4 ms·

I feel like this is very similar to those people who say "have you seen GPT-3? Soon there will be no programmers anymore and all of the code will be generated,"

I feel like this is very similar to those people who say "have you seen GPT-3? Soon there will be no programmers anymore and all of the code will be generated," and it's wrong for the same reasons. Can GPT-3 generate good code from vague prompts? Yes, it's surprisingly, sometimes shockingly good at it. Is it ever going to be a replacement for programmers? No, probably not. Same here. This tool's great grandchild is never going to take a rough idea for a movie and churn out a blockbuster film. It'll certainly be a powerful tool in the toolbox of creators, especially the ones on a budget, but it won't make art generation obsolete.

dotsam 4y ago
> This tool's great grandchild is never going to take a rough idea for a movie and churn out a blockbuster film. What about the tool's nth child though? I think saying it will never do it is a bit much, given what we know about human ingenuity and economic incentives.
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  I think individual special effects sound very plausible. "Okay, robot, make it so that his arm gets vaporized by an incoming laser, kinda like the same effect in Iron Man 7" is believable to me. But ultimately these things copy other stuff. Artists are often trying to create something that is, at least a bit, new. New is where this approach falls over. By its nature, these things paint from examples. They can design Rococo things because they have seen many Rococo things and know what the word means. But they can't come up with a new style and use it consistently. "Make a video game with a fun and unique mechanic" is not something these things could ever do. I think it's certainly possible, maybe inevitable, that some AI system in the distant future could do that, but it won't be based on this style of algorithm. An algorithm that can take "make a fun romantic comedy with themes of loneliness" and make something award worthy will be a lot closer to AGI than it will be to this stuff.
  - nearbuy 4y ago
    What makes these models feel so impressive is that they don't just copy their training sets. They pick up on concepts and principles.
  - thomashop 4y ago
    To make a blockbuster you don't need to come up with anything new.

dotsam 4y ago

> This tool's great grandchild is never going to take a rough idea for a movie and churn out a blockbuster film. What about the tool's nth child though? I think saying it will never do it is a bit much, given what we know about human ingenuity and economic incentives.

CobrastanJorji 4y ago
I think individual special effects sound very plausible. "Okay, robot, make it so that his arm gets vaporized by an incoming laser, kinda like the same effect in Iron Man 7" is believable to me. But ultimately these things copy other stuff. Artists are often trying to create something that is, at least a bit, new. New is where this approach falls over. By its nature, these things paint from examples. They can design Rococo things because they have seen many Rococo things and know what the word means. But they can't come up with a new style and use it consistently. "Make a video game with a fun and unique mechanic" is not something these things could ever do. I think it's certainly possible, maybe inevitable, that some AI system in the distant future could do that, but it won't be based on this style of algorithm. An algorithm that can take "make a fun romantic comedy with themes of loneliness" and make something award worthy will be a lot closer to AGI than it will be to this stuff.
- nearbuy 4y ago
  What makes these models feel so impressive is that they don't just copy their training sets. They pick up on concepts and principles.
- thomashop 4y ago
  To make a blockbuster you don't need to come up with anything new.