211–220 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you value self expression? Did you train the AI yourself? On your own music? Or was music scrapped from Net and blended in LLM?
Do you believe that music made from samples is not original?
I think the interesting idea with “AI” is that it seems to significantly reduce barriers to entry in many domains. I haven’t seen a company convincingly demonstrate that this affects them at all. Lots of fluff but nothing compelling. But I have seen many examples by individuals, including myself. For years I’ve loved poking at video game dev for fun. The main problem has always been art assets. I’m terrible at art an…
Yep this is a huge enabler - previously having someone "do art" could easily cost you thousands for a small game, a month even, and this heavily constrained what you could make and locked you into what you had planned and how much you had planned. With AI if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as much art, audio etc it's an incremental cost if any, you can explore ideas, you can throw art out, pivot in new directions.
Even amateurish art can be tasteful, and it can be its own intentional vibe. A lot of indie games go with a style that doesn't take much work to pull off decently. Sure, it may look amateurish, but it will have character and humanity behind it. Whereas AI art will look amateurish in a soul-deadening way.
Look at the game Baba Is You. It's a dead simple style that anyone can pull off, and it looks good. To be fair, even though it looks easy, it still takes a good artist/designer to come up with a seemingly simple style like that. But you can at least emulate their styles instead of coming up with something totally new, and in the process you'll better develop your aesthetic senses, which honestly will improve your journey as a game developer so much more than not having to "worry" about art.
I think the interesting idea with “AI” is that it seems to significantly reduce barriers to entry in many domains. I haven’t seen a company convincingly demonstrate that this affects them at all. Lots of fluff but nothing compelling. But I have seen many examples by individuals, including myself. For years I’ve loved poking at video game dev for fun. The main problem has always been art assets. I’m terrible at art an…
Easier to start, harder to stand out. More competition, a more effective "sort" (a la patio11).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed this as well. It's a huge boon for startups, because it means that a lot of functions that you would previously need to hire specialists for (logo design! graphic design! programming! copywriting!) can now be brought in-house, where the founder just does a "good enough" job using AI. And for those that can't (legal, for example, or various SaaS vendors) the AI usually has a good idea of what services you…
> ironic if AI actually ended up destroying economic activity that's not destroying economic activity - it's removing a less efficient activity and replace it with a more efficient version. This produces economic surplus. Imagine saying this for someone digging a hole, that if they use a mechanical digger instead of a hand shovel, they'd destroy economic activity since it now cost less to dig that hole!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not technical, it's due to uber having spent incredible amounts of money into marketing.
It is technical :-) The Uber app is a lot more polished (and deep) than the average taxi app.
The economies of scale is what makes companies like Uber such heavyweights at least in my opinion
Same with AWS etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed this as well. It's a huge boon for startups, because it means that a lot of functions that you would previously need to hire specialists for (logo design! graphic design! programming! copywriting!) can now be brought in-house, where the founder just does a "good enough" job using AI. And for those that can't (legal, for example, or various SaaS vendors) the AI usually has a good idea of what services you…
> ironic if AI actually ended up destroying economic activity that's not destroying economic activity - it's removing a less efficient activity and replace it with a more efficient version. This produces economic surplus. Imagine saying this for someone digging a hole, that if they use a mechanical digger instead of a hand shovel, they'd destroy economic activity since it now cost less to dig that hole!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep this is a huge enabler - previously having someone "do art" could easily cost you thousands for a small game, a month even, and this heavily constrained what you could make and locked you into what you had planned and how much you had planned. With AI if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as much art, audio etc it's an incremental cost if any, you can explore ideas, you can throw art out, pivot in new directions.
I'd argue a game developer should make their own art assets, even if they "aren't an artist". You don't have to settle for it looking bad, just use your lack of art experience as a constraint. It usually means going with something very stylized or very simple. It might not be amazing but after you do it for a few games you will have pretty decent stuff, and most importantly, your own style. Even amateurish art can be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It reminds me of what GarageBand or iMovie and YouTube and such did for making music and videos so accessible to people who didn’t go to school for any of that, let alone owned complex equipment or expensive licenses to Adobe Thisandthat. It’s worth reading William Deresiewicz‘ The Death of the Artist. I’m not entirely convinced that marketing that everyone can create art/games/whatever is actually a net positive r…
This reminds me of my preferred analogy: are digital artists real artists if they can’t mix pigment and skillfully apply them to canvas? Not sure why digital artists get mad when I ask. They’re no Michelangelo.
There will be millions of factories all benefiting from it, and a relatively small number of companies providing the automation components (conveyor belt systems, vision/handling systems, industrial robots, etc).
The technology providers are not going to become fabulously rich though as long as there is competition. Early adopters will have to pay up, but it seems LLMs are shaping up to be a commodity where inference cost will be the most important differentiator, and future generations of AI are likely to be the same.
Right now the big AI companies pumping billions into it to advance the bleeding edge necessarily have the most advanced products, but the open source and free-weight competition are continually nipping at their heels and it seems the current area where most progress is happening is agents and reasoning/research systems, not the LLMs themself, where it's more about engineering rather than who has the largest training cluster.
We're still in the first innings of AI though - the LLM era, which I don't think is going to last for that long. New architectures and incremental learning algorithms for AGI will come next. It may take a few generations of advance to get to AGI, and the next generation (e.g. what DeepMind are planning in 5-10 year time frame) may still include a pre-trained LLM as a component, but it seems that it'll be whatever is built around the LLM, to take us to that next level of capability, that will become the focus.