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

Coarse is better

borretti.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Coarse is better

#91

Post by coldtea »

jamblewamble wrote: post #72
raincole wrote: post #10

It's ridiculous lol. Midjourney is optimized for beautiful images, while Nano Banana is optimized for better prompt adherence and (more importantly) image editing. It should be obvious for anyone who spent 20 minutes trying out these models. If your goal is to replace human designers with cheaper options[0], Nano Banana / ChatGPT is indefinitely more useful than Midjourney. I'd argue Midjourney is completely useless…

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

>Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened

It has happened each and every time, it just haven't affected you personally. Starting of course with the original luddites - they didn't complain out of some philosophical opposition to automation.

Each time in changes like this a huge number of people lost their jobs and took big hits in their quality of life. The "new jobs", when they arrive, arrive for others.

This includes the post 1990s switch to service and digital economies and outsourcing, which obliterated countless factory towns in the US - and those people didn't magically turn to coders and creatives. At best they took unemployment, big decreases in job prospects, shitty "gig" economy jobs, or, well, worse, including alcohol and opiods.

With AI it's even worse, since it has the capacity to replace jobs without adding new ones, or a tiny handful at a hugely smaller rate.

Re: Coarse is better

#92

Post by coldtea »

loeg wrote: post #84
pchangr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, and I am saying the Luddites were a group of people that suffered mass unemployment following a technological change. Specifically, the luddites were a group of 19th century textile workers that were left out of work due to the introduction of automated machinery in the textile industry. In other words, they are a perfect example of what GP claims hasn’t happened.

A small group is not "mass unemployment" -- that's the point. > In a British textile industry that employed a million people, the [Luddite] movement’s numbers never rose above a couple of thousand. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/rage-against-the-machine

The "never rose above a couple of thousand" small group refers to the number of activist Luddites. It doesn't refer to the people working in the textile industry in general - which was a big group, and which was heavily affected.

Re: Coarse is better

#93

Post by coldtea »

JeremyNT wrote: post #76
jamblewamble wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

The promise is to automate the drudge work, freeing people to pursue their passions. Like, you know... creating art.

Art will be created like AI - like it already got its hands on graphic design, and game art, and vfx, and music.

It will leave not-yet-automatable grudge work to people instead.

Re: Coarse is better

#94

Post by array_key_first »

jamblewamble wrote: post #72
raincole wrote: post #10

It's ridiculous lol. Midjourney is optimized for beautiful images, while Nano Banana is optimized for better prompt adherence and (more importantly) image editing. It should be obvious for anyone who spent 20 minutes trying out these models. If your goal is to replace human designers with cheaper options[0], Nano Banana / ChatGPT is indefinitely more useful than Midjourney. I'd argue Midjourney is completely useless…

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

It literally happens every single time - people DO lose jobs. They might get new jobs, but they definitely lose their old ones.

And not everyone gets new jobs, because usually the new job is fundamentally different and might not be compatible with the person or their original desire out of their employment.

Re: Coarse is better

#95

Post by cryzinger »

stephantul wrote: post #73
2b3a51 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And > "By the time a whole technology exists for something it probably isn't the most interesting thing to be doing."

Where did you get this from? Searching for it, in a weird irony I guess, just leads me back to this post.

I recognize it as a quote from A Year With Swollen Appendices, which is a great read even if you aren't an Eno fan (although I am, which admittedly makes me biased :P)

Re: Coarse is better

#96

Post by efitz »

Why does anyone serious about art want to make art with AI?

A large part of the magic of art is the human choices that go into it.

Re: Coarse is better

#97

Post by stavros »

array_key_first wrote: post #94
jamblewamble wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

It literally happens every single time - people DO lose jobs. They might get new jobs, but they definitely lose their old ones. And not everyone gets new jobs, because usually the new job is fundamentally different and might not be compatible with the person or their original desire out of their employment.

The problem isn't so much automation, but that the benefits of automation are invariably reaped by a few tech CEOs. It's not society in general that benefits, it's that the rich get richer, and the rest of us barely scrape by. If wealth were evenly distributed, nobody would bat an eyelid at AI.

AI is not the problem. Late-stage capitalism and wealth disparity is.

Re: Coarse is better

#99

Post by throwaway613745 »

jamblewamble wrote: post #72
raincole wrote: post #10

It's ridiculous lol. Midjourney is optimized for beautiful images, while Nano Banana is optimized for better prompt adherence and (more importantly) image editing. It should be obvious for anyone who spent 20 minutes trying out these models. If your goal is to replace human designers with cheaper options[0], Nano Banana / ChatGPT is indefinitely more useful than Midjourney. I'd argue Midjourney is completely useless…

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

> Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

It has happened every single time.

Re: Coarse is better

#100

Post by throwaway613745 »

tekne wrote: post #86
JeremyNT wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The promise is to automate the drudge work, freeing people to pursue their passions. Like, you know... creating art.

I mean... There's the concept, and then there's the painting. AI slop from a generic prompt is not the same as "using AI to get my concept in physical form faster." Imagine, for example, a one-man animated movie. But, like, with a huge amount of work put into good, artistic, key-frames; what would previously have been a manga. That's possible , soon, and I think that's huge and actual art.

> what would previously have been a manga

Completely out of touch to downplay the entire manga industry as "skill issue".

Akira Toriyama totally created Dragonball as a manga because he was just wasn't good enough to make an animated movie!

Berserk is a book because Kentaro Miura just had skill issue!

Only imagine if Tolkien wanted to create the Lord of the Rings if he had AI!

As if a medium only artistic merit because sufficiently advanced technology just didn't exist yet. groooaaaaan

Post reply on HN