▲ 1132 ▼ New compression technique (lemmy.today) submitted 2 months ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] chunes@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (14 children) There's also a reason identical twins look alike. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago Wow, Jack and Ross look so alike! How did he get his arm back, isn't that after the accident? permalink fedilink source parent [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 months ago (12 children) Don't know why you're being downvoted, it's a good point that shows that genetics is the main factor for your appearance permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Slashme@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Identical twins also share the same womb, so it's not 100% genes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] T156@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) Same womb, similar growing environment, etc. But even then, they're not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago* (1 child) I don't think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* If you're just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago (7 children) Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing. The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (2 children) No, they couldn't, that's what's being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) They said "perfectly", not "90%". You're trying to move the goalposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago Wow, Jack and Ross look so alike! How did he get his arm back, isn't that after the accident? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 months ago (12 children) Don't know why you're being downvoted, it's a good point that shows that genetics is the main factor for your appearance permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Slashme@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Identical twins also share the same womb, so it's not 100% genes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] T156@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) Same womb, similar growing environment, etc. But even then, they're not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago* (1 child) I don't think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* If you're just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago (7 children) Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing. The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (2 children) No, they couldn't, that's what's being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) They said "perfectly", not "90%". You're trying to move the goalposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Slashme@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Identical twins also share the same womb, so it's not 100% genes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] T156@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) Same womb, similar growing environment, etc. But even then, they're not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago* (1 child) I don't think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* If you're just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] T156@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) Same womb, similar growing environment, etc. But even then, they're not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago* (1 child) I don't think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* If you're just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago* (1 child) I don't think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* If you're just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BrainBow65@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* If you're just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago (7 children) Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing. The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (2 children) No, they couldn't, that's what's being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) They said "perfectly", not "90%". You're trying to move the goalposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (6 children) But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (2 children) No, they couldn't, that's what's being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) They said "perfectly", not "90%". You're trying to move the goalposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect permalink fedilink source parent [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details permalink fedilink source parent
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (2 children) No, they couldn't, that's what's being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago So? That's nowhere near the same thing as what you're suggesting "AI can just take DNA and make the same person". Look up what twins actually are. They aren't just DNA injected into some random person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) They said "perfectly", not "90%". You're trying to move the goalposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details permalink fedilink source parent