Raw LLM Responses

@gonzalobarragan8076 „Much words, not that much evidence” In what alternate time,ine do you live in? „What is the difference from a person watching at the art and copying the style? ” The fact taht the person actually watches stuff. The fact that humans ate capable of watching stuff. The fact that humans think and understand. These so called „AIs” cannot. They are mindless algorithm scientifically proven to work nothing like organic brains. To quote an actual article: „Contrary to the idea that the trained neural networks learned human-like invariances, human recognition of the model metamers decreased across model stages, reaching near-chance performance at the latest stages even though the model metamers remained as recognizable to the models as the corresponding natural stimuli, as intended (Fig. 2c,d). This reduction in human recognizability was evident as a main effect of observer and an interaction between the metamer generation stage and the observer, both of which were statistically significant for each of the ten models (P < 0.0001 in all cases; Supplementary Table 1)..” „As shown in Fig. 3b–d, the self-supervised models produced similar results as those for supervised models. Human recognition of model metamers declined at late model stages, approaching chance levels for the final stages. Some of the models had more recognizable metamers at intermediate stages (significant interaction between model type and model stage; ResNet50 models: F21,420 = 16.0, P < 0.0001, ; IPCL model: F9,198 = 3.13, P = 0.0018, ). However, for both architectures, recognition was low in absolute terms, with the metamers bearing little resemblance to the original image they were matched to. Overall, the results suggest that the failure of standard neural network models to pass our metamer test is not specific to the supervised training procedure” Jenelle Feather et al, Model metamers reveal divergent invariances between biological and artificial neural networks