Oh, “AI” is purely a marketing term. You know how we know this? We can’t define intelligence. There is literally no definition for intelligence that is broadly accepted. So anybody selling “AI”, whether it’s “neural networks” or “ant colonies” or “genetic algorithms” or whatever technobabble is being used is not intelligence of any kind. You can’t make the artificial version, after all, of something we can’t identify.
What I was pointing out only is that “AI” photo retouching is not automatically degenerative “AI” photo retouching. The “AI” retouching in my phone is not prone to hallucination. It predates the hallucination machines. It just does stuff like (mostly) smoothly removing things like strung cable in photos and that kind of stuff, or does some pretty splendid night time photography.
Modern phones with the same features don’t call those features “AI” because today “AI” means the degenerative crap. They just call it “filtering”. (And then, tragically, they put the degenerative crap into the camera software because we’re not allowed to have nice things apparently.)
Ah, yes. The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.
literally no definition for intelligence that is broadly accepted
You’re conflating human intelligence with what it means in computer science. We have no way of consistently and meaningfully ranking human intelligence. The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing. It’s not even comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
You may as well say “signals intelligence doesn’t exist because we can’t define intelligence”.
Calling things techno babble doesn’t help you look like someone who knows what they’re talking about making a distinction.
The “AI” retouching in my phone is not prone to hallucination. It predates the hallucination machines. It just does stuff like (mostly) smoothly removing things like strung cable in photos and that kind of stuff, or does some pretty splendid night time photography.
I hate to break it to you, but that’s largely generative AI. You haven’t mentioned your phone specifically, but the features in question are at least quite similar to googles magic eraser and night sight features.
Unless your phone is hilariously old, it doesn’t predate googles use and development of generative AI.
In one sentence you say it doesn’t hallucinate, and the next you say it “mostly” smoothly removes things. First, where do you think it’s getting what’s behind what it removed? Second, what do you think is happening when it fails to get it right?
The computational photography features are largely a machine learning model being applied to techniques used by traditional photographers.
If you want to use them, I don’t care. Just don’t pretend they’re fundamentally any different than using Photoshop AI tools to do the same thing. It’s not. You’re using an AI based tool to do something that someone else is doing by hand. It’s trained on a dataset pulled from every picture on earth ever uploaded to the Internet.
Your perfectly color calibrated hdr+ photo without any weird stuff blocking the sky doesn’t get the same credit as a person who meticulously composited and exposed a set of film photos for those bits.
I literally said one message earlier that my phone predates the outbreak of degenerative AI. I got it in 2021. If that’s “hilariously old” to you, so be it. It works (unlike degenerative AI).
The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.
The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing.
Now ask yourself this, Sparky. Why was it called “Artificial Intelligence”? If it was, and I quote:
… comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
I’ll give you a little clue: “artificial intelligence” gets more research grants than does any of these:
string of fancy-schmancy if/then statements
brain-damaged linear classifier
string of fancy-schmancy if/then statements disguised as a flowchart
curve fitting through brain-damaged linear classifier
precious, fussy line-drawer
shallow pattern matcher but hey at least it eats all the available hardware (phase I)
scoreboard-directed brute force button masher
“what if we ran the shallow pattern matcher backwards” but hey, at least it eats more than all the available hardware (phase II)
Yeah, so your phone is definitely using the modern iteration of generative AI for the features you’re defending. By “hilariously old” I meant more along the lines of “2014”. It is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about smartphone AI features.
It kinda feels like your problem with modern AI is less the ethical issues and more the results you get from it, with the way that you’re defending it in the use case you like by saying it’s a different type.
As for your odd attack on an academic field: none of those things existed when the departments were founded. Those were all the names for the grants they proposed that led to them creating those things.
Why do you have a hard time accepting that maybe a term has different meanings in different contexts, and using that as the basis for your criticism is shallow compared to any of the other incredibly valid reasons to criticize how it’s built, supported, marketed, used or advertised?
Oh, “AI” is purely a marketing term. You know how we know this? We can’t define intelligence. There is literally no definition for intelligence that is broadly accepted. So anybody selling “AI”, whether it’s “neural networks” or “ant colonies” or “genetic algorithms” or whatever technobabble is being used is not intelligence of any kind. You can’t make the artificial version, after all, of something we can’t identify.
What I was pointing out only is that “AI” photo retouching is not automatically degenerative “AI” photo retouching. The “AI” retouching in my phone is not prone to hallucination. It predates the hallucination machines. It just does stuff like (mostly) smoothly removing things like strung cable in photos and that kind of stuff, or does some pretty splendid night time photography.
Modern phones with the same features don’t call those features “AI” because today “AI” means the degenerative crap. They just call it “filtering”. (And then, tragically, they put the degenerative crap into the camera software because we’re not allowed to have nice things apparently.)
Ah, yes. The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.
You’re conflating human intelligence with what it means in computer science. We have no way of consistently and meaningfully ranking human intelligence. The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing. It’s not even comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
You may as well say “signals intelligence doesn’t exist because we can’t define intelligence”.
Calling things techno babble doesn’t help you look like someone who knows what they’re talking about making a distinction.
I hate to break it to you, but that’s largely generative AI. You haven’t mentioned your phone specifically, but the features in question are at least quite similar to googles magic eraser and night sight features.
Unless your phone is hilariously old, it doesn’t predate googles use and development of generative AI.
In one sentence you say it doesn’t hallucinate, and the next you say it “mostly” smoothly removes things. First, where do you think it’s getting what’s behind what it removed? Second, what do you think is happening when it fails to get it right?
The computational photography features are largely a machine learning model being applied to techniques used by traditional photographers.
If you want to use them, I don’t care. Just don’t pretend they’re fundamentally any different than using Photoshop AI tools to do the same thing. It’s not. You’re using an AI based tool to do something that someone else is doing by hand. It’s trained on a dataset pulled from every picture on earth ever uploaded to the Internet.
Your perfectly color calibrated hdr+ photo without any weird stuff blocking the sky doesn’t get the same credit as a person who meticulously composited and exposed a set of film photos for those bits.
I literally said one message earlier that my phone predates the outbreak of degenerative AI. I got it in 2021. If that’s “hilariously old” to you, so be it. It works (unlike degenerative AI).
Now ask yourself this, Sparky. Why was it called “Artificial Intelligence”? If it was, and I quote:
I’ll give you a little clue: “artificial intelligence” gets more research grants than does any of these:
Yeah, so your phone is definitely using the modern iteration of generative AI for the features you’re defending. By “hilariously old” I meant more along the lines of “2014”. It is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about smartphone AI features.
It kinda feels like your problem with modern AI is less the ethical issues and more the results you get from it, with the way that you’re defending it in the use case you like by saying it’s a different type.
As for your odd attack on an academic field: none of those things existed when the departments were founded. Those were all the names for the grants they proposed that led to them creating those things.
Why do you have a hard time accepting that maybe a term has different meanings in different contexts, and using that as the basis for your criticism is shallow compared to any of the other incredibly valid reasons to criticize how it’s built, supported, marketed, used or advertised?