Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9273363" data-attributes="member: 7034611">So let's see where I go wrong, feel free to correct me...I did not mean they do not understand their code or cannot debug it, the latter is obviously true and former better be true.The code is only half the equation however, the weights that are being automatically adjusted and used by the AI are the other half, and given that the AI keeps tweaking these 'on its own' and there are so many of them, you cannot really say how it arrived at its result without debugging it.In contrast to a random generator which uses fixed lookup tables and the only thing that is random is the number it starts with, i.e. if you know that number (through debugging again), you know what the result will be without having to debug the rest of the logic.How easy would it be to 'predict' that given the following input 'artic ice cliff, penguins, seals, black stone temple, high quality digital painting'&nbsp; the AI would create the following picture[ATTACH=full]348211[/ATTACH]or explain and fix the highlighted penguinsI did not disagree with this, esp. the 'small subset' part. Of course it is a predictive giant calculator, the problem lies in its complexity.or in other words, we do not know, but yes 'no one knows' might have been a bit strong, even when this essentially is true for a given result and too tedious to figure out. I did not mean 'we do not have the slightest idea what is going on'...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mamba, post: 9273363, member: 7034611"] So let's see where I go wrong, feel free to correct me... I did not mean they do not understand their code or cannot debug it, the latter is obviously true and former better be true. The code is only half the equation however, the weights that are being automatically adjusted and used by the AI are the other half, and given that the AI keeps tweaking these 'on its own' and there are so many of them, you cannot really say how it arrived at its result without debugging it. In contrast to a random generator which uses fixed lookup tables and the only thing that is random is the number it starts with, i.e. if you know that number (through debugging again), you [I]know[/I] what the result will be without having to debug the rest of the logic. How easy would it be to 'predict' that given the following input 'artic ice cliff, penguins, seals, black stone temple, high quality digital painting' the AI would create the following picture [ATTACH type="full" alt="1708736245413.png"]348211[/ATTACH] or explain and fix the highlighted penguins I did not disagree with this, esp. the 'small subset' part. Of course it is a predictive giant calculator, the problem lies in its complexity. or in other words, we do not know, but yes 'no one knows' might have been a bit strong, even when this essentially is true for a given result and too tedious to figure out. I did not mean 'we do not have the slightest idea what is going on'... [/QUOTE]

Verification