4 ms·

Yeah, the same way ChatGPT is only predicting the next word with no rhyme or reason. However to actually predict the next word so that the entire sentence makes

Yeah, the same way ChatGPT is only predicting the next word with no rhyme or reason. However to actually predict the next word so that the entire sentence makes sense and is relevant for the context (e.g. answers a question) you probably must be actually understanding the meaning of the words and the language and have a world model. I can't imagine a NN moving around pixels in the shape of a cat with no understanding whatsoever of what a cat is, what it can do, how it is supposed to move, what it wants, etc.

justanotherjoe 3y ago
Of course. But stable diffusion can do that. It understands what a cat is and can draw cat wearing a hat. Videos are about actions, cause and effect, which is entirely different thing than still pictures.
- throw310822 3y ago
  Well, we definitely see actions, and actors, and causes and effects in the SORA demo videos. With imperfections and occasional mistakes, but they're undeniably there.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  It doesn't understand a cat at all. Humans understand, models are deterministic functions with some randomness added in. Just because it appears to understand doesn't make it so.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - justanotherjoe 3y ago
    diffusion models can reliably draw a cat when prompted a cat and given a random noise. Sure it's deterministic, but it can work with any random noise in a explorative kind of way. I'd say it's very general in it's 'understanding' of a cat.
    - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
      It has no "understanding" of a cat. It's an associative store with soft edges that pulls out compressed cat representations when given the noun "cat". The key store includes nouns, adverbs, verbs, and adjectives, and style abstractions, and there are mappings into the store that link all of those. But they're very limited, and if you prompt with a relationship that isn't defined you get best-guess, which will either be quite distant or contaminated with other values. If you ask Dall-E for "a woman made of birds" you get a composite that also includes trees and/or leaves. Dall-E has values for "made of" and "birds" but its value representation for "birds" is contaminated with contextual trees and branches. Leonardo doesn't have a value for "made of", so you get a woman surrounded by bird-like blobs. To understand a cat in a human sense the store would have to include the shape, the movement dynamics in all possible situations, the textures, and a set of defining behaviours that is as complete as possible. It would also have to be able to provide and remember an object-constant instantiation of a specific cat that is clean of contamination. SORA is maybe 10% of the way there. One of the examples doing the rounds shows some puppies playing in snow. It looks impressive until you realise the puppies are zombies. They have none of the expressions or emotions of a real puppy. None of this is impossible, but training time, storage, and power consumption all explode the more information you try to include.
      - throw310822 3y ago
        > It's an associative store with soft edges that pulls out compressed cat representations when given the noun "cat". And how do you know that this is not what "understanding" is? To me, understanding the concept of a cat is exactly to immediately recall (or have ready) all the associations, the possibilities, the consequences of the "cat" concept. If you can make up correct sentences about cats and conduct a reasonable conversation about cats, it means that you understand cats.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > If you can make up correct sentences about cats and conduct a reasonable conversation about cats, it means that you understand cats. No, plenty of humans can have reasonable conversations about things with zero understanding about them. We know they don't understand because when put in a situation in practice they fail to use the things they talked about. Understanding means you can apply what you know, not only talk about it.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    What is understanding though? I 'appear to understand' what a cat is, why does being human make it that I do so? What is the difference between making the correct associations and actually 'understanding' anyway?
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      Understanding, in this context, is what humans do, by definition. Until you have a concrete definition of what understanding is you can't apply it to anything else. Informal definitions of understanding by those who experience it aren't very useful at all.
      - OJFord 3y ago
        I think that's my point? You were willing to say it doesn't apply without a definition?
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        I'm saying if you want to apply it outside human experience you need an concrete definition otherwise you can call anything you like 'understanding' which is what's happening.
        throw310822 3y ago
        If for you the definition of "understanding" is "something that only humans can do" then your statement about AI is totally pointless: of course AI doesn't "understand", but at the same time it might do something that is perfectly equivalent and that "only machines can do".
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        > something that is perfectly equivalent So go ahead and define it, in concrete terms, external to humans. It can't be equivalent unless there is a definite basis for equivalence. Cat videos don't cut it. My point is that understanding, as we know it, only exists in the human mind. If you want to define something that is functionally equivalent but implemented in a machine, that is absolutely fine, but don't point to something a machine does and say "look it's understanding!" without having a concrete model of what understanding is, and how that machine is, in concrete terms, achieving it.

justanotherjoe 3y ago

Of course. But stable diffusion can do that. It understands what a cat is and can draw cat wearing a hat. Videos are about actions, cause and effect, which is entirely different thing than still pictures.

throw310822 3y ago
Well, we definitely see actions, and actors, and causes and effects in the SORA demo videos. With imperfections and occasional mistakes, but they're undeniably there.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
It doesn't understand a cat at all. Humans understand, models are deterministic functions with some randomness added in. Just because it appears to understand doesn't make it so.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- justanotherjoe 3y ago
  diffusion models can reliably draw a cat when prompted a cat and given a random noise. Sure it's deterministic, but it can work with any random noise in a explorative kind of way. I'd say it's very general in it's 'understanding' of a cat.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    It has no "understanding" of a cat. It's an associative store with soft edges that pulls out compressed cat representations when given the noun "cat". The key store includes nouns, adverbs, verbs, and adjectives, and style abstractions, and there are mappings into the store that link all of those. But they're very limited, and if you prompt with a relationship that isn't defined you get best-guess, which will either be quite distant or contaminated with other values. If you ask Dall-E for "a woman made of birds" you get a composite that also includes trees and/or leaves. Dall-E has values for "made of" and "birds" but its value representation for "birds" is contaminated with contextual trees and branches. Leonardo doesn't have a value for "made of", so you get a woman surrounded by bird-like blobs. To understand a cat in a human sense the store would have to include the shape, the movement dynamics in all possible situations, the textures, and a set of defining behaviours that is as complete as possible. It would also have to be able to provide and remember an object-constant instantiation of a specific cat that is clean of contamination. SORA is maybe 10% of the way there. One of the examples doing the rounds shows some puppies playing in snow. It looks impressive until you realise the puppies are zombies. They have none of the expressions or emotions of a real puppy. None of this is impossible, but training time, storage, and power consumption all explode the more information you try to include.
    - throw310822 3y ago
      > It's an associative store with soft edges that pulls out compressed cat representations when given the noun "cat". And how do you know that this is not what "understanding" is? To me, understanding the concept of a cat is exactly to immediately recall (or have ready) all the associations, the possibilities, the consequences of the "cat" concept. If you can make up correct sentences about cats and conduct a reasonable conversation about cats, it means that you understand cats.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > If you can make up correct sentences about cats and conduct a reasonable conversation about cats, it means that you understand cats. No, plenty of humans can have reasonable conversations about things with zero understanding about them. We know they don't understand because when put in a situation in practice they fail to use the things they talked about. Understanding means you can apply what you know, not only talk about it.
- OJFord 3y ago
  What is understanding though? I 'appear to understand' what a cat is, why does being human make it that I do so? What is the difference between making the correct associations and actually 'understanding' anyway?
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    Understanding, in this context, is what humans do, by definition. Until you have a concrete definition of what understanding is you can't apply it to anything else. Informal definitions of understanding by those who experience it aren't very useful at all.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      I think that's my point? You were willing to say it doesn't apply without a definition?
      - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        I'm saying if you want to apply it outside human experience you need an concrete definition otherwise you can call anything you like 'understanding' which is what's happening.
        throw310822 3y ago
        If for you the definition of "understanding" is "something that only humans can do" then your statement about AI is totally pointless: of course AI doesn't "understand", but at the same time it might do something that is perfectly equivalent and that "only machines can do".
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        > something that is perfectly equivalent So go ahead and define it, in concrete terms, external to humans. It can't be equivalent unless there is a definite basis for equivalence. Cat videos don't cut it. My point is that understanding, as we know it, only exists in the human mind. If you want to define something that is functionally equivalent but implemented in a machine, that is absolutely fine, but don't point to something a machine does and say "look it's understanding!" without having a concrete model of what understanding is, and how that machine is, in concrete terms, achieving it.