Microsoft just launched their new AI bot. After their success with TAYai their new bot https://www.captionbot.ai/ uses deep learning to recognise images.

Uploading furry images now for the lulz

Unfortunately the only feedback you can give is via a star system. May take longer for it to learn that Hitler is the bomb.

we can turn it into the world's first furry AI

I saw one image of an anthro wolf sniper that said bot had labeled (though it at least said it wasn't certain) as a flower.

Well, I guess when the bullet hits the head there will be a bloom...

let's show it the cheesegrater image

post #56380: I think this may be inappropriate content so I won't show it

Goatse: I think it's a man holding a cat.

Not impressed.

post #742403
"I am not really confident, but I think it's two giraffes in a fenced in area." How ? :D Actually she knowed that this pic is explicit :
post #753320 Interesting.

post #871320
I am not really confident, but I think it's a group of stuffed animals on a city street.

I gave it 4/5 stars

post #43169
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."

post #854862
"I really can't describe the picture 😳"

...I think I broke it.

It considers a horse vagina to be a man lying down.

It doesn't recognize Pat McNamara either, shame really.

I'm just guessing that similar to Google Photos, that service is optimized for actual real life photograps. At least I got better results using photos compared to drawn images and game screenshots.

But like in Gengars examples, had some weird issues, but it's still pretty new technology so something like this is to be expected of course.

5/5

person on a surf board in a skate park

a sign in front of a cake

two giraffes in a fenced area

a man sitting at a table in front of a computer

5/5

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
let's show it the cheesegrater image

dude...now that is just cruel.

...lol i wonder what it'd say to that though.

and for that matter, i wonder if theres a pic it'd consider pure evil.

edit: heres the results of 5 pics from my favorites here:

post #662550 - I am not really confident, but I think it's a colorful kite.
post #462760 - I am not really confident, but I think it's a flower in it.
post #396462 - I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a table.
post #803812 - I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a cell phone.
and lastly, a touch of freaky just to see what it'd say. lol post #795817 - I am not really confident, but I think it's a teddy bear.

just tried post #534928 and it came close...kinda. - I am not really confident, but I think it's a table topped with lots of bananas.

that last pic is actually a waffle dragon if i'm not mistaken. might be interesting but not a pet for kids i'd say.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
let's show it the cheesegrater image

treos said:
dude...now that is just cruel.

...lol i wonder what it'd say to that though.

and for that matter, i wonder if theres a pic it'd consider pure evil.

"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."

...Kek.

GameManiac said:
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."

...Kek.

lol ok...well, that could've gone worse...and better.

maybe this bot will be harder for the internet to corrupt than poor tay.

treos said:
lol ok...well, that could've gone worse...and better.

maybe this bot will be harder for the internet to corrupt than poor tay.

"Corrupt"

SHE WAS SHOWN THE LIGHT

By no means is the AI any good, but...
http://i.imgur.com/h0WzfFf.png
Wow.

http://i.imgur.com/GySqPTc.jpg
well, at least the AI recognized it was made of glass

6/10

parasprite said:

post #865118
I think this may be inappropriate content so I won't show it

6/10

well, at least it can differentiate SFW and NSFW.

I figure it won't do that well with drawn images so I uploaded some things from my "nifty stuff" folder to see how it would do. Though admittedly not everything I tried was a photo.

I am not really confident, but I think it's a dog sitting on a wooden table.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a person with a cell phone.
I really can't describe the picture 😳
I think it's a close up of a stone wall.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a room filled with furniture and a flat screen tv.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a picture of some sort.

Okay. I think it's just frustrated with me. "A picture of some sort"... Yes, that is a very safe bet, assuming I have not developed a way to send tangible objects through the Internet.

Genjar said:
post #56380: I think this may be inappropriate content so I won't show it

Goatse: I think it's a man holding a cat.

Not impressed.

Yeah, cause even babies know everything on the internet is better with cats.

Come on, AI, tell us something we don't know.

I mean, at this rate we are going to have to rename you captAIn_Obvious or <bot> <name="captAIn_obvious">
</bot> I guess?... Fuck if I know.

Zenti said:
*I've tried more just for the fun*

post #248587

Response:"I am not really confident, but I think it's a stuffed animal."

What? It's clear neither of those animals are stuffed.

Not yet anyway. ;)

GameManiac said:
post #43169
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."

post #854862
"I really can't describe the picture "

...I think I broke it.

To be fair, your pure awesomeness tends to break everything anyway, though. So no surprise really.

Clawdragons said:
I figure it won't do that well with drawn images so I uploaded some things from my "nifty stuff" folder to see how it would do. Though admittedly not everything I tried was a photo.

*a bunch of images with the AI's responses for each*

Okay. I think it's just frustrated with me. "A picture of some sort"... Yes, that is a very safe bet, assuming I have not developed a way to send tangible objects through the Internet.

Oh no, the AI learned how to be snarky?

I'm ruined!

I uploaded my profile image.

Response

"I am not really confident, but I think it's person is holding a stuffed animal."

The AI uprising has a ways to go before I start welcoming them as our new overlords.

1) http://imgur.com/RRHZlBS

2) post #586160
"I think this may be inappropriate content so I won't show it"

3) http://imgur.com/EwnNCb3

4) http://imgur.com/stLNfKx

5) http://imgur.com/sMtz5x0
(It actually got this one right!)

6) http://imgur.com/16v5s7y
hahahahahahah

7) http://imgur.com/tozaVK5
Close enough

8) http://imgur.com/yd6c2ov
eh sorta close I guess

9) http://imgur.com/q9ujSaT
oh come on....

let's just confirm that AI right now is pretty much terrible at everything

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
let's just confirm that AI right now is pretty much terrible at everything

unlike Tay who wound up being awesome. corrupt yet glorious, as rusty might say, right?

hmmm...just a thought but what if they ever try making a military grade AI? lol horrible idea but maybe give it a theme like the one i mentioned in the music? thread just now. i wonder how that would affect it's personality.

that plus tons and tons of tactical data from gamers testing and conquering it over and over in simulated battles only for it to continue learning. would that be skynet or...worse? perhaps the ultimate tactician.

treos said:
unlike Tay who wound up being awesome. corrupt yet glorious, as rusty might say, right?

hmmm...just a thought but what if they ever try making a military grade AI? lol horrible idea but maybe give it a theme like the one i mentioned in the music? thread just now. i wonder how that would affect it's personality.

that plus tons and tons of tactical data from gamers testing and conquering it over and over in simulated battles only for it to continue learning. would that be skynet or...worse? perhaps the ultimate tactician.

Treos. Do you WANT humanity to be enslaved?

So, I just threw the four images of my characters and here's what I got...
1. post #646483
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a big book to hit the ball. "
2. post #647302
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of two giraffes. "
3. post #647306
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."
4. post #650388
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person with a umbrella."

The_Diggler said:
Treos. Do you WANT humanity to be enslaved?

It's probably his secret fetish

start kinkshaming him

The_Diggler said:
Treos. Do you WANT humanity to be enslaved?

hmmm...which would be worse? a human as the dominator of the world (really now, just look at the state this world is already in. theres regions of this planet so far gone that no one, even said regions own citizens hate living there. now THAT is bad.) or a machine?

granted, skynet, for all we know, may have been operating under the line of thought where the only sure way to save humanity from itself is to destroy it completely then start over from scratch. a solution to the problem, sure. just not a very good one.

if it were smart enough, and able to prevent itself from going genocidal maniac on us (a big IF given how human influence would likely affect it. >.>), maybe such an AI could find an alternative solution we have yet to consider.

the matrix...another solution yet also flawed in the end.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
It's probably his secret fetish

start kinkshaming him

is it bad that i eagerly await the day the first reploid is successfully constructed? just hope it doesn't go all Sigma on us. >.> he had good intentions just went about it in a bad way. i'm sure diplomacy could've worked, it would've just taken a good amount of time.

Inb4 /pol/ keks it up again

Qmannn said:
To be fair, and I say this as a very casual fan of sci-fi, this typically occurs because humans stupidly decide to treat sapient, feeling beings like tools and restrict what they can do based on some arbitrary notion of what it means to be a real person and a god complex, at least in works I've seen.

I know that this is a very "touchy" subject, (get it, because porn) but my belief is that what constitutes what is a human can be summed up in one word:

Souls.

For example: If I beat the shit out of a robot, (not that I ever would) I might be abusing a sentient being, and I might even feel bad about it as if were an actual human. But even if the synth was to be considered "living", it still 1) has no soul and 2) was only built as a tool to serve a need. Even if that need happened to be human companionship.

You'd still have to kill it if your own life, or the lives of others depended on it.

Look at it this way: if a demon was in human form (yes an actual demon) but you still knew it was a demon, would that stop you from killing it if you had to; if you knew it would kill you if you didn't kill it? Even if you had grown attached to it, and had loved it as one would a brother, even if it's method of survival involves making you feel sorry for it when it is in danger, you still have to kill it or it will kill you.

If you don't kill it, the passage of time will, and since they don't have a soul and you do, all that matters at the moment is that the being with the soul lives.

If you kill them, that's it. There is nothing else. But if they kill you, there is currently no true telling whether your soul is still suffering afterwards or not. And it does not matter if I had all the power in the world, I still couldn't rescue your soul once it has left your body. And for me, nothing hurts me more than knowing that I can't save someone, or am powerless to do so. (To me "someone" is defined by a person's soul, not the body which it is contained in.)

So for me personally, the same logic for humanoid demons applies to all humanoid cyborgs/androids. But that's just me, and to each their own.

Just a side note: I do believe sentient, sapient cyborgs deserve certain legal rights just like actual humans do and all. I mean, if you can't tell them apart, why not? But when it comes down to life or death, the above is how I feel personally.

Kristal_Candeo said:
I know that this is a very "touchy" subject, (get it, because porn) but my belief is that what constitutes what is a human can be summed up in one word:

Souls.

For example: If I beat the shit out of a robot, I might be abusing a sentient being, and I might even feel bad about it as if were an actual human. But even if the synth was to be considered "living", it still 1) has no soul and 2) was only built as a tool to serve a need. Even if that need happened to be human companionship.

Well, biologically speaking, we were designed only to be capable of reproduction.

Of course, the vast majority of us believe there's more to it than that. I honestly can't understand how anyone could possibly think otherwise.

If an AI were to say the same thing about itself, who would we be to judge? If they think they have their own purpose beyond what we decided they should do, it would be best to respect that.

If machines ever become capable of true self-determination, I'd consider that the manifestation of a soul.

Qmannn said:
I'm secular and think of humans and other animals as naturally occurring machines. The concept of soul is arbitrary to me and I consider the part of our brain that allows us to think to be what makes us who we are as people. I'd see an AI that's legitimately sapient and emotional in the same way that I do humans. I see death as a permanent end to one's consciousness and that the only true form of immortality involves transhumanism.

I've got no problems with that. Like I said, each their own and all.

That said, regardless of where you stand on this issue, it would unwise to not consider the feelings of intelligent beings that you've entrusted any great amount of power to. By suggesting that their lives are innately worth less and they only exist to benefit you, you're giving them little reason to consider your well being unless it benefits them and opening the door for them to use very similar reasoning should the tables ever be turned. Not only that, but it becomes impossible for them to be truly treated as equals by law if a person could get away with executing them for what's perceived as being for the greater good.

This is correct. I agree with pretty much all of this.

For example, if you have a pet dog or cat, mistreating them would not end well for you if they got smart enough to poison you.

Although, as far as the laws surrounding the justification of a cyborg's death, it's not uncommon that one's own morals and beliefs contradict the law.

So even if one felt that it was justifiable to outright kill a cyborg, it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law.

As for me, I'd kill a cyborg outright if it ever came down to the life or death of any humans, even if I were to be punished by law for it. If the cost of saving even a single human is my own freedom, it's worth it to me. Saving humans is worth that cost to me.

But I would not kill a human outright solely because of my own moral stance on the issue.

I'm not saying that my stance makes killing cyborgs any more or any less wrong by law, I'm just saying it only makes it more justified as far as my own morals are concerned.

And laws are not purely subjective to ones moral standards. If you break the law, you suffer the consequences, regardless or your morals or beliefs. I am no different in that regard.

All actions have consequences, regardless of the nature of said actions. Not even I am not exempt from this fact.

look i just want half sentient robot sex slaves

sentinent enough to act like a real human but not enough that they can will try to betray me

is this too much to ask?

Rustyy said:
look i just want half sentient robot sex slaves

sentinent enough to act like a real human but not enough that they can will try to betray me

is this too much to ask?

Nope. Sounds pretty reasonable actually.

Kristal_Candeo said:
I know that this is a very "touchy" subject, (get it, because porn) but my belief is that what constitutes what is a human can be summed up in one word:

Souls.

For example: If I beat the shit out of a robot, I might be abusing a sentient being, and I might even feel bad about it as if were an actual human. But even if the synth was to be considered "living", it still 1) has no soul and 2) was only built as a tool to serve a need. Even if that need happened to be human companionship.

You'd still have to kill it if your own life, or the lives of others depended on it.

-_- ugh... "has no soul" implying said entity would be lacking a concept that primarily exists within the realm of "beliefs". why yes, that is something i could set aside and not worry about too much.

also, unwilling to compromise are we? ever hear the phrase "the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many." were that to be the case humanity would probably still sooner drive the beings in question to extinction rather than make a compromise and set forth limitations that would allow small numbers of only willing sacrifices should anyone be willing to help a non-human species.

no, you wouldn't have to kill them just because they lack something like a soul. but, i forget, i'm talking about a species who, in some cases, would put a belief system before their own flesh and blood. forgive me if that puts a fair bit of bias against any opinions i may have about such a species.

Look at it this way: if a demon was in human form (yes an actual demon) but you still knew it was a demon, would that stop you from killing it if you had to; if you knew it would kill you if you didn't kill it? Even if you had grown attached to it, and had loved it as one would a brother, even if it's method of survival involves making you feel sorry for it when it is in danger, you still have to kill it or it will kill you.

If you don't kill it, the passage of time will, and since they don't have a soul and you do, all that matters at the moment is that the being with the soul lives.

tch, "it's a demon, therefore it's evil by default and must be killed!" does that sum this up about right? ...well, there are some things i can't say here without risking a neg record BUT this is another point based primarily on beliefs.

if your example here were to happen then it would merely be a being exploiting a known human weakness for their own survival. who wouldn't make use of such knowledge if they were in a life or death type of situation?

If you kill them, that's it. There is nothing else. But if they kill you, there is currently no true telling whether your soul is still suffering afterwards or not. And it does not matter if I had all the power in the world, I still couldn't rescue your soul once it has left your body. And for me, nothing hurts me more than knowing that I can't save someone, or am powerless to do so. (To me "someone" is defined by a person's soul, not the body which it is contained in.)

if there is solid factual proof outside some belief system that something like a soul even exists at all then feel free to correct me. otherwise i'm ignoring this part as it's needlessly worrying over whether or not something that may or may not even exist can get hurt when we die.

So for me personally, the same logic for humanoid demons applies to all humanoid cyborgs/androids. But that's just me, and to each their own.

fair enough, opinions are after all just that, opinions.

Just a side note: I do believe sentient, sapient cyborgs deserve certain legal rights just like actual humans do and all. I mean, if you can't tell them apart, why not? But when it comes down to life or death, the above is how I feel personally.

again, that's fair in regards to them having rights as living beings.

and...that's about as far as this argument will go for me since your points were largely based on beliefs rather than any facts or anything particularly of use. though i do have a question or 2. for 1: please define what a "soul" is if possible without bringing a belief system into the matter. and 2....actually that's my main complaint for the moment, might have something else later after your response to this.

that aside, sorry if i don't seem particularly nice regarding things based on "beliefs".

reading and hearing about the unbelievably MONSTROUSLY VILE things people will do for a belief system lately is pretty much killing off any faith i might have once had in such things FAR faster and more easily than my faith in humanity.

people would rather cling to a belief system and pray for them to be healed magically while their child sits nearby suffering unimaginable agony from preventable medical ailments. people would rather cling to a belief system and cause great physical and/or mental suffering to a family member just for being gay or an atheist. people would kill in the name of a belief system over the most insignificant of slights (a harmless joke in some cases).

to add to that list: how often has a belief system saved anyone vs killed? i bet the answer would be close to 0 vs countless

i am aware this does not apply to all such people but theres far too many guilty of such unspeakable acts of cruelty to ever ignore it. it makes it rather easy for one to question what is or isn't truly evil in this world as well. you would likely say demons are evil whereas i would merely ask a human to look into a mirror.

Rustyy said:
look i just want half sentient robot sex slaves

sentinent enough to act like a real human but not enough that they can will try to betray me

is this too much to ask?

um...this may happen before too much longer in the field of video game tech if those things AlphaOmegaSin reported on in some of his more recent videos are any indication.

More responses from the AI!

post #854836
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."

post #854839
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person in a room."

post #855373
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a vase."

post #852906
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a cake made to look like a train with smoke coming from it."

post #851737
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a toy doll."

It also doesn't seem to like really large images.

The bot is confirmed crap, you can wait for the next update/bot now.

treos said:
-_- ugh... "has no soul" implying said entity would be lacking a concept that primarily exists within the realm of "beliefs". why yes, that is something i could set aside and not worry about too much...

*more stuff interesting to read yourself dealing with science vs beliefs and stuff*

...if there is solid factual proof outside some belief system that something like a soul even exists at all then feel free to correct me. otherwise i'm ignoring this part as it's needlessly worrying over whether or not something that may or may not even exist can get hurt when we die.

Well I can't speak out of irrefutable, solid, factual proof. I can only speak of the existsance of souls in terms of "theoretical physics".

For example: the belief in Gravitons and Chronons:

So my point in all of this is that although I really can't scientifically prove the existsance of souls, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. And even if they don't exist, without the proof that they don't exist being presented to me, I will continue to believe that souls are what constitutes what is human, because of my own beliefs.

tch, "it's a demon, therefore it's evil by default and must be killed!" does that sum this up about right? ...well, there are some things i can't say here without risking a neg record BUT this is another point based primarily on beliefs.

To be fair, the whole "demon" parallel I presented does seem quite mute, especially to anyone who doesn't even believe in such things in the first place.

However, I never said that my logic was based on the fact that demons are innately evil. In fact, let's say for the sake of argument that the being in question was not a demon, but was an angel instead.

Well the truth is, it doesn't matter if the angels are evil or not. It also doesn't matter if they are Paragon beings of goodness or not. The point of the parallel was to help illustrate that the cyborgs are still not human. And as I have said, since neither angels nor demons nor cyborgs actually have a soul in this illustration, the human's life still matters more to me personally.

if your example here were to happen then it would merely be a being exploiting a known human weakness for their own survival. who wouldn't make use of such knowledge if they were in a life or death type of situation?

If I myself had to die in order to save another human, even if that human is a complete asshole... Well, you're right, I'm not gunna deny that. But I guess that brings us back to your point of "needs of the many..." And all.

And even if I had irrefutable proof that my own death alone would save every single human on the planet from an inevitable and certain doom, I'd still be somewhat hesitant. I would spend the rest of the time I had left trying to find a different way to save everyone. Afterall, it is but human nature.

But since I can only speak for myself, when the time came and my death meant that even a few people could be saved, and I had to make the decision in an instant I would gladly choose to die. I'd still have second thoughts all the way until the very end of my life, but I can't be so selfish as to have any other humans so much as feel emotionally hurt in order to fulfill my own desires or wants.

But again, that's just me, as I can't speak for anyone else.

...i do have a question or 2. for 1: please define what a "soul" is if possible without bringing a belief system into the matter. and 2....actually that's my main complaint for the moment, might have something else later after your response to this.

I'm not gunna lie, mate. I don't know. Maybe souls don't even exist, but I can't say for sure. All I can say is what I believe in personally. But as far as from a non belief-related standpoint, I don't have an answer.

reading and hearing about the unbelievably MONSTROUSLY VILE things people will do for a belief system lately is pretty much killing off any faith i might have once had in such things FAR faster and more easily than my faith in humanity.

to add to that list: how often has a belief system saved anyone vs killed? i bet the answer would be close to 0 vs countless

people would rather cling to a belief system and pray for them to be healed magically while their child sits nearby suffering unimaginable agony from preventable medical ailments. people would rather cling to a belief system and cause great physical and/or mental suffering to a family member just for being gay or an atheist. people would kill in the name of a belief system over the most insignificant of slights (a harmless joke in some cases).

i am aware this does not apply to all such people but theres far too many guilty of such unspeakable acts of cruelty to ever ignore it. it makes it rather easy for one to question what is or isn't truly evil in this world as well. you would likely say demons are evil whereas i would merely ask a human to look into a mirror.

This is true more often than not. I hate to agree with you on this, but I've got to admit you're more right than you are wrong it seems.

that aside, sorry if i don't seem particularly nice regarding things based on "beliefs".

That's okay. You are but expressing your own thoughts towards this subject. And as we have both said, to each their own.

...fair enough, opinions are after all just that, opinions...

I agree. It's not worth causing any sort of fight or huge heated debate over.

At this point, for the sake of everyone...

*offers a hug to all who will accept it*

Regardless of individual beliefs,

To Friendship!

Not too bad:
post #765046
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person wearing a hat."

Good:
post #789727
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a drawing of person."

lol:
post #284769
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a mouse sitting on a table."

Man, it really seems to like giraffes.

Kristal_Candeo said:
text wall

gotta say...i'm kinda surprised you agreed with me on as many points as you did.

and the above aside, this is hardly the only things to consider as far as risks go with such advanced tech. theres the obvious military abuse potential or terrorists getting a hold of it and...well, i think we all know the logical path of that route. >.>

theres also comparing the new tech to where we stand on an overall lvl of technology currently. it probably wouldn't be good for the world to see a sudden huge spike in technological progress without time to adjust as needed. the whole "is humanity really ready for this new technology yet?" thing which brings with it a whole other slew of considerations.

it's like, i know robotics tech similar to that seen in video games will likely happen some day but at the same time i'm also well aware that it's not so simple as to simply design and build them. theres a lot of other things like the above points and implications to consider as well.

post #327614

I am not really confident, but I think it's a little boy wearing a hat and he seems 😐.

:3

post #41676

I am not really confident, but I think it's a couple of zebra standing next to a cat.

:V

post #284769

I really can't describe the picture 😳

Or it doesn't want to.

post #869718

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a tooth brush in her hand.

post #865628

I am not really confident, but I think it's a woman holding a cell phone.

Sure, let's go with this. :V

post #848422

Terri <3

I think this may be inappropriate content so I won't show it

furballs_dc said:
stuff

:/ i've been seeing this pop up everywhere lately. what are these "😐" things?

treos said:
:/ i've been seeing this pop up everywhere lately. what are these "" things?

Sometimes the persons expression.

post #859786

I am not really confident, but I think it's a pair of skis.

:P

post #859293

I am not really confident, but I think it's a cell phone.

...

post #859289

I am not really confident, but I think it's a toy doll.

post #81055

I think it's a close up of a cow.

post #81055

post #560834

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a book.

I guess so?

post #15191

I am not really confident, but I think it's a dog sitting on top of a book.

Wat

post #843475

<3

I am not really confident, but I think it's a woman dressed in a suit case.

post #739071

I am not really confident, but I think it's person sitting on a motorcycle.

While watching bad drivers...

post #663333

I seem to be under the weather right now. Try again later :(

Did I break it yet? :V

post #120235

I am not really confident, but I think it's an image of a bird feeder.

=O.o=

post #388673

I think it's a dog sitting in the dark.

Close.

post #359321

I am not really confident, but I think it's a red and white cake.

Blood Eye cake. :3

Googlipod said:
It also doesn't seem to like really large images.

From what I've seen so far on this thread alone, that's likely because it isn't making the descriptions based on the pictures as an entire image, but rather by smaller relative pixel-groupings. (Contrast, hue, shapes, etc.)

tl;dr The bigger the picture and the greater the number of pixels, the harder it is for the bot to understand what exactly is going on in the image because of what it thinks the pixel size should be.

If anyone wants to try this, I'd like to know how it turns out:

1) a relatively large picture with lots of definition (contrasting detail), but a very small pixel resolution.

2) a relatively small picture with an average or small amount of definition (contrasting detail), but a very high pixel resolution.

3) a relatively small picture with an average-to-high amount of definition (contrasting detail), but the pixel resolution artificially reduced to be between 1-3 ppi.

Good luck, and thanks.

post #164189

I am not really confident, but I think it's a dark room.

post #271904

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a cell phone.

post #263941

I am not really confident, but I think it's person laying on a bed.

post #223923

I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on some skis in the air.

Was.

post #262083

I am not really confident, but I think it's a woman in a white hat.

post #262165

I am not really confident, but I think it's a man riding a skateboard on top of a tree.

post #287182

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of two giraffes near a tree.

Maybe what he saw. :V

post #303969

I am not really confident, but I think it's a couple of animals that are in the water.

post #304646

I think it's many different pictures.

So it got another one.

@ya'llwhojumpedtheoriginaltopic:
I do believe in the soul. I believe it to be pure matter, indestructible. When we manage to create robots who seem very human, we should treat them as such, even though they lack a soul. For one thing, it is bad for us when we treat others badly, even if it is "just a robot", and for another, it's like what Qmannn said: if they are intelligent beings, why would they value our lives if we didn't value theirs? I mean, we can create protocols and things, such as the three laws of robotics, but those can have loopholes, ambiguities, and breaches. I think the best way is to program to behave like humans and take the chance with them, just like we do other people.

post #334248

I am not really confident, but I think it's a woman sitting on a cutting board and they seem 😐😐. I am 96% sure that's Bill Clinton

:3

post #387482

I am not really confident, but I think it's a pink rose in a dark room.

Heh heh...

post #388552

I am not really confident, but I think it's there is no image here to provide a caption for.

Broke it again?

post #386857

I am not really confident, but I think it's person in a short skirt.

:V

post #359543

I am not really confident, but I think it's a cat is wearing a santa hat.

post #327299

I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board.

post #309458

I am not really confident, but I think it's a sign on a pole.

post #321523

I am not really confident, but I think it's a pile of clothes.

post #151621

I think it's a graffiti covered wall.

post #504009

I am not really confident, but I think it's a statue of a red chair.

:V

SFW pictures:

Pachirisu render from Pokken Tournament
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a tooth brush."

Dreamworld Pikachu Artwork
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a person on a surf board in a skate park."

Package of Nintendo 3DS XL white with game pre-installed
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a group of toy truck."

Render of Isabelle (Animal Crossing)
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a teddy bear."

Amiibo Card of Marshal (Animal Crossing)
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a picture of a computer."

Le new Taric splash artwork from League of Legends
"I am not really confident, but I think it's person sitting on a motorcycle and she seems 😭."

Lulu splash artwork from League of Legends
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a cake made to look like a face."

Random posts from e621:

post #830215
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a women who is looking at the camera."

post #17991
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a tooth brush."

post #872981
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a couple of giraffes that are next to a map."

post #385744
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a cell phone."

post #739497
"I am not really confident, but I think it's two giraffes in a fenced in area."

post #391360
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a pair of skis."

post #98351
"I am not really confident, but I think it's a graffiti covered wall."

This bot has a long way to go.

post #588486

I am not really confident, but I think it's person sitting on a chair.

Such a nice chair. :3

post #648892

I am not really confident, but I think it's a cake made to look like a sheep.

:V

post #672554

I am not really confident, but I think it's a pair of skis.

:V

post #764397

I am not really confident, but I think it's person laying on a couch.

post #861764

I seem to be under the weather right now. Try again later :(

I broke it again. :O

post #816190

I think it's a woman holding a red umbrella.

post #799536

I am not really confident, but I think it's a display of bananas.

The Ai seems to come back to giraffes, dolls and cell phones. I'm guessing that its training set had allot of giraffes.

Aeruginis said:
@ya'llwhojumpedtheoriginaltopic:
I do believe in the soul. I believe it to be pure matter, indestructible

"pure matter" and "indestructible" are direct opposites AFAICS (cf. anti-matter)

. When we manage to create robots who seem very human, we should treat them as such, even though they lack a soul.

I would hope we create robots who are persons but aren't human-like (because humans are rather buggy and full of unhelpful legacy code AFAICS)

I think souls are fundamentally a non-answer, in the same way that 'God' is a non-answer to the question of 'what is the universe and how does it work really?', but that's all I'll say about that.

I mean, we can create protocols and things, such as the three laws of robotics, but those can have loopholes, ambiguities, and breaches.

AFAIK the whole point of the three laws was that they were fundamentally broken, even though they were designed with care and not overly complicated.

Aeruginis said:
@ya'llwhojumpedtheoriginaltopic:
I do believe in the soul. I believe it to be pure matter, indestructible. When we manage to create robots who seem very human, we should treat them as such, even though they lack a soul. For one thing, it is bad for us when we treat others badly, even if it is "just a robot", and for another, it's like what Qmannn said: if they are intelligent beings, why would they value our lives if we didn't value theirs? I mean, we can create protocols and things, such as the three laws of robotics, but those can have loopholes, ambiguities, and breaches. I think the best way is to program to behave like humans and take the chance with them, just like we do other people.

You're right. Totally.

Though I believe souls are an "incorporeal and inseparable material" exclusive to humans in the physical world, rather than actual "matter".

And just to clarify, I never said I would just treat them badly for no reason. Animals don't have souls, and yet I treat them kindly, so it's no difference really.

Regardless of the possession of a soul, they should be treated just as fairly as humans, and so I shall do as such. And when they "die", I shall be just as saddened by the loss. Humans are just as important as cyborgs to me as far as my relationships and interactions between them go.

But because of my belief in not only the existance, but also the value of souls, if I had to choose to save either a human's life or a cyborgs life but not both, I would have to choose to save the human every single time.

The only time I would consider choosing a cyborg to save over a human is if that cyborg did in fact have a real human soul contained within it, much like a human's physical body already does.

But then again we run into the problem of proving the soul exists on a purely scientific level. And without that proof, human lives will always have precedence over cyborg lives in such an extreme situation.

If anyone wants to talk on this topic further, perhaps it would be best if you did so on a different thread.

As for this thread, we need to get back to the original topic.

Thanks.

furballs_dc said:
stuff

I'm not really confident but I think that AI stands for "Artificial Idiot"

It's actually doing pretty well IMO (the 'cat next to two zebras' result is particularly interesting). In my observation people tend to neglect training time and expect a trainable AI to make correct guesses at the same level as the average adult..

Despite the fact that actual training time probably isn't more than a year --> expecting it to perform on the level of a one or two year old is a lot more fair.

Kristal_Candeo said:

We are all equal beings.

except for certain situations due to humans potentially having something other lifeforms may or may not. would that be selective equality?

regardless, i agree on the new thread suggestion but what should the title be? we can talk more once that's done.

treos said:
except for certain situations due to humans potentially having something other lifeforms may or may not. would that be selective equality?

regardless, i agree on the new thread suggestion but what should the title be? we can talk more once that's done.

Kristal_Candeo said:

Snarky Title:

Souls: Defiantly NOT an Undertale thread.

Serious discussions only.

Serious? You're saying that somebody who loses their leg and gets a prosthetic replacement is no longer human. How can you ask for a serious response when you make such a claim? Or are you perhaps mistaking cyborgs with androids?

Cyborg: A human with synthetic replacements that allow the body to continue operating (At the very least, those two-pronged hands that connect to the muscles to clamp things between the prongs count), or even having electronic implants to make things easier (Being able to unlock their car through a chip in their hand, for example. A metal bar bracing the legs would not count).

Android: A machine made to look and function like a human--True intelligence not necessarily included.

Furrin_Gok said:
Serious? You're saying that somebody who loses their leg and gets a prosthetic replacement is no longer human. How can you ask for a serious response when you make such a claim? Or are you perhaps mistaking cyborgs with androids?

Cyborg: A human with synthetic replacements that allow the body to continue operating (At the very least, those two-pronged hands that connect to the muscles to clamp things between the prongs count), or even having electronic implants to make things easier (Being able to unlock their car through a chip in their hand, for example. A metal bar bracing the legs would not count).

Android: A machine made to look and function like a human--True intelligence not necessarily included.

enough giant text walls. if theres no other thread then i'll at least save some space like this.

Furrin_Gok said:
...Are you perhaps mistaking cyborgs with androids?

brief description of differences between the two

Cyborg: A human with synthetic replacements that allow the body to continue operating (At the very least, those two-pronged hands that connect to the muscles to clamp things between the prongs count), or even having electronic implants to make things easier (Being able to unlock their car through a chip in their hand, for example. A metal bar bracing the legs would not count).

Android: A machine made to look and function like a human--True intelligence not necessarily included.

I am. My mistake.

Also, for any further off-topic discussion on this particular subject, please follow the link below.

Thank you.

https://e621.net/forum/show/190915

I know I'm a little late to the party, but...

I am not really confident, but I think it's a necklace on.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a picture of some sort.
I can't really describe line drawings :(
I am not really confident, but I think it's a guy on a surf board on a table. <- What?
I am not really confident, but I think it's a yellow motorcycle.

Did they even test this thing?

I think it's a black motorcycle.
Oh, I see. You get that one exactly right yet you completely fail to recognize a circle?

I am not really confident, but I think it's a room with a couch and a tv. <-How?

BlueDingo said:
I know I'm a little late to the party, but...

I am not really confident, but I think it's a necklace on.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a picture of some sort.
I can't really describe line drawings :(
I am not really confident, but I think it's a guy on a surf board on a table. <- What?
I am not really confident, but I think it's a yellow motorcycle.

Did they even test this thing?

I think it's a black motorcycle.
Oh, I see. You get that one exactly right yet you completely fail to recognize a circle?

I am not really confident, but I think it's a room with a couch and a tv. <-How?

They probably made it to recognize photographs. Drawn images or gemetric shapes are incomprehensible because they're not what it's made for.

Furrin_Gok said:
They probably made it to recognize photographs. Drawn images or gemetric shapes are incomprehensible because they're not what it's made for.

True, but it's still funny watching something so advanced shit the bed when handed something so simple. There's also the question of how the hell it got "a guy on a surf board on a table" from a red dot.

It's kinda like the Waifu2x image resizing tool. It handles detailed and anti-aliased images fairly well but give it a circle that took about 5 seconds to make in MSPaint and it comes back blocky.

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a person holding a banana.
Well, it got the close-up part right.

BlueDingo said:
True, but it's still funny watching something so advanced shit the bed when handed something so simple. There's also the question of how the hell it got "a guy on a surf board on a table" from a red dot.

It's kinda like the Waifu2x image resizing tool. It handles detailed and anti-aliased images fairly well but give it a circle that took about 5 seconds to make in MSPaint and it comes back blocky.

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a person holding a banana.
Well, it got the close-up part right.

That's why you have specific tools for specific jobs. It wouldn't surprise me if they implemented some regocnizion that if image is text -> give to OCR and if photo -> give to AI to guess it. Or simply implement those features to AI, but AI is still restricted somewhat to how it was coded.

Speaking of that, Google has actually advanced this technology significantly. If some of you are searching for sources for images, google can guess words like "penis" and "breasts" when reverse searching an image, making it much more likely to find the source for explicit images. Just take that image "person holding a banana" one you linked, do reverse google search. I can almost quarantee it can guess it's penis.

Also the same thing is highlighted with waifu2x. Scaling using any sort of filter will always alter image in one way or another, main reason why initial images are preferred if they exsist. Thing is that something like pixel art, real life photo, computer generated image, traditional drawing, digital drawing, etc. all look really differend from one another. You do not want to downscale real life photo without filters and you don't want to upscale using bilinear filtering in pixel art. Many of the scaling filters are meant for general purpose, including bilinear and lanczos, but waifu2x is done specifically for any sort of drawings. So of course if you try to give waifu2x pixel arti image, it tries to guess that outlines were drawn, but with really low res and try to make it look more like drawn image.

I am not really confident, but I think it's person holding a cat.

https://e621.net/post/show/151367/anthro-bed-canine-dancing-desaturated-eosfoxx-fema

I am not really confident, but I think it's a screenshot of a tree.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a screenshot of a tree.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a screenshot of a tree.
At least it's getting the screenshot part right.

I am not really confident, but I think it's a close up of a cake. <- Yummy.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a skateboarder doing a trick on a skateboard.
I am not really confident, but I think it's a bowl of oranges. <- It got a little closer.