Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

joincolossus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 377 posts

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#331

Post by yen223 »

brookst wrote: post #280
oblio wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AI concentrates economic activity and leads to more natural monopolies (extremely likely), yeah, the lower level activity becomes more efficient but the macro economy becomes less efficient due to lower competition. Software has basically done the same thing, where we do things faster and the fastest thing that happens is accumulation of power and a lower overall quality of life for everyone due to that.

How does enabling every person on earth to create Hollywood-quality films (for better or worse) result in more natural monopolies?

Imagine if only Google has the AI and processing power capable enough to generate Hollywood-quality movies.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#332

Post by awesome_dude »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #254
awesome_dude wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s not what I said. But ok. This is what you did say > Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather. Like - how the f ck would you know? Even more so, why the f ck does your ignorance and inability to think of possibilities, or fully grasp the nature of anything make you think that that sort of comment is remotely appropriate. You have the uniquely fortunate position to never be able to realise how…

> Your response is you don’t understand it so nobody else should. Ah I see. I misinterpreted the _you_ in this sentence (to mean me). My main points still stand though: 1. weather is well understood to exhibit chaotic behavior (in the technical sense, not the colloquial sense) 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future As an aside, there was no n…

> As an aside, there was no need to get personal.

You've done nothing but be personal, complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical. You started making personal comments, not me.

> 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future

Quick, everyone, halt all the research into weather prediction, we've already found all the answers. There's no need to look any further, none at all.

Actual answer: Currently we use a statistical model, that (as I previously pointed out currently degrades after about 3 days into the future)

There's absolutely nothing preventing us from making that more accurate, with better models, and algorithms (as I have been saying from the start)

I get that you don't have any understanding of the way that human knowledge is acquired, but that's no reason for you to jump on the internet and yell at people who do.

(Someone should tell Edison to stop at the 90th attempt of his lightbulb, it's clear that there are no answers to the problem he is faced with)

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#333

Post by awesome_dude »

habinero wrote: post #173
awesome_dude wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s not what I said. But ok. This is what you did say > Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather. Like - how the f ck would you know? Even more so, why the f ck does your ignorance and inability to think of possibilities, or fully grasp the nature of anything make you think that that sort of comment is remotely appropriate. You have the uniquely fortunate position to never be able to realise how…

No. They're correct and you are not. Nothing to do with "inability to think of possibilities", it's impossible because of literal physics. It's like saying perpetual motion machines could exist if we just think outside the box hard enough. No, we don't have them because thermodynamics .

No, you're conflating something provable with something that isn't.

Chaos theory only describes difficulties, in no circumstance does it describe things as "impossible"

If you don't understand the difference between the two terms, that would explain a lot.

What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening.

Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't one (as I have repeatedly pointed out).

I get it, you think that you already know everything that is to be known, but, the fact of the matter is you don't, nobody does, and pretending that you do is the real problem.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#334

Post by catlifeonmars »

sillyfluke wrote: post #164
Waterluvian wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really nothing special. I don’t do this a lot . Generally I have an idea I’ve written down some time ago, usually from a bad pun like Escape Goat (CEO wants to blame it all on you. Get out of the office without getting caught! Also you’re a goat) or Holmes on Homes Deck Building Deck Building Game (where you build a deck of tools and lumber and play hazards to be the first to build a deck). Then I come up with a…

You said you had a budget about 0 in your top post. Was that for the pre-AI era or does that apply to your new AI flow as well? If it's still about 0, I'm guessing you're using primarily AI to learn how to do stuff and not using it mostly to generate assets? Is that a correct assumption? Edit: also, where can we play Escape Goat.

Hear. Where can we play escape goat?

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#335

Post by ragequittah »

iamacyborg wrote: post #282
ragequittah wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A whole lot of what I use every day especially for images and audio is open source. The open source AI video is getting pretty good these days as well. Better than the sora that I pay for anyways. Granted not nearly as good as veo3 yet. So long as Nvidia doesn't nerf their consumer cards and we keep getting more and more vram I can see open source competing.

I’m yet to see these models produce anything actually good yet, paid or otherwise. On the bright side the movie industry seems to have actually been smart and still makes extensive use of unions which should help protect actual artists.

I guess everyone's definition of good is different. The fact that an AI won an art competition [1] back in 2022 and it's now way better than that says something. I'm almost positive if you got some great AI artists and put them up against some great real artists you'd have a very hard time telling the difference / picking the winners. This is the kind of bias we're taught not to have as young children (blind hatred of x because x is bad) but I see all too often right now.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-...

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#336

Post by lifeformed »

benoau wrote: post #218
lifeformed wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a financial dead-end for almost everyone who tries it. You're not just looking for "market fit" you're also asking for "market tolerance", it's a very rare combination.

Making a game is already a financial dead end. The only way to make money doing it is by dumping a lot of resources into marketing, or by making the game extremely good. AI art won't get you the quality you need, but making your own art will improve your gamedev skills in a sustainable direction.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#337

Post by Den_VR »

topaz0 wrote: post #219
Den_VR wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they get mad it's because you're saying this explicitly to be an asshole. The essence of art doesn't have much to do with the mechanical skills for assembling pieces into a whole, though that part isn't trivial. Rather, it's about expressing human thoughts and feeling in a way that inspires their human audience. That's why AI-generated "art" is different in kind from a skilled digital artist and why it really cann…

If you’ve read other threads you’ll see humans quite optimistic about how “ai” art tools have let them express themselves. And this is only the beginning of the commercialization of new tools, so I offer my wholehearted dissent that “AI-generated art” cannot be art. Style transfer has gone quiet but still my attention, for example.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#338

Post by chii »

chairmansteve wrote: post #281
chii wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

You are right. The next question is, who gets the surplus?

the owner of the AI software and hardware, then the user of said AI (who captures the remaining surplus that the AI owner doesn't/can't capture).

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#339

Post by chii »

refactor_master wrote: post #330
brookst wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does enabling every person on earth to create Hollywood-quality films (for better or worse) result in more natural monopolies?

The Internet for example is thought to be “democratizing” for society, but in reality some argue we’re now living under a system of “technofeudalism” [1] which is anything but. E.g. just a handful of Internet-enabled companies essentially rule the world. You can sit down and code an Amazon clone with or without AI, and both of them will be highly unlikely to topple the existing monopolies. [1] https://thebeautifultru…

the feudalism model required that it be enforced with violence. As a peasant, you are not allowed by your feudal lord to move (migrate) away.

This is not so for internet. You can _choose_ not to shop at amazon, search with google, or watch videos on youtube.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#340

Post by fulafel »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #303
fulafel wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: the press of course did remove the humanity from book-copying work, before that the people copying books often made their own alterations to the books. And had their own calligraphic styles etc. But my thought was that the printing press made the printed work much cheaper and accessible, and many many more people became writers than had been before, including of new kinds of media (newspapers). The quality o…

Initially the printing press resulted in LESS writers, because people just copies others works. In fact, they had to establish something called intellectual property law in order to encourage people to write again.

It was the other way around. See eg https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-a... - "In 1843 alone 14,000 new works were published in Germany, close to the publication rate today in per capita terms." .. "Publishers knew that once a manuscript was out in public it could be cheaply copied by other printing press owners, so instead they sought out new manuscripts in pursuit of a first mover advantage on publishing. In addition, they created fancy special editions for wealthy customers to differentiate their product from what other printers could easily copy with mass market paperbacks."
Post reply on HN