Dirbtinis intelektas arba Artificial Intelligence

[Edd]

Kad AI pagalba galėjo jau seniai būti naudojama tokiems dalykams kaip dainų tekstų generavimas ar muzikos generavimas, tikrai taip. Aš labiau turėjau omeny pačio vokalo generavimą taisyklinga lietuvių kalba kad būtų maždaug teisingas kirčiavimas ir pan., dar ir dabar abejoju kad gerai toks dalykas veikia, bet nesidomėjau giliau, gal jau ir gerai veikia. Nemaža tikimybė ir kad naudoja funkciją kai padainuoja pats žmogus, o paskui su AI konvertuoja į kitą balsą. Beje, pasirodo yra ir populiaresnių AI dainų, pvz., vaikiška dainelė:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdeIp6NUPFg (beje, daug labiau jame jaučiasi problema su lietuvių kalba)

[MedinisStrazdas]

Šiaip tai neužmirškit kad puse ta video žiūrėjusių tia darė per mažą ekraną telefone ir dar tikriausiai puse laiko net nežiūrėdami į ekraną.O AI galima atpažinti, vis dar judesiai banguija lyg per karštą ora žiūrint. Temporal stability sunkiai DI.

[Tomizmas]

Na komentarai: "labai grazi moteris" ir pan., jei ne norint pajuokauti parašyti tai... Man užteko kelių sekundžių kad suprasčiau jog AI. O kalbant tik apie LT muziką tai tikrai ne tokia gera situacija kad būtų galima sakyti "jau kurį laiką".

Kodėl negalima sakyti "jau kurį laiką"? Kas dažniau klausosi M1 tie manau dauguma žino, kad ten būna kažkokia užduota dienos tema (tarkim, juokingiausi vaikystės prisiminimai), klausytojai atsakinėja, o paskui pagal klausytojų atsakymus AI sugeneruoja dainą (tų dainų klausytis rimtu veidu būna neįmanoma) Taip, jau kurį laiką.

[Edd]

Kodėl negalima sakyti "jau kurį laiką"? Kas dažniau klausosi M1 tie manau dauguma žino, kad ten būna kažkokia užduota dienos tema (tarkim, juokingiausi vaikystės prisiminimai), klausytojai atsakinėja, o paskui pagal klausytojų atsakymus AI sugeneruoja dainą (tų dainų klausytis rimtu veidu būna neįmanoma) Taip, jau kurį laiką.

Rašiau šiek tiek aukščiau: "turėjau omeny pačio vokalo generavimą taisyklinga lietuvių kalba kad būtų maždaug teisingas kirčiavimas ir pan., dar ir dabar abejoju kad gerai toks dalykas veikia". Anglų kalba aišku tokios problemos nėra.

[MartynasT]

Šiaip tai neužmirškit kad puse ta video žiūrėjusių tia darė per mažą ekraną telefone ir dar tikriausiai puse laiko net nežiūrėdami į ekraną.O AI galima atpažinti, vis dar judesiai banguija lyg per karštą ora žiūrint. Temporal stability sunkiai DI.

Dar nepamirškime to fakto, kad šitą video žiūri visokie 24 valandų veikėjai, zekai ir viresnio amžeus žmonės, kurių IQ yra šiek tiek aukštesnis už radiatoriaus temperatūrą, bet nėra susidūrę su ĖAJUM. Taip, kad ten tarp trolinimo, didelis % komentatorių yra visiškai legit.

[dondc]

Bent kartą lūpos išdavė, kelis kartus akių judesiai ir labiausiai vokų nenatūralus mirksėjimas (su "Easy Ease" animacijos technika reiktų padirbėt), visiškai nuolatinė statiška galvos padėtis. Čia tik apie dainininkę. Kiti vaizdai natūraliai.

[gerietis]

Pabandžiau Suno, dabar man atrodo kad kokius 99% naujos muzikos/dainų (bent jau anglų k.) rašo DI.

[Silber418]

Ar jau bandėte prancūzų Mistral AI / Le Chat? Taip pat programuotojams skirtas Devstral variantas. Pasižymi atsakymų greičiu. Atsiliepimai labai gerai, tik trūksta populiarumo. Šiemet pasirašyta bendradarbiavimo sutartis su Prancūzijos kariuomene.

[Kitas Džiugas]

Durnesnis už ChatGPT, ir jam dar tikrai sunku su lietuvių kalba.

[gerietis]

15 minučių ir atsakymas pateiktas (AI deepseek-r1:32b)

>>> kiek bus 2 * 2 ?

Thinking...
Alright, let's tackle this math problem step by step. So, the question is asking what is 2 multiplied by 2, which
seems pretty straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand it completely.

First, multiplication is essentially repeated addition. When we say 2 times 2, it means adding the number 2 to
itself once. So, 2 plus 2 equals 4. That makes sense because if you have two groups of two items each, combining
them gives you a total of four items.

But wait, maybe there's more to it. Sometimes in math, especially as we progress into more complex topics,
understanding the underlying concepts is crucial. So let's think about multiplication in terms of arrays or
grouping. If I visualize 2 times 2, I can imagine a grid with two rows and two columns, making four squares in
total. Each square represents one unit, so adding them all up gives me four.

Another way to look at it is using the number line. Starting at zero, if I take two steps of size two each, where
do I land? Zero plus two gets me to two, and then another two steps brings me to four. So that's consistent with
what I learned before.

I also remember hearing about multiplication tables in school. The table for 2 goes like this: 2 times 1 is 2, 2
times 2 is 4, 2 times 3 is 6, and so on. So according to the multiplication table, 2 multiplied by 2 should indeed
be four.

But what if I think about it in terms of area? If I have a rectangle that's 2 units long and 2 units wide, the
area would be length multiplied by width, which is 2 times 2, resulting in an area of 4 square units. That matches
with my previous calculations.

Is there any chance that multiplying 2 by 2 could give a different result? I don't think so, because
multiplication is a fundamental operation with consistent rules. It's not like addition or subtraction where
negative numbers can sometimes lead to counterintuitive results. In this case, both numbers are positive integers,
making the process straightforward.

However, it's always good to double-check my work to ensure accuracy. Maybe I'll use another method called
repeated addition, as I initially thought. If I add 2 to itself once, that's 2 plus 2, which equals 4. Yep, still
the same result.

Another way is to think about multiplication in terms of scaling. If I have a number and I scale it by a factor of
2, then 2 scaled by 2 becomes 4. This method also reinforces that 2 times 2 equals four.

I could even use real-life examples to verify this. Imagine you have two baskets, each containing two apples. To
find out how many apples there are in total, you multiply the number of baskets by the number of apples in each
basket: 2 times 2 equals 4 apples. That makes sense and is consistent with all my previous findings.

What if I use exponents? Well, 2 to the power of 2 means multiplying 2 by itself once, which again gives me 4. So
whether I'm dealing with multiplication or exponents in this context, the result remains the same.

Let's also consider binary representation since we're dealing with small integers. In binary, 2 is represented as
10. Multiplying two binary numbers can sometimes lead to different results if there are carries involved, but in
this case:

```
10
x 10
----
100
```

Which is 4 in decimal. So even when working in a different numeral system, the result holds true.

Maybe I'm overcomplicating things here, though. At its core, multiplication of two positive integers as basic as
these should give a straightforward answer without any room for ambiguity. It's one of those foundational math
facts that everyone learns early on and forms the basis for more advanced mathematical concepts.

But just to be thorough, let's think about how this would work in different contexts. In programming, for
instance, if I write a simple script to calculate 2 multiplied by 2, it should return 4 regardless of the
programming language used. Whether it's Python, Java, or C++, the result remains consistent.

In financial calculations, if you're doubling an investment and want to know how much you'd have after two periods
of doubling, starting with $2, after one period it would be $4, which aligns with 2 times 2 equals 4. This
consistency across different applications reinforces the correctness of this multiplication fact.

I think I've covered multiple angles here: basic arithmetic, visualization through arrays or grids, real-life
examples, binary representation, and even programming contexts—all leading to the same conclusion that 2
multiplied by 2 equals four.

Is there any scenario where multiplying 2 by 2 wouldn't equal four? Well, in modular arithmetic, if we're working
with a modulus other than zero, results can vary. For example, in modulo 5, 2 times 2 is still 4 because 4 is less
than the modulus of 5. But in modulo 3, 4 would wrap around to 1 since 4 divided by 3 leaves a remainder of 1.
However, unless specified otherwise, standard multiplication assumes we're working within the set of integers
without any modulus constraints.

Additionally, in abstract algebra, operations can have different definitions depending on the structure you're
working with. But again, unless we're dealing with specific algebraic structures where multiplication is
redefined, multiplying two instances should follow the standard rules.

Considering all these perspectives, I feel confident that 2 multiplied by 2 equals four.
...done thinking.

The result of multiplying 2 by 2 is 4. This conclusion is consistent across various mathematical methods and
contexts, including basic arithmetic, arrays, real-life examples, binary representation, programming, financial
calculations, and even considerations in modular arithmetic. Thus, regardless of the approach or application, 2 ×
2 = 4.