When is AI going to make everything else obsolete?

[Cornucopia]

Oh, I know, and I don't disparage their work. On the contrary, I think they have done great things and will do more great things. And as I said, I use many of those tools. But 40+ years' work is still early on in the journey and it is prudent to take all these gains with a grain of salt. That's all I have been saying.


Scott

[El Heggunte]

..........
Very smart people have been working doggedly at machine translation and natural language processing for more than 40 years to get that far.
(I met someone working in that area about 40 years ago.)

Evidently those guys are not smart enough.
If they were, they themselves would have already stopped saying things like "natural languages".
ALL languages spoken by earthlings are artificial, spoken languages are built and rebuilt by actual people every day.
They are not fruits on a tree

[usually_quiet]

..........
Very smart people have been working doggedly at machine translation and natural language processing for more than 40 years to get that far.
(I met someone working in that area about 40 years ago.)

Evidently those guys are not smart enough.
If they were, they themselves would have already stopped saying things like "natural languages".
ALL languages spoken by earthlings are artificial, spoken languages are built and rebuilt by actual people every day.
They are not fruits on a tree

If you had looked it up, you would find "natural language" means how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

[sophisticles]

Some might find this interesting, but AviDemux now features AI up scaling in it's nightly builds.

[Selur]

"AI up scaling" any details on what 'ai' method is used,..?

[sophisticles]

Fsrcnn

[Selur]

Thanks for the info.

[plehoediv]

If you had looked it up, you would find "natural language" means how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

Thanks.

[Alwyn]

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

I admire you putting in the effort. Increasingly, people can't write proper English.

[Bwaak]

English is not my native language either.

If you had looked it up, you would find have found "natural language" means meant how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its It's infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

Thanks.

[Cornucopia]

If you had looked it up, you would find "natural language" means how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

Thanks.

Well this is going to blow your mind.

There are times when it is grammatical to say "if I was" (indicative) and other times where it is grammatical to say "if I were" (subjunctive). Similarly "were I to watch what he do..." is correct in the subjunctive. So a lot depends on the context.
And then there is the whole "language is constantly evolving" idea, so as much as it may bother some (often including me), it probably isn't worth it to get too worked up about it - as long as the meaning is still clear.
Ok, I know that went off-topic.

Scott

[usually_quiet]

English is not my native language either.

If you had looked it up, you would find have found "natural language" means meant how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its It's infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

Thanks.

You are partly right. It is true that I should have used the conditional past tense "would have found".

However, using the past tense, "meant", implies that either the definition I gave for "natural language" has changed or that the term "natural language" itself is obsolete. Using "means" indicates that the definition I gave and the term "natural language" are still current.

[Alwyn]

Similarly "were I to watch what he do..." is correct in the subjunctive.

Not in English it's not!

[plehoediv]

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

I admire you putting in the effort. Increasingly, people can't write proper English.

Thank you...

[plehoediv]

English is not my native language either.

If you had looked it up, you would find have found "natural language" means meant how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its It's infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

Thanks.

You are doing great!

[rrats]

I think that in some cases the machine learning is a better method (with, of course, the avisynth improved footage). Of course it's not a wide usage spectrum but it does exist

[plehoediv]

If you had looked it up, you would find "natural language" means how most people normally speak -- using imperfect grammar, poorly constructed sentences, slang, and words/definitions restricted to certain regions.

Nothing drives me nuts more than "natural language". Its infuriating hearing people say "was" instead of "were". Or "Watch what he do" instead of "does". And no one seems to care about it. English is not my native language, but I try my best to use proper grammar and stuff like that.

Thanks.

Well this is going to blow your mind.

There are times when it is grammatical to say "if I was" (indicative) and other times where it is grammatical to say "if I were" (subjunctive). Similarly "were I to watch what he do..." is correct in the subjunctive. So a lot depends on the context.
And then there is the whole "language is constantly evolving" idea, so as much as it may bother some (often including me), it probably isn't worth it to get too worked up about it - as long as the meaning is still clear.
Ok, I know that went off-topic.

Scott

Scott, I am sure you are right. However, I am talking about the times where you "know" it's just wrong. For example:

"I aint got no time for that."

This sentence contains several grammatical errors. "Aint" is not a standard English word and is a nonstandard contraction of "am not" or "are not". "Got no" is also nonstandard, as the correct phrase is "do not have" or "have no". Finally, "no time for that" should be "any time for that" as the former is a double negative and considered incorrect in standard English.

A correct version of this sentence would be: "I don't have any time for that."

Thanks ChatGPT, ha ha.

Having said, my grammar is 100% not correct all the time. Just use the last sentence. Maybe, "My grammar is 100% of the time not correct." would've been better?
We obviously do not talk like we did a few hundred years ago, but it has nothing to do with "language is constantly evolving". To me, it is deteriorating, not evolving.

Anyhow, it is what it is.

Thanks.

P.S. Since I am the "thread starter" I approve of you/us going off-topic, ha ha.

[rrats]

Scott, I am sure you are right. However, I am talking about the times where you "know" it's just wrong. For example:

"I aint got no time for that."

This sentence contains several grammatical errors. "Aint" is not a standard English word and is a nonstandard contraction of "am not" or "are not". "Got no" is also nonstandard, as the correct phrase is "do not have" or "have no". Finally, "no time for that" should be "any time for that" as the former is a double negative and considered incorrect in standard English.

A correct version of this sentence would be: "I don't have any time for that."

Thanks ChatGPT, ha ha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t_Nobody_Got_Time_for_That

[Alwyn]

Having said, my grammar is 100% not correct all the time. Just use the last sentence. Maybe, "My grammar is 100% of the time not correct." would've been better?

Nope! "My grammar is not 100% correct all of the time".

We obviously do not talk like we did a few hundred years ago, but it has nothing to do with "language is constantly evolving". To me, it is deteriorating, not evolving.

Couldn't agree more, exacerbated by the butchering English receives from those on the west side of "the pond".

My current pet hate, now infiltrating our journos, is, instead of "it is likely that the economy will crash", is "the economy will likely crash". Arrghh!

As for AI AVISynth, I will stick with AI Neat Video thanks!

[plehoediv]

[QUOTE=Alwyn;2685314]

Having said, my grammar is 100% not correct all the time. Just use the last sentence. Maybe, "My grammar is 100% of the time not correct." would've been better?

Nope! "My grammar is not 100% correct all of the time".

LOL. Thanks. Do I get an A?

We obviously do not talk like we did a few hundred years ago, but it has nothing to do with "language is constantly evolving". To me, it is deteriorating, not evolving.

Couldn't agree more, exacerbated by the butchering English receives from those on the west side of "the pond".

Thanks. I lived "over there" for a while and let me tell you... nah, let's not.

My current pet hate, now infiltrating our journos, is, instead of "it is likely that the economy will crash", is "the economy will likely crash". Arrghh!

As for AI AVISynth, I will stick with AI Neat Video thanks!

Just downloaded the plugin and will give it try later.

Thanks.

[plehoediv]

Scott, I am sure you are right. However, I am talking about the times where you "know" it's just wrong. For example:

"I aint got no time for that."

This sentence contains several grammatical errors. "Aint" is not a standard English word and is a nonstandard contraction of "am not" or "are not". "Got no" is also nonstandard, as the correct phrase is "do not have" or "have no". Finally, "no time for that" should be "any time for that" as the former is a double negative and considered incorrect in standard English.

A correct version of this sentence would be: "I don't have any time for that."

Thanks ChatGPT, ha ha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t_Nobody_Got_Time_for_That

Thank you, "Sweet Brown", for that, ha ha.

[plehoediv]

I do not call this AI, but still find it amazing.

https://www.tiktok.com/@rebeccashepardstudios/video/7202095586625981742

Thanks.

[lordsmurf]

I do not call this AI, but still find it amazing.

https://www.tiktok.com/@rebeccashepardstudios/video/7202095586625981742

Thanks.

Whoa. Yep, amazing how filters now work.

[plehoediv]

I do not call this AI, but still find it amazing.

https://www.tiktok.com/@rebeccashepardstudios/video/7202095586625981742

Thanks.

Whoa. Yep, amazing how filters now work.

Without wanting to bombard the thread with TikTok videos, but you "have" to see this one.

https://www.tiktok.com/@zhangsta/video/7205822453401128234?lang=de-DE&q=glamour%20filt...=1679843616317

[_Al_]

Ehm, .., Is gramma nazi gone?

Yeah, it is all sorts of categories, just slight denoise, hard denoise, or just removing bits that are considered wrong to be there, or slight change to original, then models with pattern changes to pronounce them and now even overall reconstructive changes. Everything is mixed together in this thread.

[El Heggunte]

Everything is mixed together in this thread.

But of course. The name of the topic is
"When is AI going to make everything else obsolete?"

[_Al_]

Yes, op uses a word AI, which is a synonym for whatever makes it better. But you HAVE TO categorize it. You cannot run old TV show or VHS home video run thru with the same software that fixes faces like in that last link.

Answer for op question is yes, the longer he waits , the better results he gets, but that does not mean that he would not denoise VHS tapes and not watch it. It has nothing to do with a mystery AI lurking in the shadows.

[plehoediv]

Ehm, .., Is gramma nazi gone?

A bit harsh, don't you think?

Yeah, it is all sorts of categories, just slight denoise, hard denoise, or just removing bits that are considered wrong to be there, or slight change to original, then models with pattern changes to pronounce them and now even overall reconstructive changes.

I am not following...

Everything is mixed together in this thread.

So.

[plehoediv]

Everything is mixed together in this thread.

But of course. The name of the topic is
"When is AI going to make everything else obsolete?"

And your point is?

[plehoediv]

Yes, op uses a word AI, which is a synonym for whatever makes it better. But you HAVE TO categorize it. You cannot run old TV show or VHS home video run thru with the same software that fixes faces like in that last link.

Like I said, I should have used a different word other than AI, but it's too late now. . I also agree with what you said. You cannot expect one software to do it all.

Answer for op question is yes, the longer he waits , the better results he gets,

Correct. Time is working in my favor.

but that does not mean that he would not denoise VHS tapes and not watch it. It has nothing to do with a mystery AI lurking in the shadows.

I agree.