What if we made a program that generated every picture possible on 640x480 (or even smaller) pixels with a black and white palette? The possibilites are fascinating. For example accurate pictures of all lifeforms in the universe and beyond (if possible).

File: 34 KB, 431x343, 1270633625360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 06:56:30 2010 No.1310985 [Reply] [Original]

What if we made a program that generated every picture possible on 640x480 (or even smaller) pixels with a black and white palette?
The possibilites are fascinating.
For example accurate pictures of all lifeforms in the universe and beyond (if possible).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 06:58:30 2010 No.1310994 imokwiththis.tiff

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:00:30 2010 No.1310998 i don't understand this shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:02:30 2010 No.1311005 With far-future supercomputers MAYBE but it's impractical and of no use so it will never be done. The possibilites are indeed fascinating, though.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:02:30 2010 No.1311009

That would take a long time and isn't even that large a range, unfortunately :S, however you would be able to cram some fairly intricate stuff into that...

What if you made it 10000x10000 with 100,000,000 colours? There's some pretty scary stuff in there, I bet.

>>	Thu Jul 1 07:04:30 2010 No.1311017 If its just white or black, then isnt it 2^307200 pictures?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:04:30 2010 No.1311018 Here's a more interesting problem, what's the smallest space you can make all of those images fit into? How tightly can all of those images be compressed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:09:30 2010 No.1311031 We could start off with very small pictures (15x15) and see what comes out of it. Would be a good /sci/ project

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:10:30 2010 No.1311034

>>1310985
or instead, you could grab a pencil and paper, get even MORE stoned, draw whatever comes into your head, and then when you're sober again you can look at the pictures you drew instead of sifting through trillions and trillions of images of white noise.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:10:30 2010 No.1311040 >>1311031 would still take centuries and a hard drive the size of the moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:11:30 2010 No.1311044 You would need to design the program so it generates into the right direction. It should favour gradients over chaos for example.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:12:30 2010 No.1311048 >>1311031 brb workin on it

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:13:30 2010 No.1311055 Before aliens you will have a lot of cp and be arrested. ( The computer program will be arrested to )

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:13:30 2010 No.1311057 The problem would not be that much generating or storing, but who is going to watch all these pictures? What sense does it make to generate pictures if noone watches them?

Thu Jul 1 07:14:30 2010 No.1311061

>>1311040
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2^225

53 unvigintillion, 919 vigintillion, 893 novemdecillion, 334 octodecillion, 301 septendecillion, 279 sexdecillion, 589 quindecillion, 334 quattuordecillion, 30 tredecillion, 174 duodecillion, 39 undecillion, 261 decillion, 347 nonillion, 274 octillion, 288 septillion, 845 sextillion, 81 quintillion, 144 quadrillion, 962 trillion, 207 billion, 220 million, 498 thousand and 432

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:15:30 2010 No.1311065 You guys are fucking crazy. On a black/white palette: 2x2: 2^4 = 16 pictures 3x3: 2^9 = 512 pictures 15x15: 2^225 = 5.39198933 × 10^67 pictures

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:15:30 2010 No.1311066 >>1311057 You get 2^307200 people to watch it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:16:30 2010 No.1311071 What, Officer? That's not child pornography, it's an experiment!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:17:30 2010 No.1311074 >>1311044 >>1311044 >>1311044 this

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:18:30 2010 No.1311075 Would require more bytes of data than particles in the entire Universe. Not really possible, in any way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:22:30 2010 No.1311084 You'd need some sort of AI to play "the selectah" so people wouldn't have to look at noise all day.

ｍｏｏｔｉｓａｎｅｗｆａｇ !rVPKBLSxeI Thu Jul 1 07:22:30 2010 No.1311086

Nowadays, the total number of particles in the universe has been variously estimated at numbers from 10^72 up to 10^87. The total number of atoms in your body is about 10^28. If the universe were packed solid with neutrons, there would still be only 10^128 particles, a number larger than a googol but much smaller than a googolplex.

>>	Thu Jul 1 07:22:30 2010 No.1311089 a .jpg 15x15 picture is around 740 bytes. Soo... thats 3.99x10^46 YB (yottabytes)

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:24:30 2010 No.1311096

On 640x480 image, with only black & white, we'd have 2.59817245987780185175261711807042054842261320044193093885648457748244411730955058561240261994973827
8388040622630909973580825913163272248604870715637039949587372702086956687012209356694215156642284277
9851206102... x 10^92476 different possibilities.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:31:30 2010 No.1311107

>>1311089

>15x15 jpeg

You can optimize that a lot more. With a black and white palette...

15*15 = 255.
255 / 8 = Around 32 bytes.

Add, let's say, 2 bytes for image processing parameters, and you have a black and white image that is 34 bytes uncompressed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:34:30 2010 No.1311114 There's gotta be a metric asston of redundancy among those pictures, they've gotta be compressible somewhat, right? I could probably shrink the amount of space it takes to store them by a factor of 2 if not more.

Thu Jul 1 07:37:30 2010 No.1311121

>>1311089

With IBM's 100 TB Tape drive, which is 4x5x1 inches. It would require 399000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of these tape drives to store all of the pictures, making the volume of all these tape drives combined = 7980000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 square inches.

That is one fucking huge hard drive. Exponentially greater in volume than trillions of suns.

>>	Thu Jul 1 07:39:30 2010 No.1311124 >>1311114 >>1311107 There is still no way you could store that ammount of information in any hard drive. Unless the singularity comes any time soon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:41:30 2010 No.1311128 This is stupid. Most of those pictures would just be random black blobs on a white background.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:43:30 2010 No.1311134 >>1311128 99% of them, really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:48:30 2010 No.1311146 >>1311128 >>1311134 I say at least 50% are white blobs on black background.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:48:30 2010 No.1311148

>>1311134
>>1311128

Just think, though, one of those has a low res representation of what the inside of a black hole 'looks' like.

Just 1% have all words ever spoken in any language that ever existed. Mathematically, they'd also have every single book ever written, just in sporadic placement. Every math equation possible, any design for whatever technological device you could think of, etc etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:49:30 2010 No.1311150 >>1311146 How do you know the black isn't in the foreground?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:50:30 2010 No.1311155 >>1311146 Depends on your point of view. Only two pictures cannot be considered black blobs on white background, and those would be the completely white and the completely black ones.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:58:30 2010 No.1311174 >>1311150 Cause it's in the background.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 07:59:30 2010 No.1311177 Wait if they're only black and white... You can cut the size in half, because half the pics are going to be exactly the same, just with the pixel color inverted.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:04:30 2010 No.1311186 >>1311177 Now this is science

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:05:30 2010 No.1311189

>>1311177

Doesn't work. Then background would become foreground.

No, you're right. You could as well skip any redundand calculations for all kinds of pictures that are symmetric at one or multiple axis. Just mirror them.
Or just rotational symmetric for some point...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:08:30 2010 No.1311196 >>1311189 Enough with the background/foreground shit. They're just pixels with intensity values.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:08:30 2010 No.1311197 The hottest women ever.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:09:30 2010 No.1311200 >>1310985 that's 2^307200 power window's calculator cannot compute.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:11:30 2010 No.1311211

>>1311189

OH SHIT.

You're right, a lot of the pictures would be exactly the same, but just rotated 90 degrees, or 180 degrees, or 270 degrees. Or mirrored.

So the total size would be 10% of all possible pictures. Without even applying any complex detection algorithms.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:15:30 2010 No.1311225 there should be a minimum black/white pixel ratio, i dont need no 640x480 picture with less then 20 % of it just black pixels, lets star of with 50 % min coverage

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:16:30 2010 No.1311226 File: 1.40 MB, 193x135, 1273812578997.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1311197

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:17:30 2010 No.1311230 I'm working on an image generator algorithm right now. STAND BACK EVERYBODY

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:18:30 2010 No.1311233 File: 97 KB, 1321x1500, 1269882346924.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:19:30 2010 No.1311237 >>1311230 inb4 5 million years of computing time needed.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:19:30 2010 No.1311239
File: 210 KB, 704x392, 126958497580.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1311017
I missed your post earlier.
Yes you are correct. After seeing the rest of these posts I now understand the average /sci/ user doesn't even hold fundamental technical understanding. I mean really fundamental.

the equation can be understood as this:
number of colors to the power of the number of pixels
or colors ^ pixels
or c^p

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:20:30 2010 No.1311243 File: 3 KB, 250x242, 1245051754942.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1311233 Wait I think I can make out the hot women and the aliens

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:21:30 2010 No.1311246 These can each be given a unique 75 digit integer in base 2^2^12 (i.e. there are 2^2^12 symbols as opposed to our usual 10 symbol base 10 system).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:21:30 2010 No.1311249 >>1311246 Oh excellent, that will make it much simpler

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:21:30 2010 No.1311250 >>1311237 No, very quick actually. Come back in an hour.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:23:30 2010 No.1311254 >>1311211 Now this is the compression shit I'm talking about. What other operations can we do on these pictures?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:23:30 2010 No.1311255 >>1311250 For what? 15*15? We'll see....

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:26:30 2010 No.1311262 >>1311254 I know lossy compression can reduce the size of images up to 90%. But I really don't know if it would work for Black and White palettes. With pictures that small and with only 2 colors it might make distort them way too much.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:27:30 2010 No.1311266 I've thought of this before OP. Even with really shitty quality pictures, you get a number of possibilities with IIRC millions of digits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:29:30 2010 No.1311273 >>1311255 No even for huge pictures.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:31:30 2010 No.1311279 >>1311230 Ok, be sure to post ALL of them afterwards.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:33:55 2010 No.1311285 [DELETED]

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:39:31 2010 No.1311302 [DELETED]

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:41:30 2010 No.1311314 Disregarding the computational issues, there is also the fact that you would have to sift through many, many images of random noise. In essence, it is useless. Go read "The Library of Babel" by Jorges Luis Borges.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:44:07 2010 No.1311321 [DELETED]

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 08:55:30 2010 No.1311347 What about the inadvertent child porn?

>>	ｍｏｏｔｉｓａｎｅｗｆａｇ !rVPKBLSxeI Thu Jul 1 09:01:30 2010 No.1311357 you just realized that in OP's scenario, there is a picture of you sucking a dick

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 09:03:30 2010 No.1311359 >>1311357 there is also a picture of you rimming me

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 09:03:30 2010 No.1311360 >>1311009 goatse?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 09:58:30 2010 No.1311523 >>1311357 It boggles the mind

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 10:18:30 2010 No.1311571 Fuck this, I want my monkeys writing Shakespeare

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 10:23:30 2010 No.1311596 File: 78 KB, 668x309, evolution.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1311571 already done

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 10:25:30 2010 No.1311604

>>1310985

That would be 2^(640x480) different combinations.

It will take a LONG time even with a computer generation 10s per second.

But that not all.

Once generated. You need to take the time to review them all and I'm sure you want do that at a rate faster than 3 per second or so.

That coupled with the small probability of getting anything that we could recognize as familiar yet somewhat new/weird.

tl;dr Better of wasting resources on something far more useful.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 10:45:30 2010 No.1311692 if u did that u would get pictures of everyone in the world having every type of sex with everyone and everything in the world

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 11:28:30 2010 No.1311821 File: 19 KB, 460x288, 1266857245008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1311692

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:20:30 2010 No.1312591 File: 123 KB, 300x320, Screenshot-Athena.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is what I got on my first try, using a very simple algorithm I just made up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:34:30 2010 No.1312687 File: 121 KB, 300x320, Screenshot-Athena.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1312591 Some other parameters, now this bitch generates random noise.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:38:30 2010 No.1312725 >>1311604 Each pixel has an RGB value between 0 - 255 so its a much larger number than that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:39:30 2010 No.1312736 >>1311177 For that matter, you could probably ignore even distributions and alternating patterns that occur across the image since it's pretty easy to guess those don't create images of objects.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:40:30 2010 No.1312742 >>1312591 Wow, you got something that resembles a mouse cursor from random noise. Cool

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:43:30 2010 No.1312764

Look, it's all very simple. First, you devise a polynomial-time algorithm to assess whether an image is interesting. Then you find an algorithm to solve NP problems in polynomial time. The problem of finding interesting pictures is in NP, so with a little implementation work, you're set.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 14:56:30 2010 No.1312846 >>1312764 That sounds about right. If you can do this OP, you're golden.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 15:07:30 2010 No.1312922 >>1312764 OP make sure you post your method for everything here first, though, so we can make sure you did it right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 15:13:30 2010 No.1312957 >>1311233 Interesting. There should also be a picture for 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, and 5x5.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 15:25:30 2010 No.1313053 >>1312957 The 1x1 will be especially interesting. White pixel, black pixel. END

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 15:30:30 2010 No.1313078 >>1313053 I know, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 17:19:30 2010 No.1313793 >>1311692 Hot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 17:37:30 2010 No.1313898 bump for interest

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 17:46:30 2010 No.1313955 What's the minimum resolution a photograph of a child being raped must have before it would be considered child pornography?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 17:47:30 2010 No.1313965 >>1313955 1 pixel by 1 pixel

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 17:56:30 2010 No.1314014

Ok, guys, I think this is really interesting, so I'll give you a few pointers (I'm a computer scientist) as I won't have time to program stuff myself for the next month.

1. Do compression. The algorithm should ensure that all images look kinda different.
(a) One Anon had the good idea to leave out negatives. Do that. We can provide an interface to adjust the color anyway...
(b) Generate artefacts and encode them. We should only produce 8x8 (or 4x4?) blocks and provide about 8 predefined blocks (to simulate greyness). The human eye won't see the difference anyway. And we get rid of MANY possibilities.
(c) Write an algorithm to produce greater form. For example, we could start by generating a 32x24 matrix of b/w-Pixels (i.e. bits). Then we stretch that onto the whole image (which means a 80x60 matrix as we use the blocks I suggested above), leaving us with single dots (which actually are blocks, but w/e). THEN, we generate their neighbors (i.e. the blocks in between) using a probabilistic distribution that makes great color changes unlikely and small color changes more likely. (color change because we have around 8 tones of grey for the 8x8 blocks) If you're imagining a Gauss curve in your head, that's what I mean. lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:01:30 2010 No.1314044 File: 21 KB, 522x399, 1267394094640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] you know this will just be used to generate porn right

Anomynous Thu Jul 1 18:07:30 2010 No.1314073

The image library of Babel has been done to death. When the quantity of data you are considering is in excess of the number of subatomic particles in the entire universe by several dozen orders of magnitude, of course subsets of that Vast quantity of data has the potential to contain interesting data.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:08:30 2010 No.1314078

>>1314014
continue'd

2. Do not generate all this shit!
Remember: Information-wise, every single picture is a number. You do not need to count to 2^51581 to know that the numbers exist.
(a) We will need an intelligence anyway to sort all the pictures. The most efficient thing would definitely be to make a website and let the users sort out the images. You could allow users to tag interesting ones, discuss them and link them. Nothing will do as good in sorting images than 1000 humans.
(b) You can have bots nonetheless. But remember: The intelligence (bot/human) is the bottleneck! Thus, you only randomly generate a new image when you really need a new image (i.e. when the bot has finished the last one or when a human visitor clicks the "show me another one" button) Also, you do not want to save these images as you can generate them anytime. You only save the ones users (or your AI) decides to comment/mark/link/whatever. This means that all the trash images you generate just cost user time, but no disk space. (HUGE advantage!)
(c) Finally, you'll need some moderators (aided by clever software) to search through the comments (deleting trolls) and possibly group similar images.

Using all this you'll need not really more space than a standard message board and be able to stretch the computation of ALL images over years or more, no problem. You'll just generate for as long as there are visitors. Also, you'll have results long before the software finished its (almost endless) job.

3. Also, you could implement an import mechanism. There are huge amounts of images out there. A use could upload some random image, your software crops it and converts it to greyscale and then produces the number identifying it in our system. The user can then comment on images he/she already knows. Could give you some starting aid. It'd be a bit like "simple images 4chan".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:09:30 2010 No.1314082 50 years and we'll have quantum computers that can do unbelievable stuff like this.

>>	Anomynous Thu Jul 1 18:12:30 2010 No.1314094 >>1314082 So you believe they will be able to do the unbelievable?

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:12:30 2010 No.1314097

>>1314078
continue'd

And if you're REALLY into Artificial Intelligence, you could let humans start the thing and then run several bots using some AI to recognize patterns in already tagged images and try to combine these patterns into new images and then present them. You could make multiple instances and make them trainable, then make a game about which gilde manages to train the best bot.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:14:30 2010 No.1314108

>>1314097
still me.

Look at http://www.galaxyzoo.org/classify
(Even if you're not interested in this topic, look at it, if you're browsing /sci/!)

They're categorizing huge amounts of data, too. We would even have the advantage that we could generate our data on the fly, which they can not, obviously.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:17:30 2010 No.1314122 >>1314094 Right now having a computer that can compute operations like this is out of the range of probability therefore unbelievable, but in 50 years it won't be. So yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:19:30 2010 No.1314139 >>1311071 >>1311071 >>1311071 lol'd

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:22:30 2010 No.1314159 >>1314122 Hell, probably sooner considering the rate of technological advancement concerning computers in the last few decades. The only thing holding us back really is funding.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:26:30 2010 No.1314181

>>1314159
Actually, what's holding us back at the moment is the laws of physics. Soon, we'll need a new concept how to build computers as the current concept cannot get much smaller (and thus more efficient) anymore. The quantum computer would be such a concept, but nobody know's when they get it to scale (little ones, computing a few Qubits already work). This could happen next week or in the next century.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:31:30 2010 No.1314209

>>1310985
>For example accurate pictures of all lifeforms in the universe
No.
>and beyond (if possible).
VERY NO.

The length of time and amount of storage space required to do this... well hell, not that it would matter anyway. You wouldn't necessarily recognize some crazy creature as such.

There is a question of scale - consider how a close up, accurate picture of a human hair follicle doesn't really tell you much about how a human looks.

There is also the question of wavelength, and the narrow frequency range that can be represented by a display, etc.

I will say that estimating the total size of all images doesn't yield a useful look at this, since you don't have to store them all. You just need someone or something or a group of someones and somethings to look at them as they are generated, then up vote or down vote on whether or not it should be stored.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:33:30 2010 No.1314225 >>1314209 see >>1314014 >>1314078 >>1314097

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:33:30 2010 No.1314231

>>1314097
If you could do that, then there would be no need to generate random images. Just let the AI do it.

Of course, AIs programmed by humans will have many of the same biases that its programmer had, so there is still the question of how to get something to recognize whether or not what it is looking at is a useful picture.

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:39:30 2010 No.1314263

>>1314231
Yeah, the AI part is the hardest, of course. But given we already have a huge amaount of tagged data, you can use a simple neural network to auto-judge some imagines. All a neural network needs is enough tagged data, but it won't be able to be creative, it can just decide if something is good or not.

Wiki neural networks, they're kinda scary actually, as they work without anyone understanding them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:40:30 2010 No.1314268 >>1314263 >>1314108 >>1314097 >>1314078 I also have to mention that I'm kinda tired and obviously not speaking my native language, so please don't mind all the linguistic error in here. lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 18:49:30 2010 No.1314318 >>1312591 >>1312687 Shameless BUMP for seeing more results of THIS GUY.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 19:13:30 2010 No.1314417 What about using a variation of the Markov chain algorithm on predraw/real-life pictures?

Anomynous Thu Jul 1 19:38:30 2010 No.1314529

>>1310985
monochrome 640 x 480 pictures
2^307200 possible configurations
or ~10^92657 configurations

The heat death of the universe has been estimated at 10^100 years. Thus you would need to generate ~10^92557 of them every year, or ~10^92549 EVERY SECOND, to generate every possible picture.

You're literally dealing with a set so unfathomably large that if every particle in the universe had the computing capacity of every computer on earth and were generating and comparing a trillion images every unit of Planck time for the entire duration of the universe YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEGUN TO SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 19:44:30 2010 No.1314572 >>1314529 we'll be able to do it after the singularity

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 19:46:30 2010 No.1314586 >>1314529 heat death of the universe? Link plz

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 19:50:30 2010 No.1314608 Let's say there's two possibilities for every pixel, and there's 640 x 480 == 307200 So, 2^307200 ... 2.598 x 10^92476 Assuming each picture takes up 1 kb, that'd be 2.59 x 10^92450 yottabytes...

Anonymous Thu Jul 1 19:52:30 2010 No.1314618

1. Design a program that generates images randomly.
2. Give it some AI that selects a few of the "best fit" images out of the set.
3. Wire that program up to the internet and let the masses train it by picking whichever image they like the best.
4. Instant porn generator!

>>	Anomynous Thu Jul 1 19:56:30 2010 No.1314641 >>1314618 Enjoy your static bro.

>>	Anomynous Thu Jul 1 19:58:30 2010 No.1314648 >>1314586 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=heat+death+of+the+universe /Rocket surgery I tell you!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 20:00:30 2010 No.1314665 >>1314641 it's not difficult to design it so that it generates semi-coherent images, maybe use some kind of cellular automata...

>>	amb Thu Jul 1 20:14:30 2010 No.1314742 File: 117 KB, 752x500, 1274906335177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1314108 this is fun

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 20:15:30 2010 No.1314747 you would need to generate ONE good image to scare the shit out of people and get some funding and help to upscale the thing. ONE

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 1 20:17:30 2010 No.1314758 >>1314618 been there, done that, wound up with a bunch of samauri faces

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 00:30:30 2010 No.1315914 bump to remind self to do this if the singularity happens within my lifetime

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 00:32:30 2010 No.1315919 bump

>>	Skunkworks !e1337Hykks Fri Jul 2 00:38:30 2010 No.1315935 why not 320x240x256 colors? I donno how to calculate this, is it as simple as (320*240)^256?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 00:50:30 2010 No.1315973 By the way, you don't have to store all the images. They can be discarded after they are scanned and observed, after generating. Or kept.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 00:51:30 2010 No.1315980 >>1310984 ｑUIT AtｔＡcＫINＧ And_ｃｌoWNｉNｇ_ＷWＷ.anOｎ_Ｘ_Ｘ X ｘＸＸＴALK.ｓE DiＲeCtLY ＢrO (ｒeＭOVE Aｌl Ｘ) ncswnlkkvn secp wniu wvrya r hul u sh gty ja pp

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 00:52:30 2010 No.1315981 >>1310998 this. Explain

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:09:30 2010 No.1316026 >1315935 No, it's ( 320 * x + 200 * y ) * 256

Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:10:30 2010 No.1316031

What if we made a program that generated every text possible on a 1000 character long document, using space, the English alphabet, and the numbers from 0 to 9.
The possibilities are fascinating.
For example accurate description of how the universe was formed.

>>	OP Fri Jul 2 01:11:30 2010 No.1316034 >>1311061 lolling at this

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:13:30 2010 No.1316038 >>1316031 Infinite monkey theorem

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:19:30 2010 No.1316056 >>1311040 >>1311040 >>1311040 >would still take centuries >Implying that it's reasonable to count the time it would take to compute 2^225 pictures, with centuries.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:23:30 2010 No.1316065 WHAT IF I RAN INTO A BRICK WALL FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE? THE POSSIBILITIES ARE FASCINATING. FOR EXAMPLE ACCORDING TO QUANTAM THEORY THERE EXISTS A TIME PERIOD WHERE I CAN WALK THROUGH IT.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:27:30 2010 No.1316081 So how about something like this? * Write program that generates fractals from a "genetic code" * Humans go to website, pick the prettiest fractal * Use genetic algorithm to evolve a gene pool that generates very pretty fractals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:34:30 2010 No.1316100 >>1311692 my god, its the ultimate in rule 34 technology!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:37:30 2010 No.1316111 File: 15 KB, 328x357, 1275298388978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] On an image babel library thingo there is porn of you, and your mother, sucking two cocks of an anthropomorphic lion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:46:30 2010 No.1316137 in other news, all the information there could ever be in the universe can be neatly expressed in the shorthand symbol <span class="math">\pi[/spoiler]

Anonymous Fri Jul 2 01:46:30 2010 No.1316138

The problem with this idea is that even if such a machine worked, we wouldn't know what constitutes a picture of an alien unless we knew what one looked like. Sure there could be big black-eyed monsters but nobody (outside some high-level government assholes) would know if it was a representation of something in reality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 2 02:17:30 2010 No.1316253 File: 13 KB, 640x480, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1310985 I'll start.

Anonymous Fri Jul 2 06:01:30 2010 No.1317170

Don't forget about pictures depicting every single possible scenario and second that you will ever experience. Then you can just start putting input from stuff like Multiverse theory (etc.) and you have even more possibilities. You realize this could be a very negative thing to come into existence, right?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math