30 Century Man from the end of "Bender's Big Score" was also not originally from Futurama. It's by Scott Walker from before he was a dreadful Governor of Wisconsin.
shh, our highest potential is to subjugate all the lesser life forms and extract all their value to the end of creating simulated worlds where inexhaustible numbers of lesser life forms exist for us to subjugate
If the prompt includes “trending on Twitter”, then the video will
include an anime guy gesturing at the moths with a word bubble saying
“IS THIS DARK BRANDON”, and then an astronaut replies “ALWAYS HAS
BEEN”.
As the planet continues to slowly die out soon the AI runs out of
videos to base their learning on. Causing them to learn from other AI
images instead, this process slowly transforms our perception of nature
and before long all have forgotten what our planet once looked like.
Plot twist, the AI realizes that the only way to get new videos to base its learning on is to keep humanity alive, and instead of killing us all decides to start using its superintelligence to get humans to go take videos of cool bugs instead.
Speaking of cults, I’ve been thinking of making a post going through
their articles and definitions. A paragraph or two of each page are
enough as LW has plenty of irrational gibberish. I’m thinking of
including the BITE model as well.
That will not be my first thought, because people rarely get their
content raw, it goes through several layers of filtering. By the time I
see it, it will be contextualized by other trustworthy people because I
don’t follow anonymous 4chan Twitter accounts.
are you aware of DALLE and stable diffusion models? maybe he is referring to those.
p.s. if this tweet was not associated with him, a lot of ppl would actually agree with it... generating continuous frames from something like dalle doesn't seem too far imo
> p.s. if this tweet was not associated with him, a lot of ppl would actually agree with it... generating continuous frames from something like dalle doesn't seem too far imo
Sure, but it *is* from him, so it comes with any or all of the context pertaining to the name “Eliezer Yudkowsky”, because that’s what *words are*
> if this tweet was not associated with him, a lot of ppl would actually agree with it
Not sure there's anyone out there who could reasonably suggest that the human race might be extinct in the next 2-4 years who I wouldn't sneer at.
I get that but unless we're talking about political videos of evidence presented to a court, no one will care. Sure, AI generated videos have the potential to affect certain legal areas but beyond that, there's no reason for people to ask themselves if videos are real.
This view really doesn't make sense to me. Do you not care if the thing you watched *actually happened*? Most people do, and already the savvy already have a "is this CGI?" check programmed into them.
If it generates a video of a beautiful and entirely fictional moth species, then I would say most people care about whether they can believe such a thing exists or not.
You already see this a lot reddit. Someone will point out that a video is likely fake, and a good portion of the thread will come down in them for being the fun police or something.
That's fair, but in my experience those are usually for harmless "plays" in the sense that the dispute of authenticity is about whether the plot was scripted.
I doubt you would see those same comments under a deepfake of a world leader making a high-impact proclamation ("This video of Biden declaring intent to launch nuclear weapons is fake"; "shut up, fun police").
I also wonder how many of the people who call out the fun police are in on the joke already. If someone is genuinely believing a false video, they might appreciate being made aware of the ruse at an epistemic level, even if it ruins the feel-goods (at least, this is how I feel when it happens to me).
Im not sure why it would be inherently important, barring external reasons
The fact that there are a lot of external reasons to care confounds things a bit, but why would i care if, for example, someone actually went into the street, held a mic up to a cat and then the cat made a funny sound that vaguely sounds like speech - or if they made all that up with video editing? Why does it matter?
I would worry not so much about making a cat say things as I would making political figures and intellectuals say things.
I feel like maybe you are restricting your imagination to the realm of internet videos? Just think of the type of video played on news networks, and how being able to craft those convincingly with arbitrary messaging might be a problem.
Actually I think on re-read, your point is that [given a video of the world] it makes no difference whether that video was produced by [authentic camera-capture] or [being generated by AI] because the end product is the same.
I might agree with this at a mechanical level, but I still don't see your point. The ability to generate a "true" video sort of implies / is dangerously close to generate a convincingly true but actually false video.
In this case you still want to know the authenticity of a video to make sure you aren't being duped.
Late reply, but my point is i dont care about being 'duped' unless there is a separate reason to care about the authenticity
It's like screenshots: i dont care about the veracity of a funny typo message, while i might care about the text of a new law being correct
Theres no point in being *always* or *by default* suspicious of things, just apply it when (and only when) needed - that's plenty to keep those skills honed
Mmmmm yes... let's just subsume ourselves further under the boundless hyperreality of the internet of 2022...
Fr though, the cat video example is pretty benign, but if every video I come across, however benign, ends up actually being AI generated, that's going to fuck pretty significantly with my sense of reality in an overwhelmingly negative way. I like having a shared sense of what is real, and don't want that destroyed (more than it already is).
You watch a beautiful moving image of a pride of lions stalking a herd of gazelles on the Serengeti. It is shot from the perspective of a 1970s nature documentary, but the images are HD crystal HD. A gentle breeze stirs the tall grass in which the lions crouch, and you’re treated to a 360* view of wild Africa in all her primordial beauty. You are moved to tears by the beauty of world, grateful for your life and all the nature you touch.
Does it matter that the Serengeti no longer exists, or that lions went extinct in 2040?
I don’t understand why anyone would be so blasé about something that has the potential to warp reality perception so completely.
Prompt it with "hands". Seriously, do this if you think it doesn't seem too far off.
Once you'll have the hands moving, it'll be even more disturbing and harder to get right.
“In the year, 2025, if man is still alive…”
I want to start every sentence talking about anything in the future with “If we’re still alive”.
“Hey, if we’re still alive tomorrow, do you want to get lunch together?”
[deleted]
only you can save us, rationalist jesus
So if Yud is Suzumiya, does that make sneer club the SOS brigade?
If the prompt includes “trending on Twitter”, then the video will include an anime guy gesturing at the moths with a word bubble saying “IS THIS DARK BRANDON”, and then an astronaut replies “ALWAYS HAS BEEN”.
[deleted]
yud is a hardcore prepper isn’t he, how many MRE and rounds of ammo does he have stockpiled in his basement
too bad you can’t shoot an evil computer to death though
Touch grass. Touch moth.
[deleted]
Wow, this Kool-Aid tastes like shit, what the fuck is in it?
As the planet continues to slowly die out soon the AI runs out of videos to base their learning on. Causing them to learn from other AI images instead, this process slowly transforms our perception of nature and before long all have forgotten what our planet once looked like.
Ok but what’s the video he was responding to in this tweet?
Fake nature photography has been complained about for ages already.
You’ll be able to tell it’s not AI because none of the moths have five wings and eight legs.
Is Yud coming out against AI “art” here? Has he accidentally stumbled into a good take?
Speaking of cults, I’ve been thinking of making a post going through their articles and definitions. A paragraph or two of each page are enough as LW has plenty of irrational gibberish. I’m thinking of including the BITE model as well.
As opposed to now where it merely might be rendered
this but the results of a sports game and prediction markets
Sneer aside, it is kind of sad. (And obviously deepfakes have a lot more malicious uses than this.)
That will not be my first thought, because people rarely get their content raw, it goes through several layers of filtering. By the time I see it, it will be contextualized by other trustworthy people because I don’t follow anonymous 4chan Twitter accounts.
Also, few people ever wonder about the equipment used for creating content, why would AI be any different to the camera model in that regard?
Yud seeing a video of some moths 3 years from now
I hope the same thing could be said about my dong. “Is it real? Is it AI genereated?”