> These models will soon generate entire worlds. They will eventually surpass human modeller capabilities and they'll deliver stunning results in 1/100,000th the time. From an idea, photo, or video. And easy to mold, like clay. With just a few words, a click, or a tap.

This is a pretty sweeping and unqualified claim. Are you sure you’re not just trying to sell snake oil?

▲

weregiraffe 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm sure he is just trying to sell snake oil.

▲

echelon 4 days ago | parent [-]

I've been predicting this since Deep Dream (which feels like a century ago) and HN loves to naysay.

I claimed three years ago that AI would totally disrupt the porn and film industries and we're practically on the cusp of it.

If you can't see how these models work and can't predict how they can be used to build amazing things, then that's on you. I have no reason to lift up anybody that doubts. More opportunity on the table.

▲

bigyabai 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW I'm a 3D modeller (hard surface Blender modelling, ~10yrs) and I've been reading your comments for a while now. Reality wasn't disrupted quite as far as you suggested, most of the naysayers that advised restraint under your comments have largely been proven right. Time and time again, you made enormous claims and then refused to back them up with evidence or technical explanations. We waited just like you asked, and the piper still isn't paid.

Have you ever asked yourself why this revolution hasn't come yet? Why we're still "on the cusp" of it all? Because you can't push a button and generate better pornography than what two people can make with a VHS camera and some privacy. The platonic ideal of pornography and music and film and roleplaying video games and podcasting is already occupied by their human equivalent. The benchmark of quality in every artistic application of AI is inherently human, flawed, biased and petty. It isn't possible to commoditize human art with AI art unless there's a human element to it, no matter how good the AI gets.

There's merit to discussing the technical impetus for improvement (which I'm always interested in discussing), but the dependent variables here seem exclusively social; humanity simply might never have a Beatlemania for AI-generated content.

▲

nl 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't work in the field but I observe it pretty closely and my feeling is that comments like this remind me of the people I spoke to in the 1990s who said that Windows and Intel would never replace their Unix workstations.

Right now if I go on LinkedIn most header images on people's posts are AI generated. On video posts on LinkedIn that's a lot less, but we are beginning to see it now. The static image transition has taken maybe 3 years? The video transition will probably take about the same.

There's a set of content where people care about the human content of art, but there is a lot of content where people just don't care.

The thing is that there is a lot of money in generating this content. That money drives tool improvement and those improved tools increase accessibility.

> Have you ever asked yourself why this revolution hasn't come yet?

We are in the middle of the revolution which makes it hard to see.

▲

echelon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hope the walls don't cave in on you. Eyes up. My friends in VFX are adopting AI workflows and they say that it's essential.

> Why OnlyFans May Sell for 75% Less Than It’s Worth [1, 2]

> Netflix uses AI effects for first time to cut costs [3]

Look at all of the jobs Netflix has posted for AI content production [4].

> Gabe Newell says AI is a 'significant technology transition' on a par with the emergence of computers or the internet, and will be 'a cheat code for people who want to take advantage of it' [5]

Jeffrey Katzenberg, the cofounder of DreamWorks [6]:

> "Well, the good old days when, you know, I made an animated movie, it took 500 artists five years to make a world-class animated movie," he said. "I don't think it will take 10% of that three years out from now," he added.

I can keep finding no shortage of sources, but I don't want to waste my time.

I've brushed shoulders with the C-suite at Disney and Pixar and talked at length about this with them. This world is absolutely changing.

The best evidence is what you can already see.

[1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/onlyfans-may-sell-75...

[2] https://archive.is/Xndzx

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vr4rymlw9o

[4] https://explore.jobs.netflix.net/careers?query=Machine%20Lea...

[5] https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/gabe-newell-says-ai-is-a...

[6] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cofounder-dreamworks-say...

▲

topato 4 days ago | parent [-]

Frankly, that is all just speculative, once again. AI is hitting a significant roadblock. Look at how disappointing GPT-5 was. No amount of compute is ever going to match the hype matching those quotes.

The C-suite who don't realize how wrong they are about AIs potential are going to be facing a harsh reality. And artists will be the first to be hurt by their HYPE TRAIN management style and mindset.

Edit: most of all, the 3d generation in this LLM3d model is about the same as the genAI 3d models from a year ago... And two years ago... A good counterpoint would be Tubi's recently released, mostly AI gen short films. They were garbage and looked like garbage.

Netflix's foray, of memory serves, was a single scene where a building collapses. Hardly industry shattering. And 3d modeling and genAI images/videos are substantially different.

	▲	mlinhares 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The only consequence they will be facing is being parachuted off with bootloads of money after they have failed to deliver on their magical promises.

▲

vrighter 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

on the cusp means nothing. We are on the cusp of agi, tesla autopilot, cryptocurrency taking over, achieving nuclear fusion, and a bunch of other things. Companies don't sell working products anymore, they sell products that are "on the cusp of working"

We have been on the cusp of some things for literal decades.

▲

imtringued 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your prediction compresses 24 hours into a single second or a single day of work into a third of a second. How exactly do you expect to be proven right when just the network latency alone will eat a big chunk of that time?

You'll literally be proven wrong simply because the AI will take time to generate things even if the quality of the output is high.

▲

lelanthran 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I claimed three years ago that AI would totally disrupt the porn and film industries and we're practically on the cusp of it.

Meh. We were on the cusp 5 years ago. Five years later, we're still on the cusp?

Maybe I'm working with a different meaning of "cusp", but to me "On the cusp of $FOO" means that there is no intervening step between now and $FOO.

The reality is that there are uncountable intervening steps between now and "film industry disrupted".

▲

weregiraffe 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> practically on the cusp of it.

Two Girls One Cusp.

▲

_0ffh 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> More opportunity on the table.

Hate to disappoint you, but as the models get better, and eventually deliver the results, you won't have to wait a microsecond until the masses roll in to take advantage.