5 ms·

Oh the interesting part is “our AI could not interpret images of common objects at unusual angles”. Now that’s fascinating - why not? Is computer vision just b

Oh the interesting part is “our AI could not interpret images of common objects at unusual angles”. Now that’s fascinating - why not? Is computer vision just boring pattern recognition and really does not have “concepts” underlying it - if so 90% of the AI hype is false? There must be several phds in that at least :-)

lewhoo 2y ago
What ? Stable diffusion doesn't have an underlying understanding that humans typically have two arms, two hands and five fingers per hand gathered from vast sea of training data ? That's a bold statement.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  I think the issue is “understanding” IIRR it’s a debate as to the difference between 99% of the time It predicts the next pixel will be fleshy and the pixel next to it is background this making something that looks fingery (and so when presented with An odd angle that 99% drops crazily” or that somehow there is a executive function that has evolved that gets a concept of finger with movement, musculature etc It’s the “somehow evolved” part that is where I have my concerns. Predictive ability based on billions images, sounds good. Executive function - how does that work? But at some point we are playing “what is consciousness” games. Would love to hear more rigourous thought than mine - any links gratefully received:-)
  - lewhoo 2y ago
    I actually agree with you. I was a bit sarcastic. If I understand correctly there isn't a fundamental difference when it comes to text output vs pixel data output in this context. If so then it suddenly sounds much more of a stretch (intuitively) to claim that somehow stable diffusion understands the real world (like people claim to be the case with language models).
- kbrkbr 2y ago
  > and five fingers per hand In my experience it's more like three to six. But your argument's still valid. There is a concept
WithinReason 2y ago
There are cases where AI can recognise gender on an X-ray when humans can't, find tumors that experienced doctor's can't. This must mean that human doctors looking at Xrays use just boring pattern recognition and AI has actual concepts of what it's seeing.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  That is actually pretty cool, but I believe you meant to say "biological sex" instead of "gender". :P I have no clue how an AI may find the gender (which is in the mind) of someone through x-rays alone.
  - WithinReason 2y ago
    the mathematical correlation between the two is so high as to be negligible
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      What does this mean? I do not think anyone could determine my gender based on x-rays alone. My biological sex, however, definitely.
      - WithinReason 2y ago
        It's simple math. If the correlation between gender and sex is 0.99 then if a method can determine your sex with say a 90% accuracy then it can determine your gender with an 89% accuracy (very roughly). The difference is negligible.
  - jxjx 2y ago
    "Gender" is often used as a synonym of "sex". The more recent and somewhat controversial concept of it being an identity isn't the only sense of the word.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
Doxin 2y ago
Mind that there's a big difference between machine learning (which these robots use) and generative AI, which is what most of the recent hype has been about. ML is by now mostly a proven technique with known limitations. E.g. being unable to deal correctly with situations not present in the training data. Generative AI is an offshoot of this, where people largely seem to like pretending those known limitations don't apply for vague reasons.

lewhoo 2y ago

What ? Stable diffusion doesn't have an underlying understanding that humans typically have two arms, two hands and five fingers per hand gathered from vast sea of training data ? That's a bold statement.

lifeisstillgood 2y ago
I think the issue is “understanding” IIRR it’s a debate as to the difference between 99% of the time It predicts the next pixel will be fleshy and the pixel next to it is background this making something that looks fingery (and so when presented with An odd angle that 99% drops crazily” or that somehow there is a executive function that has evolved that gets a concept of finger with movement, musculature etc It’s the “somehow evolved” part that is where I have my concerns. Predictive ability based on billions images, sounds good. Executive function - how does that work? But at some point we are playing “what is consciousness” games. Would love to hear more rigourous thought than mine - any links gratefully received:-)
- lewhoo 2y ago
  I actually agree with you. I was a bit sarcastic. If I understand correctly there isn't a fundamental difference when it comes to text output vs pixel data output in this context. If so then it suddenly sounds much more of a stretch (intuitively) to claim that somehow stable diffusion understands the real world (like people claim to be the case with language models).
kbrkbr 2y ago
> and five fingers per hand In my experience it's more like three to six. But your argument's still valid. There is a concept

WithinReason 2y ago

There are cases where AI can recognise gender on an X-ray when humans can't, find tumors that experienced doctor's can't. This must mean that human doctors looking at Xrays use just boring pattern recognition and AI has actual concepts of what it's seeing.

johnisgood 2y ago
That is actually pretty cool, but I believe you meant to say "biological sex" instead of "gender". :P I have no clue how an AI may find the gender (which is in the mind) of someone through x-rays alone.
- WithinReason 2y ago
  the mathematical correlation between the two is so high as to be negligible
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    What does this mean? I do not think anyone could determine my gender based on x-rays alone. My biological sex, however, definitely.
    - WithinReason 2y ago
      It's simple math. If the correlation between gender and sex is 0.99 then if a method can determine your sex with say a 90% accuracy then it can determine your gender with an 89% accuracy (very roughly). The difference is negligible.
- jxjx 2y ago
  "Gender" is often used as a synonym of "sex". The more recent and somewhat controversial concept of it being an identity isn't the only sense of the word.
  - johnisgood 2y ago

Doxin 2y ago

Mind that there's a big difference between machine learning (which these robots use) and generative AI, which is what most of the recent hype has been about. ML is by now mostly a proven technique with known limitations. E.g. being unable to deal correctly with situations not present in the training data. Generative AI is an offshoot of this, where people largely seem to like pretending those known limitations don't apply for vague reasons.