3 ms·

I really don't know how to reply to this. Five years ago, there was nothing in existence that could respond well to a prompt like "Write a short story about my

I really don't know how to reply to this. Five years ago, there was nothing in existence that could respond well to a prompt like "Write a short story about my six-year-old daughter Emily traveling undersea to rescue her favorite sea horse, who's been kidnapped by the Shrimp King. Make her have several adventures along the way, engaging in side quests and making friends who ultimately help her succeed in her quest" Today ChatGPT responds to the above with no difficulty, and part of the reason is that it has been trained not just to output reasonable responses, but aesthetically pleasing ones. There is every reason to believe that video output will be more responsive five years from now than text is right now. Sure, it's possible it will be a little stilted, or a little generic, but it's possible it won't be. Obviously we're both speculating, but I find it hard to believe that one minute today won't turn into hour-length in five years.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Well there are two issues right now: 1. Text has come car, but I don't think anything other than blogspam sites have heavily leveraged AI as a commercial product. There's a huge gulf of difference between "this looks okay enough that the common user won't question it" and "this is helping professionals make money for products consumers the self seek out". AI is 90% of the way there, and it has another 90% to go, just like any human. 2. With all that noted, Video is a lot more computationally expensive than text generation. Which is multiple magnitudes of more information to edit/refine. It will only magnify the problem since the common user is a lot better at recognizing defects in visuals than in text (where native speakers famously don't process every word while reading). I'm not saying that this won't massively improve efficiency. But I think we both will agree that this tech won't lead to a large studio making content in months so much as letting a very lean team make content in 3-5 years for much less money when they lay off 95% of the staff.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

Well there are two issues right now: 1. Text has come car, but I don't think anything other than blogspam sites have heavily leveraged AI as a commercial product. There's a huge gulf of difference between "this looks okay enough that the common user won't question it" and "this is helping professionals make money for products consumers the self seek out". AI is 90% of the way there, and it has another 90% to go, just like any human. 2. With all that noted, Video is a lot more computationally expensive than text generation. Which is multiple magnitudes of more information to edit/refine. It will only magnify the problem since the common user is a lot better at recognizing defects in visuals than in text (where native speakers famously don't process every word while reading). I'm not saying that this won't massively improve efficiency. But I think we both will agree that this tech won't lead to a large studio making content in months so much as letting a very lean team make content in 3-5 years for much less money when they lay off 95% of the staff.