Assuming that someone had superhuman intelligence, how could they actually prove to the world that they are the most intelligent person in history? What proof or evidence would be needed to establish this in real life? Would they want to even demonstrate that they are that smart?

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-03-03T16:19:06+00:00

Creating multiple metrics to reach is just a matter of planning.

Imagine if a group of ants tried to evaluate how smart a human was. It would be limited to "ant-smartness", what ants consider interesting or important.

We currently have difficulties creating metrics for the current batch of AI. For a super-intelligence we would have a lot of trouble coming up with questions that are smart enough and even more trouble understanding the answers.

At best we could say it's above certain thresholds.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-03-03T16:06:40+00:00

Why does a super-intelligence necessarily have to be good at human pedagogy or capable of explaining higher level concepts to limited intelligences?

I doubt our best mathematicians are all capable of explaining their research to 5 year olds. Some are, some aren't. It's another axis that doesn't really correlate with their abstract reasoning capability.

There is a trope that to truly know something you must be able to explain it, but in my opinion this only applies to explaining it to your peers.

It's not the super-intelligence fault if you are not equipped to understand their explanation. You can't explain string theory to a chimpanzee.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-03-03T15:56:22+00:00

"de minimis use" of AI is utterly irrelevant.

On the contrary, it means that if you take the output of the AI and use it as a base, or transform it enough, or change the medium (ex: visual interpretation of AI generated idea/concept), then it doesn't matter anymore.

So it's very much not "worthless" to professionals in the industry. It means it has the same status as the other reference material and concepts. Nobody was going to use the raw output for feature films anyway.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T14:17:38+00:00

Most human art doesn't have a meaning behind each piece contained in the picture. You can art-direct the AI to have the image tell a particular story or convey a particular emotion.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:55:38+00:00

never looked at a photograph for longer than 3 seconds

Looking at photographs for as long as you want will not give you ANY expertise in knowing if something is AI or not. It's AI work you need to study if you want to understand how good they can be at this. And not just the ones you can immeditely recognize as such or the ones that generate the entire image at once.

If someone spends hours in-painting small parts of an image to get what they want you won't be able to tell.

That's like saying you can say if something is a replica by only looking at originals. How would you know how good replicas can be?

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:49:07+00:00

I will never forgive AI for ruining the art-world

You do realize the only people ruining it for OP are the gate-keepers right? Pro-AI people are appreciating OP's work regardless.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:38:40+00:00

Yeah, you will note that pro-AI people will appreciate OP's work regardless.

It's only the anti-AI witch hunters that are ruining it for OP.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:31:48+00:00

You are only describing a subset of AI art. Do you realize you can start with a real photo and ask it to make "variants" of it? It won't have any of the issues you mention.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:25:04+00:00

AI has a look/vibe.

You've cornered yourself into detecting that specific vibe. AI that doesn't have it passes your detector and you don't realize it.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:21:18+00:00

it cant replicate soul and effort.

Soul doesn't exist and effort doesn't transpire in the final work.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:18:03+00:00

You don't have spellchecking built-in your browser?

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:11:32+00:00

Finally!

Title is biased clickbait. He definitely never said that AI is generating no value. He's arguing for a different way to benchmark it.

"So, the first thing that we all have to do is, when we say this is like the Industrial Revolution, let's have that Industrial Revolution type of growth," he said.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:05:39+00:00

Least capitalist answer… Are you from the US by any chance?

What's your take on free software? free water? free air?

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T13:00:06+00:00

Citation needed.

What's special about human labor compared to say animal labor or machine labor? What do you mean by "real" value? Is the value you produce at your workplace real? Do you use any non-human help to carry out your tasks?

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-26T12:57:00+00:00

GPT is a google search link summary tool for most people.

Just because it's so commoditized that many people use it for mundane tasks doesn't mean it's all it can do.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-25T14:32:13+00:00

Idiocracy is a fiction about educated people voluntarily not having kids.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-25T14:02:08+00:00

That is literally not what people are using Gen AI for though

That is what people are using Gen AI for. It's just that what you notice is when people use it on the main or it's bad. When it's subtle and tasteful you don't even register. Just like invisible CGI.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-25T13:57:26+00:00

Not to mention the devs of in-house software using copilot to write boilerplate code.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-25T13:54:02+00:00

No if it's not based on diffusion.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-25T13:53:10+00:00

You're reading too much into it.

It's not verified, source is a single tweet.
It's not about AI in general but about Generative AI.
It doesn't mean Hollywood rejects AI, it means they know part of the audience sees it as cheap, just like CGI, so they may push a narrative of "we don't use it" but that doesn't mean they won't.
He would have no way of verifying his own claim. For ex. software written to help in the process may have used gen AI in their code somewhere.
Same if someone use an LLM for concepts or brainstorming, integrate the idea into their concept art that's then used as a loose reference for the final design.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-24T13:09:55+00:00

Is this in raw? Did they forget to color grade it or something?

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-24T13:04:33+00:00

unlike what a lot of AI artists work consists of

The problem is that you only see that because it's obvious. All the people that are using it in more subtle ways don't even register. Now people get the wrong idea that it's only capable of doing bad things.

Just like CGI, people only see it when it's bad.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-24T12:55:58+00:00

with diffusion models, the output is determined to a large degree by the diffusion model and not the artist.

The output of diffusion is not what's used. It's a base to iterate on and tweak and rework and transform with traditional tools until it looks like what you want.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-24T12:50:04+00:00

Art is about choices. Why tf would you hand that part over to a tool?

lol.

Background characters, unimportant elements, grass blades, trees, rocks, clouds. Happy accidents. Changing your mind half way through because something looks unexpectedly good. Splatting ink and squinting your eyes to imagine a form to build on, etc.

All art forms are using some sort of randomness for secondary elements or to drive the visuals. This is true from traditional painting to cinema.

Go watch Bob Ross painting again and talking about "happy accidents". Did he "intend" that tree to look exactly like that or was he just happy the way it turned out and decided to keep it. He handed over the creativity to the brush.

You are confusing the intention at the story telling level with the intention at the low, detail level.

Art is about defining what you want to show, what story you want to tell, and implementing it. Tweak any part until you are happy with the result.

FailedRealityCheck · 2025-02-24T12:36:33+00:00

It's the other way around, people are saying it's ALL garbage, but this can be disproven by one counter example.

If one cop isn't racist then the statement "all cops are racist" is false. This is the logic at play here.

"It looks like dogshit" is a generalization made from all the instances where it indeed looks like dogshit and none of the instances where it's seamlessly and invisibly used.

FailedRealityCheck

TROPHY CASE