21–30 of 177 posts
I'm still baffled how so many people are willing to gloss over all the heavy lifting the user has to do to glue all this together. Organizing a project is still and always has been the majority of the work!
Plus this was mostly copy/paste - that's not heavy lifting!
ControlNet allows you to sketch or use a pre-existing sketch to then use as the basis for image generation. Allows for very, ahem, /stable/ variations between different sub-prompts.
Like, we should maybe give pause to the fact that this is at least the 20th demo specifically about "making a website." If this technology is so powerful, saves so much time, democratizes the profession so much, etc why are the demos all the same? Either people are unimaginative, which they are not, or perhaps this is pretty much what we can get from this in general.
Coding involve care and inspiration, and should not necessarily be reinventing the wheel again and again, even if youre getting the AI to do the reinvention for you.
But beyond any principled thoughts, just not seeing the returns here that people are trying to get me to see. Lots of laymen have been making wonderful websites for 30 years. Its cool the computer knows what css people have been using for those decades, but it only makes brittle uninspired things that only incidentally work.
I'd really like to know, beyond the hype, if any serious engineers have actually used this stuff for an extended amount of time. Ive tried and tried to use it and convince myself its helping me, but it just leads to so much frustration with the hallucinations and misunderstandings and schizophrenic comprehension of its own context..
As a designer none of these make me worried about my skill set, they all look pretty bad with the slightest amount of attention. The real concern is how ugly a world the capitalists are willing accept to cut labor costs, and we know the answer, just look what capitalism did architecture. Dogshit buildings everywhere designed by contractors to avoid skilled labor. What an ugly time to be alive
This seems to be the opinion of everyone on HN, but I never encounter this in real life (and do not agree with it myself). Where I live (mainly London, but I've spent a bit of time in some US cities as well) the buildings being built/applying for planning permission look pretty good. It's the ones built in the late 20th century that are hideous.
"But one day they will..."
Maybe, maybe not. AI could take over the world, or it could easily be that we are seeing the very peak of what generative models can do. It is impossible to extrapolate the current state of the tech 5/10/20 years into the future and make predictions based on where you think it will be. Look at self driving tech for a close comparison. Research has been plateauing for 5+ years and the tech is even going backward now due to safety concerns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is day one. You're seeing the results of amateurs adapting unspecialized tools. They're using minimal effort and still deriving head turning results. A great analogy might be all the folks making Geocities websites back in '99. Look at how far we've come from that. Can you even fathom where we'll be in five years? (Or even just this fall, given the pace of research and new startups optimizing models/workflows?)…
> Websites of 2000-2020 will look as dated as magazine ads. New websites will be rich and interactive as never before. Why? Do we need any of that aside from specialized tools (e.g. data intensive) for which it actually makes sense to use tried and proven tech? Im sure new things are going to come out of AI, they’re already becoming obvious. But using AI to build things we already know how to do and just add more com…
"Using cars to drive down roads we already know how to traverse with horses and just add more complexity is bound to not go anywhere useful in my opinion."
Think about it for a second: a machine understood your request in plain English and executed it adequately, instantly and free.
If you can’t think how that will affect every aspect of UX and creative job I don’t know what to tell you.
And that’s not even touching on the philosophical questions like a LLM suddenly displaying personality, like Sydney, and mostly passing the Turing test.
The floor is shifting beneath our feet. This is for real.
I’m always amazed at the dismissive comments recent AI advancement generates: it’s not really creation, a human would do much better, it’s getting old, etc Think about it for a second: a machine understood your request in plain English and executed it adequately, instantly and free. If you can’t think how that will affect every aspect of UX and creative job I don’t know what to tell you. And that’s not even touching…
And the same general purpose publicly available free AI can perform at that level for a very, very wide range of tasks.
Even if the general purpose bot is just 'adequate', how long until fine-tuned versions for specific tasks come out, performing at superhuman levels?
As a designer none of these make me worried about my skill set, they all look pretty bad with the slightest amount of attention. The real concern is how ugly a world the capitalists are willing accept to cut labor costs, and we know the answer, just look what capitalism did architecture. Dogshit buildings everywhere designed by contractors to avoid skilled labor. What an ugly time to be alive
I'd say the good part of AI coding is the democratization of programming. It'll be shittier than hand-crafted stuff but more broadly available and empowering more people to make their own stuff.