| ▲ | bigyabai 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
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... [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... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||