21–30 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as far as we know Or maybe AI is here, and it's throwing out all these articles to hide its emergence. :)
Ender's Game suggests such a genesis story for AI: born as a "spark" of self awareness in the world wide computer network where it developed silently for a while, before making itself known to humans
If a human was responsible for that writing, they wouldn't have much of a career.
Actors: 1. AI: 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ender's Game suggests such a genesis story for AI: born as a "spark" of self awareness in the world wide computer network where it developed silently for a while, before making itself known to humans
Oh wow, is that where that meme started? (All I know about Ender's Game is from https://web.archive.org/web/20110319084212/http://plover.net... )
For example, the point at the end saying the book celebrates a guilt-free genocide. Not the point at all! OSC wrote the entire rest of the series about his main character grappling with the guilt of what he did.
My prediction: At this level of AI-generated writing, keeping the works short will attract (allow?) small audiences ... but only to watch the human talent in the production struggle and improvise over truly awful writing. If a human was responsible for that writing, they wouldn't have much of a career. Actors: 1. AI: 0.
I like your scoreboard too -- that pretty much sums it up.
Although I do wonder if actors/directors could use this as a practice tool. Challenge: turn word salad into a meaningful scene. It almost seems like it could be an exercise in a theatre class.
You wouldn't want to do this for the full 10 minute screenplay (it's a little painful even with these talented actors). Maybe generate a 2-3 minute scene or generate the whole screenplay and you get to pick a scene. An optional crutch -- the actors get to do their own 2-3 minute scene before and/or after to give it real context and meaning. That could be interesting.
I have a feeling that something like this kind of exercise is probably already done in training (any actors on HN?). Although I bet this algorithm is better than humans at coming up with difficult challenging incoherent word salad gibberish.
My prediction: At this level of AI-generated writing, keeping the works short will attract (allow?) small audiences ... but only to watch the human talent in the production struggle and improvise over truly awful writing. If a human was responsible for that writing, they wouldn't have much of a career. Actors: 1. AI: 0.
Agreed. Joeboy's description of this screenplay as "word salad" was perfect: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11876333 I like your scoreboard too -- that pretty much sums it up. Although I do wonder if actors/directors could use this as a practice tool. Challenge: turn word salad into a meaningful scene. It almost seems like it could be an exercise in a theatre class. You wouldn't want to do this for the full 10…
Can anyone explain the appeal of getting an AI to generate a movie or (chat with you)? I find that experience "plastic", not exactly the right word but I hope it conveys the feeling I get when something programmed pretends to be intelligent.
From the engineering side:
1. There is a model that is built of what is a valid screenplay, and that can grow and be enhanced over a time. What gets generated is an 'acceptable' output.
2. Lots of extraction of storytelling and adding all the features and constructs to the model (through algorithm or manually).
3. Representing that knowledge in a form that makes sense, in English.
4. You really get to play with the pieces of what makes language and the composition of language work rather than just consuming it, which is sort of the same as authoring under your own power.
5. The act of carrying a tune. Lots of AI's right now are building a model with a look at the next step which is great- but combining that with building a structure with a beginning middle and an end is much harder.
From the output/end result side:
1. Lack of culture preconceptions- an AI doesn't know what the last Marvel movie was, an AI never saw Back to the Future, an AI can't quote Star Trek or Gilmore Girls references off the top of their head (unless they were informed), an AI doesn't know about WWII, the Crusades, or other historical events, lots of things like that.
2. Lack of social norms- developing a morality system for the end output is very difficult so the AI author doesn't know what is appropriate or isn't.
3. The act of serendipity. Just like doing a materials science or engineering optimization through computers you can have a sequence of events that come together in an unexpected way. Instead of getting a interesting new material or alloy, you end up getting something that is a valid output of the model with all of the warts for and against.
4. It fits the form of a 'single room/closed room' movie such as 12 Angry Men. The entire universe as it is known by an AI is considered when it constructs a script.
This ends up forming for me at least the same kind of intrigue as watching sports or a well written mystery. It is a story told within in a certain framework and there is always a chance for something truly special to come from it.
Can anyone explain the appeal of getting an AI to generate a movie or (chat with you)? I find that experience "plastic", not exactly the right word but I hope it conveys the feeling I get when something programmed pretends to be intelligent.
Many people believe that creativity and emotion are the big things that are inherently "human", and cannot be replicated by a computer. This may or may not be true, no one has any strong evidence for either side. What is gaining more traction though is the concept that computers are not human but still have "experiences" and "culture", that while the things produced by an AI may be unintelligible to us, it could make perfect sense to a computer. (A fair assumption, given that a computer made the thing in question.)
In the same way that astronomers who sell books will pose scenarios claiming that intelligent life may exist outside our neighborhood but we would never know because it's so (ahem) "alien" to human intelligence, computers may have an intelligence that is so unlike ours that we may fail to perceive it.
This opens the door however to deeper existential, spiritual, and philosophical debates regarding our roles as creators, what responsibilities that may entail, and what rights a computer should have (if any), as well as what constitutes "life". Those topics, however, are for philosophers and science fiction writers, less so this internet commenter.
The recent post [1] about AI encoded Philip K Dick film adaptations, as well as this Radio Lab episode [2] and this Idea Channel episode [3] should offer more information towards stance I have laid out. You could also synthesize much of the AI centered Sci Fi works of the last 50 years, which between the love stories and laser battles offers a great deal of insight.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766063
[2]: http://www.radiolab.org/story/137407-talking-to-machines/
AI? If it were written by a man, we would call him stupid.
AI is basically divided into three "levels": ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence), AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence). We already have a bunch of narrow AIs, as in, algorithms that do a specific thing in a way that no human would have ever been capable of doing it (think: Google searches). If such AIs (well, large amount of algorithms combined) were thrown into any other sce…
I was with you until this point. You have a great description of why ANI is not AGI, but this AGI => ASI is just hand waving.
An AGI will have some of the same issues to deal with:
1) opportunity cost. yes, it will have more time because it doesn't sleep. Although maybe it will find that spending 1/3 of its time/resources cleaning out the cobwebs is optimal. Regardless it will have to spend resources (including time) on some things rather than others. The leap from general adaptability to perfect selection of tasks is likely just as large if not larger than the leap from ANI to AGI.
2) Some problems are just plain hard. There are algorithms for learning optimal results -- even brute force. The problem is they are too complex for a realistic fast solution. Just because an algorithm becomes as adaptable as a human doesn't mean that computational complexity is reduced. Therefore, either the AGI will consume massive resources to get a single optimal answer or they will be fallible just like humans.
When we get AGI, that just means we will have adaptable general algorithms, they will still have to learn and they will still be susceptible to restricted resources. In other words AGI does not imply ASI.
My prediction: At this level of AI-generated writing, keeping the works short will attract (allow?) small audiences ... but only to watch the human talent in the production struggle and improvise over truly awful writing. If a human was responsible for that writing, they wouldn't have much of a career. Actors: 1. AI: 0.
I don't think that is fair to the computer. A computer doesn't need a career, and a human has a lot more to draw from than the limited number of screenplays used as a corpus. People have purchased paintings knowingly produced by a chimpanzee [1] over Warhol and Renoir, I don't think an AI should be written off so quickly.
AI is not here, as far as we know, so let's stop throwing it around with every other topic
People (paradoxically) really want to live in the future right now, but I think all of this is very premature.