Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 320 posts

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#241

Post by scotty79 »

h_tbob wrote: post #232
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true. Wait. Isn't literally the exactly other way around ? Materialism is the null hypothesis here, backed by all empirical evidence to date; it's all the other hypotheses presenting some kind of magic that are BS until proven.

A wise philosopher once said this. You know your experience is real. But you do not know if the material world you see is the result of a great delusion by a master programmer. Thus the only thing you truly know has no mass at all. Thus a wise person takes the immaterial as immediate apparent, but the physical as questionable. You can always prove the immaterial “I think therefore I am”. But due to the uncertainty of…

> You can always prove the immaterial “I think therefore I am”. But due to the uncertainty of matter, nothing physical can be truly known.

But the brain that does the proving of immaterial is itself material so if matter is uncertain then the reasoning of the proof of immaterial can also be flawed thus you can't prove anything.

The only provable thing is that philosophers ask themselves useless questions, think about them long and hard building up convoluted narratives they claim to be proofs, but on the way they assume something stupid to move forward, which eventually leads to bogus "insights".

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#242

Post by scotty79 »

ben_w wrote: post #224
pmarreck wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s hard to disagree with him with any empirical basis when all of his statements seem empirically sound and all of his opponent’s AI Doomer statements seem like evidenceless FUD I couldn’t help noticing that all the AI Doomer folks are pure materialists who think that consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven tr…

To me, it seems like LeCun is missing the point of the (many and diverse) doom arguments. The is no need for consciousness, there is only a need for a bug. It was purely luck that Nikita Khrushchev was in New York when Thule Site J mistook the moon for a soviet attack force. There is no need for AI to seize power, humans will promote any given AI beyond the competency of that AI just as they already do with fellow hu…

Details are fun but the dilemma is: should the humanity seriously cripple itself (by avoiding AI) out of the fear it might hurt itself (with AI)? Are you gonna cut off your arm because you might hit yourself in the face with it in the future? The more useful the tool is, the more dangerous it is usually. Should we have killed all nuclear physicists before they figured out how to release nuclear energy? And even so.. would that prevent things or just delay things? Would it make us more or less prepared for the things to come?

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#243

Post by dmd »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #225
pmarreck wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s hard to disagree with him with any empirical basis when all of his statements seem empirically sound and all of his opponent’s AI Doomer statements seem like evidenceless FUD I couldn’t help noticing that all the AI Doomer folks are pure materialists who think that consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven tr…

> consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true. Wait. Isn't literally the exactly other way around ? Materialism is the null hypothesis here, backed by all empirical evidence to date; it's all the other hypotheses presenting some kind of magic that are BS until proven.

While I agree 100% with you, everyone thinks that way about their own belief.

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#244

Post by Chance-Device »

h_tbob wrote: post #232
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true. Wait. Isn't literally the exactly other way around ? Materialism is the null hypothesis here, backed by all empirical evidence to date; it's all the other hypotheses presenting some kind of magic that are BS until proven.

A wise philosopher once said this. You know your experience is real. But you do not know if the material world you see is the result of a great delusion by a master programmer. Thus the only thing you truly know has no mass at all. Thus a wise person takes the immaterial as immediate apparent, but the physical as questionable. You can always prove the immaterial “I think therefore I am”. But due to the uncertainty of…

Descartes. And it’s pretty clear that consciousness is the Noumenon, just the part of it that is us. So if you want to know what the ontology of matter is, congratulations, you’re it.

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#245

Post by nkrisc »

pmarreck wrote: post #217
xpe wrote: post #195

Given that I don't agree with many of Yann LeCun's stances on AI, I enjoyed making this: https://6ammc3n5zzf5ljnz.public.blob.vercel-storage.com/inf2... Hello I'm an AI-generated version of Yann LeCoon. As an unbiased expert, I'm not worried about AI. ... If somehow an AI gets out of control ... it will be my good AI against your bad AI. ... After all, what does history show us about technology-fueled conflicts among…

it’s hard to disagree with him with any empirical basis when all of his statements seem empirically sound and all of his opponent’s AI Doomer statements seem like evidenceless FUD I couldn’t help noticing that all the AI Doomer folks are pure materialists who think that consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven tr…

> I couldn’t help noticing that all the AI Doomer folks are pure materialists who think that consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true.

It’s no less BS than the other beliefs which can be summed up as “magic”.

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#246

Post by xanderlewis »

dmd wrote: post #243
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true. Wait. Isn't literally the exactly other way around ? Materialism is the null hypothesis here, backed by all empirical evidence to date; it's all the other hypotheses presenting some kind of magic that are BS until proven.

While I agree 100% with you, everyone thinks that way about their own belief.

Yeah. One could equally imagine that dualism is the null hypothesis since human cultures around the world have seemingly universally believed in a ‘soul’ and that materialism is only a very recent phenomenon.

Of course, (widespread adoption of) science is also a fairly recent phenomenon, so perhaps we do know more now than we did back then.

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#247

Post by nkrisc »

h_tbob wrote: post #232
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true. Wait. Isn't literally the exactly other way around ? Materialism is the null hypothesis here, backed by all empirical evidence to date; it's all the other hypotheses presenting some kind of magic that are BS until proven.

A wise philosopher once said this. You know your experience is real. But you do not know if the material world you see is the result of a great delusion by a master programmer. Thus the only thing you truly know has no mass at all. Thus a wise person takes the immaterial as immediate apparent, but the physical as questionable. You can always prove the immaterial “I think therefore I am”. But due to the uncertainty of…

Yet empirically we know that if you physically disassemble the human brain, that person’s consciousness apparently creases to exist, as observed by the result on your rest of the body even if it remains otherwise intact. So it appears to arise from some physical properties of the brain.

I’m ignoring the argument that we can’t know if anything we’re perceive is even real at all since it’s unprovable and useless to consider. Better to just assume it’s wrong. And if that assumption is wrong, then it doesn’t matter.

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#249

Post by TeMPOraL »

dmd wrote: post #243
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven true. Wait. Isn't literally the exactly other way around ? Materialism is the null hypothesis here, backed by all empirical evidence to date; it's all the other hypotheses presenting some kind of magic that are BS until proven.

While I agree 100% with you, everyone thinks that way about their own belief.

So let's put it differently.

True or not, materialism is the simplest, most constrained, and most predictive of the hypotheses that match available evidence. Why should we prefer a "physics + $magic" theory, for any particular flavor of $magic? Why this particular flavor? Why any flavor, if so far everything is explainable by the baseline "physics" alone?

Even in purely practical terms, it makes most sense to stick to materialism (at least if you're trying to understand the world; for control over people, the best theory needs not even be coherent, much less correct).

Re: Show HN: Infinity – Realistic AI characters that can speak

#250

Post by scotty79 »

It's awesome for very short texts. Like a single long sentence. For even a bit longer sequences it seems to be losing adherence to the initial photo and also venture into uncanny valley with exaggerated facial expressions.

A product that might be build on top of this could split the input into reasonable chunks, generate video for each of them separately and stitch them with another model that can transition from one facial expression into another in a fraction of a second.

Additional improvement might be feeding the system not with one image but with a few expressing different emotional expressions. Then the system could analyze the split input to find out in which emotional state each part of the video should be started on.

On unrelated note ... generated expressions seem to be relevant to the content of the input text. So either text to speech might understand language a bit or the video model itself.

Post reply on HN