AI

I love how some people complain that they can't care about the fate of a robot. It's a metaphor stupid - David is no more or less real than any other film character.

As for what it is saying: surely something about how mortality and impossible longing are a crucial part of the human experience? That is, you are never going to feel complete or satisfied until you are dead. The final scenes seem to say something almost unbearably profound to me, yet I cannot put into words exactly what.

I must have alienated a pretty large proportion of ILX there...

And it's especially aggravating the way people condescend to Spielburg's films. No one seems to be able to watch AI without feeling intellectually superior to its director somehow.

It was generally all right but the first hour was really tremendously bad and if they hadn't had stupid illogical bits it would all have been fixed. But there would've been, uh, no second hour and a half. And no Jude Law.

i find it easier to make sense of the description of john carpenter or wes craven as intellectuals, insofaras it's helpful anywhere evah

I'm happy to agree that Wes Craven and John Carpenter are intellectuals (ie not good with actors), but in that case 'Jaws' and 'Jurassic Park' are also very intellectual films.

Martin S - fair enough that you don't like '2001', you old punker, but as a purely 'sensual' experience it is far superior to anything on offer in the crappy Kirby comic, which must surely rate as one of the King's biggest creative misfires evah.

And I never expected to have to defend Jack Kirby against you, of all people, Andrew. His 2001 series obviously entirely lacks the coolly attractive surface of the movie, but every panel has more fascinating meaning and excitement than the whole film, which is not saying much admittedly because it is a dull film with about a thousandth the worthwhile meaning that it imagines it has. I don't mind meaningless bollocks, but this is pretentious meaningless bollocks.

As for overrated, I don't need an objective standard to say that, I need only the opinion that the general critical consensus regards it more highly than it deserves.

At a TV season preview in Los Angeles last summer, I escaped a boring network party full of pandering actors and publicists and holed up in a corner with one of my favorite people, a pretty important network publicist who is a secret literature, philosophy and semiotics buff. He hates almost every acclaimed American movie of the last 20 years, but he loved "AI," loved everything about it in fact, particularly the last act (or the last movement, as he calls it). He actually got a bit choked up describing it and interpreting it... He thought it was a tremendously depressing ending, piercing in its darkness, because the boy got his wish (to have his mother back) but got not his mother, but a facsimile; as he interpreted it, humankind was re-created by the intelligent machines, a whole species/civiilzation raised from the dead by a God force (a Spielberg motif), but in a severely limited form, as all the information came from the mind of this eternal manchild robot. According to this "AI" fan, David didn't get his mother back, he got his own severely circumscribed notion of his mother, a child's sketch of a mother. My friend concluded, "When I read all those reviews and heard all my friends complaining that it was a saccharine ending, I wanted to quit my job and go live on the desert island someplace, because it just confirmed for me that 99 percent of the human race is totally idiotic. That's not a happy ending. That's the saddest fucking ending in the history of endings."

http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2006/02/stain-on-mind_113955479003282498.html

ha it's funny how tentative i was here. i would def argue that it is a masterpiece now!

haha! obviously, I can't agree with you but I think this about so many other movies, it seems like a fair comment.

Like the ending referred to above. I think it takes some work, and giving Spielberg and/or his writer a great deal more credit than he deserves (based on previous work) to make the ending into something horrifying and sad.

it just fits too well with the explicit subject matter of the film for me to dismiss it though.

Same for me with the Munich massacre-fuck.

Yeah, I think I do.

part of a Best of the Decade series:

http://alsolikelife.com/shooting/2009/08/best-of-the-decade-derby-a-i-liveblog-with-keith-uhlich-and-michael-joshua-rowin/

Interesting link and it's made me want to watch the film again - thanks.

Guys do you know why AI is great? Because Jude Law is a sex robot in it.

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/ai_450x312.jpg

Lover Robots

This most recent thread revival keeps making me think it's about a poster named Al.

We love you, Al! Don't give up! There will be a fap in Duluth where we can meet up.

A sort of film/idea/image checklist/analysis:

http://www.offscreen.com/index.php/pages/essays/artificial_intelligence/

Once she says the seven words that will ‘imprint’ young David (Haley Joel Osmont) into being Monica’s long lost love child, the cast has been dyed.

Why are people such terrible, terrible writers now? It would be one thing if this was a pun or something, but yeesh.

On the editor as much as anyone. Many online essays are written at 1 or 6 a.m. (trust me).

I blame the laziness of spell check vs. copy editing. Many pieces are indeed spell checked, but not copy edited, for myriad reasons, and spellcheck can't catch contextual mistakes, from errors as silly as the aforementioned to countless misuses of apostrophes. Or should I say apostrophe's?

But wow, do I still love this movie. Still so misunderstood.

(In general)

Agreed. And the more I watch it the more I think it's top 5 all-time Spielberg material.

I feel like we are only a few years away from Ai that we can interact with in a scary way that makes us realize that we are nto so different from complex robots ourselves.

It will be humbling.

Will sex workers of the future be all AI?

fun

https://visual-recognition-demo.mybluemix.net/

we are nto so different from complex robots ourselves

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2236/2203715732_29f983424b_b.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/GsRcWUf.jpg

i'll bet some ppl on ilx have some deep knowledge about this. what's the word? we worried about roko's basilisk? is the threat overblown? i heard elon musk talk about this, and while he is a dork, i found some things kind of frightening. that A.I. program that can beat any human at any game if you just tell it the rules.

i for one can't wait to have my skull crushed under the heel of a seven-foot-tall gleaming metal endoskeleton

how do we know this isn't a robot who hacked treezy's pw and is fishing for our thoughts on AI, so he can use this information against us?

treezybot, pls crush my skull under the heel of your seven-foot-tall gleaming metal endoskeleton

Don't listen to him TreeshAIp, BG is just saying that because he wants a glass eye

ahem, animal fat eye, pls

wait no not a glass eye but an... ARTIFICIAL 'I'.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CYfjFb7WjGQ/hqdefault.jpg

xp ah yeah nbd then

that A.I. program that can beat any human at any game if you just tell it the rules.

Computer scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers use the concept of complexity to describe the difficulty in finding an method to

Finding an efficient method to solve some particular problem. You can consider this from the perspective of games, checkers is much simpler than chess, chess is much simpler than go, go is much simpler than Overwatch. Current learning methods can generally win at checkers, chess, and go, but we’re frankly, decades away from success in games like Overwatch.

I should add that most state of the art methods are unplanned. They discover rules on their own learning by constraints (increasing a score, for example).

I wrote that while pooping fyi.

Go is simpler than Overwatch? In what sense? The fact that patterns of behavior and countermoves are harder to identify?

Also the computer beats ordinary players in games like that all the time. Like sports games—it’s not merely running a script in those cases.

one other important distinction between go and overwatch: i've never jacked off to go fanfiction but i frequently actually you know what never mind

can't believe treesh breached this forbidden subject.

dude acquires a couple epsilons and starts asking about machine precision. Sus.

treeship's basilisk

AI will become more capable than it is at present. But AI will remain an adjunct to human intelligence and human agency for quite a long time. If I were you, treesh, I'd worry much more about the same old human capacity for greed, cruelty and abuse of power, as abetted by AI, than about AI's ascendancy over humans.

I have a quasi-mystical, maybe heideggerian belief that consciousness and intelligence are wholly separate things and computers don’t “experience” anything the way living things do. There is no presence there. So I don’t believe the machines will have an agenda of their own. But I think they still might fuck stuff up.

I could see an algorithm going awry and screwing up the financial system or something; and the program programmed itself so no one knows how to fix it. Somethinf like that.

one other important distinction between go and overwatch: i've never jacked off to go fanfiction but i frequently actually you know what never mind

― himalayan mountain hole (bizarro gazzara)

ah shit now i'm depressed thinking about the probable existence of "hikaru no go" hentai

incidentally i find roko's basilisk to be an utterly hilarious example of just how shitty humans are at thinking logically

Yeah i wasn’t serious about that specific danger. Sometimes I forget that online I don’t have my trusty slide whistle to let people know when I’m being ironic.

decades away from success in games like Overwatch

No way. I mean self-driving cars are getting reasonable - turn up the speed, add guns - can it be that hard?

Also the computer beats ordinary players in games like that all the time. Like sports games—it’s not merely running a script in those cases.

cuz the computer cheats - video games are not necessarily a great example.

last I heard AI was getting really good at Heads Up No Limit Texas Hold 'em, though apparently if you're playing 3-way it's not as good. that to me is a bit more interesting.

I could see an algorithm going awry and screwing up the financial system or something; and the program programmed itself so no one knows how to fix it. Somethinf like that.

I have a quasi-mystical, maybe heideggerian belief that consciousness and intelligence are wholly separate things and computers don’t “experience” anything the way living things do.

My really uninformed sense is that there is often a presumption that if you build up enough complexity in terms of computation/intelligence then consciousness might emerge. This seems backwards to me, since if you build up from intelligence towards consciousness then you've more or less already ensured that the AI will always be more complex than (or at best equally complex as) the environment it's reacting to. You've predetermined what does and does not count as information. Consciousness (in that Heideggerian sense) exists "prior" to that distinction (or doesn't draw it). So what you'd need, by contrast, is an AI with an ability to adapt to (and reduce the complexity of) an outside environment more complex than it is.

In other words, AI would need to be capable of what Gotthard Gunther calls a logic of reflection (in which the information/not-information distinction can be suspended).

I could see an algorithm going awry and screwing up the financial system or something; and the program programmed itself so no one knows how to fix it. Somethinf like that.

High-frequency trading and the 440 million dollar mistake

"There was some problem with the program," says Felix Salmon, finance blogger for Reuters in New York.

"We don't know exactly what. They switched it on and immediately they started losing literally $10 million a minute. It looks like they were buying high and selling low many, many times per second, and losing 10 or 15 dollars each time. And this went on for 45 minutes. At the end of it all they wound up having lost $440 million."

lol someone screwed up an if statement

if AI were REALLY smart it would have used two of itself to invent how to crash the stock market, and then used three of itself to be able to do it with plausible deniability

ryan, reducing the complexity of input data by using a limited (although, yes, often still quite high) number of parameters to internally represent and "think" about a problem is already a very integral part of how the approaches that people these days call "AI" work.

It's the whole von Neumann "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" thing...

This is relevant to today's discussion: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17985168/deep-learning-revolution-terrence-sejnowski-artificial-intelligence-technology

Right, I’ve heard about this in the context of these networks creating fake videos. They really generate new things that seem realistic, right?

They are, in a sense, generating internal activity. This turns out to be the way the brain works. You can look out and see something and then you can close your eyes and you can begin to imagine things that aren’t out there. You have a visual imagery, you have ideas that come to you when things are quiet. That’s because your brain is generative. And now this new class of networks can generate new patterns that never existed. So you can give it, for example, hundreds of images of cars and it would create an internal structure which can generate new images of cars that have never existed and they all look totally like cars.

accidentally type "\\sars_images" and we've got new strains of deadly virus sars

biocomputing...

pretty wild.

https://finalspark.com/

the nextest next step...

https://finalspark.com/wp-content/themes/divi-creative-agency/images/organoid-5.png

if only my new coffee maker had a biocomputer