4 ms·
That limits its value for industries like Hollywood, though, doesn't it? And without that, who exactly is going to pay for this?
by adamc 2y ago
That limits its value for industries like Hollywood, though, doesn't it? And without that, who exactly is going to pay for this?
- cube2222 2y agoTo me, currently, visual generative ai is an evolution and improvement of stock images, and has effectively the same purpose. People pay for stock images.
- adamc 2y agoYeah, maybe for some purposes. In business, people sometimes pay for stock images but often don't have the expertise or patience to really spend a lot of time coaching a video into fruition. Maybe for advertising or other contexts where more effort is worth it (not just powerpoints), but it feels like a slim audience.
- cube2222 2y agoWith tools like Apple Intelligence and its genmoji (emoji generation) and playground (general diffusion image generation) I expect it to also take on some of the current entertainment and social use-cases of stickers and GIFs. But that’s probably something you don’t pay for directly, instead paying for e.g. a phone that has those features.
- jddj 2y agoAdvertisers, I guess. Same folks who paid for everything else around here
- adamc 2y agoYeah, I just question if there are enough customers to make this work.