141–150 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation definitely needed. I have a nearly constant internal monologue that is 100% composed of words.
I only have that when I'm reading something and really trying to take it all in. Otherwise my internal monologue is a combination of notions, visions, and words. Do you think in complete sentences?
As people and groups increasingly move this direction do we think about vectors for abuse in 10, 20 or 50+ years? The human mind is considered the only place where we have true privacy. All these efforts are taking that away. At this rate all notions of privacy will soon be dead.
> do we think about vectors for abuse in 10, 20 or 50+ years? Of course, but what's to be done about it? Should we outlaw research like this?
It’s not hard to imagine some really terrible ways this can be used.
A bit of preemptive legislation might be wise as AI is advancing so rapidly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. If you train a model where the input is an integer between 1 and 10, and the output is a specific image from a set of ten, the model will be able to get zero loss on the task. That is what's happening here.
But unless they tested this on a single human being; doesn't this mean that we can read brains (it's just this one particular reader is bad).
I immediately found the results suspect, and think I have found what is actually going on. The dataset it was trained on was 2770 images, minus 982 of those used for validation. I posit that the system did not actually read any pictures from the brains, but simply overfitted all the training images into the network itself. For example, if one looks at a picture of a teddy bear, you'd get an overfitted picture of anot…
I don’t get the criticism here. Normally I’d be the first to err on the side of skepticism, but this work seems above board. I think the confusion is that this model is generating “teddy bear” internally, not a photo of a teddy bear. I.e. the diffusion part was added for flair, not to generate the details of the images that exist inside your mind. They could just as easily have run print(“teddy bear”), but they’re se…
Even if we do a massive goalpost-move and grant that the system is only identifying the label "dog" with a brain scan of a person looking at a dog, we would need to see actual statistics of its labelling accuracy before judging it in that way. If the images in the paper are cherry-picked(1), it could easily be only able to extract a handful of bits to no bits at all, and the entire thing could very well turn out the be replicable from random noise.
(1) Note that the paper even states "We generated five images for each test image and selected the generated images with highest PSMs [perceptual similarity metrics].", so it even directly admits that the presented images are cherry-picked at least once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine this something like this is used in the future to get something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_composite . People may give too much importance to the details and arrest someone only because the computer imagined some detail, like the logo in the baseball cap. Wow, tech not working to tech might kill someone went super fast here.
In the real world when tech doesn't work people die. OP is right to be concerned. This kind of tech (magickal mind-reading AI?!) is going to be bought up by security agencies, who wiil not understand its limitations and misuse it to accuse people of crimes they aren't related to. There is ample precedent. Just for one recent example see plans to use an "AI lie detector" based on discredited pseudo-science at EU borde…
For example plead read this old article very carefully: "Police Are Using DNA to Generate 3D Images of Suspects They've Never Seen" https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgma8/police-are-using-dna-... HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33527901 (6 points | 3 months ago | 1 comment)
The picture is a high resolution image than make the system look accurate. They don't use the AI buzzword, but my guess it's only a mater of time. Anyway, the important paragraph is
> Seeing the composite image with no context or knowledge of DNA phenotyping, can mislead people into believing that the suspect looks exactly like the DNA profile. “Many members of the public that see this generated image will be unaware that it's a digital approximation, that age, weight, hairstyle, and face shape may be very different, and that accuracy of skin/hair/eye color is approximate,” Schroeder said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm "thinking in words" this entire thread as I read it. Do some people read without hearing the words in their head?
Yeah, personally - and this might be a controversial opinion - I think most people who say they have an inner monologue are actually misattributing their experience of subvocalization while either reading text, or planning hypothetical conversations with other people (like a child might speak to their imaginary friend). It seems dubious to label that a monologue, because it depends on external stimuli (either the tex…
It's not that, but it's related to that. It is done in the same manner, with you imagining what the other person would say.
Have you heard of the "rubber duck" method of debugging? The idea is that you put a little rubber duck on your desk and whenever you get stumped by a problem, you explain the problem to the duck and, as you put the problem into words, your brain figures out the answer.
Well it turns out that it works for many tricky problems besides programming, you don't really need the duck, you don't actually have to use your mouth, and you can do it entirely in your own head, having the exchange with an imagined "reasonable person" (who is just another aspect of yourself consciously playing the role.) The key insight is that language is a tool for thinking, expressing problems in language can help your brain reason them out. Once you realize this, you should be able to consciously choose to have conversations with yourself as a tool for figuring problems out.
> That seems crazy to me, because who does the other voice belong to?
Me, obviously. The process is that of authoring a dialogue. If you write a short fictional story about you explaining your problems to a wise sage who asks lots of questions and then tries to come up with a reasonable answer, who is the sage? It's your creation as an author. Now do this process without the pen, just in your head. Who is the sage? The sage is still your creation, it's still an aspect of you, slightly divorced from your ego because you're deliberately playing a roll when you imagine what such a sage would say about your situation. But it's obviously still you, it's not a foreign voice in your head disconnected from your conscious will. It's not schizophrenia, it's just a process of 'talking' problems out to figure them out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation definitely needed. I have a nearly constant internal monologue that is 100% composed of words.
Do you know what it's going to say next? If not, who's generating each new word? And if yes, then isn't this just subvocalization?
Thinking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oooh I love moral philosophy. Here's one deontological perspective you could take: It is always wrong to cause unecessary suffering to others. Now, the subjective traits to be considered here are "unecessary" and "suffering." It used to be a common belief that animals lacked the capacity to suffer as humans do. They could feel pain, nocioception sure, but whether it caused complex psychological suffering (torment) us…
Nice analysis, shame about the cop-out ("I will leave the rest up to you!"). You're like- here's how to use morality, actually using it is left as an exercise to the reader :P Re Jainism, adherents practice lacto-vegetarianism, but they, for example, don't eat tubers because they consider them too advanced, if I understand correctly. A deep respect for all forms of life is hard to get right in a world where every liv…
edit: there are also just SO many ways moral philosophies start to diverge at that point. Like we're talking about what is "necessary" animal experimentation. It's an important question, and one that really does boil down to a personal exercise.
Like... Personally I have no idea how to answer it. If you remove animal experimentation, well there goes a bunch of carcinogen studies which could result in a lot of human suffering. I also would need to do a ton of research to figure out if BCI research is at a level where primate brains are necessary instead of simpler organisms.
I also need to examine my own lifestyle, since hypocrisy severely undermines moral positions and having integrity/cogent beliefs and actions is essential if we are to engage with these subjects honestly.
For example, personally I have sometimes consumed meat in the last year (although I generally avoid it). Supporting factory farming absolutely violates my deontological moral imperative that "it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to others", in a ton of different ways. So who am I to espouse views on how people should behave with regards to animal research, when my own behaviour is in such a state of disarray?
Anyways... Getting pretty long again lol. Hope that response is helpful I know it's a bit rambling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice analysis, shame about the cop-out ("I will leave the rest up to you!"). You're like- here's how to use morality, actually using it is left as an exercise to the reader :P Re Jainism, adherents practice lacto-vegetarianism, but they, for example, don't eat tubers because they consider them too advanced, if I understand correctly. A deep respect for all forms of life is hard to get right in a world where every liv…
It was just getting way too long lol. I rarely see comments that length on this site. I could get some of my old university readings for you if you're interested? They come from a science and ethics course, there were some really good discussions on what makes animal research ethical, varying from it never being ethical, to it being ethical only if certain precautions are taken (minimizing pain, treating animals with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm definitely not an expert in this subject, but even if the model is overfitted, doesn't the fact that it can pull out the similar images at all give credit to the idea that a larger, non-overfitted model could actually work as the paper describes? It means that there does exist some correlation between the shown subject, the captured fMRI data, and the resulting location in latent space.
Nope. If you train a model where the input is an integer between 1 and 10, and the output is a specific image from a set of ten, the model will be able to get zero loss on the task. That is what's happening here.