A judge in Washington state has blocked video evidence that’s been “AI-enhanced” from being submitted in a triple murder trial. And that’s a good thing, given the fact that too many people seem to think applying an AI filter can give them access to secret visual data.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think we need to STOP calling it “Artificial Intelligence”. IMHO that is a VERY misleading name. I do not consider guided pattern recognition to be intelligence.

        • boeman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          I can’t disagree with this… After basing the size off of the vertical pixel count, we’re now going to switch to the horizontal count to describe the resolution.

      • exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        on the contrary! it’s a very old buzzword!

        AI should be called machine learning. much better. If i had my way it would be called “fancy curve fitting” henceforth.

        • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Technically speaking AI is any effort on the part of machines to mimic living things. So computer vision for instance. This is distinct from ML and Deep Learning which use historical statistical data to train on and then forecast or simulate.

          • exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            “machines mimicking living things” does not mean exclusively AI. Many scientific fields are trying to mimic living things.

            AI is a very hazy concept imho as it’s difficult to even define when a system is intelligent - or when a human is.

            • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              That’s not what I said.

              What I typed there is not my opinion.

              This the technical, industry distinction between AI and things like ML and Neural networks.

              “Mimicking living things” is obviously not exclusive to AI. It is exclusive to AI as compared to ML, for instance.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Optical Character Recognition used to be firmly in the realm of AI until it became so common that even the post office uses it. Nowadays, OCR is so common that instead of being proper AI, it’s just another mundane application of a neural network. I guess, eventually Large Language Models will be outside there scope of AI.

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      You, and humans in general, are also just sophisticated pattern recognition and matching machines. If neural networks are not intelligent, then you are not intelligent.

      • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can say what you like but absolutely zero true and full understand of what human intelligence actually is or how it works.

        “AI”, or whatever you want to call it, is not at all similar.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        This may be the dumbest statement I have yet seen on this platform. That’s like equating a virus with a human by saying both things replicate themselves so they must be similar.

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I do not consider guided pattern recognition to be intelligence.

      That’s a you problem, this debate happened 50 years ago and we decided Intelligence is the right word.

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      What is the definition of intelligence? Does it require sentience? Can a data set be intelligently compiled into interesting results without human interaction? Yes the term AI is stretched a bit thin but I believe it has enough substance to qualify.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I do not consider guided pattern recognition to be intelligence.

      Humanity has entered the chat

      Seriously though, what name would you suggest?

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      How is guided pattern recognition is different from imagination (and therefore intelligence) though?

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        There’s a lot of other layers in brains that’s missing in machine learning. These models don’t form world models and somedon’t have an understanding of facts and have no means of ensuring consistency, to start with.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I mean if we consider just the reconstruction process used in digital photos it feels like current ai models are already very accurate and won’t be improved by much even if we made them closer to real “intelligence”.

          The point is that reconstruction itself can’t reliably produce missing details, not that a “properly intelligent” mind will be any better at it than current ai.

        • lightstream@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          They absolutely do contain a model of the universe which their answers must conform to. When an LLM hallucinates, it is creating a new answer which fits its internal model.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Statistical associations is not equivalent to a world model, especially because they’re neither deterministic nor even tries to prevent giving up conflicting answers. It models only use of language

            • lightstream@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              It models only use of language

              This phrase, so casually deployed, is doing some seriously heavy lifting. Lanuage is by no means a trivial thing for a computer to meaningfully interpret, and the fact that LLMs do it so well is way more impressive than a casual observer might think.

              If you look at earlier procedural attempts to interpret language programmatically, you will see that time and again, the developers get stopped in their tracks because in order to understand a sentence, you need to understand the universe - or at the least a particular corner of it. For example, given the sentence “The stolen painting was found by a tree”, you need to know what a tree is in order to interpret this correctly.

              You can’t really use language *unless* you have a model of the universe.

              • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                But it doesn’t model the actual universe, it models rumor mills

                Today’s LLM is the versificator machine of 1984. It cares not for truth, it cares for distracting you

                • lightstream@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They are remarkably useful. Of course there are dangers relating to how they are used, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending they are useless accomplishes nothing.

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Your comment is a good reason why these tools have no place in the courtroom: The things you describe as imagination.

        They’re image generation tools that will generate a new, unrelated image that happens to look similar to the source image. They don’t reconstruct anything and they have no understanding of what the image contains. All they know is which color the pixels in the output might probably have given the pixels in the input.

        It’s no different from giving a description of a scene to an author, asking them to come up with any event that might have happened in such a location and then trying to use the resulting short story to convict someone.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          They don’t reconstruct anything and they have no understanding of what the image contains.

          With enough training they, in fact, will have some understanding. But that still leaves us with that “enhance meme” problem aka the limited resolution of the original data. There are no means to discover what exactly was hidden between visible pixels, only approximate. So yes you are correct, just described it a bit differently.

          • lightstream@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            they, in fact, will have some understanding

            These models have spontaneously acquired a concept of things like perspective, scale and lighting, which you can argue is already an understanding of 3D space.

            What they do not have (and IMO won’t ever have) is consciousness. The fact we have created machines that have understanding of the universe without consciousness is very interesting to me. It’s very illuminating on the subject of what consciousness is, by providing a new example of what it is not.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think AI doesn’t need consciousness to be able to say what is on the picture, or to guess what else could specific details contain.