This won't happen in our lifetime. Not only because this is more complex than rambling vaguely correlated human speech while hallucinating half the time.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Off the shelf models do this, yes.

Sophisticated local trained models on expensive private hardware are already dunking on publicly available versions. The problem of hallucination is generally resolved in those contexts

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Sure but until I see such a thing I chose not to believe in fairy tales.

Decompiling arbitrary architecture machine code is quite a few levels above everything I've seen so far which is generally pretty basic pattern recognition paired with statistics and training reinforcement.

I'd argue decompiling arbitrary machine code into either another machine code or legible higher level code is in a whol other league than what AO has proven to be capable of.

Especially because with this being 90% accurate is useless.

[–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AI can literally read minds. I don't think it's that great of a step to say it should be able to decompile a few games.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

About half the time, the text closely – and sometimes precisely – matched the intended meanings of the original words.

Don't be surprised but about half of the time I can predict the result of a coin flip.

I'm not saying it's not interesting but needing custom training and an fMRI is not "an AI can read minds"

It can see if patterns it saw previously reappear in a heavily time delayed fMRI. Looking for patterns you already know isn't such an impressive feat Computers have done this for ages now.

It litterally can't read minds.

[–] sfgifz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Later, the same participants were scanned listening to a new story or imagining telling a story and the decoder was used to generate text from brain activity alone. About half the time, the text closely – and sometimes precisely – matched the intended meanings of the original words.

You left out the most important context about "half of the time". Guessing what you're thinking of by just looking at your brain activity with a 50% accuracy is a very very good achievement - it's not pulling it out of a 1 or 0 outcome like you're with your coin flip.

You can pretend that the AI is useless and you're the smartest boy in the class all you want, doesn't negate the accomplishments.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Being close (and "sometimes" precise) to the intended meaning is an equally useless metric to measure performance.

Depending on what you allow for "well close enough I think" asking ChatGPT to tell a story without any reading of fMRI would get you to these results. Especially if you know beforehand it's gonna be a story told.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk the specifics, but what you say makes it sound like it would be easier to create an AI that recreates a game based on gameplay visuals (and the relevant controls)

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

That game would still not work because there is a ton of hidden state in all but the simplest computer games that you cannot tell from just playing through the game normally.

An AI could probably reinvent flappy birds because there is no more depth than what is currently on screen but that's about it.