Hacker News Reader

I think generative AI applied to the arts will be a tool of the mind like a calculator or Mathematica or R or numpy. They democratize the mechanics of language and visual arts, but they don’t erase the difference between a skilled artist and a layman. A skilled artist has a spark that sees beyond the average mind into a world that inspires. AI can make the boilerplate processes easier and more rote, and also unlock a new generation of artists not hobbled by their lack of linguistic or craft skill. The average quality of mindless garbage will improve and that’s not a bad thing. But the quality of skilled art will also improve and that’s a good thing. I think you can already see this if you watch the galleries for Midjourney and other forums - the creativity on display isn’t coming from the AI, the prompts are elaborate but their basis is very creative.

Artists bemoaned the camera for very similar reasons. Yes it did put out of work portrait artists. But it also opened the door to abstract, modernism, post modernism, and a new exploration of art not being simply reproducing what can be seen.

There is a real risk to the livelihood of people who generate SEO and other garbage. On the other hand, SEO and other garbage produced by GPT4 is actually informative. The garbage will become better garbage. But the people who survive by making garbage will need to find other roles in the world.

The artists of our society, writers, visual artists, and others, so long as they adapt learn and innovate rather than die fighting the machine as John Henry did will survive, thrive, and usher in a new age of art.

Well, I give you kudos for at least making a verifiable prediction. I want to look up this comment in 5-10 years time and see how it turns out.

In all honesty, I don't think it will turn out well. Primarily because you seem to be arguing that AI will reduce the value of content owners, e.g. "I fully expect that in 10-15 years time the value of the content owned by companies like Disney will approach zero. Mickey Mouse(ok, not the biggest asset they have now, but an example) will be replaced by Ricky the Raccoon or thousands of other characters generated by AI."

This is sooooo similar to what people expected in the late 90s with the rise of the consumer Internet, and the exact opposite happened. "Modern media companies will have to contend with everyone in the world being a potential competitor when the bar to getting a website up on the Internet and publishing your own content is so low" the story went. But the lesson learned is that when production and distribution become so cheap, this results in more concentration, not less, because it leads to "winner take all" dynamics where people are quick to switch to the best product, even if it's just a teeny bit better.

Sure, there may be Ricky the Raccoon or thousands of other AI generated characters. It's just that 99% of them will suck and nobody will care about them. There were a bajillion Geocities sites back in the day, too, and yet we all ended up spending most of our time on the same top few websites.

I doubt it. AI currently can do some replacement of features, or dream up scenes, but it cannot animate a character at will.

So perhaps we'll have an even larger green screen acting industry, and even more computer graphics, but there will still be humans involved to create anything compelling, at least until a next major breakthrough in AI, which is quite hard to predict.

Also, I am already way past bored with the output from most contemporary AI. It seems to fill but a small hole in the large space of creativity.

https://www.move.ai/

What our senses find acceptable is a finite set of parameters

It’s only a matter of time

Copyright exists as an artificial constraint on humans doing exactly the same thing; I could just work a local grocery and conjure my own worlds with free time

When did freedom become “prop up the norms of yesteryear”?

In the same way an atheist can chose not to be a vassal for Christianity future people do not have to store us in their memory

To relate it to a technical concept; society will become an LLM training on old outputs and exhaust itself. Reality is not a forever fractal; longtermerism is just another attempt at secularizing religion

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-believes-it-is-imp...

AI doesn't have to do everything, or be the best at everything, it just has to do some things well enough, or augment humans enough that fewer people can do the job.

There's a lot of labor destroying potential in animation. For example, a human could make a small number of key frames (this already happens) and AI could fill in the in-between frames (this is where a lot of labor goes) you could cut costs significantly.

AI can't animate a character at will? After everything we have seen AI become capable of, it seems incredible to claim that animating a character is something it simply won't be able to do in the future.

Sure, it will also go to the theater in the future, and pay for a ticket to see humans act.

Note that I used the word "currently". Given enough time, AI will be able to do things way beyond my current comprehension.

But AI CAN animate a character, they've animated a bear riding a skateboard, or dolphin surfing, etc.

Albeit it's kinda shitty and imperfect but the proof of concept is already there, it's basically stable diffusion at the pre-prototype stages. Given 2 years it'll be able to churn full videos.

I've already begun creating a Youtube shorts channel fully made of videos created by AI + CC licensed images and videos.

I consult companies to do similar things, etc. There's a whole world out there that is going to change overnight. I'd say AGI is 4-5 years away tops. At that point, all bets are off the table.

The reason I consult in AI? Contingency plan, if AI becomes the last major industry. I've got a family to support (that and I'm obsessed with the novelty and exciting things I can do with AI -- in the same way the scientist in Independence day is "excited" when the aliens come because all the stuff turned on in their captured spaceship - i.e. it's cool, but maybe I shouldn't be so giddy since it could spell our eventual doom).

No, this will most likely not happen in 2 years, because it's not a straightforward progression from the current state of the art.

Generating realistic video requires using 3D models, instead of the 2D models that Stable Diffusion and similar use now. To get beyond a crappy level, at least two problems have to be tackled:

1. More example data has to be available. There is an abundance of 2D video and still images, on which the current systems are trained. There is, however, not enough 3D footage.

2. The systems that generate 2D images now cannot easily scale up to 3D images. Point clouds would require ~1000 times the amount of data, and 3D meshes are so different from images, that current techniques won't work.

So, yes, it is possible that this will happen in two years time, but it seems highly unlikely.

What I deem possible in two years time is generating animations such as cartoons, in which a perfect understanding of a 3D world is not required. And this would still require a lot of human input to be anywhere near interesting.

Also, if you consult companies about this, and say that AGI is 4-5 years away, then I wonder if you are trolling, and I should possibly have refrained from writing this comment. If you are not trolling, please consult a book on AI, or any SF novel for that matter, from the 1960s.

Mickey Mouse is not a difficult character to emulate, branding and marketing are what continues makes it a household name. Even with it's original cultural trailblazing, it would have faded away if not for the IP being constantly brought to market by Disney, same for all their IPs.

It is luck when an indie creator strikes on a new IP idea and it happens to get viral traction, otherwise it is deliberate delivery to market by brands that makes an IP succesful.

All to say, if it were possible to out-market Disney it would have happened regardless of AI, producing the creative material isn't Disneys edge at all, it's their brand position and budget.

Generated content will never have social capital.

People not only watch Star Wars because it's a great movie. People watch it because other people do. They can discuss it, they can argue about it, they can share it. A teenager watches Serbian film to show off how badass he is, or Primer to show off how smart he is, plays Dark Souls to show off his skill.

With generated content, you don't have those qualities. I'm actually working on one project like this, and it's a great challenge.

Consuming media may seem like "single player" game when you just sit and watch it, but it's never really is.

This future is not new. AI might make The Holodeck from 1970s Star Trek finally exist. Our iPhones are tricorders. Alexa is the ship's computer. Automated agriculture, automated transport and automated food service machines are the ship's replicator. We ticked off the box from 40yrs ago.

The AI gloomerism is really missing something. AI is the next tool to build off. It has structural weaknesses and humans make better products with AI than AI does alone.

I'm not going to use 2020 AI tech to push out 2010 Disney films. Get to the next technology already, AI is logically incomplete.

> Mickey Mouse(ok, not the biggest asset they have now, but an example) will be replaced by Ricky the Raccoon or thousands of other characters generated by AI.

I don't know about that. There are already thousands of characters, universes, stories (and they have been much cheaper to make than in the past, hence the proliferation), yet people still go see Star Wars movies, no matter how bad the previous one was (and the story is the same for video games).

Culture is about shared references, so owning the property over that common-ground references is going to be even more valuable as the cost of making content declines and new entrants are prevented from entering because of the competition. (we need a copyright reform to prevent a handful of corporations to own the entirety of culture, but it's as likely as a socialist revolution at this point…)

I find it funny how 'AI Ethicists' worry about AI says. And yet, they see no problem with AI possibly displacing millions of jobs and leaving people without income. That is what should be focused on, not nitpicking what the AI should say.

I know this is a low quality comment, I'm just angry at the current situation regarding AI.

Because most 'AI ethicists' are overeducated well off urbanite upper-middle class landed gentry-adjacents who believe they will never be replaced by AI because the touchstones of their distributed cognitive-emotional load are too complex for even far off SOTA models to ever grasp. The fate of the poor simple proles and their millions destitute are a non-issue to them. AI bots saying mean things on Twitter is a far greater crisis because it pertains to what they actually care about, not the lives of millions of people less fortunate than them.

> Because most 'AI ethicists' are overeducated well off urbanite upper-middle class landed gentry-adjacents

Every time I come back to HN after a break, I am quickly reminded of why I left.