> " Image generation is likely to be very disruptive in ways we don’t understand right now. " Is anyone getting tired of these formulations ? When a tech is dis

> " Image generation is likely to be very disruptive in ways we don’t understand right now. " Is anyone getting tired of these formulations ? When a tech is disruptive, we know it immediately. Uber was disruptive. AirBnB, Gmail, Amazon, even Facebook at one point. You just knew it, nobody was writing long essays trying to justify those products. Robots generating statistically median images is impressive, but not disruptive at all. If something is "likely" to be "disruptive", but in ways "we don't understand yet", how can the claim even be made? What is it based on? If we do not understand it yet, how can we understand if it is "likely to be disruptive".