Imagine having an extremely intelligent Ai versed in almost every topic built right into your phone.

You get lost in the wilderness, You would be able to communicate with the Ai, it would tell you how to survive.

Or for some reason you need immediate medical advice, say for an emergency, like stiching up a wound, or making splint, or even locating medicinal plants in your area.

There are so many different applications for this technology, especially when it's accessible at all times on your phone.

Eventually we will be able to customize it's personality traits as well, and it would be like having the smartest friend who's always there for you. Like a real guardian angel or something like that.

You and Fred must talk a lot. Lol

With stable diffusion they were able to drastically reduce their generation time to 5- 12 seconds (depending on the GPU) and they were able to reduce vram usage from 16gb to 4gb in less than a month.

These optimizations wouldn't take more than a year, they can happen within months. Weeks in some cases, especially once the model is running on a single device.

"While the top-of-the-line LLaMA model (LLaMA-65B, with 65 billion parameters) goes toe-to-toe with similar offerings from competing AI labs DeepMind, Google, and OpenAI, arguably the most interesting development comes from the LLaMA-13B model, which, as previously mentioned, can reportedly outperform GPT-3 while running on a single GPU. Unlike the data center requirements for GPT-3 derivatives, LLaMA-13B opens the door for ChatGPT-like performance on consumer-level hardware in the near future.

"I'm now thinking that we will be running language models with a sizable portion of the capabilities of ChatGPT on our own (top of the range) mobile phones and laptops within a year or two," wrote independent AI researcher Simon Willison in a Mastodon thread analyzing the impact of Meta's new AI models."

In the near future (6 -12 months)

Ai art will be indistinguishable from human made art, in many cases it already is.

So you can create something with ai and just say it wasn't made with ai, who's gonna stop you? How can you prove someone really made something with ai?

You won't be able to, this decision is meaningless.

"The spray-on nature of the device allows it to conform to any size or shaped hand, but opens the possibility that the device could be adapted to the face to capture subtle emotional cues.

Machine learning then takes over. Computers monitor the changing patterns in conductivity and map those changes to specific physical tasks and gestures. Type an X on a keyboard, for instance, and the algorithm learns to recognize that task from the changing patterns in the electrical conductivity. Once the algorithm is suitably trained, the physical keyboard is no longer necessary. The same principles can be used to recognize sign language or even to recognize objects by tracing their exterior surfaces.

And, whereas existing technologies are computationally intensive and require vast amounts of data that must be laboriously labeled by humans—by hand, if you will—the Stanford team has developed a learning scheme that is far more computationally efficient.

Moreover, it's a surprisingly simple approach to this complex challenge that means we can achieve faster computational processing time with less data because our nanomesh captures subtle details in its signals," Kim added. The precision with which the device can map subtle motions of the fingers is one of the leading features of this innovation."

I imagine this innovation will help train robots to do specific tasks, which could increase our ability to automate.

Say you get Gordan Ramsay to cook a meal, you could spray this on his hands and track each individual movement of his cooking style. This could then be transferred to a robot which would have the ability to replicate those movements and decisions.

Any intricate task can be tracked, learned, and then automated with this technology.

"Is death reversible? It was this year for several pigs (or, at least, for their organs). By pumping an experimental substance into the veins and arteries of animals that had been lying deceased for an hour, Yale researchers got their hearts to start beating again. The technology is “very far away from use in humans,” Stephen Latham, a bioethicist at Yale University, told The New York Times. In the short term, scientists said, they hope that their research could help doctors preserve the organs of the recently deceased for use in transplants.

But the longer-term implications of the experiment can’t be ignored: If we have the power to reanimate the heart or other organs of the recently deceased, at what point might we be able to reverse sudden deaths? Could we revive soldiers who bleed out on the battlefield? Could we stock hospitals and nursing homes with buckets of the stuff to resuscitate patients? Should every future American household keep some on hand in the event of a terrible accident?

These questions thrust us into the ethical realm and invoke spooky references to “The Monkey’s Paw,” Pet Sematary, and any number of stories about the dark side of trying to design an escape hatch from mortality. Perhaps, as this technology improves, that debate is on its way. But for millions of people who have lost loved ones to, say, a sudden heart attack or stroke, it’s not remotely dystopian to imagine an injection that could reverse tragedies long considered irreversible."

I enjoyed this commentary perspective and wanted to show it, even though this article is relevant to several other subjects as well.

Consider the idea of suspended animation also, or cryo-pods, if we could kill the body per say, keep it frozen without damaging the tissue, and then reanimate the body with this technology. Sleep pods could be a reality like from Futurama, and other sci-fi movies which use it for long term hibernation.

An article pertaining to the subject entirely: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02112-0

"Artificial-intelligence systems are increasingly limited by the hardware used to implement them. Now comes a new superconducting photonic circuit that mimics the links between brain cells—burning just 0.3 percent of the energy of its human counterparts while operating some 30,000 times as fast."