History? Name 1 reason why anyone would ever need more than realtime video generation of anything that you want, a bed, and autosucc?
Protip: You literally can't.

This might surprise you anon, but even the biggest hedonists will eventually get bored of all the endless instant gratification because what humans want isn't pleasure so much as it's novelty, and novelty will always come with a risk of displeasure but that's the point anyways. I guess if your realtime video feed could supply enough novelty then it wouldn't matter but at that point you might as well just live in the real world assuming you're not outright homeless

>>17769337
>but at that point you might as well just live in the real world assuming you're not outright homeless
If realtime video generation supplies the permanent novelty why would one live in the real world?

>>17769344
At that point why even resort to realtime video generation when real life is cheaper and gives you the same thing? You ever get high on weed and masturbate? Don't need realtime video for that

>>17769347
>when real life is cheaper and gives you the same thing?
How the fuck does real life of boring tedium, suffering and insane work to do anything give "the same thing" to a world where you can literally be anything you want in any place you want in any reality and universe you want doing anything you want instantly and stop it instantly?

>>17769349
If you can just warp yourself on an adventure then you're missing half the fun of adventure, which is getting there in the first place. If you have an imagination you can even just go on a bike ride through a local park and get the same feeling

>>17769357
I never said you skip everything to the end, you just skip the parts that are tedious to you. And if you have any imagination, your perfect world of fun would be one with much more magic and craziness that doesn't exist in this reality at all, much less riding a bike through a fucking park.

>>17769328 (OP)
Where do I sign up?

>>17769344
Because AI generation is a closed system. After a while it wouldn't be able to generate new things for you since 1) AI can't create novel ideas and 2) all of the ideas input into your mind would be purely from AI. Eventually your brain will run out of ideas, even if the AI's capabilities are not technically exhausted.

>>17769388
>AI can't create novel ideas
If I tell it to generate a pink alien in a fighter jet inside a world where clouds are made out of honey and it does it, that's a novel idea that it generated right there. You can ask any LLM to generate these kinds of ideas themselves too.
And you can't cope with any kind of dataset limitation because the AI's are already trained on the same data your brian knows, which is everything in this reality.

>>17769422
>If I tell it to generate a pink alien in a fighter jet inside a world where clouds are made out of honey and it does it, that's a novel idea that it generated right there
NTA but no it isn't because it wouldn't even know what a fighter jet or a pink alien even is without having a database of human-made content. His point is that AI can't exist in a vacuum.

>>17769431
>it wouldn't even know what a fighter jet or a pink alien even is without having a database of human-made content
Neither would you.
>His point is that AI can't exist in a vacuum
Neither would your brain.

>>17769437
>Neither would your brain.
Right but unlike AI my brain gets information from the real world and not from a database. The key difference is my brain can actually contribute to the global creative collection, AI by its nature can't, it can only use what other people make.

>>17769466
>Right but unlike AI my brain gets information from the real world and not from a database
This is just sophistry, the database is filled by the data that also came from the real world, and when it gets "learned" by the ai model's "brain" it's done so in a way similar to the human brain, where the concepts inside it are generelized.
>The key difference is my brain can actually contribute to the global creative collection, AI by its nature can't, it can only use what other people make
AI is already writing a huge chunk of tedius code that programmers can just review instead of having to write. It's already generating novel mathematical formuals to calculate particular things like faster matrix multiplications. It's already generating novel real world materials that would have taken humans thousands of years to do, if ever alone https://github.com/RosettaCommons/RFdiffusion etc etc

>>17769489
But I don't need anyone feeding my brain, my brain is just absorbing what's already there. An AI can't just learn things about the real world on its own
> It's already generating novel mathematical formuals to calculate particular things like faster matrix multiplications. It's already generating novel real world materials that would have taken humans thousands of years to do, if ever alone
Yeah anon, it's called computation, something computers have always been good at doing. Digtial Computers were literally invented to take the burden off of Mathematicians for printing firing tables for naval guns.

>>17769506
>But I don't need anyone feeding my brain, my brain is just absorbing what's already there
This is begging the question that there is no creator to this world.
And also your parents most definitely fed you information so you can learn even the basics of language for example, lmao.
And also this is moving the goalpost as the method of how something came to be doesn't matter if the end result is the same, a thing that can create other, novel things, which the discussion was about.
>Yeah anon, it's called computation, something computers have always been good at doing
Sophistry. As creating novel things is not mutually exslusive to it being done through a vague word as "computation".
Your brain for all intents and purposes also "computes" similar parameters around you and from what you have seen in this world in order to come up with an output.

>>17769520
>And also this is moving the goalpost
No anon, YOU are trying to move the goalpost, because the point me and the other guy were trying to make is that because an AI cannot exist in a vacuum, no matter how much you want to split hairs about how our brains are just meat computers that do the same thing, that if humans stop feeding its databases, it will run out of ideas because AIs are not capable of novelty. Humans are because we exist in a world we didn't create and has a level of uncertainty and we're designed to adapt to it in real time so it doesn't really matter all too much how much we get from our parents because you're missing the point you daft, argumentative twat

>>17769530
I already responded to all of this.
>AI cannot exist in a vacuum
Neither can you exist in a vacuum.

>>17769537
>Neither can you exist in a vacuum.
The key difference my special needs friend is that we physically cannot exist in a vacuum because that would just be death. AI technically can exist in a vacuum but it would be less death and more being trapped in an endless loop waiting for more input. This isn't a trivial difference

>>17769542
Existing in vacuum is obviously a manner of speech and not a literal space vacuum.

And this is the NPC that calls someone special needs, brutal.

>>17769549
>Existing in vacuum is obviously a manner of speech and not a literal space vacuum.
It means existing in a space without any outside input which includes food and water. Humans cannot exist in a vacuum. You're arguing for the sake of arguing

>>17769328 (OP)
I, for one, would also like food and water.

>>17769422
>that's a novel idea that it generated right there
It wouldnt have generated it without your input.

>>17769670
You can turn it on and let it run and tell it to do what it wants.
And if you want to argue then that we had to turn it on, someone had to make you come into existance too, along with allowing your brian to have input to learn from in this world too.