4 ms·

Bill Gates says that ChatGPT will change the world, make Jobs more efficient. Weird that people don't feel the same about Stable Diffusion even though it will d

Bill Gates says that ChatGPT will change the world, make Jobs more efficient. Weird that people don't feel the same about Stable Diffusion even though it will do the exact same thing

nbzso 4y ago
Bill is obviously reached, a statute of God. He is starting a Climate religion as we speak, he should hire Tom Cruise for a start. He knows a lot about this profitable startup idea.
- w4ffl35 4y ago
  bill gates is a chode. i only quote him to say: high profile people are willing to make happy predictions about text generators but not art generators. biased and stupid.
  - nbzso 4y ago
    They don't care. At all. From their POV, all that matters is market share and profit. The rest is PR.
    - w4ffl35 4y ago
      To be fair I am also biased: I am responsible for creating an interface that uses Stable Diffusion https://capsizegames.itch.io/ai-runner https://capsizegames.itch.io/ai-runner, but the program is a result of my bias not the root cause.
      - nbzso 4y ago
        Good for you, you are in the trend, may the gods of the multiverse be with you.:) I personally have no interest in generative art at all. Just received my new handmade brushes from Escoda. Waiting for a spring to paint me some landscapes. I get my inspiration just as a generative AI, from data set from countless artists before me. The difference? I am still human and love the process which is not driven by the profit margins or time to market optimization.
        w4ffl35 4y ago
        i just want to program some cool shit
        nbzso 4y ago
        Don't get me wrong. I am old and biased to my core. My personal experience is that in reality the winner is the boring tech which people use because of real life needs and goals. All of it related to their survival and well-being. Generating some pictures is entertaining and may be valuable for some, but when we talk about art, the process is more important than the results. Art is personal human expression. When my brushes are painting more than me, this is their art. Not mine. All of this will give yet another tool in the corporate belt for reducing employment on a grand scale. And this is not the industrial revolution, which provided some alternative to the craftsman of the era. This is the removal of human value in the production loop. Edit: Did you not read the ART part of my response? Boring is MS Excel, a real game changer.
        w4ffl35 4y ago
        what do you mean by winner, and what do you mean by "boring" tech? advanced algorithms and the things you can make with them are pretty cool, and i'd argue the boring is subjective (ai could be considered boring). "ai" is new. new markets and opportunities and areas to expand knowledge have opened up. i'm excited by it like i was excited by computers in the 80s and i'm dedicated to building applications that put it into the hands of as many people as possible.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
visarga 4y ago
> make Jobs more efficient The important thing here is not if jobs are getting more efficient or not, it's that everyone gets the same boost. All companies will get the same AI, and that makes people the differentiating factor. Let's stop with the theories of job loss by AI automation, competition will have humans+AI and beat your company that uses AI alone. The early Google for example was also an AI. But it was open to everyone, nobody got exclusive Google access. So we all benefited equally and there were no overall job losses.
- w4ffl35 4y ago
  agreed with all that
- ben_w 4y ago
  Soon after chess AI beat all humans, people found that human-AI-hybrid players were still better than pure AI. That time has past, and now having humans in the team only make the AI worse. Will that happen here? Possibly, but not certain, even with superhuman capacity: I suspect, but am not certain, that art is a peacock tail for humans — a signal where the point is to be extravagant and expensive — which means that all automation of it, including pre-AI automation, results in that-which-is-now-cheap no longer counting as "art" in the minds of increasingly many humans. Some of the famous renaissance still life paintings are recreated a million times a day as people use their phones to take photos of their food. The hard ones are art, the common ones are…?
  - visarga 4y ago
    > That time has past, and now having humans in the team only make the AI worse. Making human-AI teams win sounds like a new challenge where AI could contribute.
rvz 4y ago
Of course he will say that. ‘Microsoft co-founder believes that his company’s own investment in the AI startup that created ChatGPT will change the world.’ It is open source AI models that are large in parameters, transparent and smaller in size that are the ones that will permanently change the world and will disrupt OpenAI’s closed AI SaaS business plans.
- w4ffl35 4y ago
  its also a really soft take. i prefer peter thiel's recent address https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4rc7npiXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4rc7npiXQ

Bill Gates says that ChatGPT will change the world, make Jobs more efficient. Weird that people don't feel the same about Stable Diffusion even though it will do the exact same thing

nbzso 4y ago

Bill is obviously reached, a statute of God. He is starting a Climate religion as we speak, he should hire Tom Cruise for a start. He knows a lot about this profitable startup idea.

w4ffl35 4y ago
bill gates is a chode. i only quote him to say: high profile people are willing to make happy predictions about text generators but not art generators. biased and stupid.
- nbzso 4y ago
  They don't care. At all. From their POV, all that matters is market share and profit. The rest is PR.
  - w4ffl35 4y ago
    To be fair I am also biased: I am responsible for creating an interface that uses Stable Diffusion https://capsizegames.itch.io/ai-runner https://capsizegames.itch.io/ai-runner, but the program is a result of my bias not the root cause.
    - nbzso 4y ago
      Good for you, you are in the trend, may the gods of the multiverse be with you.:) I personally have no interest in generative art at all. Just received my new handmade brushes from Escoda. Waiting for a spring to paint me some landscapes. I get my inspiration just as a generative AI, from data set from countless artists before me. The difference? I am still human and love the process which is not driven by the profit margins or time to market optimization.
      - w4ffl35 4y ago
        i just want to program some cool shit
        nbzso 4y ago
        Don't get me wrong. I am old and biased to my core. My personal experience is that in reality the winner is the boring tech which people use because of real life needs and goals. All of it related to their survival and well-being. Generating some pictures is entertaining and may be valuable for some, but when we talk about art, the process is more important than the results. Art is personal human expression. When my brushes are painting more than me, this is their art. Not mine. All of this will give yet another tool in the corporate belt for reducing employment on a grand scale. And this is not the industrial revolution, which provided some alternative to the craftsman of the era. This is the removal of human value in the production loop. Edit: Did you not read the ART part of my response? Boring is MS Excel, a real game changer.
        w4ffl35 4y ago
        what do you mean by winner, and what do you mean by "boring" tech? advanced algorithms and the things you can make with them are pretty cool, and i'd argue the boring is subjective (ai could be considered boring). "ai" is new. new markets and opportunities and areas to expand knowledge have opened up. i'm excited by it like i was excited by computers in the 80s and i'm dedicated to building applications that put it into the hands of as many people as possible.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

visarga 4y ago

> make Jobs more efficient The important thing here is not if jobs are getting more efficient or not, it's that everyone gets the same boost. All companies will get the same AI, and that makes people the differentiating factor. Let's stop with the theories of job loss by AI automation, competition will have humans+AI and beat your company that uses AI alone. The early Google for example was also an AI. But it was open to everyone, nobody got exclusive Google access. So we all benefited equally and there were no overall job losses.

w4ffl35 4y ago
agreed with all that
ben_w 4y ago
Soon after chess AI beat all humans, people found that human-AI-hybrid players were still better than pure AI. That time has past, and now having humans in the team only make the AI worse. Will that happen here? Possibly, but not certain, even with superhuman capacity: I suspect, but am not certain, that art is a peacock tail for humans — a signal where the point is to be extravagant and expensive — which means that all automation of it, including pre-AI automation, results in that-which-is-now-cheap no longer counting as "art" in the minds of increasingly many humans. Some of the famous renaissance still life paintings are recreated a million times a day as people use their phones to take photos of their food. The hard ones are art, the common ones are…?
- visarga 4y ago
  > That time has past, and now having humans in the team only make the AI worse. Making human-AI teams win sounds like a new challenge where AI could contribute.

rvz 4y ago

Of course he will say that. ‘Microsoft co-founder believes that his company’s own investment in the AI startup that created ChatGPT will change the world.’ It is open source AI models that are large in parameters, transparent and smaller in size that are the ones that will permanently change the world and will disrupt OpenAI’s closed AI SaaS business plans.

w4ffl35 4y ago
its also a really soft take. i prefer peter thiel's recent address https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4rc7npiXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4rc7npiXQ