3 ms·

AI seems to be the only thing you can still easily fundraise for these days, so I don't think that's too much of an issue. The consesus seems to be that there

AI seems to be the only thing you can still easily fundraise for these days, so I don't think that's too much of an issue. The consesus seems to be that there are too many investors and not enough AI startups to invest in (in SF at least). Saw a post the other day for an AI meetup where they said they already had too many investors on the waitlist and were no longer accepting more.

ChatGTP 4y ago
Honestly, is there much money to be made from these things long term? Like I know they will get “better”, but I still struggle generate something that isn’t kind of “weird”, today a horse with a harness melted into its face etc, and even if it generated picture perfect images, there is already a lot of images and art available for cheap, and a lot of competition will come along, but the thing with image generation is there’s nothing really special about it once’s it’s working to a decent enough level ? Will we just have ten services that generate similar stuff ?
- f0e4c2f7 4y ago
  While there are lots of obstacles yes I suspect there will be quite a lot of money long term. From my perspective we're in the very early innings of another electricity like revolution. With images you get things like Hollywood being replaced[0] but the much bigger gains come from the seemingly endless list of tasks that these models can approach solving. I feel like I see a new groundbreaking application several times per week at this point[1]. With all that said I'm sure lots of startups will blow up and make no money too. While the overall wave seems very valuable to me, it's hard to predict what will be the Google and what will be the Webvan. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y [1] https://twitter.com/DannyDriess/status/1632904675124035585 https://twitter.com/DannyDriess/status/1632904675124035585
  - woah 4y ago
    Can you make a list here of all the groundbreaking applications you've seen?
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I’ll be interested to see if Hollywood gets replaced. People actually do enjoy actors, celebrities etc. I’m not sure it will be replaced it will just change. Also if you think about it, as I said long term, the cost of entertainment will come down so much, because now you just click buttons to generate art, not sure it actually will be worth billions ? People will still use these things as tools to create more incredible stuff, while the generic kind of boring stuff with a terrible story line will be just absolutely everywhere. Lastly, I would say that it’s never been easier to make movies and cartoons as it is today but it’s been a pretty long time since I’ve seen a good movie. Movies seem to be about special effects now days.
    - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
      so if everyone can make great special effects for cheap, maybe they'll have to start focusing on the story again
- plastic3169 4y ago
  These art tools are just the first step. Ability for computer to show things live and communicate visually with humans might open up some novel use cases.
- aiappreciator 4y ago
  "there’s nothing really special about it once’s it’s working to a decent enough level ? " Art has a pyramid revenue distribution. The top tier of works earn way way more than the 'average' work, this is true for movies, games, TV, novels, illustrations. This is not because of marketing effects, but because top art genuinely elicit far more enjoyment than average art, and audience standards get constantly raised. After LOTR, Harry Potter, Hollywood tried to create big fantasy movies in the 2000s. But top quality source materials are rare, and with only average scripts, nobody wanted to watch those movies, everything was a flop. Therefore, there's no diminishing returns in quality. Every extra bit of quality in an AI art engine has a substantial effect. SD is currently dominant in AI art, because its open source allowed for thousands of passionate tinkerers to finetune the model. There's now like 15 mainstream SD variants, each suited for particular artstyles, there's also LORA databases (Think plugins) that allow people to reproduce every celebrity/famous fictional character in almost perfect quality. Its like having thousands of free developers working for your company, so its going to be extremely hard to compete against SD. Now SD's biggest problem is its inability to make money off its open sourced success. But its at least cornered the AI art model market. The size of this market is a substantial chunk of the entire entertainment industry, so its easily worth a few billion.

ChatGTP 4y ago

Honestly, is there much money to be made from these things long term? Like I know they will get “better”, but I still struggle generate something that isn’t kind of “weird”, today a horse with a harness melted into its face etc, and even if it generated picture perfect images, there is already a lot of images and art available for cheap, and a lot of competition will come along, but the thing with image generation is there’s nothing really special about it once’s it’s working to a decent enough level ? Will we just have ten services that generate similar stuff ?

f0e4c2f7 4y ago
While there are lots of obstacles yes I suspect there will be quite a lot of money long term. From my perspective we're in the very early innings of another electricity like revolution. With images you get things like Hollywood being replaced[0] but the much bigger gains come from the seemingly endless list of tasks that these models can approach solving. I feel like I see a new groundbreaking application several times per week at this point[1]. With all that said I'm sure lots of startups will blow up and make no money too. While the overall wave seems very valuable to me, it's hard to predict what will be the Google and what will be the Webvan. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y [1] https://twitter.com/DannyDriess/status/1632904675124035585 https://twitter.com/DannyDriess/status/1632904675124035585
- woah 4y ago
  Can you make a list here of all the groundbreaking applications you've seen?
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I’ll be interested to see if Hollywood gets replaced. People actually do enjoy actors, celebrities etc. I’m not sure it will be replaced it will just change. Also if you think about it, as I said long term, the cost of entertainment will come down so much, because now you just click buttons to generate art, not sure it actually will be worth billions ? People will still use these things as tools to create more incredible stuff, while the generic kind of boring stuff with a terrible story line will be just absolutely everywhere. Lastly, I would say that it’s never been easier to make movies and cartoons as it is today but it’s been a pretty long time since I’ve seen a good movie. Movies seem to be about special effects now days.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
    so if everyone can make great special effects for cheap, maybe they'll have to start focusing on the story again
plastic3169 4y ago
These art tools are just the first step. Ability for computer to show things live and communicate visually with humans might open up some novel use cases.
aiappreciator 4y ago
"there’s nothing really special about it once’s it’s working to a decent enough level ? " Art has a pyramid revenue distribution. The top tier of works earn way way more than the 'average' work, this is true for movies, games, TV, novels, illustrations. This is not because of marketing effects, but because top art genuinely elicit far more enjoyment than average art, and audience standards get constantly raised. After LOTR, Harry Potter, Hollywood tried to create big fantasy movies in the 2000s. But top quality source materials are rare, and with only average scripts, nobody wanted to watch those movies, everything was a flop. Therefore, there's no diminishing returns in quality. Every extra bit of quality in an AI art engine has a substantial effect. SD is currently dominant in AI art, because its open source allowed for thousands of passionate tinkerers to finetune the model. There's now like 15 mainstream SD variants, each suited for particular artstyles, there's also LORA databases (Think plugins) that allow people to reproduce every celebrity/famous fictional character in almost perfect quality. Its like having thousands of free developers working for your company, so its going to be extremely hard to compete against SD. Now SD's biggest problem is its inability to make money off its open sourced success. But its at least cornered the AI art model market. The size of this market is a substantial chunk of the entire entertainment industry, so its easily worth a few billion.