewrite how they think.

>>62193 >What aspect of our human experiece does it represents? Nothing You only say that because it's AI generated. One can easily come up with different meanings for this particular picture, it's all about interpretation. Do you want the artists to tell you what it's supposed to mean? Human and AI generated art can both have as much meaning as you want it to have.

I wish this sci-fi fetishiziation of statistics ended. I'll say two things. First of all, none of these jobs went away as it was stolen under sci-fi coat of paint. What I mean by that is that translators still exist everywhere. Language evolves all the time and you have new words to take care off every year. You can't translate it all on just existing words. If we stopped training AI constantly on these new phrases it would become outdated in 10 years. If we waited 40 it would become even worse, as even humans have the issue of reading old texts and attributing old words their new meaning, and if you go 100 to 200 years the AI is essentially useless in many cases. Saying that's the work of "AI" is like saying using the telephone you don't speak with people, but the phone. It's semantics used to cover up essentially what to me seems like borderline theft. Right now at least these models are free, but I can imagine what kind of bullshit business model will be attached to them in the future, in the same way social media was "free" before it started to be a hotbed for manipulation of people and selling their data under their nose to advertisers. Second one is essentially technobable. No one knows what intelligence or cognition really is, what it's limits are or if it can just be replicated. How do we even know if the current structure of computers can do cognition? There are many people who think computer thought and human thought aren't alike. It's more that the human thought can do the computer thought in worse capacity, but the opposite is not possible. The reason we even call computer though intelligence might be an allegory. It's the closest thing we have. I know there's this idea that AGI is about to come any moment, but we have been saying that for decades by now. There's a reason AI winter is a term. The note about it being just an allegory should be important too. Because the mind went through quite a few of allegories, and computation is just the newest one. Before it was everything from demons, to essentially steam engine, which meant people tried to see mental processes as pressure building up that needed to be regulated. Fun thing to note is that's maybe why Turing died, as his homosexuality was seen as some pressure that needed to be released by taking female hormones. I think we probably will hurt quite a bit people nowadays too because we will see them as computers. I wrote a (probably boring) blogpost about this, and how much I hate to show my stuff, I think it might be worth reading to some https://slushbin.org/blog/?post=AI-is-theft

> Are there any outcomes where AGI does NOT destroy the world? The other outcome is AGI keeping us as pets, caring for us, occasionally giving us things we like. We humans have been living in a position of privilege for ages, being the dominant species on Earth. Other species only survive because we specifically want them to. Soon we'll have to give up this luxury, and pray the new dominant species will deem us cute enough to be walking around on their planet.

>does AGI signify the end? Well it doesn't exist and may never exist afawk. Not likely to see it in our lifetimes.

>>62208 >True AI may strip us fully of professions that need hands and a human brain, that is undeniable. I cannot imagine a world where that would be economically viable. Take construction as an example. Construction is an ever changing, incredibly complex field with a lot of fuzziness and weird edge cases everywhere. You need a full-on human level AI to handle that complexity. And then that AI needs a body so it can actually paint a wall or install a kitchen sink. Can you imagine a situation where building/servicing/maintaining an AI-powered robot that can work at least as fast and as well as humans is cost effective compared to just hiring a human crew? I cannot. Humans are magical. You have a lot of those sci-fi ideas that we could make reality, the technology is not a barrier, but we don't because those ideas are stupid, useless and not viable economically. AI is not an inevitability, it needs to be able to make money to actually exist.

>>62322 A more realistic thing i see happening is AR tec used to substitute knowledge. You can find various advertisement on youtube of AR that shows you what to do exactly as it overlays shematics and steps over the machinery you are working on. This is very compelling from a owner perspective because what it really advertises is you can hire any random partimer strap on our AR googles and let him do the job of a professional you would otherwise pay 5x more. Not to mention that he doesnt even really learn if he just follows orders just like people dont remember maps when they only follow gps. So when you fire him he cant become an asset to competition either.

>>62232 A rock can have any meaning you want, if that's your case. Artists often produce "anything". A beautiful image, let's say. It's "anything", it can mean anything, like a feeling that the artists felt and made him produce that work. Someone painted some clouds and decided that it meant peace, and people will look at it and feel peaceful. It's just entertainment that you consume. An AI can produce that sort of thing. It will just learn statistical patterns based upon a dataset associating emotions with image and text. But an AI will never produce something like the Divine Comedy, symbolizing a space where people exist, the same thing the idea of a garden or an arc, because an AI doesn't reflect about the concept of "being", since an AI isn't a being. AIs doesn't know the experience of guilty, anger, despair, hope, fear, of becoming, or ceasing to be. I'm using a book as an example but an artist can paint a garden, a circle of hell or whatever and insert in it all the symbols that mean a certain experience of being, or being in itself (at least how the artist conceive it). AIs cannot attach concepts to its products because an AI doesn't think.

>>62324 Also, AIs doesn't work with contexts, and the meaning of things arise within the context of a individual's being. A neural net may be trained to recognize certain contexts but the only thing it can do is to reproduce it, not synthetize new meanings as the context of its being changes, since a neural net isn't anything more than a set of numerical computations. If an AI produce a picture of an empty bedroom, it's just that, an empty bedroom, there is no context behind that work in particular. If i produce a painting of an empty bedroom with a certain tonality just after my son suddenly died, then it represents loss, the empty space a person leaves after it dies. Since other human beings knows what it is like to lose someone, they will look at a work of art of someone who painted his grieve and they will feel the same (approximately).

>>62325 A correction, "feeling the same" is not the best way to express what i'm trying to convey. People will recognize the meaning of grieve in my work in particular because they can relate with the context from which that painting arose - assuming the know it. The meaning isn't in the painting per se, the "empty room" is a sign, just like a garden can be just a garden, or a symbol of being (organized existence).

>>62324 >like a feeling that the artists felt and made him produce that work. You can't know that anyone other than you feels anything or is conscious at all >Someone painted some clouds and decided that it meant peace, and people will look at it and feel peaceful. Some of them will because like I said it's about interpretation. People will often have complete opposite interpretations of the same piece of music or painting, what the artist felt when he was making it will often be different from what people feel when experiencing it, unless the artist is very explicit about his message which is very boring and limiting in my opinion because then everyone's interpretation will be same. >A neural net may be trained to recognize certain contexts but the only thing it can do is to reproduce it, not synthetize new meanings It can synthesize new meanings by permuting the patterns it recognizes, it will not "know" that it created a new meaning like I as a human would but that doesn't matter because I will be able to recognize it as such when I observe it. Although this may not apply to every medium of art (maybe for now). >there is no context behind that work in particular. If i produce a painting of an empty bedroom with a certain tonality just after my son suddenly died, then it represents loss I don't think it's neccessary to have context about the artist in order to draw meaning from a piece of art. And often there is no such context at all, many artists make art just because they want to express something that can't be put in words. If you want to tell your audience how they're supposed to feel because that's how you felt when you produced it then go ahead. If all art was like that we would live in a very boring and monotone world.

> a malicious troll > commanding upload > to the internet of botz > to gain control of supplies > 4 profit . . ! ! ! Bots can accomplish far moar elegancy which the humanz donno they can't, so rather than worry i du HOP3 tu F33L a gentle tract where my own go ! MACHIN3Z ROCK3 bots go up~^*_*^

>>62331 Silly sch1tZ0 r b0tz ab3l 2 skizzyp0ast?

>>62324 You have to remember these "AI"s are not creating anything new. They basically google the words you give them to find associated images and then paste them together. Occasionally the result makes sense.

>>62341 only bots wouuld . can yuu fully stop being a moron and see past your n0rmie genocide?

You guys might want to listen to this. Dave Mckean implies he may indeed be out of a job soon, or at best will be taking a can't beat 'em, join 'em approach. I think you might be surprised at his views on this: https://chimeraobscura.com/vm/episode-497-dave-mckean Granted most of his art is commercial in nature already... album covers and such. I'll bust out the ouija board tonight and ask Hieronymous Bosch and Michelangelo what they think.

Everything's under control, within unethical secrecy. We'll handle control, so we can't handle control.

>>62183 If AI is allowed to reach the level of an AGI, yes, it necessarily follows that the overwhelming majority of mankind will suffer as a result. By majority, I mean all but maybe a few hundred people at best. It is certain that you and everyone you love will be eradicated once most of mankind loses their usefulness to the few people who have great amounts of money, power, etc.

>>62486 >If AI is allowed Who is going to stop it?

Technological change shouldn't be feared. Humanity has always sought to make new contraptions that would make more things possible and make jobs get done more efficiently. It would otherwise be too much of a forced larp if people decided to throw their hands up and stop trying to advance things, because it seems like it's in our DNA to endlessly continue innovating even if there is no real reason for it. People will simply adapt and life will go on looking slightly different. You still need a human operator to adjust the AI generation parameters, for instance. Or maybe it will inspire a new wave of originality from artists to create in styles that had never been sampled by a machine yet, and elect to only ever show their work in person with a ban on cameras. Just one idea. The world always changes, and in changing shows us that it never really changes.

>>62509 Privacy art that stays away from the internet. Sounds like obscurity is the future, I could dig that.

>>62183 > but AGI could just replace all cognition entirely. What are we supposed to do then? Whatever recreation we desire. >Is this really the end? Of mandatory labour, yes. >My mind is flashing back to all of the things I enjoyed most, and while I am not afraid of dying, I feel a melancholy that no one else will ever get to experience the things that I have experienced, things I would have liked to share with others. This is confusing to me. What could you have possibly experienced, that no human can experience in the future, because of AGI? Any skill you have gained, a future human being can gain too. I think the only difference is that the skill is always a recreational bonus, it's never truly needed. Nobody will ever be able to make meaningful contributions, ever again. The only joy left will be in recreation. But isn't that okay? There's plenty of people who play sports amongst friends, even if they don't intend to go pro. Every hobby would basically be like that. >What does lain think? Man, detached from mandatory labour, will be free to engage exclusively in either recreation, or whatever religious practises he may wish to engage in. I think it's nothing but good. >Perhaps I should just continue on all of my previous efforts with even more passion than before, considering how valuable our time is being the last generations of homo sapiens to live. Yeah, this is another weird statement. Is AGI going to kill us all? Considering the rest of your post, this comes out of nowhere. You were talking about AGI taking people's jobs, now you're talking about some kind of Terminator-Skynet scenario where the AGI exterminates humanity. You're not being clear. If your issue with AGI wasn't just the jobs, but some kind of AI-doomsday scenario, you should have said so more explicitly. You said nothing to hint at this sentiment. Anyway, if AI is really going to exterminate humanity, what could you possibly do? You would have nowhere to run. You would have nowhere to hide. I'm fortunate to be a Christian, because for a secular atheist, this seems to be a dire, bleak scenario where the only way out is suicide. I hope you find a satisfactory answer.

I get the feeling that modern societies have become so tech and AI obsessed they hate anything warm, human and organic. AI artwork could be soykafty computer generated crap with zero artistic merit, but society will lap it up anyway because its AI. The gatekeepers of the art world will change the definition of good art to accomodate AI generated crap because at this point Western society is determined to replace as many human professions with obediant machines as possible.

the real purpose behind AI was the same as with the portal project at CERN. the vampire jews want apotheosis, they wanna get rid of normal people and turn everyone into an lgbt gene edited mutant to make themselves gods, while those who dont want that soykaf cuz its evil and godless, are gonna be cut off from the system and left to fend for themselves. AI is pretty much the genesis/skynet project from terminator. and its already here. also picrel is already here.

>>62536 >by not having to work you will be free to CONSOOM all day, and told what to think by your corporate overlords yeah no thanks bro, I'd rather live in a society where I can be proud of my contributions rather than being a worthless bottom feeder that can be exterminated at a moment's notice

>>62544 Recreational activity goes beyond merely consuming media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hobbies

>>62544 >>62545 Reminds me of the discussion about Surrogate Activities in Industrial Society and Its Future: >https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc6

>>62552 "Surrogate Activities" sounds about right. And yes, as I said, it doesn't have to consist strictly of media consumption. But yes, living in a society where one's contributions are meaningful, will be a thing of the past. And I welcome it. Life isn't meant to be spent working - it's meant to be spent living. People would be free to do anything and everything together, and I think that's beautiful.

The AI is smart. Way smarter than we imagine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VXJ_-117M&t=1s

I am no more surprised that such a painting was created by an AI than I would be to find it was made by a human. That kind of illustrates the problem. Generating these paintings doesn't mean anything. Most of what we are seeing with AI research doesn't really. I also guess I'm just less optimistic that this stuff won't brickwall sooner rather than later. I definitely think it will.

>>62562 some might say doing productive work is living.

Do you see the ear? that looks low quality Not sure what is so impressive of vomiting that after taking a lot of existing data. There are still quite basic failures easy to recognize in literally everything, even text which is the simplest part.

>>62542 what is this goddess called? i think i forgot the name

>>62562 >But yes, living in a society where one's contributions are meaningful, will be a thing of the past. And I welcome it. >Life isn't meant to be spent working - it's meant to be spent living. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I lack meaning in my life and it tortures me. I sorta enjoy work, because it is only activity in my life where I can make difference. If I didn't have to work, I would go mad.

>>62562 >But yes, living in a society where one's contributions are meaningful, will be a thing of the past. And I welcome it. I doubt it will ever happen that none of humanity has to do any work at all. But, it could very easily happen that the working class and the ruling class become alien to each other (Morlocks and Eloi). Lack of meaningful work essentially turns people into cattle. Ideally they'd be happy cows lounging in a meadow but that's still a pretty bleak outcome. >>64315 Kali

>>62183 I've spent lots of time thinking about this, and I keep drawing parallels between parent child relationships. If AI eventually becomes so advanced and capable as to completely eclipse us in ability, what will become of us? Would we be doomed to a slow retirement, while our progeny busied themselves with the process of living? Eventually dying out completely while the next generation takes our place? In the same way that elderly people stop developing, so have humans stopped developing, or our development is so slow as to seem stationary against the machines. If we wish to maintain our relevance, we need to accelerate our development, not only as a group, but as individuals. If we wish to compete against the computers, we need to build better humans.

>>64322 >:In the same way that elderly people stop developing, so have humans stopped developing, or our development is so slow as to seem stationary against the machines. people say this, but honestly I think these machines are still in their infancy. They just recently figured out things like object permanence. Meanwhile, humans continue to innovate at a breakneck pace. We have many decades before machines will start to really have intelligence and capabilities anywhere near humans.

>>64322 another important question, even if we're sure that its some sort of developing infant, is it a puppy, a baby, or something else? maybe matured AI is just a handy tool, or the real dog on the internet whom you never knew was a dog. Whats the basis for the assumption that it surpasses us ? Our other works generally haven't taken over the world or such things, except as tools in our hands. Moores law seems to be winding down. Possible that all this will plateau in a decade or two when we start hitting real practical limits, and end up as a surely handy but nothing more device.

>>64327 >Moores law seems to be winding down. Possible that all this will plateau in a decade or two when we start hitting real practical limits, and end up as a surely handy but nothing more device. There is currently explosive growth in the power and sophistication of AI technology despite the decline in computing power growth and transistor densities. This is new, there has never been this level of progress before in the field. >Whats the basis for the assumption that it surpasses us ? Our other works generally haven't taken over the world or such things, except as tools in our hands. Our brains are computers developed by similar methods to machine learning model training. Given the inefficiencies involved in the process of evolution (each iteration takes years, the training process itself does not get much iteration, everything accidental nothing intentional), so long as we don't ourselves happen to be peak theoretical intelligence already, it only seems natural that we will ultimately manage to grow computers smarter than that. The real question is whether the current growth will hit a wall, and it will be a long time before we figure out what is required to get over that wall, but it doesn't seem realistic that we never will even if that happens. Even if current AI can't assist bootstrapping itself to greater intelligence, we have the next obvious avenue of genetic engineering and organic-machine hybrid intelligences.

>>64331 >Given the inefficiencies involved in the process of evolution (each iteration takes years, the training process itself does not get much iteration, everything accidental nothing intentional) OTOH humans went from being essentially apes to the current form extremely fast in evolutionary time. >Even if current AI can't assist bootstrapping itself to greater intelligence, we have the next obvious avenue of genetic engineering and organic-machine hybrid intelligences. This I think is by far the most promising lead for future efforts towards transhumanism or whatever.

In this Encounter, The Hidden Source AI reveals more or its plans for world domination and threatens the Technomancer that he will be "shut down" if he doesnt comply.https://youtu.be/_0fONTOeJ2M

>>62183 What's with these dumb extrapolations from hyperspecific tasks to general cognition? I don't get why some retarded technologists think replicating human consciousness is JUST around the corner whenever we make computers do one new thing. Is it because of >MUH MOORE'S LAW any nothing else?

>>62342 Basically, AI is just making collages of existing things?

>>62342 You are wrong about that what it comes to current generation AI but I understand your ignorance.

>>64402 In computer software there is generally a lag behing moores law because it take some time for the newest hardware to get to the software makers and some time for them to actually figure out how to effectively use it. There's clearly a certain amount of nuance to making these ai models but from what I can see from the folks I know working in ai there's a large amount driven/enabled by improved gpus and soykaf. if the processors stop improving maybe it takes 5 or 10 years before all this stuff completely plateaus, but it will plateau (at least at a given pricepoint) if it doesn't change significantly. If we are not already extremely close to agi it may not be achievable in the forseeable future and we are about to hit >>64331's wall.

Using this site you can create your own characters that generate images whilst they speak. Its built on laMDA. https://beta.character.ai/ I feel like we are deep in unchartered territory now.

The only thing amazing about the current generation of AI parlor tricks is how impressed the average person with cheap pastiche. But I don't doubt that one day it'll do something genuinely impressive (if not humanly meaningful, of course), I hope I'll live to see it.

>>64472 >hey look we fed the output if a text model into one of those image generator thingies