PerttiA said:

But the default search uses the database and older (ancient) products probably don't have the metadata for it. When one changes to search for files, the stuff should be found. 

Hmmm, well I figured even the oldest of assets would still log the product name and asset name in the database even if everything was without a defined category and just dumped in Lost & Found. If they don't even have that then I guess doing a search in Windows Explorer would probably be the only way to find stuff then :(

MelissaGT said:

bluejaunte said:

Aren't search engines essentially putting images into databases too? Nobody cares about that. And what if the AI would instead browse the web in real-time while learning, without putting anything into a separate database?

Is there even a law against saving an image somewhere? I thought it was only the usage of that image. Nobody cares if I save a copy of it to my computer to look at it later. Or am I wrong?

It's not about people looking at the pictures or saving the pictures to their computers to look at later. It's about people profiting from other people's copyrighted works without any permission or compensation given back to the original artist. 

Think of it this way. Midjourney uses an AI dataset that was scraped from hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works. They turn around and charge a subscription fee for people to use their service...that was trained off of copyrighted work without any compensation back to the artists who essentially created that dataset. Even further...there are people using Midjourney and other tools (Stable Diffusion et al) to spit out pieces...and then turn around and re-sell said pieces...thus adding an additional layer of profit off of copyrighted works. 

If someone wants to train their own dataset on their own work and then use it to remix or create new works to sell...totally fine by me (minus the environmental impacts if everybody were to all of a sudden start training their own AI's). But this is such a small % of use cases. 

Well, yes but it's a fine line and brings us back to square one. Did the AI not simply use publicly available images to learn? Isn't it what humans do too with images that they see and copy in style? It may seem obviously wrong but it's an unprecedented situation that will have to be solved in court. I can certainly understand the concerns of artists, I mean, I'm an artist myself. But I can also find arguments for the other side. This isn't just a case of "you're profiting off of my stolen images", it's also "I put these images on the web for everyone to see, I can not prevent someone from learning how to draw in the same fashion". There is no copyright on the looking-at, analyzing and learning part. There may be an issue with the end result if it looks too much like some other image, but then that would have to be solved on a case-by-case basis. And with the sheer number of images in circulation, it'll probably be a nightmare. Like how many different ways are there to draw the Eiffel Tower.

SofaCitizen said:

Well, issues with the Lost & Found aside, if you have that installed then it should come up when using the search bar since that works with the names.

But the default search uses the database and older (ancient) products probably don't have the metadata for it. When one changes to search for files, the stuff should be found. 

Well, issues with the Lost & Found aside, if you have that installed then it should come up when using the search bar since that works with the names.

bluejaunte said:

Aren't search engines essentially putting images into databases too? Nobody cares about that. And what if the AI would instead browse the web in real-time while learning, without putting anything into a separate database?

Is there even a law against saving an image somewhere? I thought it was only the usage of that image. Nobody cares if I save a copy of it to my computer to look at it later. Or am I wrong?

It's not about people looking at the pictures or saving the pictures to their computers to look at later. It's about people profiting from other people's copyrighted works without any permission or compensation given back to the original artist. 

Think of it this way. Midjourney uses an AI dataset that was scraped from hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works. They turn around and charge a subscription fee for people to use their service...that was trained off of copyrighted work without any compensation back to the artists who essentially created that dataset. Even further...there are people using Midjourney and other tools (Stable Diffusion et al) to spit out pieces...and then turn around and re-sell said pieces...thus adding an additional layer of profit off of copyrighted works. 

If someone wants to train their own dataset on their own work and then use it to remix or create new works to sell...totally fine by me (minus the environmental impacts if everybody were to all of a sudden start training their own AI's). But this is such a small % of use cases. 

Aren't search engines essentially putting images into databases too? Nobody cares about that. And what if the AI would instead browse the web in real-time while learning, without putting anything into a separate database?

Is there even a law against saving an image somewhere? I thought it was only the usage of that image. Nobody cares if I save a copy of it to my computer to look at it later. Or am I wrong?

The way [buckling is] it's described in the dForce page on this forum is a bit convoluted; iv'e been trying to grasp the concept.

can it be said that that "buckling stifness" is just how much a face resists bending?

Theres a few problems though.

DIM won't save my password and the "Remeber Me" box is greyed out and not selectable.

A few days ago Smart Content stopped recognizing tags.

It still Sorts things correctly.

When I Select a character in the scene it will show me the clothes , etc,etc  But if I type in a search it won't show anything.

nvidia-libs only seems to work with the General Release. I've not gotten it to work with the beta yet.

The linux nvidia driver is behind a few versions.So I'm guessing thats the problem.

...also dforce works just fine in the General Release.

Wow thank you! This outfit litteraly never pops up when I search clothes, Im guessing because it has the hair bundled with it!

bluejaunte said:

generalgameplaying said:

bluejaunte said:

At the moment it's simply a more interactive Google (when it comes to pure information finding at least). When you google something, it is up to you to check if the information you got is from legit sources. 

[...]

But it's so much more. The level of understanding it has about topics, the way it can speak to you and explain and circle back and remember past bits of a conversation is unreal. It can write a poem about the last couple of topics we talked about. It understands very easily what I mean, even if my question is crappy as hell. It generates code in lots of languages, 

 [...]

It writes stories,

[...]

Who needs IQ and intelligence when it can do this by just being a "dumb" database of human knowledge?

Interactive Google: Yes, and that could be a merit. But when it comes down to checking for stuff, the task even Google denies to carry out, in order to show more ads, is to efficiently link to the encyclopedias. Well, it now actually does often display links to encyclopedias and facts on the top, directly showing a description. But the real difference is not "efficiently", it is that google actually links to the encyclopedias, in the good case. So with simple additions, like confining search to science and encyclopedia sites with a checkbox, google would be magnitudes better for that than it's now. An explanation .. you'd again be at a search engine. The last thing i want to see, when i search for something is a wordy description, for most of the cases. But i do see much potential of such models providing wording to make things colloquially understandable. And the component doing the understanding actually seems to be an extra thing, that ChatGPT uses to understand people, so i could imagine such being used for one type of search engine. The problem is, that the system likely has no idea when it's walking on a thin thread, when it hits a topic that it can't handle well. There is ways to give the system an idea of uncertainty, concerning training data, but it's not clear how far that will lead in this instance. And the human typing the search terms, probably has no idea of the reliability of an answer either. In the end humans and writers for magazines make errors too, though upon notice an error might be corrected (or not) and then stand there corrected (or not)  forever. With the language model, you can add corrections to training, but with any more significant changes it might not be clear, in terms of being able to ensure, that it will be more correct on all corrected topics the next time, or if previously well done topics will still be handled correctly, especially if you don't check the answers after re-training (because you need an expert for that, it can't be done automatically). Guarantees are much less easy to give than with more specialized (classic) search engines (which no one really seems to implement, possibly due to business models). Since the similar players like Google, who busy about keeping the users in their realms, e.g. for showing ads, are also heavily invested and tecnhnically able in the field of ai, so i ask: what to expect more from them?

 

More: Yes, but "it doesn't tell jokes" and such. "It" is language models, not magic. It's more like patterns applied in a language-like fashion. There is abstraction contained, which to some degree means understanding and context (somehow). But it's not so deep. It's just as deep as the training data goes (and reinforcement learning), and there could be articles about just anything, so from somewhere to somewhere, often some answer exists at least in the training data. To really make it even half as bulletproof as an encyclopedia, they would need to fact-check the output for all corrected answers, which probably is out of scope right now. BUT they can and likely do feed it encyclopedias. Just i am not sure if they will manage to have something like specialized modules and at the same time select the correct one, meaning if they really hit the context well enough, and not mix in something from elsewhere at random. Combination of techniques will lead further, and i am not sure that language models alone lead there (and at which size). All those examples are derived from languages, based on the data we/they have, plus reinforcement learning with people tasked for it. The model currently is just very big, and obviously very good, in terms of comparing it to previous models. That's still all a similar quality in general - the question is, how far it can lead (and how so). You probably can't expect upcoming improvements to display the same magnitude of change, as ChatGPT represents now, compared to previous versions. Presenting step-by-step knowledge, even if all sources of the world have been used correctly in training, doesn't guarantee putting answers together correctly, especially not when understanding is necessary. The biggest potential for market in my opinion still is manipulation (*), until outlawed. Think of ads worded for you personally, links generated with texts for you personally, wording of links created in real-time allows much better tracking and personality testing - hell on earth. From hell to hell, though.

 

Stories: That's great, but it's still not actual intelligence ("... still only counts as one!"). I actually might have great use for "it", thinking of rephrasing what happened in a computer game scene or an arena battle, based on a series of simple descriptive terms on what happend, plus similarly a description of the hero character and their past efforts. Just i wouldn't like a cloud version of this, which it is, as it's "the biggest neural network" someone ever built. So for me, i'll need a boiled down version, if i went there. In theory, it could use special accelerators for ai, e.g. if it ran on much less power consuming and less accurate ones made for neural networks. So that'd be fictional stories. Maybe for (fantasy) storytelling a smaller thing can exist some day.

 

IQ and intelligence:  General intelligence is the most important part, still. A killer scenario means massively relying on an ai like ChatGPT in a similar state as is now, and actually losing the abilities - the dream of the elites of the past, to rule over dumb people once more, controlling people with a switch, or if necessary: the power plug. That aside, it's not an intelligence, and it won't grow there by itself. As far as i can judge, there will be a new generation of the system some day, training the same plus new data. But it is not evolving on it's own or something like that.

 

-> Such systems CAN remove hindrances and help do stuff, of course. We're not at the magic bullet with the current display of ability, given the description of the system isn't decoy fiction. Given the kind of mistakes it makes, and what it appears not to be able to do, suggests, that it's essentially still language models done well, but won't understand to depth. So the training data question will apply here, similar to image recognition. But since the system is more complex, it'd be interesting how precisely we/they actually can tell, if it will be improved by a certain change, or the bulk of adjusted training data. But that's probably also the good side, because a general ai would probably learn and do random stuff on purpose, just to unnerve people. I also believe that further improvements are possible, but it's not so clear-cut, that it wil do so much better than replacing jobs, just to leave societies with less than before, because people lose abilities, the jobs are gone, but the system can not train on new data generated by the very people it just has taken the jobs from. Of course there will be other data sources, concerning "the job", but it may still become a real problem. (*) These kind of scenarios also could be counteed as the result of manipulation. That's different systems maybe, though for programming we may see some effects at some point, and it's obviously close to language models (but not only that). With ChatGPT the manipulation potential seems vast, because it appears to be so [...], whatever, while it actually is "so language". Language isn't the worst thing to be, per se, though...

I'm beginning to think that whether something is intelligent or not is kind of irrelevant. You keep pointing out it's not intelligent, but I can talk to it. It helps me, it educates me and has more knowledge than any one human being on this earth. Case in point: if it tells a joke, does it matter to me if it's intelligent or not? Is every human who tells a joke intelligent? Of course not. I would argue it probably tells more intelligent jokes that are about very specific topics or even a combination of topics than the average human could come up with.

How much of our intelligence is just data? We all know that knowledge and IQ are not the same things, yet how we perceive intelligence often comes down to how much someone knows. A lot of education is just knowledge. Pure data. In some fields, you do need actual intelligence. But think about how many jobs out there revolve around amassed knowledge, communication skills, and maybe some basic math that is also data. We memorize that 2 + 2 is 4 and 10 x 10 is 100. That level of math is what 99% of people on this earth get by with.

So what about GPT is not intelligent then? It can come up with a story based on my parameters. It may not be a very good story, but it does have the ability. Most humans don't have the ability to create a good story either, let alone write it. GPT can store all the human knowledge. It can do math better than any human. And this is just a computer thing, not really even a feature of GPT. It can play better Chess than any human, at least if it ever gets proper Chess engines integrated that far outperform the very top human chess players for basically decades now.

In other words, what is the difference between "telling a joke" through magic, as you put it, or through a language model? If there's no difference in the end result, there is no difference. Technical differences are irrelevant, and in any case, you could argue that we very much have a language model in our brain too. if I tell you to speak Swahili you'll probably say you don't know that language. You'd have to learn it first. Your human intelligence alone does not allow you to speak Swahili. In fact, I would say that learning a language doesn't have much to do with intelligence and everything with memorization.

So it writes a story, it's not real intelligence. Is a human writing a story real intelligence? Isn't it rather a collection of data, memories, experiences, and some creativity to put it all together into a story? All of this GPT already does and it will get a lot better. To the point where it will spit out a whole 300-page novel, nicely formatted, and 100% correct spelling. Will it be good? Who knows. It might, if the AI learned from all the human books out there. It will "read a lot" like any writer and then create a story based on your parameters. What is the difference to a human?

I've been silently cheering @bluejaunte on, on many points. But on two in particular:

1) It took us 60 years to get from Eliza to ChatGPT. But a few weeks from ChatGPT not being able to remember what you said in the prompt before last, to it remembering everything you've ever said. It will get better. Not incrementally, but at an accelerating rate.

2) You can devote your time searching for arbitrary and insignificant was in which it is technically still insufficient, or you can use it in ways that improve your own performance in endeavors that matter to you, right now. Is it intelligent, or not? Who cares if it just ported 500 lines of Sagan's source code to Python 3, a language I am not at all good at, in about 3 minutes? If it just pointed out a severe plot hole in my story and came up with ways to address it that I am not sure I would have thought of, given an infinite amount of time?

We are past the point where it is more interesting to use AI in practical situations than it is to debate its objective technical properties.

Thank you wsterdan thats really useful feedback! We had a small test group that took a look at some of the pages before we went live, but after some of the discussions we've had on seeing your comments I think we might post some test pages to this forum next time to get some comments here as as they're very good points! We will defintely take this on board for the upcoming projects, so thank you.

FirstBastion, thanks for the comments and the link aswell, very useful!  And thank you for the awesome content you've created too! We will definitely put some test shots here in future to get some early test feedback.  

generalgameplaying said:

bluejaunte said:

At the moment it's simply a more interactive Google (when it comes to pure information finding at least). When you google something, it is up to you to check if the information you got is from legit sources. 

[...]

But it's so much more. The level of understanding it has about topics, the way it can speak to you and explain and circle back and remember past bits of a conversation is unreal. It can write a poem about the last couple of topics we talked about. It understands very easily what I mean, even if my question is crappy as hell. It generates code in lots of languages, 

 [...]

It writes stories,

[...]

Who needs IQ and intelligence when it can do this by just being a "dumb" database of human knowledge?

Interactive Google: Yes, and that could be a merit. But when it comes down to checking for stuff, the task even Google denies to carry out, in order to show more ads, is to efficiently link to the encyclopedias. Well, it now actually does often display links to encyclopedias and facts on the top, directly showing a description. But the real difference is not "efficiently", it is that google actually links to the encyclopedias, in the good case. So with simple additions, like confining search to science and encyclopedia sites with a checkbox, google would be magnitudes better for that than it's now. An explanation .. you'd again be at a search engine. The last thing i want to see, when i search for something is a wordy description, for most of the cases. But i do see much potential of such models providing wording to make things colloquially understandable. And the component doing the understanding actually seems to be an extra thing, that ChatGPT uses to understand people, so i could imagine such being used for one type of search engine. The problem is, that the system likely has no idea when it's walking on a thin thread, when it hits a topic that it can't handle well. There is ways to give the system an idea of uncertainty, concerning training data, but it's not clear how far that will lead in this instance. And the human typing the search terms, probably has no idea of the reliability of an answer either. In the end humans and writers for magazines make errors too, though upon notice an error might be corrected (or not) and then stand there corrected (or not)  forever. With the language model, you can add corrections to training, but with any more significant changes it might not be clear, in terms of being able to ensure, that it will be more correct on all corrected topics the next time, or if previously well done topics will still be handled correctly, especially if you don't check the answers after re-training (because you need an expert for that, it can't be done automatically). Guarantees are much less easy to give than with more specialized (classic) search engines (which no one really seems to implement, possibly due to business models). Since the similar players like Google, who busy about keeping the users in their realms, e.g. for showing ads, are also heavily invested and tecnhnically able in the field of ai, so i ask: what to expect more from them?

 

More: Yes, but "it doesn't tell jokes" and such. "It" is language models, not magic. It's more like patterns applied in a language-like fashion. There is abstraction contained, which to some degree means understanding and context (somehow). But it's not so deep. It's just as deep as the training data goes (and reinforcement learning), and there could be articles about just anything, so from somewhere to somewhere, often some answer exists at least in the training data. To really make it even half as bulletproof as an encyclopedia, they would need to fact-check the output for all corrected answers, which probably is out of scope right now. BUT they can and likely do feed it encyclopedias. Just i am not sure if they will manage to have something like specialized modules and at the same time select the correct one, meaning if they really hit the context well enough, and not mix in something from elsewhere at random. Combination of techniques will lead further, and i am not sure that language models alone lead there (and at which size). All those examples are derived from languages, based on the data we/they have, plus reinforcement learning with people tasked for it. The model currently is just very big, and obviously very good, in terms of comparing it to previous models. That's still all a similar quality in general - the question is, how far it can lead (and how so). You probably can't expect upcoming improvements to display the same magnitude of change, as ChatGPT represents now, compared to previous versions. Presenting step-by-step knowledge, even if all sources of the world have been used correctly in training, doesn't guarantee putting answers together correctly, especially not when understanding is necessary. The biggest potential for market in my opinion still is manipulation (*), until outlawed. Think of ads worded for you personally, links generated with texts for you personally, wording of links created in real-time allows much better tracking and personality testing - hell on earth. From hell to hell, though.

 

Stories: That's great, but it's still not actual intelligence ("... still only counts as one!"). I actually might have great use for "it", thinking of rephrasing what happened in a computer game scene or an arena battle, based on a series of simple descriptive terms on what happend, plus similarly a description of the hero character and their past efforts. Just i wouldn't like a cloud version of this, which it is, as it's "the biggest neural network" someone ever built. So for me, i'll need a boiled down version, if i went there. In theory, it could use special accelerators for ai, e.g. if it ran on much less power consuming and less accurate ones made for neural networks. So that'd be fictional stories. Maybe for (fantasy) storytelling a smaller thing can exist some day.

 

IQ and intelligence:  General intelligence is the most important part, still. A killer scenario means massively relying on an ai like ChatGPT in a similar state as is now, and actually losing the abilities - the dream of the elites of the past, to rule over dumb people once more, controlling people with a switch, or if necessary: the power plug. That aside, it's not an intelligence, and it won't grow there by itself. As far as i can judge, there will be a new generation of the system some day, training the same plus new data. But it is not evolving on it's own or something like that.

 

-> Such systems CAN remove hindrances and help do stuff, of course. We're not at the magic bullet with the current display of ability, given the description of the system isn't decoy fiction. Given the kind of mistakes it makes, and what it appears not to be able to do, suggests, that it's essentially still language models done well, but won't understand to depth. So the training data question will apply here, similar to image recognition. But since the system is more complex, it'd be interesting how precisely we/they actually can tell, if it will be improved by a certain change, or the bulk of adjusted training data. But that's probably also the good side, because a general ai would probably learn and do random stuff on purpose, just to unnerve people. I also believe that further improvements are possible, but it's not so clear-cut, that it wil do so much better than replacing jobs, just to leave societies with less than before, because people lose abilities, the jobs are gone, but the system can not train on new data generated by the very people it just has taken the jobs from. Of course there will be other data sources, concerning "the job", but it may still become a real problem. (*) These kind of scenarios also could be counteed as the result of manipulation. That's different systems maybe, though for programming we may see some effects at some point, and it's obviously close to language models (but not only that). With ChatGPT the manipulation potential seems vast, because it appears to be so [...], whatever, while it actually is "so language". Language isn't the worst thing to be, per se, though...

I'm beginning to think that whether something is intelligent or not is kind of irrelevant. You keep pointing out it's not intelligent, but I can talk to it. It helps me, it educates me and has more knowledge than any one human being on this earth. Case in point: if it tells a joke, does it matter to me if it's intelligent or not? Is every human who tells a joke intelligent? Of course not. I would argue it probably tells more intelligent jokes that are about very specific topics or even a combination of topics than the average human could come up with.

How much of our intelligence is just data? We all know that knowledge and IQ are not the same things, yet how we perceive intelligence often comes down to how much someone knows. A lot of education is just knowledge. Pure data. In some fields, you do need actual intelligence. But think about how many jobs out there revolve around amassed knowledge, communication skills, and maybe some basic math that is also data. We memorize that 2 + 2 is 4 and 10 x 10 is 100. That level of math is what 99% of people on this earth get by with.

So what about GPT is not intelligent then? It can come up with a story based on my parameters. It may not be a very good story, but it does have the ability. Most humans don't have the ability to create a good story either, let alone write it. GPT can store all the human knowledge. It can do math better than any human. And this is just a computer thing, not really even a feature of GPT. It can play better Chess than any human, at least if it ever gets proper Chess engines integrated that far outperform the very top human chess players for basically decades now.

In other words, what is the difference between "telling a joke" through magic, as you put it, or through a language model? If there's no difference in the end result, there is no difference. Technical differences are irrelevant, and in any case, you could argue that we very much have a language model in our brain too. if I tell you to speak Swahili you'll probably say you don't know that language. You'd have to learn it first. Your human intelligence alone does not allow you to speak Swahili. In fact, I would say that learning a language doesn't have much to do with intelligence and everything with memorization.

So it writes a story, it's not real intelligence. Is a human writing a story real intelligence? Isn't it rather a collection of data, memories, experiences, and some creativity to put it all together into a story? All of this GPT already does and it will get a lot better. To the point where it will spit out a whole 300-page novel, nicely formatted, and 100% correct spelling. Will it be good? Who knows. It might, if the AI learned from all the human books out there. It will "read a lot" like any writer and then create a story based on your parameters. What is the difference to a human?

ArtAngel said:

generalgameplaying said:

3. Stock photos might get hit hard, but big player?

The stock photography industry had a market share of 3.3 billion in 2020. This is a combo of Adobe stock, Getty, Shutterstock and a few others. Yes they are big players. Together they earn 3xmore than Microsoft invested in AI. And it has been on a steady incline since.

Ok, at least big-ish. (I mean, compared to dozens of billions for commerce with clouds and ai and search, software, hardware....). Probably big enough to present models of their own. 

However to be "fair", compare Microsofts total gains to their total gain, and to turn to "unfair": consider shrinking market shares for them, when the big image generating ai's emerge, or with a little more delay, the more precise ai tools for all sorts of tasks (less magic). IF they ever do - in theory we probably won't get so much better results with the general approach (not necessarily my opinion, just a scenario), and both law as well as research still might need to evolve, in order to be in the green zone risk-wise.

There is a good lot of uncertainty, for how far what size of model can get us, without further advancements happening concerning amounts of training data needed and precision delivered (or imprecision...). Maybe we'll see no real winner on the quality-side, because too big models just get so expensive, mostly for training, but then also in use. There the rest of the law-wise side conditions might mean a lot, e.g. platforms filtering images generated by competitors, copyright, etc. Perhaps different groups that hold assets will further form, and deny others to use their data for ai training. Maybe law will prohibit that, like some legislation for data access has been discussed in the EU, but with uncertain effect on the balance between big and small players (Again: What's big? Will medium big get swallowed by very big, and the small ones can live on as vegetables?)

bluejaunte said:

At the moment it's simply a more interactive Google (when it comes to pure information finding at least). When you google something, it is up to you to check if the information you got is from legit sources. 

[...]

But it's so much more. The level of understanding it has about topics, the way it can speak to you and explain and circle back and remember past bits of a conversation is unreal. It can write a poem about the last couple of topics we talked about. It understands very easily what I mean, even if my question is crappy as hell. It generates code in lots of languages, 

 [...]

It writes stories,

[...]

Who needs IQ and intelligence when it can do this by just being a "dumb" database of human knowledge?

Interactive Google: Yes, and that could be a merit. But when it comes down to checking for stuff, the task even Google denies to carry out, in order to show more ads, is to efficiently link to the encyclopedias. Well, it now actually does often display links to encyclopedias and facts on the top, directly showing a description. But the real difference is not "efficiently", it is that google actually links to the encyclopedias, in the good case. So with simple additions, like confining search to science and encyclopedia sites with a checkbox, google would be magnitudes better for that than it's now. An explanation .. you'd again be at a search engine. The last thing i want to see, when i search for something is a wordy description, for most of the cases. But i do see much potential of such models providing wording to make things colloquially understandable. And the component doing the understanding actually seems to be an extra thing, that ChatGPT uses to understand people, so i could imagine such being used for one type of search engine. The problem is, that the system likely has no idea when it's walking on a thin thread, when it hits a topic that it can't handle well. There is ways to give the system an idea of uncertainty, concerning training data, but it's not clear how far that will lead in this instance. And the human typing the search terms, probably has no idea of the reliability of an answer either. In the end humans and writers for magazines make errors too, though upon notice an error might be corrected (or not) and then stand there corrected (or not)  forever. With the language model, you can add corrections to training, but with any more significant changes it might not be clear, in terms of being able to ensure, that it will be more correct on all corrected topics the next time, or if previously well done topics will still be handled correctly, especially if you don't check the answers after re-training (because you need an expert for that, it can't be done automatically). Guarantees are much less easy to give than with more specialized (classic) search engines (which no one really seems to implement, possibly due to business models). Since the similar players like Google, who busy about keeping the users in their realms, e.g. for showing ads, are also heavily invested and tecnhnically able in the field of ai, so i ask: what to expect more from them?

More: Yes, but "it doesn't tell jokes" and such. "It" is language models, not magic. It's more like patterns applied in a language-like fashion. There is abstraction contained, which to some degree means understanding and context (somehow). But it's not so deep. It's just as deep as the training data goes (and reinforcement learning), and there could be articles about just anything, so from somewhere to somewhere, often some answer exists at least in the training data. To really make it even half as bulletproof as an encyclopedia, they would need to fact-check the output for all corrected answers, which probably is out of scope right now. BUT they can and likely do feed it encyclopedias. Just i am not sure if they will manage to have something like specialized modules and at the same time select the correct one, meaning if they really hit the context well enough, and not mix in something from elsewhere at random. Combination of techniques will lead further, and i am not sure that language models alone lead there (and at which size). All those examples are derived from languages, based on the data we/they have, plus supervised learning with people tasked for it. The model currently is just very big, and obviously very good, in terms of comparing it to previous models. That's still all a similar quality in general - the question is, how far it can lead (and how so). You probably can't expect upcoming improvements to display the same magnitude of change, as ChatGPT represents now, compared to previous versions. Presenting step-by-step knowledge, even if all sources of the world have been used correctly in training, doesn't guarantee putting answers together correctly, especially not when understanding is necessary. The biggest potential for market in my opinion still is manipulation (*), until outlawed. Think of ads worded for you personally, links generated with texts for you personally, wording of links created in real-time allows much better tracking and personality testing - hell on earth. From hell to hell, though.

Stories: That's great, but it's still not actual intelligence ("... still only counts as one!"). I actually might have great use for "it", thinking of rephrasing what happened in a computer game scene or an arena battle, based on a series of simple descriptive terms on what happend, plus similarly a description of the hero character and their past efforts. Just i wouldn't like a cloud version of this, which it is, as it's "the biggest neural network" someone ever built. So for me, i'll need a boiled down version, if i went there. In theory, it could use special accelerators for ai, e.g. if it ran on much less power consuming and less accurate ones made for neural networks. So that'd be fictional stories. Maybe for (fantasy) storytelling a smaller thing can exist some day.

IQ and intelligence:  General intelligence is the most important part, still. A killer scenario means massively relying on an ai like ChatGPT in a similar state as is now, and actually losing the abilities - the dream of the elites of the past, to rule over dumb people once more, controlling people with a switch, or if necessary: the power plug. That aside, it's not an intelligence, and it won't grow there by itself. As far as i can judge, there will be a new generation of the system some day, training the same plus new data. But it is not evolving on it's own or something like that.

-> Such systems CAN remove hindrances and help do stuff, of course. We're not at the magic bullet with the current display of ability, given the description of the system isn't decoy fiction. Given the kind of mistakes it makes, and what it appears not to be able to do, suggests, that it's essentially still language models done well, but won't understand to depth. So the training data question will apply here, similar to image recognition. But since the system is more complex, it'd be interesting how precisely we/they actually can tell, if it will be improved by a certain change, or the bulk of adjusted training data. But that's probably also the good side, because a general ai would probably learn and do random stuff on purpose, just to unnerve people. I also believe that further improvements are possible, but it's not so clear-cut, that it wil do so much better than replacing jobs, just to leave societies with less than before, because people lose abilities, the jobs are gone, but the system can not train on new data generated by the very people it just has taken the jobs from. Of course there will be other data sources, concerning "the job", but it may still become a real problem. (*) These kind of scenarios also could be counteed as the result of manipulation. That's different systems maybe, though for programming we may see some effects at some point, and it's obviously close to language models (but not only that). With ChatGPT the manipulation potential seems vast, because it appears to be so [...], whatever, while it actually is "so language". Language isn't the worst thing to be, per se, though...

wolf359 said:

I love chatGPT and plan to use it extensively.

ChatGPT wrote this Dialog

Isn't that a monologue, technically? That's ChatGPT tends to be pose more like the an encyclopedia mode, just without referencing the sources, and i don't find it particularly interesting (for that purpose). It's like citing an encyclopedia or an article, just without paying for it :), and without the basic accountability such an article would need to provide, e.g. by means of citation references, in order to be taken seriously. Further: if a million users do that, will it be all genuine texts for each  and every one of them?

(Maybe it'll reach the same accuracy just for knowledge questions, like encyclopedias, in which case it'll still lag behind, if it doesn't reference sources. It could be more valuable to link to the relevant articles of encyclopedias directly. Similar for news or digests of what is nowadays. It would be "the" better search engine then. Not even sure, that's equivalent, unfortunately.)

Not intending to short-circuit any of that love. Just for text that would seem like something, and might even be correct in respect to a conversation, considering harmless applications, i have no issues with the technology getting some love. For text that is professionally reviewed, it might also help getting rid of one or another human writer (or less sarcastic: free their time for better use).

tsroemi said:

Tomhip said:

WendyLuvsCatz said:

woohooo orange banner EXTRA-4-YOU got a nice hair 70% total

50%+50% isn't 75%  apparently not sure how DAZ Maths works  

at least it stacked 

Pretty much all discounts are multiplicative 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 of price, so 75% discount.

Never mind misread ;p

On that note the code is vaid for 2 days so gonna wait and see if anything good tomorrow.

 

I was thinking of using it to get this https://www.daz3d.com/dforce-regency-fashion-outfit-for-genesis-9 because I hadn't looked quite close enough (and because the coupon here also stacks which is always nice), but this outfit is actually hilarious. I need to rant a tiny little bit.  I know it says 'Regency Fashion' to alert everyone that it's not meant to be historically accurate, and it's really very nice, so it's all fine and good, but nevertheless, I'm absolutely amazed at how many people still seem to think that in the olden days, women wore their underwear on the outside, as their normal outfit. Stays like this were basically the bras of their time. Also, there's really nothing much 'Regency' about it at all, has more of a 1700s vibe to me if at all. And also also, I can't see anyone using these external eyelet thingies on the front IRL, because they would just tear out so easily. Haven't found any examples in a quick search either, but that may be just me.

Och, would really LOVE to have a set of undergarments of this quality in at least tentatively period-appropriate ... sigh.

Speaking about rants, every time I want to post a reply on these forums they just keep dying on me...

I was thinking about using the ticket on Kin/Prisma Bundle as while im not so hot on it itself, you can stack it with 50% off another bundle and that brings mega bundle to 20-ish dollars... but i still dont really like it :D

On historical fashion.. I think we just believe whatever movies show us :P Personally I think dresses were a thing for extreamly rich people and these often ignore practical aspect in favor of glamour.

Tomhip said:

WendyLuvsCatz said:

woohooo orange banner EXTRA-4-YOU got a nice hair 70% total

50%+50% isn't 75%  apparently not sure how DAZ Maths works  

at least it stacked 

Pretty much all discounts are multiplicative 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 of price, so 75% discount.

Never mind misread ;p

On that note the code is vaid for 2 days so gonna wait and see if anything good tomorrow.

 

I was thinking of using it to get this https://www.daz3d.com/dforce-regency-fashion-outfit-for-genesis-9 because I hadn't looked quite close enough (and because the coupon here also stacks which is always nice), but this outfit is actually hilarious. I need to rant a tiny little bit.  I know it says 'Regency Fashion' to alert everyone that it's not meant to be historically accurate, and it's really very nice, so it's all fine and good, but nevertheless, I'm absolutely amazed at how many people still seem to think that in the olden days, women wore their underwear on the outside, as their normal outfit. Stays like this were basically the bras of their time. Also, there's really nothing much 'Regency' about it at all, has more of a 1700s vibe to me if at all. And also also, I can't see anyone using these external eyelet thingies on the front IRL, because they would just tear out so easily. Haven't found any examples in a quick search either, but that may be just me.

Och, would really LOVE to have a set of undergarments of this quality in at least tentatively period-appropriate ... sigh.

NGartplay said:

LOLOL!  Love the bite out of the banana :)    I'm going to look at that highend brand...just what I need, thanks :)

Apple and DAZ iray also don't get along even with a Nvidia card

it's actually Apple and Nvidia who have the toxic relationship  

you really need to read some of the DAZ studio forum posts 

Hello!

I have a character with a ponytail. The ponytail hangs down between her shoulder blades.

In the render, however, she's doing a hand stand, so I want the ponytail to hang upside-down accordingly.

I have tried using the Bend/Twist/Side-Side sliders for the various nodes and bones to no avail. I have also tried X/Y/Z rotate.

Is this a function available in Daz? Or would I need to use a different program? If so, which program, and what would I search for a tutorial?

For reference I am using the 4-in-1 buns and ponytail hair.

https://www.daz3d.com/4-in-1-buns-and-ponytail-hair-for-genesis-8-and-81-females

Thank you!

Concerning "IQ tests" and "astro physics examinations", while somewhat astonishing (and not so for some other applications), we should acknowledge that similar to chess and the game of go (weiqi/baduk), these things are difficult for humans, but turn out not to be that difficult for machine-learning-based systems (of this or that kind, plus access to data if needed, plus computational power as needed). So basically we overrate the general abilities of the technology at this stage, just because something it does, commonly is seen as difficult to do. Humans did this often, like with nuclear energy (tooth paste!), but we wouldn't assume a wheel or a car to rule the planet any time soon. Commercially it might, though, at the hands of something with minimum brains.

In fact you might take almost any ability, and build something that's better at that than most humans, but you end up with a pre-configured specialist most of the time. GPT is a language specialist in a way, but isn't a brain (yet), despite appearing more general than many other things that have been built. So you would still be in need of a more generalist thing to decide what tool to run and what data to feed it for input, but still will need to retrain and adapt to certain situations. It still can get answers to calculations wrong, which also means it's not actually calculating - any human would try to resolve and calculate actively, even if they don't have a special ability to do so, so they would probably resort to a tool or ask someone else. ChatGPT or "an even better toaster" would need to do such, but that's not what it is, nor what it can do at present (AFAIK). Of course you could imagine ChatGPT being enhanced by tools for algebra, calculations and all sorts of things, i.e. forming an expert system of some kind. We just don't have a general intelligence built, yet.

(And on a side note: tasks that underly simple to digitize rules are most easy to do, typically combining deep/machine-learning with tree-search and other statistical methods. In contrast to self-training systems, which are working in a confined space like a chess board with simple rules, real intelligence needs to be able to move through the world somehow and adapt to whatever is there. So thinking of ChatGPT, vast amounts of data are used, and the rules are probably deducted, but it will fail in the simple task of walking somewhere to get new batteries, because it doesn't even have legs, which it probably "knows", but more important, it's based on vast amounts of data from the real world, to be trained, and then works from there on, meaning it "resides in the past" - good enough for many things, but still fundamentally different to something that can adapt. Of course many actual tasks will be to improve something, where humans have higher error rates or no abilities at all. This just to elaborate on the quesiton, what to fear.)