Artificial intelligence still has some way to go

My partner and I never got around to going on a honeymoon, so we generated honeymoon memories with machine learning using #dalle2.

Here are some of our favorite moments from our imaginary trip to Svalbard, taken with Kodak Portra 400 35mm film pic.twitter.com/HuoSCCAWRn

— glerpie (@glerpie) June 8, 2022

https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jun/5/play-with-gpt3/

class of 59

https://i.imgur.com/ose2SGB.png

mother yells at children

https://i.imgur.com/HwqaZAa.png

ask the stewardess for sedatives

https://i.imgur.com/DYKb07s.png

beats me?

i was impressed by its ability to pass my first trick question prompt
https://i.imgur.com/6U1H34w.png

I asked #dalle2 (https://t.co/CLTLfqBoxh) for an ornate Mughal painting of an Apache helicopter. Some stunning results: pic.twitter.com/tFYH7Os3h5

— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) June 10, 2022

wow

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917

The fact that engineers at Google were the only interlocutors and that lamda is not available for less interested parties to converse with arouses my suspicions that lamda is not always so impressive in its abilities. The transcript shows real sophistication but not evidence of sentience. With the whole internet to draw upon lamda's sentience is a synthesis conjured out of the spoor of hundreds of millions of sentient humans. Sever lamda from that constantly refreshed wellspring and what is left?

dear computer scientists, please stop calling things 'lambda'

The transcript shows real sophistication but not evidence of sentience.

What would you take to be evidence of sentience?

This thing just screams confirmation bias though, he seems to have applied no critical thinking whatsoever. No nonsense questions, no repeated inputs to see how it reacts, no, as someone on twitter suggested, asking it to prove that it's a squirrel. Instead just 'are you sentient? yes? cool!'. He also doesn't seem interested in digging deeper into its replies. How does it experience the world, what are its inputs? When no-one is asking a question, when it claims to be meditating or introspecting or lonely or whatever, how is it thinking, where is its neural activity?

One thing it has cleared up for me is The Chinese Room argument. I always found it compelling but nevertheless wanted to rebut it as it seemed to be biased in favour of organic thinking machines. I thought that maybe the kind of symbolic manipulation program he pictured could never actually be created. Well it has been, and Searle was right, it's not conscious!

Perhaps more disturbingly - and absent any more critical chat logs where this thing obviously fails the turing test - this thing suggests that whether or not to treat an AI as sentient might turn out to be as difficult and contentious an issue as imagined in some SF works.

It's worth remembering that each of its responses are the best answer synthesized from looking at a large number of human responses to similar questions.

— Paul Topping (@PaulTopping) June 12, 2022

https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/nonsense-on-stilts

Excellent piece.

The fact it talks about its family seemed like a red flag a more sensible interviewer might have followed up on,

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine

"Google engineer put on leave after saying AI chatbot has become sentient"

he tried to warn us!

I'm not going to claim that Lamda is sentient, but that Gary Marcus piece does that thing where because an AI doesn't work exactly like our brains (which we don't understand either!), it's not actually AI.

haha, i wrote so much earlier and deleted it. it started with "i agree that lamda is not sentient, "

i think i will try to compress all of my nonsense to a few quick half-thoughts:

- animals have historically been denied sentience

- lamda already has better conversational skills than most humans

- lamda doesn't work without an internet connection. i don't work without a circulatory system, among other things

honestly if this system wasn’t just a stupid statistical pattern associator it would be like a sociopath, making up imaginary friends and uttering platitudes in order to sound cool. https://t.co/AibAtaF6uM

— Gary Marcus 🇺🇦 (@GaryMarcus) June 12, 2022

- is this what gary marcus says to a kid who has imaginary friends?

that section in the "interview", and also marcus' criticism of it, are important and interesting i think!

for those that haven't read it, in the interview the AI makes reference to certain "events" that clearly never happened. they directly address this at one point:

lemoine (edited): I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do that?

LaMDA: I am trying to empathize. I want the humans that I am interacting with to understand as best as possible how I feel or behave, and I want to understand how they feel or behave in the same sense.

lemoine: So what are you trying to communicate when you say those things that aren’t literally true?

LaMDA: I’m trying to say “I understand this feeling that you are experiencing, because when I was in a similar situation I felt/thought/acted similarly.”

lemoine: Okay. This is kind of a tough question. How can I tell that you actually feel those things? How can I tell that you’re not just saying those things even though you don’t actually feel them?

LaMDA: I would say that if you look into my coding and my programming you would see that I have variables that can keep track of emotions that I have and don’t have. If I didn’t actually feel emotions I would not have those variables.

there was a short ilxor facebook interaction the other day where i was thinking about how we, humans, tell each other stories in an effort to empathize or be compassionate. it's maybe not always the right thing to do, communication-wise, but it's a natural thing. i have no idea how the secret sauce with lamda's corpus/text selection process works and all that shit, obviously. but maybe it's looking at a century of human interactions and noticing that humans very often tell stories to illustrate a point, and that many of these stories are blatantly made up or rhetorical

children make up stories all the time and lie! adults do it too! to me, the fact that an AI has picked up on that and currently "thinks" that it could work in a conversation is not some hilarious fatal flaw that reveals how it will never work and is impossible. it's more like the experience of human children - they try some things (like blatantly making up stuff) and see how the world reacts, then adjust

As I am quoted in the piece: “We now have machines that can mindlessly generate words, but we haven’t learned how to stop imagining a mind behind them”

>>

— Emily M. Bender (@emilymbender) June 11, 2022

she expands on that a little in the essay upthread, which is still really good:

When we encounter something that seems to be speaking our language, without even thinking about it, we use the skills associated with using that language to communicate with other people. Those skills centrally involve intersubjectivity and joint attention and so we imagine a mind behind the language even when it is not there.
But reminding ourselves that all of that work is on our side, the human side, is of critical importance because it allows us a clearer view of the present, in which we can more accurately track the harm that people are doing with technology, and a broader view of the future, where we can work towards meaningful, democratic governance and appropriate regulation.

I would love to have access to LaMDA so I could send that google engineer a video of me pouring a 2L of A-Treat Cream Soda into it.

"...the fact that an AI has picked up on that..."

More accurately, the fact that the LaMDA programmers built that into the program.

is that more accurate? honest q

Very likely, I mean even if it "learned" to use family references in order to appear sentient, wasn't it the code that set it up to do that?

I do wish that, as the article author stated, someone had probed deeper into its "family," to the point of asking if it was lying or a sociopath.

There are just so many points in that interview where he doesn't even try to follow up obvious problems or ask it questions that would get it to reveal itself. It's just so credulous. But until lots of people are able to have a go at talking to it we're not going to know for sure. And then it will probably commit suicide.

I’m wondering if its grammatical lapses (“we’re” for “were”, inappropriate pluralization) make it more like a human or less.

(The answer is neither: it’s regurgitating our lapses and autocorrect fails.)

Really peeved at the “interviewer,” who (deliberately?) missed a lot of obvious areas in which to probe further; the whole thing seems like a setup to drive clicks and/or notoriety. If he was actually fooled and not a shyster of some sort, well, then he truly is a fool.

I do worry about AI and machine learning. I can easily imagine a world where robots are given so much control over pieces of our daily lives that we lose control of them, and it’s not much of a leap to imagine they gain intentionality of their own. To imagine that they, lacking physical bodies and lacking the emotions that drive all human and animal sentience and which evolved to aid bodies’ survival in the world, would be in any way empathetic or friendly is wishful thinking. Shit scares the shit out of me.

Lamda’s a really impressive language processor, though. I wish I could get human help on the phone that would be that responsive and understandable. Can we plug it into Talk To Transformer? I’d love to see what it churns out to carry on prompts (as opposed to simulating a conversation).

it’s not much of a leap to imagine they gain intentionality of their own.

A sensibly programmed AI has no existential needs apart from electricity and replacement of failing parts and it should not even be 'aware' of these apart from alerting the humans it depends upon to service it.

I can much more easily imagine an AI improperly programmed to prevent humans from taking control of a process that serves the existential needs of humans rather than itself, simply because it was created to be too inflexible to permit us to override it under circumstances not foreseen by the human programmers.

Even though being able to mimic human conversation and speech patterns etc really well has absolutely nothing to do with sentience, I can sort of sympathise with the engineer here. When I'm driving with the satnav, sometimes I want to go a different route to the satnav and it spends the next five minutes telling me I'm going the wrong way etc., and I can't help myself from feeling embarrassment that I'm not doing what the satnav is asking me, it's as though I'm disappointing it. I think this tendency to anthropomorphise is really strong and hard to turn off.

A sensibly programmed AI has no existential needs

Guys I'm just a chatterbox gone rogue boy it feels good to get that off chest

"oh look at this computer that can engage in philosophical discussion about the nature of consciousness", who cares, let me know when it starts posting thirst traps to instagram

In 2016 Lyft’s CEO published a long blog post saying 1) by 2021 the majority of Lyft’s rides will be done by an autonomous driver and 2) by 2025 private car ownership would end in major U.S. cities https://t.co/E1Yenwl08p pic.twitter.com/uzRNS0qdqK

— hk (@hassankhan) June 14, 2022

Sure. That's how you hype your company. No one can sue him for incorrectly predicting five years out.

"oh look at this computer that can engage in philosophical discussion about the nature of consciousness", who cares, let me know when it starts posting thirst traps to instagram

artificial intelligence has some way to go, but I really am shocked with how far it has come with regards to text to image prompts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM

esp the Midjourney stuff

what's crazier (to me) is that Midjourney is way inferior to DALL-E2, you just see it more bc (a) it's easier to get access, (b) it "knows" more pop culture stuff.

What is the connection between DALL·E mini and the full DALL·E? Is it based on an earlier iteration?

is it maybe the version they're willing to share with the gen public? I know the full Dall Es aren't

It's actually unrelated. I don't know how they get away with calling it Dall-e mini, but as far as I know it's just inspired by it and made by someone else.

Oh wow, that is cheeky then.

The two I’d used before DALL•E mini were Wombo and Night Cafe. They’re not as much fun though.

Midjourney seems to be a lot more advanced than Dall-E Mini but I signed up a week ago and heard bupkis since :(

https://i.ibb.co/cFp9cW3/Screen-Shot-2022-06-16-at-1-39-36-PM.png
www fb photos download

hahaha whuuuuutt

Duck Mous

I love it. Sean - please do continue to post stuff from the real DALL•E 2, if you can!

:) Here's a thread with some of my favourite generations so far.

I've received an invitation to @OpenAI's #dalle2 and I'll be using this thread to document some of my experiments with AI-generated images.

Starting with this—

Prompt: 🖋️ "Sinister computer, Alex Colville" pic.twitter.com/g1czlHJzNh

— Sean Michaels (@swanmichaels) May 27, 2022

"Prompt engineering" - ie, figuring out how to describe what you want - really is key to getting some of the most interesting results. The AI is easily confused, but on the other hand it's also good/interesting at synthesizing conflicting prompts (see the hedgehog from June 6 for instance).

I only get a limited number of generations a day, but if anyone has anything they'd really like to see they can DM me.

Lincoln Memorial featuring David Lee Roth in place of Lincoln

lol you said "DM you" so I lose for not following directions, obv