4 ms·

I can't help but feel we've moved to quickly from astonishment to disappointment. Lots of people queueing up to pour cold water on generative AI when it's stil

I can't help but feel we've moved to quickly from astonishment to disappointment. Lots of people queueing up to pour cold water on generative AI when it's still something I have to pinch myself to remind myself it's actually real. (And yeah. I'm not denying the drawbacks. It's functionally useless for many (or even most) proposed applications. But can we still pause for a moment to be impressed it actually exists?)

ronsor 3y ago
This happens with every innovation. Once something becomes sufficiently commonplace, it becomes boring and a larger target for criticism.
idopmstuff 3y ago
It's a testament to how quickly humans can set a new baseline at their circumstances. I try to remember to say "WHAT THE FUCK THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE" at least a few times a day when using GPT and MidJourney, but it's much easier to be irritated that ChatGPT lost the context of the code it was helping me write than to be blown away that I can just casually use one of the greatest technical achievements in the history of mankind while I'm sitting here in my underwear.
- daveguy 3y ago
  > "...one of the greatest technical achievements in the history of mankind..." ... is doing a lot of work here. This is why expectations are exceeding reality. That said, the reality of these generative AIs is pretty damn impressive. I just wouldn't put it up against computers, cars, planes, boats, nuclear energy, medicine, chemistry or any of the other technological advances that did change the world. Not until the grounding problem is solved. After that, maybe.
  - basicoperation 3y ago
    The first car didn’t change the world, nor did the first plane, etc. At least not directly. But they did pave the way for the examples that did change the world. No different here. Generative AI will change the world. Doesn’t mean these models will in and of themselves.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Most of us aren't playing with multi-modal models yet. Text can describe any world, but when it starts coming AI watching live video feeds for learning, can it base itself in reality with that?
version_five 3y ago
It's like when you hire a smooth talking guy who makes a great first impression but actually that's his main skill and he doesn't perform very well. I'm a natural contrarian and always used the worst first. I feel like I've warmed up a lot to generative AI (text particularly) but understand the limitations. People who came in from the other end thinking it was more than it is are naturally going to be let down when they see its performance in the sober light of day. I think more people are in this category because a big strength I see is for generative AI to produce stuff that superficially looks really great, but doesn't hold up if you actually want to do your own thing with it.
jade-cat 3y ago
I think it's pushback due to how AI is being sold as the ultimate tool that will replace artists/programmers/writers/whomever. Because the technology has been making big leaps over the past couple of years, the comparisons are now being made not with what used to be before, but with what is being promised. And in that regard, things do fall short. Basically the hype builders hyped things up so much they started hurting the hype.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  This is the a false conclusion so many seem to be falling for. YOU couldn't write or do art like a professional before, and now you can do 90% of it with some caveats. That's a major headwind that pros will be trying to deny understandably. When the digital camera then iPhone came and out obliterated the vast majority of professional photography, pros nitpicked in forums like this till kingdom come, but it didn't change anything.
  - jprete 3y ago
    If I draw a picture of a fantasy-world bedroom, it might not be very detailed or well-shaped, because I am emphatically not a professional illustrator. But I can tell you what every single object is supposed to be, why I thought it belonged in a fantasy-world bedroom, and why I put it in its particular spot in that bedroom.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >but I can tell you what every single object is supposed to be, why I thought it belonged in a fantasy-world bedroom, and why I put it in its particular spot in that bedroom. I mean post ad hoc the machine could do that too. In fact, that is the only way your brain can explain anything.
      - a_shovel 3y ago
        Huh? Are you saying human artists don't consider composition while creating their works?
tlrobinson 3y ago
I’m reminded of Louis CK’s rant “ Everything Is Amazing and Nobody Is Happy”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBLkX2VaQs4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBLkX2VaQs4 Like, nothing like this was remotely possible a year ago. I’m sure we’ll hit a wall at some point, but you certainly shouldn’t dismiss things as not possible because they’re not currently possible.
nemo44x 3y ago
Welcome to the hype cycle! As I've gained more experience with it I feel I've seen the boundaries of what it's good at, what it isn't good at, and what it isn't useful for. It's good at like 80% of something. But there's so many things in that other 20%. In the right places it will make certain individuals more productive in may ways but I don't feel the way I did 6 months ago.
joe_the_user 3y ago
A talking dog is very impressive when it first appears. When suddenly talking dogs are everywhere, drown out the people I want to talk to, then they are annoying. Moreover, it's not at all strange that people learned what generative AI looks. When I see it in "in the wild", it instantly in my mind becomes "generated thing". And exactly because the images are created by a process of averaging, once I'm used to them, they have a "nothing special or interesting here" feeling, which isn't a good feeling for many thing, for example accompanying illustrations.
- andybak 3y ago
  I don't think you can tell AI generated images from real images anywhere near as much as you think you can. I'd bet good money you couldn't achieve more than say 60% in a properly controlled test
  - __loam 3y ago
    It's usually pretty obvious.
    - andybak 3y ago
      It's often most definitely not.
  - joe_the_user 3y ago
    I think you're missing the direction this AI stuff is going. I would claim to be able to tell an AI-generated image from illustration hand-draw by a person if that illustration had roughly the characteristics of standard AI-generated images. IE, sort of curvilinear magic realism feel, crude knowledge of anatomy and perspective, uniform soft lighting etc. And there are quite a few artists out like that and I shudder for their careers. The problem is the value of things that look like AI has been reduced because they're everywhere - and that include a fair number of non-AI-generated stuff, sure.
    - andybak 3y ago
mock-possum 3y ago
It’s only disappointment now after evangelists promised astonishment in the first place - I’m no AI-naysayer, I’m just not a true believer and I have no interest in becoming one. It’s new, it’s cool, it’s not perfect, it’s not magic, it’s not a silver bullet. It is what it is.
- andybak 3y ago
  It's at a point I never thought we would get to in my lifetime. I remember the original AI winter and how implausible sci-fi depictions of AI seemed for decades.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ronsor 3y ago

This happens with every innovation. Once something becomes sufficiently commonplace, it becomes boring and a larger target for criticism.

idopmstuff 3y ago

It's a testament to how quickly humans can set a new baseline at their circumstances. I try to remember to say "WHAT THE FUCK THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE" at least a few times a day when using GPT and MidJourney, but it's much easier to be irritated that ChatGPT lost the context of the code it was helping me write than to be blown away that I can just casually use one of the greatest technical achievements in the history of mankind while I'm sitting here in my underwear.

daveguy 3y ago
> "...one of the greatest technical achievements in the history of mankind..." ... is doing a lot of work here. This is why expectations are exceeding reality. That said, the reality of these generative AIs is pretty damn impressive. I just wouldn't put it up against computers, cars, planes, boats, nuclear energy, medicine, chemistry or any of the other technological advances that did change the world. Not until the grounding problem is solved. After that, maybe.
- basicoperation 3y ago
  The first car didn’t change the world, nor did the first plane, etc. At least not directly. But they did pave the way for the examples that did change the world. No different here. Generative AI will change the world. Doesn’t mean these models will in and of themselves.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Most of us aren't playing with multi-modal models yet. Text can describe any world, but when it starts coming AI watching live video feeds for learning, can it base itself in reality with that?

version_five 3y ago

It's like when you hire a smooth talking guy who makes a great first impression but actually that's his main skill and he doesn't perform very well. I'm a natural contrarian and always used the worst first. I feel like I've warmed up a lot to generative AI (text particularly) but understand the limitations. People who came in from the other end thinking it was more than it is are naturally going to be let down when they see its performance in the sober light of day. I think more people are in this category because a big strength I see is for generative AI to produce stuff that superficially looks really great, but doesn't hold up if you actually want to do your own thing with it.

jade-cat 3y ago

I think it's pushback due to how AI is being sold as the ultimate tool that will replace artists/programmers/writers/whomever. Because the technology has been making big leaps over the past couple of years, the comparisons are now being made not with what used to be before, but with what is being promised. And in that regard, things do fall short. Basically the hype builders hyped things up so much they started hurting the hype.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is the a false conclusion so many seem to be falling for. YOU couldn't write or do art like a professional before, and now you can do 90% of it with some caveats. That's a major headwind that pros will be trying to deny understandably. When the digital camera then iPhone came and out obliterated the vast majority of professional photography, pros nitpicked in forums like this till kingdom come, but it didn't change anything.
- jprete 3y ago
  If I draw a picture of a fantasy-world bedroom, it might not be very detailed or well-shaped, because I am emphatically not a professional illustrator. But I can tell you what every single object is supposed to be, why I thought it belonged in a fantasy-world bedroom, and why I put it in its particular spot in that bedroom.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >but I can tell you what every single object is supposed to be, why I thought it belonged in a fantasy-world bedroom, and why I put it in its particular spot in that bedroom. I mean post ad hoc the machine could do that too. In fact, that is the only way your brain can explain anything.
    - a_shovel 3y ago
      Huh? Are you saying human artists don't consider composition while creating their works?

tlrobinson 3y ago

I’m reminded of Louis CK’s rant “ Everything Is Amazing and Nobody Is Happy”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBLkX2VaQs4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBLkX2VaQs4 Like, nothing like this was remotely possible a year ago. I’m sure we’ll hit a wall at some point, but you certainly shouldn’t dismiss things as not possible because they’re not currently possible.

nemo44x 3y ago

Welcome to the hype cycle! As I've gained more experience with it I feel I've seen the boundaries of what it's good at, what it isn't good at, and what it isn't useful for. It's good at like 80% of something. But there's so many things in that other 20%. In the right places it will make certain individuals more productive in may ways but I don't feel the way I did 6 months ago.

joe_the_user 3y ago

A talking dog is very impressive when it first appears. When suddenly talking dogs are everywhere, drown out the people I want to talk to, then they are annoying. Moreover, it's not at all strange that people learned what generative AI looks. When I see it in "in the wild", it instantly in my mind becomes "generated thing". And exactly because the images are created by a process of averaging, once I'm used to them, they have a "nothing special or interesting here" feeling, which isn't a good feeling for many thing, for example accompanying illustrations.

andybak 3y ago
I don't think you can tell AI generated images from real images anywhere near as much as you think you can. I'd bet good money you couldn't achieve more than say 60% in a properly controlled test
- __loam 3y ago
  It's usually pretty obvious.
  - andybak 3y ago
    It's often most definitely not.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  I think you're missing the direction this AI stuff is going. I would claim to be able to tell an AI-generated image from illustration hand-draw by a person if that illustration had roughly the characteristics of standard AI-generated images. IE, sort of curvilinear magic realism feel, crude knowledge of anatomy and perspective, uniform soft lighting etc. And there are quite a few artists out like that and I shudder for their careers. The problem is the value of things that look like AI has been reduced because they're everywhere - and that include a fair number of non-AI-generated stuff, sure.
  - andybak 3y ago

mock-possum 3y ago

It’s only disappointment now after evangelists promised astonishment in the first place - I’m no AI-naysayer, I’m just not a true believer and I have no interest in becoming one. It’s new, it’s cool, it’s not perfect, it’s not magic, it’s not a silver bullet. It is what it is.

andybak 3y ago
It's at a point I never thought we would get to in my lifetime. I remember the original AI winter and how implausible sci-fi depictions of AI seemed for decades.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]