The focus blur is repulsive. I think convincing focus blur will be the milestone that replaces stock photography.
It can get a bit better if the prompt is made more detailed. For instance here are the four results I got for "Professional black and white photo of Paris in the 1950s, on a rainy afternoon. Leica 35mm lens. --s 1000" (--s 1000 lets it 'stylize' a bit more). https://i.imgur.com/pPU7K0c.png Things still get a little weird in the distance (particularly in photo 3), but I think overall it's a bit better. People who are…
Very interesting. Photo 4 is a significant step in the right direction. It's refreshing that it doesn't veer towards a Gaussian look either. Thanks for sharing.
People in the textile industry were well paid and given a place to live at one point in history. Then the auto loom showed up and they were kicked to the street to starve. I wouldn't want to try to live in any major US city on a blue collar salary.
Maybe one day AI will allow completely unskilled laypeople, ignorant of software, to build and deploy software end to end with no involvement from any software engineers, testers, SREs, anything. That would be the power loom of our time - the power loom allowed unskilled workers to completely replace skilled hand loom weavers with no drop in quality of output. When that's possible, the world will be very different. R…
This isn't an all-or-none scenario. It's not like all textile factories got auto-looms and the labor market collapsed overnight. Tools will improve, productivity will improve, and the demand for software development as a specialty will wane dramatically. Making simple tools using prompts will no longer require knowledge of data structures and algorithms, efficiency, networking, or anything else we get paid to know, and over time will shift to something white collar workers put on their resume next to MS Office. A tiny handful of specialist engineers will control development, and software creation as a commodity will essentially be automated. We will feel the impact of these changes LONG before that process is complete.
this is cool, but hm, how should I put it... Ultimately there's a relationship between the preciseness in which you want to control something and the underlying information, as conveyed in language, to describe such precision. Whether you use plain english, or code - ultimately to do things of sufficient precision you will have to be equally precise in your description. I'm sure someone with more time and more knowle…
Chatbots use random number generators to create a variety of output, so it would be a terrible idea to use natural language as "source code" for a code generation tool. Running a chatbot shouldn't happen within a build process, because the results aren't reproducible. Once you have the source code though, you can use a variety of tools to manipulate it and save the result. Using chatbots to make modifications under s…
Can you not provide a seed to an LLM the way you can with some of the image / video generation models I’ve seen?
"The generated code might not always be correct. In that case, run it again lmao" is the best documentation I've read all week.
Hey everyone makes mistakes when coding, even LLms. There’s two approaches I use, I’m sure there are more. * Do multiple completions and, filter the ones that successfully run, and take the most common result. * Do a completion, if it fails, ask the Llm to find and correct the bug.
This sounds like reducing the temperature with more steps
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…
In (language model-backed) natural language interfaces the loss of precision can be made up via iteration. If it were about getting it right on the first try this would be a dead end but there's no need for that restriction.
What makes us think that encoding all functionality using natural language is somehow more compact than using code? Sure, describing a website with a button is easy, but I don’t quite see how you would describe Kubernetes or a device driver without writing a book in “legalese”.
Or try formulating a math proof with natural language.
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.
There's no mathematical proof for the correctness of graphic design, either, but that won't stop cheap AI-generated garbage from taking over the role of making commodity images and putting a lot of people out of work.
For me the interesting job in software is designing architecture and implementing complex things. Automation with tools like this is not remotely there and to some extent probably won't be because we're often talking about human preferences and subjective design choices. Gpt4 in software is Intellisense++ right now, it provides code snippets for things you want to do, it's just raising the bar of abstraction, not rep…
And while doing so income disparity has kept increasing. Eventually we need to stop and think about how capitalism is winner take all, or we're all in for a very bad time.
We already know capitalism is rotten… but we don’t care because it gives us the opportunity (real or not) to be the one on top standing on a mountain of bodies, basking in the glow of our delusional, narcissistic sense of entitlement.
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…
Yes and no. You've provided an excellent introduction to the problem space, but I think natural language has a larger role in formalisms than you might expect. The most familiar formal language grammars to most people here are programming languages. The difference between them and natural language has been categorized as the difference between "context-free grammar" and "context-dependent grammar". The most popular c…
> Similarly, programming languages provide excellent utility for describing explicit computational behavior. What they are missing is the reason why that behavior should exist at all. Programs are surrounded by moats of incompatible context: it takes explicit design to coordinate them together.
Such a well written reply! This puts into words a lot of my thoughts around programming today and how NLP can help.
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…
Visual Basic is so easy secretaries will be able to write programs.
Sometimes smart people say dumb things and it takes a while to figure out they are wrong.
And while doing so income disparity has kept increasing. Eventually we need to stop and think about how capitalism is winner take all, or we're all in for a very bad time.
We already know capitalism is rotten… but we don’t care because it gives us the opportunity (real or not) to be the one on top standing on a mountain of bodies, basking in the glow of our delusional, narcissistic sense of entitlement.