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

AIs are now re-writing history

robertelliottsmith.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#31

Post by HCIdivision17 »

IvyMike wrote: post #18
ivanche wrote: post #3

Some time ago I conducted a simple (albeit impossible in practice, for now at least) thought experiment. Let's say that average size of a JPEG image is 5 MB. Now, some machine could generate all possible valid JPEG files sized 5 MB. In some of those images there would be events which never happen, and never could (for example Usain Bolt running in 1896 Athens Olympic Games etc.) Of course, sheer number of such images…

You may be interested in Borges's short story The Library of Babel. http://hyperdiscordia.crywalt.com/library_of_babel.html ""The Library of Babel" (Spanish: La biblioteca de Babel) is a short story by Argentine author and librarian Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986), conceiving of a universe in the form of a vast library containing all possible 410-page books of a certain format." (from wikipedia)

I immediately thought of the same thing. Personally, I like the idea of the Library of Babel more than, say, "all data is found in Pi". There's an important aspect to the story that really drives home the point, a hopelessness in the search as well as dealing with the nigh-incomprehensible scale. Well worth the read, as it brings the idea to a visceral level.

I'm at a loss for the story about indexing meaningfully the library, but I think I may have found a neat article on the Library: james.grimmelmann.net/files/Library.markdown

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#32

Post by mbca »

The middle paragraphs are just further proof that talking to a blowhard like Cory Doctorow is a complete waste of time. The "all photos are fake at some level" slippery slope argument is beyond tiresome. The fact that something like white balance introduces a small amount of post-processing into photographs does not mean that all levels of photo manipulation are somehow equal. That's nonsense on its face and should be called out as such. You need a trampoline and a net to make that kind of jump in logic.

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#33

Post by teddyh »

xnull wrote: post #29
masklinn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you realise the scales involved. 5MB (40Mb) is enough to create 1e12626113 different files, that's a number with 12.5 million digits For reference, the number of atoms in the visible universe is ~1e80 (1e78 to 1e82), you'd generate 1e12626033 images per atom (doesn't look any different does it? Well it's got 80 zeroes chopped off). For a second reference, assuming you're a standard-size hooman you have 1…

100% correct. But what if we imagine/allow/invent the series of algorithms that 'pluck' a good picture of Usain Bolt from the set of 5MB files without inspecting too many (let's say O(log) or O(log log))? That's only ~c 25/~c 5 bits of entropy to sort through, even less if the algorithm were to work in some sort of sparsity domain.

You remind me of the space pirate Pugg, as encountered in the sixth sally of Trurl and Klapaucius as described in The Cyberiad by Stanisław Lem.

That is to say, however much you pre-sort your data, there will still be a virtual infinity of them still left, all abiding your pre-set conditions, but all still uninteresting.

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#34

Post by xnull »

teddyh wrote: post #33
xnull wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% correct. But what if we imagine/allow/invent the series of algorithms that 'pluck' a good picture of Usain Bolt from the set of 5MB files without inspecting too many (let's say O(log) or O(log log))? That's only ~c 25/~c 5 bits of entropy to sort through, even less if the algorithm were to work in some sort of sparsity domain.

You remind me of the space pirate Pugg, as encountered in the sixth sally of Trurl and Klapaucius as described in The Cyberiad by Stanisław Lem. That is to say, however much you pre-sort your data, there will still be a virtual infinity of them still left, all abiding your pre-set conditions, but all still uninteresting.

Can't a human draw a picture of Usain Bolt in the Greek Olympics? Wouldn't such a criticism also apply to human art?

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#35

Post by wrs »

freehunter wrote: post #17
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #12

This is really cool! I agree with the author a bit, however I think his concern stems from the fact that it was largely because he did not know it was going to happen. I also think that Doctorow's dismissal of his concerns as "trivial on the scale" is silly and somewhat arrogant. Automated alteration of a picture to the point of making a new picture non-discernible from an original is a real different thing. In this…

How do you not know it will happen? I haven't used AutoAwesome since just after it was released, but at least back then it was an opt-in. Google didn't just automatically overwrite your pictures, you selected which ones you wanted to make AutoAwesome. Has that changed?

According to the Google help page referenced in the article, it is on by default, but you are notified when it happens. Pictures aren't overwritten; new ones are added.

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#36

Post by teddyh »

xnull wrote: post #34
teddyh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You remind me of the space pirate Pugg, as encountered in the sixth sally of Trurl and Klapaucius as described in The Cyberiad by Stanisław Lem. That is to say, however much you pre-sort your data, there will still be a virtual infinity of them still left, all abiding your pre-set conditions, but all still uninteresting.

Can't a human draw a picture of Usain Bolt in the Greek Olympics? Wouldn't such a criticism also apply to human art?

I don’t understand you. The amount of human art, or indeed the possible maximum number possible of human artistic expressions (from the beginning of time until the end of the universe), is, I believe, far smaller than the pictures you would have left after your sorting filter.

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#37

Post by nobodysfool »

freehunter wrote: post #17
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #12

This is really cool! I agree with the author a bit, however I think his concern stems from the fact that it was largely because he did not know it was going to happen. I also think that Doctorow's dismissal of his concerns as "trivial on the scale" is silly and somewhat arrogant. Automated alteration of a picture to the point of making a new picture non-discernible from an original is a real different thing. In this…

How do you not know it will happen? I haven't used AutoAwesome since just after it was released, but at least back then it was an opt-in. Google didn't just automatically overwrite your pictures, you selected which ones you wanted to make AutoAwesome. Has that changed?

It hasn't changed at all. I have it enabled, its funny sometimes. The 2013 year end video brought a tear to my eye, and it changed some beach photos by adding in snowflakes (must have thought the white sand was snow).

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#38

Post by nobodysfool »

abemassry wrote: post #16
ivanche wrote: post #3

Some time ago I conducted a simple (albeit impossible in practice, for now at least) thought experiment. Let's say that average size of a JPEG image is 5 MB. Now, some machine could generate all possible valid JPEG files sized 5 MB. In some of those images there would be events which never happen, and never could (for example Usain Bolt running in 1896 Athens Olympic Games etc.) Of course, sheer number of such images…

Also had a similar thought experiment, went and built it. Thanks for the other commentors as well I should link to this HN page in the README. https://github.com/abemassry/crazip

Thanks for this. Have you considered using a GPU to speed up computations?

Re: AIs are now re-writing history

#40

Post by mikeash »

masklinn wrote: post #11
ivanche wrote: post #3

Some time ago I conducted a simple (albeit impossible in practice, for now at least) thought experiment. Let's say that average size of a JPEG image is 5 MB. Now, some machine could generate all possible valid JPEG files sized 5 MB. In some of those images there would be events which never happen, and never could (for example Usain Bolt running in 1896 Athens Olympic Games etc.) Of course, sheer number of such images…

I'm not sure you realise the scales involved. 5MB (40Mb) is enough to create 1e12626113 different files, that's a number with 12.5 million digits For reference, the number of atoms in the visible universe is ~1e80 (1e78 to 1e82), you'd generate 1e12626033 images per atom (doesn't look any different does it? Well it's got 80 zeroes chopped off). For a second reference, assuming you're a standard-size hooman you have 1…

xkcd has a good take on this: http://what-if.xkcd.com/34/

It's discussing tweet variations, which is a much smaller set than the set of valid 5MB JPEG files, but even then it's rather a lot.

Post reply on HN