3 ms·

"It's going to result in more content being created" Is it, though? This model took over a month, on extremely fit hardware, to even create. Lets say for a se

"It's going to result in more content being created" Is it, though? This model took over a month, on extremely fit hardware, to even create. Lets say for a second, in some hypothetical future, that anyone can access/use/update these models (by anyone, I mean someone with both low amount of resources as well as little to no programming skill), why are they creating content? "Rate, scale, and volume of production will increase by orders of magnitude." If by production you mean "paid creation", I'm not so sure about that. In this world where everyone creates content from thin air 1) there is little to no monetary value to the content anymore (as monetary value inversely correlates with scarcity) 2) So there is less incentive to create anything, because there is no monetary value to doing so. In fact, by definition we can pretty much prove that not much of anything will happen in this regard, because content is already limited by budget - the budget has not gone up, and the return has only gotten worse (in this hypothetical scenario). What I think is more likely to happen - a few, "blessed" individuals will have out-sized content creation capabilities, without much need to innovate. The rest of us will have almost no incentive to create anything as a result. Disney will use these systems, and they will use them to churn out more garbage, faster, on average, most kids will not be generating any movies in an afternoon.

echelon 4y ago
I don't think that's even remotely what will happen. > This model took over a month, on extremely fit hardware, to even create. In a year kids will be training them on colab. This technology is moving so fast, it's jaw dropping. If we went back in time just ten years and showed ourselves this stuff, we'd think it was magic. > why are they creating content? Why does anyone post anything at all anywhere ever? Why do people edit photos and videos? Because it's human and people want to communicate. > there is little to no monetary value to the content anymore (as monetary value inversely correlates with scarcity) Maybe, but there's still a "search" problem in finding content that activates a response (and attracts the algorithm and views). Look at TikTok and YouTube. High rates of content creation. Immense value in both platforms. Lots of crap, but astoundingly good content mixed in. Enough to keep the whole world glued to it. > So there is less incentive to create anything, because there is no monetary value to doing so Nope. TikTok, YouTube, kids making Minecraft mods as a labor of love and hobby. > content is already limited by budget Per unit cost goes down by orders of magnitude. I don't see this resulting in less production. This is a Henry Ford moment. > What I think is more likely to happen - a few, "blessed" individuals will have out-sized content creation capabilities, without much need to innovate. The market would disrupt this so fast. There's no ways these tools won't find themselves in the hands of everyone. > Disney will use these systems, and they will use them to churn out more garbage, faster, on average, most kids will not be generating any movies in an afternoon. Kids already make their own narratives in VRChat, Minecraft, and Roblox. The next systems will be a holy grail for them. I'm interested in looking back on this thread in ten years. I think my predictions are correct.
- smaudet 4y ago
  > Why does anyone post anything at all anywhere ever? I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I use tablet, sure, some use 3D modeling, even. People don't create pencil drawing because they are good, or sell, they do it for personal reasons. I think you're assuming this is going to solve some problem, it's really not - the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. > Nope. TikTok, YouTube, kids making Minecraft mods as a labor of love and hobby. You're assuming because content platforms like TikTok exist now, that something similar must continue into the future... I see this as a flawed assumption. Regarding monetization, my point hold well here, though. For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out. The content on these platforms is already often mundane, you don't see the promised plethora of content creators, because the system for the most part favors the few, not the many. Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. > If we went back in time just ten years and showed ourselves this stuff, we'd think it was magic. I remember ten+ years ago, there was content on the web. Now, it's extremely centralized, most of it is not that good. So yeah I can time travel a bit, and things got worse. The reasons for this aren't all AI, but as trends go creating a program to do photoshop or video automatically isn't going to make things better. You're not solving the right problem here, and the people who stand to benefit are not the people you seem to think will.
  - echelon 4y ago
    > I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). A field that has existed for centuries versus something in its larval stage that is still growing legs. Calculators reached more than slide rule users. > They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I would love to do art, but life is full of opportunity cost. You can't do everything. This technology will enable so many people to create art without having to devote thousands of hours to practice. That's a good thing! I'm sure many artists used to say the same to artists that utilized tablets when they first came about. Or C programmers joking about early Perl and Javascript programmers. It's rhymes a bit with the Luddite argument. We're seeing the emergence of new workflows. Few people hand wash their clothes anymore, and we're not worse for it. > the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. I'm telling you that I would directly benefit. I love creating content, but I can't draw. I don't have the time to learn. These tools will empower me, and they'll only get better with time. > For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out There are more people making money creating content now than in any time in history. These tools and platforms have democratized access. People now have a path where there wasn't one before. These platforms and tools don't, however, remove the requirement to be good at what you do and to find, understand, cater to, and grow your audience. > Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. 90% rule. There are still more creators today than in the past, and the field will only grow from here. > Now, it's extremely centralized That's orthogonal. I agree with you about platforms and centralization being a bit of a problem, but for what it's worth, the platforms do make it easier for most people.

echelon 4y ago

I don't think that's even remotely what will happen. > This model took over a month, on extremely fit hardware, to even create. In a year kids will be training them on colab. This technology is moving so fast, it's jaw dropping. If we went back in time just ten years and showed ourselves this stuff, we'd think it was magic. > why are they creating content? Why does anyone post anything at all anywhere ever? Why do people edit photos and videos? Because it's human and people want to communicate. > there is little to no monetary value to the content anymore (as monetary value inversely correlates with scarcity) Maybe, but there's still a "search" problem in finding content that activates a response (and attracts the algorithm and views). Look at TikTok and YouTube. High rates of content creation. Immense value in both platforms. Lots of crap, but astoundingly good content mixed in. Enough to keep the whole world glued to it. > So there is less incentive to create anything, because there is no monetary value to doing so Nope. TikTok, YouTube, kids making Minecraft mods as a labor of love and hobby. > content is already limited by budget Per unit cost goes down by orders of magnitude. I don't see this resulting in less production. This is a Henry Ford moment. > What I think is more likely to happen - a few, "blessed" individuals will have out-sized content creation capabilities, without much need to innovate. The market would disrupt this so fast. There's no ways these tools won't find themselves in the hands of everyone. > Disney will use these systems, and they will use them to churn out more garbage, faster, on average, most kids will not be generating any movies in an afternoon. Kids already make their own narratives in VRChat, Minecraft, and Roblox. The next systems will be a holy grail for them. I'm interested in looking back on this thread in ten years. I think my predictions are correct.

smaudet 4y ago
> Why does anyone post anything at all anywhere ever? I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I use tablet, sure, some use 3D modeling, even. People don't create pencil drawing because they are good, or sell, they do it for personal reasons. I think you're assuming this is going to solve some problem, it's really not - the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. > Nope. TikTok, YouTube, kids making Minecraft mods as a labor of love and hobby. You're assuming because content platforms like TikTok exist now, that something similar must continue into the future... I see this as a flawed assumption. Regarding monetization, my point hold well here, though. For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out. The content on these platforms is already often mundane, you don't see the promised plethora of content creators, because the system for the most part favors the few, not the many. Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. > If we went back in time just ten years and showed ourselves this stuff, we'd think it was magic. I remember ten+ years ago, there was content on the web. Now, it's extremely centralized, most of it is not that good. So yeah I can time travel a bit, and things got worse. The reasons for this aren't all AI, but as trends go creating a program to do photoshop or video automatically isn't going to make things better. You're not solving the right problem here, and the people who stand to benefit are not the people you seem to think will.
- echelon 4y ago
  > I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). A field that has existed for centuries versus something in its larval stage that is still growing legs. Calculators reached more than slide rule users. > They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I would love to do art, but life is full of opportunity cost. You can't do everything. This technology will enable so many people to create art without having to devote thousands of hours to practice. That's a good thing! I'm sure many artists used to say the same to artists that utilized tablets when they first came about. Or C programmers joking about early Perl and Javascript programmers. It's rhymes a bit with the Luddite argument. We're seeing the emergence of new workflows. Few people hand wash their clothes anymore, and we're not worse for it. > the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. I'm telling you that I would directly benefit. I love creating content, but I can't draw. I don't have the time to learn. These tools will empower me, and they'll only get better with time. > For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out There are more people making money creating content now than in any time in history. These tools and platforms have democratized access. People now have a path where there wasn't one before. These platforms and tools don't, however, remove the requirement to be good at what you do and to find, understand, cater to, and grow your audience. > Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. 90% rule. There are still more creators today than in the past, and the field will only grow from here. > Now, it's extremely centralized That's orthogonal. I agree with you about platforms and centralization being a bit of a problem, but for what it's worth, the platforms do make it easier for most people.