How about an AI that can develop a fitness regime taking into account diet, timetables of local leisure centres, etc

GooberTheHat wrote:

Something to monitor my bowl movements, and also my nutritional intake, then make dietary recommendations to optimise the consistency, and consistency, of my pooping.

Ooh that's a great one.  I'd love that.

Computer says standing.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

There a tendency to throw AI at everything when it's not needed. YT is better at certain things.

Like videos that have a long meandering introduction, then don't do the thing they say they are going to show you how to do. Its brilliant for that.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

There a tendency to throw AI at everything when it's not needed. YT is better at certain things.

Can confirm, 0 buttcrack vids

You can shit in it as well.

Maybers, but I'd need you to look at A LOT of femboy porn to train it.

Wim Hof says don't do that.

There are many different AIs. The hot dog example is a neural net built by using machine learning techniques... but there are other methods. The oldest method of AI was used to code games like chess...a decision tree and evaluation function would be used to evaluate, compare and select the next move from a set of possibilities. The deeper the tree the further ahead the algorithm could look. The older method can be understood....one can see how a decision was made.

With neural nets it's a black box situation....even the developer doesn't actually know how a decision is made which is what makes commentators nervous about its use in certain applications.

The methods that are making headlines now are large language models like chatgpt which use statistical analysis to predict the next word in a sentence based on its experience of every sentence it has analysed. It doesn't "know" what it has read...it is an analysis of symbols; albeit a clever one.

Heh.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

but then again the neurons in our brains are linked up like in the ML model.

At best, that's a massive oversimplification.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Dunno. I went to a biology vs AI lecture and there are common features. Yes they are different, the brain doesn't use convolution and all that but there are striking similarities in the unknowns. When you chain things together things get complicated real quick and it's why the brain and AI are so hard to understand.

I mean that reads like you're saying "we don't really understand either so ergo plato they're probably very similar".

Unlikely wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Dunno. I went to a biology vs AI lecture and there are common features. Yes they are different, the brain doesn't use convolution and all that but there are striking similarities in the unknowns. When you chain things together things get complicated real quick and it's why the brain and AI are so hard to understand.

I mean that reads like you're saying "we don't really understand either so ergo plato they're probably very similar".

Well yes, it does, but we don't understand them for the same reasons - that multiple nodes/neurons connections are insanely complicated and the complexity increases exponentially. 

The similaraties are such that they're now using lab grown (human) neurons to build AI models. Pop posted a link about it somewhere. In brain cells there's dendrites that recieve the electric signal (the weights), a cell body thing that processes it (the node value) and an axon that sends the signal to more brain cells.

Now I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but you can use these electrical aspects of brain cells to make a dumb ML model. The mathematical complexity of these exponential connections are broadly similar but the brain has something like 70 trillion connections, and it doesn't need need backpropagation or differentiation because it just works out of the box. It's been trained, grown and refined for a few hundred million years.

The important bit of real and artificial is still the complexity of electricity moving through a complicated network. It explains why the brain is the most powerful computer in the world, and it is a computer. It's power efficiency is rather staggering compared to AI networks but again that's just evolution. 

AI obvs doesn't have sentience but the next Turin Test should be whether you can prove it doesn't have sentience. If it answers exactly like it's sentient, what's the difference?

Bit of a ramble but there you go.

Of course it is possible. He never mentioned that they would actually be a good match.

Not in scope.