> We're going to have incredible Pixar/Disney/Ghibli-beating animation tools within months. Creatives stuck in low-autonomy roles in the Hollywood studio system can finally break out on their own.
Yes, the tools are there... but a typewriter allowing someone to get past poor hand writing or a word processor allowing easier editing doesn't change the underlying creative choices.
... and currently going through the entire Foundation series (currently part way through Foundations edge) as audio books so I can't skip over the not as interesting parts... I'm going to say that I really don't want 1950s Asimov. I've had the entirety of my desires filled for that.
I understand the sentiment but I view LLM and generative AI as tools to explore the possible idea space. A human can do this manually, it just takes a long time. But the output is the same either way. Therefore you're reduced to an argument that essentially says you don't like the output only because it was generated by an AI, which reminds me of "what colour are your bits?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917…
The problem is that so-called AI isn't just a neutral tool for generating and exploring ideas in the whole idea space, nor is it a particular human being with particular experiences and talents and biases and ideas and a particular personality that can generate something interesting and unique, large language models always give you essentially the average of the entire Corpus of human output given whatever input you gave it. So they are always guaranteed to give you the most lukewarm, generic, uncreative ideas and output imaginable. Just try to get it to write something arguing against a widely held position or for a unique position. You're very quickly find that you can't really get it to do that, because that's fundamentally opposed to how it's reward function works so of course it isn't going to do that. This is because the problem stretches even further than just affecting what kinds of ideas large language models can produce on their own, too, because if you are asking it to expand on and process an idea you've given it, that processing itself will be subject to reverting to the mean, and so even if you have a human inputting unique and interesting ideas into the large language model, all you will get out is eventually more generic sludge with all of the interesting aspects scrubbed out. So ultimately everything created with LLMs will be lowest common denominator populist sludge with no interesting ideas or defining characteristics. And your fundamentally not going to be able to solve that until you come up with a completely different method for doing this with an entirely different reward function, with the problem being that the only quantitative, data based way of determining whether an output is good is to compare it to what's common in the Corpus of human output, since otherwise you get very quickly into very complex philosophical questions of Truth and value and logic that just aren't legible to a computer system.
> I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. I find Spotify's "discover weekly" list to be generally pretty good. Sure, there are some songs I dont like, but there are often 3-4 great songs each week that get added to my regularly playlist. Its all good an well to say that human recommendations are better, but I'm not payin…
While I largely agree with the author's sentiment about not being very interested in AI-generated content, > AI output is fundamentally derivative and exploitative (of content, labor and the environment) I believe humans do exactly this as well, and to a greater extent. If you asked me to draw a picture of some mountains and rivers there's a pretty good chance it'll be almost the same composition as some Monet or Ans…
It's still time and effort you have spent though.
Did LLMs not take time and effort to create? There's this ongoing sentiment in the AI detractors that for something to be meaningful it requires a human to have spent time making it. Meanwhile we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of things we see and interact with are already made by machines or are machines themselves.
Fine, I’ll bite I guess. AI generated content will never beat a Studio Ghibli production. This must be judged by actual fans, not those who want AI to win. There’s no way AI is deriving content like that studio can make. Not in months (lol), not in 10 years. The point of all content isn’t shitting something out for a quick buck, which sure, AI will excel at. Studio Ghibli is clearly taking care to create unique works…
Really, never? As in never ever?
At the point you're thinking AI is superior at generating Ghibli-like movies it essentially is as powerful as any human (understands the world and our preferences for storytelling), that is smarter than all of us by some margin. (I'm not talking about ASI yet.) Which by the way renders the whole argument (your point included) meaningless because you shouldn't even be giving it commands at that point. It should do have freedom to make its own decisions.
Fine, I’ll bite I guess. AI generated content will never beat a Studio Ghibli production. This must be judged by actual fans, not those who want AI to win. There’s no way AI is deriving content like that studio can make. Not in months (lol), not in 10 years. The point of all content isn’t shitting something out for a quick buck, which sure, AI will excel at. Studio Ghibli is clearly taking care to create unique works…
What's your take on this? Not an expert but I think some of these are (vaguely?) based on Studio Ghibli aesthetics:
This is not an attitude that will tolerate the changes to come. See: Chrome adding AI to every text field. AI will, at the least, became an extension of creatives - not as something that did the work for them, but that made it possible for them to better create it.
> Chrome adding AI to every text field.
Horrifying! I'm going to hazard a guess that it won't be running inference locally... Should we tolerate changes like this?
You haven't seen what I've seen. :) There are a lot of groups running towards this goal and it's all going to land at once.
Share what you’ve seen then? The industry has a long history of people making promises they never deliver on. Every wave of tech has them, “AI” has pulled them all out of their holes once again…
He's probably seen the VC money being thrown at anyone who promises the coming AI utopia.