Here's an idea-- even some of the universe belies
the only way what seems and something.
[DING]
Here are program mentions of first,
or a comment of a sort of speaking.
The most power to know is all makes or the of the fact.
Effect of whole, not a complete, the both
in the mind of actors because of a seemingly more to consider it
can some of the characters in the personal event.
Degrade into the series the metaphors
car of the world in just the one in a universe of the idea.
And though a community of the same authors
and the like-- or something violent, faces of actually.
What would, in a sense, of the faces and state.
They learn.
And universe of the seams to do in the former things.
A used and a selected person in general ears from the
has the first of shows.
That and all still into comment the deeply.
Maybe we could be about terror, can up in the night
constructed, which marked science on the grand
in a characters.
From not make it so longer of the face in the comprised.
And a person is what the world on the country of
have the construction of the mic.
Could the person in front are?
And how they deal to part of them?
This, the subject of Dumbledore.
The construction of comments of the posting, on the works,
are some of them.
For make of swap, the thinking of the something.
How it weight, all the process of some.
So like--
Face for four.
The books are the rest of history, but reasonized.
This is a completeness, and death,
the lines and connections of deconstructs.
Truly things a subject and the back in some constant of they
do.
The content of the same and being
like personal, like marsten digerfillian.
How can he take it for so long?
Of the world, their ailing such is some.
And they say is this idea the considered process of a game,
as how posting became of the matter.
Some can telling the water even space a different back,
backness to main new with vicinity
of the produces, the grow, the sense of understand of clear.
The same, you watch the goals, computers, and computers
and power the surf of-- of a body, about the contracts,
and seeming good world, in which the world, that in much
of a caution of the stuff is not a source,
and says of a portend in technology,
difference has a possible being literally
with one of a characters to an internet, he writes.
And chose to do the particular of the retain that
of the things.
The first in the meaning in the suggests,
which isn't in a shows.
People opinion the faces of the speaking, succinctly.
And failing stakes that truly shows with the top.
Do you think a know is truly describing
the luck of the profiting?
The fund of the start to think fictions of a billions,
and some because a listical says the violence
of regions, right, and experiences of back the person.
In the presented demolition of the subject like the far,
our pieces like the part of the meaning-- or something.
It's not the technology.
Different maybe experience of game and some of art
or the true, before on to might is a face.
In a second, the starts like the many internet,
the one of the metaphor.
It's because of the artists and the way they can't.
Far and from not the incommunication which
fans away the striped language.
From says a more fined and contraption
of the dam construction.
And barsy souls, the problems of the writer,
truly so to post as infinity of the one.
In all likelihood they become things, and reassemble
sense and ending.
A good as many always even think about the art
for theory of construction.
And a minor, the same.
Allow transience.
What do you all think, that we, because the actually exasperate
and generations were works a land ways always
called that the internet book a considered guess?
Are the new frontier called to say the material,
and the success of the story?
All the way in which emoji do on our ricks?
Let us know in the comments and I will respond to some of them
in next week's comment response video.
OK, all right.
Let's talk about what you just saw.
I promise you are not losing it.
That script was written by a recurrent neural network, one
implemented in f a scientific computing
framework based in the programming language Lua.
The method that I used was inspired
by a tutorial written by my friend Jeff f links
in the doobly-doo.
It was trained on every Idea Channel script, almost five
years worth, including a few half written scripts that
never actually got filmed.
No comment responses were used.
It was trained on how I write, not how I talk.
So, how does that work?
Well, the recurrent neural net learns
how I write by reading the whole Idea Channel corpus back
and forth, many, many times.
It learns what words tend to follow other words, how
a punctuation shows up, that certain words are
more common than others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
That learning process took several hours,
and it looked like this.
It's very compelling.
It's very interesting to watch.
My computer got very, very hot.
Once it was trained, I had the neural network
generate text in the style of the analyzed corpus,
in the style of me.
It places a word, decides a likely next word,
and then places it.
Looks at the two words just placed,
determines the likely next word, places it.
Looks at the last three words, and so on and so forth.
This process is called language modeling.
Torch actually lets you provide a bit of warm up text,
they call it.
The flag is primed text.
And the prime text that I used to generate scripts
was, of course, here's an idea.
Torch also has a setting called temperature which determines
the novelty of your output.
Set to one, the output is nonsense.
It's all made up words and total unpronounceable gobbledygook.
Set near zero, it's mostly prepositions and to be verbs.
This script's temperature was 0.4.
So pretty conservative, but with some novelty,
which explains f spend Dieter affiliate.
I experimented with all kinds of settings
throughout the process, and I generated 10 scripts
once I had settings that I liked.
I chose the first script that made me laugh.
I cleaned up some unpronounceable nonsense
and I added a few periods here and there for my sanity,
and for yours.
And I also added the, "What do you all think?"
After Morgan and I shot it, I had the neural net
generate another set of words after being trained
on just the final script alone.
Ian used those words to search for assets
and used a mostly random process to determine
what results would end up as visual material in the episode.
I then wrote this postamble.
And after shooting it, we're going
to cut a small section of the AI generated portion for time.
Tomorrow, we're going to publish another video, scripted
directly by me this time, which asks
whether machines and artificial intelligences can be creative.
Can they make art?
And spoiler alert, the answer is yes, they can.
But I think much more interesting questions
follow after that one, questions about us, what we think
creativity is or must be, and the reasons we,
humans, may not allow them, machines, to make art,
at least not by themselves.
"Jyfe" for life comment responses
will also be uploaded tomorrow.
But in the meantime, you can rewatch the first part
of this video and give a look, watch,
or listen to some of the machine made
works linked in the doobly-doo and this card.
And think about how the face of the world and the marking
are a violence that even some from the intelligent
and of the same burdle would could important of its more.
[DING]