81–90 of 301 posts
I'm just thinking of that reddit post about the 3d artist who is demoralized about his small indie company and him being reduced to just inputting prompts all day. Now its spreading to the animators and Explosion/CreatureEffects artists. Studios like Wetta Digital / DoubleNegative etc.. are gonna pounce on this
Famous quote: "Wouldn't it be nice if our machines were smart enough to allow programming in natural language?". Well, natural languages are most suitable for their original purposes, viz. to be ambiguous in, to tell jokes in and to make love in, but most unsuitable for any form of even mildly sophisticated precision. And if you don't believe that, either try to read a modern legal document and you will immediately s…
When a client wants a button on a webpage, they don't send the web designer a legaleze document describing the dimensions of the button. They usually don't even tell the designer what font to use.
The web designer pattern matches the client's english request to the dozens of websites they've built, similar buttons they've seen and used, and then either asks for clarification, or specifies it clearly to the machine in a more specific way.
Is that different from the chatGPT flow?
Honestly, we also already mostly use english for programming too, not just design. Most of programming now is glueing together libraries, and libraries don't provide a formal logical specification of how each function works. No, they provide english documentation saying something like "http.get(url) returns an httpresponse object or an error". That's far from an actual mathematical specification of how it works, but the plain english definition is enough that most programmers won't ever look at the implementation, the actually correct specification, because the english docs are fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't think this is "terrifying" to 3D artists any more than github copilot is terrying to us haha It sounds more like you're just seriously underestimating the direction GitHub Copilot is headed.
This is such a vague comment that it's pretty near impossible to reply to in a very constructive way. By my estimation it seems probable that we'll end up in the near future with some Jira integration that has an "auto fix" button on tickets. Possibly PMs or managers will be empowered to replace a large chunk of work that is currently done by people like me... and these things are only the beginning! If you were thin…
Imagine Jupyter notebooks with this capability. Or Photoshop. Or Davinci Resolve. We live in amazing times.
[1]: https://github.com/gd3kr/BlenderGPT/blob/main/__init__.py
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t being a good boss kind of like being a good prompt engineer?
If so, then this means the good boss will soon no longer need employees , as the LLMs will deliver better results faster and cheaper.
Famous quote: "Wouldn't it be nice if our machines were smart enough to allow programming in natural language?". Well, natural languages are most suitable for their original purposes, viz. to be ambiguous in, to tell jokes in and to make love in, but most unsuitable for any form of even mildly sophisticated precision. And if you don't believe that, either try to read a modern legal document and you will immediately s…
On the other hand, we already specify programs in natural language, and in this case chatGPT is really taking a "specification language" as input. When a client wants a button on a webpage, they don't send the web designer a legaleze document describing the dimensions of the button. They usually don't even tell the designer what font to use. The web designer pattern matches the client's english request to the dozens…
The designer knows the context of the question, the website, the previous meetings about the design styles, possibly information about the visitor demographics and goals, knows the implicit rules about approvals and company hierarchy, knows the toolset used, the project conventions, the previous issues, the test procedures, etc.
The equivalent of telling a designer where you want a new button would be equivalent to feeding a small book of the implicit context into ChatGPT and without access to visual feedback you could still end up with an off-screen button that passes all the tests and doesn't do anything. The "fun" part is that for simple tasks 90% of the time it will work every time - then it will do something completely stupid.
> they don't send the web designer a legaleze
That's the implicit context. (And yeah, bad assumptions about what both sides agree on causes problems for people too)
Also, chatgpt will try to make you happy. You want a green button here? You'll get a green button here. A designer instead will tell you it's a terrible idea and breaks accessibility.
Famous quote: "Wouldn't it be nice if our machines were smart enough to allow programming in natural language?". Well, natural languages are most suitable for their original purposes, viz. to be ambiguous in, to tell jokes in and to make love in, but most unsuitable for any form of even mildly sophisticated precision. And if you don't believe that, either try to read a modern legal document and you will immediately s…
Now, that safely describes a modern, optimizing C compiler.....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't how it will play out though. At first chess AIs got enough to beat unskilled players. They they were good enough to beat intermediate players. Then they challenged the grandmasters. Today no human, no matter how long they practise or how hard they train will ever get close to beating an AI at chess. Your assumption that this raises the bar for human 3D artists is correct today, but it won't be long before…
Chess is fundamentally a different kind of problem. You can prove things about chess in the general case, but it's mathematically impossible to prove things about computer programs in the general case.
irrelevant.
my whole world view changed when I read https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf
now pair that with a larger memory, backtracking/revising and on-the-fly weight adjustment (aka, real-time "learning") and I think it might be game over.
add goals and motivations and maybe a vision system? game over for meat bags.
These advances are not only possible, they're inevitable. It's just too tantalising to leave alone.
Assuming this requires a premium subscription to chatgpt, this might actually push me to sign up. Never thought I'd see the day I'd pay OpenAI a cent given that I don't really agree with their level of "open"ness.