Hacker News Reader

Comment by polytely | Hacker News Reader

Not worried, I trust in my taste. I still haven't seen anything made by AI that moved me. I'm buying physical books written before AI was a thing, backing up music and film. Visiting concerts and museums. The information and experience in my head will become more rare and valuable compared to the AI slop that will soon permiate everything. Oh your model is trained on the billion most read online texts in the english language? cute. I'm pulling inspiration from places that aren't captured by any model.

Most of my programming job is tightly coupled with the business processes and logistics of the company I work for, AI will not replace me there.

Also I'm not convinced this is sustainable, I'm thinking this will be like GCI where the first iron man film looked phenomenal but where huge demand + the drive to make it profitable will drive down the quality to just above barely acceptable levels like the CGI in current marvel blockbusters.

View on HN

"I still haven't seen any text written by AI that can seem coherent for more than a sentence"

"I still haven't seen any text written by AI that doesn't contradict itself a few paragraphs later"

"I still haven't seen any picture made by AI that doesn't look like an abstract nightmare"

"I still haven't seen any picture made by AI that includes hands with the right number of fingers"

"I still haven't seen any videos made by AI that aren't janky and uncanny"

"I still haven't seen any videos made by AI that move me"

The transition from the first to the last took less than five years.

Is there a Moore's Law equivalent for AI here yet?

All these videos are still janky and uncanny though. Legs morph weirdly, physics are strange, objects do things that make no sense.

Yes. These systems are working on a 3D problem in a 2D world. They have a hard time with situations involving occlusion. A newer generation of systems will probably deduce 3D models from 2D images, build up a model space of 3D models, generate 3D models, and then paint and animate them. That's how computer-generated animation is done today, which humans driving. Most of those steps have already been automated to some degree.

Early attempts to do animation by morphing sort of worked, and were prone to some of the same problems that 2D generative AI systems have. The intermediate frames between the starting and ending positions did not obey physical constraints.

This is a good problem to work on, because it leads to a more effective understanding of the real world.

How deep is the pool? Just because you have descended to depths that others were skeptical of doesn't mean there isn't a floor. Besides, these videos are less janky, but still obviously fake, for for sure they're cherry-picked for maximum effect.

Well - the videos in the link gave me same kind of response as literal Latin American gore videos, so line 3 to 5 still applies, and line 1 to 2 still applies to ChatGPT w/GPT-4 Turbo, so... I don't know what to make of this, maybe people like gore videos. Or something.

> Most of my programming job is tightly coupled with the business processes and logistics of the company I work for, AI will not replace me there.

Wondering what the runway on this statement is.

not to add to the doomerism, but I often wonder about how much AI-generated content I've consumed without realizing it - especially from times before generative AI became mainstream

I don't get this angle at all. To me that's like "organic" food labels. What do I care if my content is "AI" made. When I watch a CGI animated movie there isn't a little artisan sitting in the video camera like in a Terry Pratchett novel, it's all algorithms anyway for like 30 years.

When I use Unity I write ten lines of code and the tool generates probably 50k. Ever looked into the folder of a modern frontend project after typing one command into a terminal? I've been 99% dependent on code generation for ages.

Does it matter to you whether you're interacting with a human on some level when watching a show or movie, specifically on an artistry level?

Maybe some movie you've watched has been spun up by a Sora-like platform based on a prompt that itself was AI-generated from a market research report. Stephen King said that horror is the feeling of walking into your house and finding that all of your furniture has been replaced by identical copies - finding out that all of the media everybody consumes has actually been generated by non-human entities would give me the same feeling

>Does it matter to you whether you're interacting with a human on some level when watching a show or movie, specifically on an artistry level?

Yes it matters to me a great deal. But there's a reason Stephen King made that observation a long time ago. All the actors in a modern Marvel movie look like they've been grown in some petri-dish in a Hollywood basement and all the lines sound like they come from LLMs for the last fifteen years. There's been nothing recognizably human in mass media for decades. 90% of modern movies are asexual Ken doll like actors jumping around in front of green screens to the demands of market research reports already.

I'm not saying the scenario isn't scary, I'm saying we've been in that hellscape for ages and the particularly implementation details of technologies used to get us there ("AI" in this case) don't interest me that much. And in the same vein, an authentic artist can surely make something human with AI tools.

You say that but most things that are commercially produced aren’t made by individuals but via collaborative processes. The AI won’t even get credit, they’ll just use it to dilute everyone else’s contribution.

AI doesn't cares about your "refined taste", it cares about money, that's the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com