https://youtu.be/FqXX4r4rXt4?si=MmMfSP1b1wfO-Dxz

Too busy for the 8 minutes? Jump to 3 minutes.

You know how when you're watching a police pocedural and the cop says to the geek controlling the computer: Zoom into that!

And as a computer programmer you look at them and scream: That doesn't happen! The original resolution is isn't there, there is no further zoom.

It does now. At what point do you run out of reflections of reflections to analyze and reconstruct an image out of?

When we run out of actual information we throw ideas out there. Our ideas are rarely anything more than random crap based on our historical knowledge of the world. Some of our ideas are exceptionally stupid and some are brilliant. There needs to be a boundary checker which is exactly what the current chat GPT strawberry project is about.

As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly reasonable that when you run out of things that you know about when you are asked a question to make crap up. It's okay. They haven't put the boundary checker in yet. That's what they're doing now.

That's exactly what our caveman brain was like. We could observe the world around us and we could get an idea that the wind is our ancient spirits. We made shit up. It took time. Right now it's moving from caveman to Middle ages. The corrective real world constraints will start to be applied. The ability to actually do research to see if something is real will be applied. In a year it'll be there. It will be able to tell truth from fiction, and have an idea of the middle ground of human existence somewhere in between.

And then someone will have to tell it that some people actually believe religion is real. It is going to be very confused.

To start off the last time I played with technology in any hardcore fashion was about 16 years ago. In the preceding 10 years I spent a couple of million on hardware, a few hundred thousand on software and had a hell of a run.

Right now I see eight core CPU mame box toys for 60 bucks which include 4 gig memory and 256 GB ssd disc. I could buy a few dozen of those or the equivalent others and rack and stack them for a tiny bit of money. I see terabyte ssds for 100 bucks or so. I see gigabit network switches for less than 100.

I see 10 GB fiber connections for a few bucks. I see the ability to cluster many of these things together with hardware that used to cost $100,000 just for the switch to do it for a few hundred.

It's a hardware jump time. There are generational pushes that demand an incredible jump in hardware. Right now this is AI copilot. In order to be certified for AI co-pilot, you'll have to have a certain number TOPs. Trillions of instructions per second and these instructions must be matrix math. I believe it's 30 tops minimum, but more is better. This is AI usable coprocessor such as a decent graphics card, but if it wasn't Nvidia it was a toss-up whether or not the AI stuff would work, or at least be accelerated enough to be usable.

There are a whole bunch of chips in the process of being released from AMD and Intel, their cornerstone CPU chips, which also include both the graphical processor and additional neural processors.

So there's about to be a jump in the baseline of what is acceptable in CPUs very soon and it will push the price down again since these are being released at a far lower price than the previous generation and you don't need a co-processor card for most of what you want to do, and in my case I'm happy to create a cluster of them.

For a couple of grand I could implement a computer room with many 100 times the CPU and a thousand times the disc in quantity and in speed then the combined total of anything I've ever built. In a single rack with a tiny bit of power run by a tiny UPS.

This blows me away. What can I do with this power?

I can take a look at the AI research and see what it takes to allow my ego to live forever, even if I won't.

I can download a model or two or many. I can test and train against my information. I can feed it every email I ever wrote, at least those in my personal account. I can feed it most of the programs I've written. I can point it to every web post I ever made.

I can then say: as me, how would you answer this question? How would you code this program?

At that point I should be able to argue with myself as opposed to how I argue with myself right now.

I'm probably going to die before my wife. She'll get to say whether or not I leave this behind to for her to talk to. But I'd like it to be an option.

"Similarly with reflections"

I gave you the exact spot. It's different from anything you've ever seen before.

You type/speak of which you do not know.

And you declared early on you would prefer ignorance to a bit of annoyance.

Sigh.

I have time to spare, other people do not, I try to focus attention to a specific spot for a specific point.

Let me try a quick description. The geek presented the possibility of avoiding all car accidents that happen when cars are driving towards you from the side where you can't possibly see them, but camera that can analyze reflections on the parked cars along the side of you can see it and help you react and save your life.

That was before the point of what I pointed you to because the next one was far more amazing.

The camera analysis of the incredibly blurred initial wide angle reflection which then allowed the AI to produce multiple hallways with damn near fisheye perfect focus.

That was the point I pointed you to. It really was a leap forward from anything I've seen in the past. If they can get that real time that will have an enormous impact on a whole bunch of applications. Maybe it already is.

Others have pointed out the scary downside of trusting this as it goes to the next level. At what point can you trust or not trust that reflection? I don't know. They think it will be used in crime scene evidence in court long before it is truly ready. I agree with them. But it could be a great investigative edge to get to a certain point to then get a warrant to get more information. It should never be trusted alone.

I will never have pretty cut and paste boxed posts with those lovely replies. I'm doing this from a phone and really don't care. I'm certainly not looking back and saying who do I need to attribute this to.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

As I pointed out it would be a great investigative tool but never to be used as evidence in court. Just like there is many types of evidence that can be used to get a warrant as part of an investigation, this is yet another tool in it.

You can trust it as much as an eyewitness when some guy was running past very quickly. You can probably trust it far more actually. An eyewitness account that they then matched to a lineup of that person running past quickly is far less trustworthy than a camera pickup.

And if they magic zoom does a facial rec of someone running away from a crime that then matches the database, I'm all for it. I trust it far more than a person. Use it as a starting point for the investigation. But still don't allow it as admission in court. Prove it some other way. But use it as a starting point to get a warrant for further investigation. Just like human evidence.