161–170 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can for AI, it is consuming and mixing in training trail cam images, etc. that weren't composed shots.
That's not at all what the other poster was saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not at all what the other poster was saying.
Then what was it saying? It said that humans can take inspiration from outside art, from the real world. You can do the same thing with AI by training it on pictures from the real world.
People have been inspired to write about subject matter because of their experiences.
AI takes lots of things that currently exist and mixNmatch.
It's not nearly the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lump of labor fallacy. Automation is not a zero sum game because it creates new jobs.
I hear this a lot, that “automation creates jobs” chestnut. Whenever people try to support this argument, they either fall into the “not thinking quantitatively” fallacy by pointing out that “sure, 25 writers got laid off, but the company used to have no programmers, and now they have 2!” Or they fall into the “not explaining the mechanism” fallacy by giving examples from the past where “stablehands retrained as mech…
So, what aspects are completely different in your opinion? I don't see any fundamental differences. People's wants are unlimited, so the workers no longer necessary due to automation can move to fields where automation can't be applied. There will always be plenty of those because, again, unlimited wants. I mean, in Japan, people are already paying for artificial friends, who will go out for dinner with them. I think we'll have much more work in human contact and companionship in the future. Hopefully, much more doctors per patients and much more teachers per student than today. Etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then perhaps you'll have to do what the vast, vast majority of humanity has done for thousands of years, work jobs they don't like to put food on the table. Working in art is a luxury reserved for only the highest echelon of people, like Michaelangelo or Leonardo. The rest of us are not so lucky.
Lol. So I work hard and scrounge for 10 years and get to work for Apple eventually after fighting for life and now “I’ll have to work jobs to put food on the table” You’re crazy if you think many artists I know don’t outwork 99% of the population. Condescending and inappropriate. Many artists I know are the most hard working people I’ve ever met - because making it in this area is fucking hard. And a lot of the lazie…
BTW I'm sorry you might be getting disrupted. It truly sucks.
Auto-generated content has a tendency to raise only the baseline in industries. For web development first it was Dreamweaver, then WordPress templates, then SquareSpace and Wix. Bootstrap came along, then Material and a thousand other prepackaged design languages. While these advancements reduced the income from building mom & pop restaurant websites, the demand for high-end curated sites never really changed. Just f…
AI hasn't really come for programming yet. Copilot, imperfect as it is, is proof that the problem can be approached. I think junior software engineers could realistically be obsolete in 5 years. Imagine a software architect being able to prompt: "write a rest API that exposes user data from system A to internal system B", and have a complete API dumped out, with tests, ready to be deployed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Artists which use AI and become more efficient will drive up supply of art and decrease its price. Additionally, some people who need art might just skip the artist entirely now, leading to less demand. This means some artists may no longer be able to make a living. As in, they're effectively replaced.
Or it will enable things that are currently impractical due to the amount of manual work involved - driving easy to produce stuff out, again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AÍ imagemaking doesn’t compare really to spending 10 hours agonising over lighting a shot which is what I love I sympathize with you a lot here. But it's not really a new problem that great art usually doesn't have commercial value commensurate to effort or quality.
No absolutely not. It’s just the first time that I’m looking at what I do for a living and thinking it’s just not going to exist in 10 years - not in the same way and potentially not at all. I’m in my early 30s, and this is my career. I have some suspicion that there is absolutely no way I can retire on my profession as it will simply cease to exist. Which is a curious problem. It’s bizarre to me. I’m 33 years old an…
Realistically, making images by hunching over a computer for 10 hours is not a profession many can retire in anyway. Like coding (or, perhaps even more so, because the pressure to deliver is actually muc harder), it's a young man's game. People burn out mentally or even physically - carpal tunnel, back pain, neck pain or just lower energy levels due to age can prevent you from putting in the required hours. Realistically, if you stay in the industry, in 10-15 years you'll move into management or high-level consulting anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a human artist walking around in the world, seeing images and videos (many of which are under copyright) and then using those images as inspiration, versus an AI being fed millions of images and videos as part of a large training set? I am not a lawyer but I don't really see the "it's not fair use" argument.
If I can take copyrighted images and feed them into an AI, why can’t I take any code I find online and ignore the license terms and feed it into a compiler? How do you justify the existence of something like the GPL?
Is it ok to scan copyrighted works. I think Google Books' win at the Supreme Court shows that yes it is.
Is it ok to process them down to the rawest information?
Is it ok for people to generate content from the raw information (and ok for them to charge for it)?
The last two I don't have an answer for, but I understand the fear of artists and the anger that their hard work is being shovelled into the monster that is going affect their work. But also more broadly the make-up industry, the lighting industry, studio spaces, lens makers, paint manufacturers, etc etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People theoufht the same with advancements in agritech 150 years ago. If 30% of the population isn't out in the fields, they'll be unemployed forever. Turns out we invent new jobs all the time. Whether they're worth taking Vs doing something more similar to your current job but for a bit less money is an individual's choice, of course.
The average height of Englishmen actually went down during the industrial revolution (presumably) due to malnutrition. New histories of the period think of it as potentially as one of the few times we know where there was an enormous economic boom alongside a general collapse of quality of life. Ir could be we are looking at something similar at the moment with the digital revolution. Yes eventually we all retrain an…
We're talking about things that can be eased into, by white collar workers. And the numbers affected are nothing like the industrial revolution's either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's how you feel, then I assume you won't be adapting at all (as evidenced by your other comment [0]), so your 100k job will go too to the ones who do adapt. I'm not saying this to be mean, you asked the question, people answered and it seems you don't like the answer. What are we supposed to do about how you feel? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33099182#33100703
It’s not about how I feel - it’s about the potential obliteration of my way of life. The people who will make money out of this transition will be AÍ engineers, not image makers. I will bet you 1 ETH and place it under a smart contract bet if you’d like.