4 ms·

Yeah but remember this tool is, today, the worst it will ever be. This kind of work will only improve, and we're in early days for these kinds of applications

by sbarre 1y ago

Yeah but remember this tool is, today, the worst it will ever be. This kind of work will only improve, and we're in early days for these kinds of applications of LLM tech.

jappgar 1y ago
LLMs aren't suited to this, just like they aren't suited to generating images (different models do the hard work, even when you're using an LLM interface). I agree with the parent comment. This might be neat to learn the basics of blender scripting, but it's an incredibly inefficient and clumsy way of making anything worthwhile.
- ghurtado 1y ago
  Right. This is like training an AI on being an Excel expert, and then ask it to make Doom for you: You're gonna get some result, and it will be impressive given the constraints. It's also going to be pure dog shit that will never see the light of day other than as a meme.
- sbarre 1y ago
  That's fair, and perhaps a different kind of multi-modal model will emerge that is better at learning and interacting with UIs.. Or maybe applications will develop new interfaces to meet LLMs in the middle, sort of how MCP servers are a very primitive version of that for APIs.. Future improvements don't just have to be a better version of exactly what it is today, it can certainly mean changing or combining approaches. Leaving AI/LLM aside, 3D modeling and animation tech has drastically evolved over the years, removing the need for lots of manual and complicated work by automating or simplifying the workflow for achieving better results.
latexr 1y ago
I wish that “it will get better” wasn’t the response every time someone shares actionable advice and thoughtful specific criticism about the state of the art. You don’t know if it will get better. Even if it does, you don’t know by how much or the time frame. You don’t know if it will ever improve enough to overcome the current limitations. You don’t know if it will take years. In the meantime, while someone is sitting on their ass for years waiting for the uncertain future of the tool getting better, someone else is getting their hands dirty, learning the craft, improving, having fun, collaborating, creating. There is plenty of garbage out there where we were promised “it will only get better”, “in five years (eternally five years away) it will take over the world”, and now they’re dead. Where’s the metaverse NFT web3 future? Thrown into a trash can and lit on fire, replaced by the next embarrassment of chatting with porn versions of your step mom. https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1mrygl4/this_is_fucking_insane/ https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1mrygl4/this_i...
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  On the other hand, as both an artist and machine learning practitioner, I think most artists are only seeing the surface layer here and have little insight on its derivative, the algorithms and state of research which are advancing the state of the art on a weekly basis. It'll never be obvious that we're at the critical moment because critical phase changes happen all at once, suddenly, out of nowhere. There is an insane amount of low-hanging fruit right now, and potentially decades or centuries of very important math to be worked out around optimal learning strategies, but it's clear that we do have a very strong likelihood of our ways of life being fundamentally altered by these technologies. I mean already, artists are suddenly having to grip with all sorts of new and forgotten questions around artistic identity and integrity, what qualifies as art, who qualifies as an artist... Generative technology has already made artists begin to question and radically redefine the nature of art, and if it's good enough to do that, I think it's already worth serious consideration. These technologies, even in current form, were considered science fiction or literal magic up until very recently.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > I think most artists are only seeing the surface layer here and have little insight on its derivative (…) > Generative technology has already made artists begin to question and radically redefine the nature of art (…) So which is it? Are artist not understanding the potential of the technology, or are they so flabbergasted they are redefining the nature of art? It can’t be both. > There is an insane amount of low-hanging fruit right now Precisely. What I’m criticising is the generic low-effort response of assuming that being able to pick low-hanging fruit now indicates with certainty that the high-hanging fruit will be picked soon. It doesn’t. As an exaggerated analogy, building the first paper airplane or boat might’ve been fun and impressive, but it was in no way an indication we’d be able to construct rockets or submarines. We eventually did, but it took a very long time and completely different technology. To really drive the point home, my comment wasn’t specifically about art or LLMs or the user I replied to. What I am against is the lazy hand-wavy extrapolation which is used to justify anything. As long as you say it’s five years away, you can shut down any interesting discussion. > These technologies, even in current form, were considered science fiction or literal magic up until very recently. I don’t recall science fiction or magical stories—not any that weren’t written as cautionary tales or about revolution, anyway—which had talking robots which were wrong most of the time yet spoke authoritatively; convinced people to inadvertently poison or kill themselves and others; were used for spam and disinformation on a large scale; and accelerated the concentration of power for the very few at the top. Not every science fiction is good. In fact, plenty of it is very very bad. There’s a reason the Torment Nexus is a meme.
voxleone 1y ago
It's a neat tool. But i suspect it can only ever be as good as Blender. Of course I could be wrong.
- Etherlord87 1y ago
  Python is Turing-complete, so everything is possible, but the tool has a long way to go.
blakcod 1y ago
Let’s be honest most are just looking to get acquired. Then enshittified.
ghurtado 1y ago
> Yeah but remember this tool is, today, the worst it will ever be. True. And it if it stops to be a path forward because a better approach is found (something more likely than not), then this is also the best it will ever be.
parineum 1y ago
Hammers have existed for thousands of years and still can't do my laundry.

by sbarre 1y ago

Yeah but remember this tool is, today, the worst it will ever be. This kind of work will only improve, and we're in early days for these kinds of applications of LLM tech.

jappgar 1y ago

LLMs aren't suited to this, just like they aren't suited to generating images (different models do the hard work, even when you're using an LLM interface). I agree with the parent comment. This might be neat to learn the basics of blender scripting, but it's an incredibly inefficient and clumsy way of making anything worthwhile.

ghurtado 1y ago
Right. This is like training an AI on being an Excel expert, and then ask it to make Doom for you: You're gonna get some result, and it will be impressive given the constraints. It's also going to be pure dog shit that will never see the light of day other than as a meme.
sbarre 1y ago
That's fair, and perhaps a different kind of multi-modal model will emerge that is better at learning and interacting with UIs.. Or maybe applications will develop new interfaces to meet LLMs in the middle, sort of how MCP servers are a very primitive version of that for APIs.. Future improvements don't just have to be a better version of exactly what it is today, it can certainly mean changing or combining approaches. Leaving AI/LLM aside, 3D modeling and animation tech has drastically evolved over the years, removing the need for lots of manual and complicated work by automating or simplifying the workflow for achieving better results.

latexr 1y ago

I wish that “it will get better” wasn’t the response every time someone shares actionable advice and thoughtful specific criticism about the state of the art. You don’t know if it will get better. Even if it does, you don’t know by how much or the time frame. You don’t know if it will ever improve enough to overcome the current limitations. You don’t know if it will take years. In the meantime, while someone is sitting on their ass for years waiting for the uncertain future of the tool getting better, someone else is getting their hands dirty, learning the craft, improving, having fun, collaborating, creating. There is plenty of garbage out there where we were promised “it will only get better”, “in five years (eternally five years away) it will take over the world”, and now they’re dead. Where’s the metaverse NFT web3 future? Thrown into a trash can and lit on fire, replaced by the next embarrassment of chatting with porn versions of your step mom. https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1mrygl4/this_is_fucking_insane/ https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1mrygl4/this_i...

soulofmischief 1y ago
On the other hand, as both an artist and machine learning practitioner, I think most artists are only seeing the surface layer here and have little insight on its derivative, the algorithms and state of research which are advancing the state of the art on a weekly basis. It'll never be obvious that we're at the critical moment because critical phase changes happen all at once, suddenly, out of nowhere. There is an insane amount of low-hanging fruit right now, and potentially decades or centuries of very important math to be worked out around optimal learning strategies, but it's clear that we do have a very strong likelihood of our ways of life being fundamentally altered by these technologies. I mean already, artists are suddenly having to grip with all sorts of new and forgotten questions around artistic identity and integrity, what qualifies as art, who qualifies as an artist... Generative technology has already made artists begin to question and radically redefine the nature of art, and if it's good enough to do that, I think it's already worth serious consideration. These technologies, even in current form, were considered science fiction or literal magic up until very recently.
- latexr 1y ago
  > I think most artists are only seeing the surface layer here and have little insight on its derivative (…) > Generative technology has already made artists begin to question and radically redefine the nature of art (…) So which is it? Are artist not understanding the potential of the technology, or are they so flabbergasted they are redefining the nature of art? It can’t be both. > There is an insane amount of low-hanging fruit right now Precisely. What I’m criticising is the generic low-effort response of assuming that being able to pick low-hanging fruit now indicates with certainty that the high-hanging fruit will be picked soon. It doesn’t. As an exaggerated analogy, building the first paper airplane or boat might’ve been fun and impressive, but it was in no way an indication we’d be able to construct rockets or submarines. We eventually did, but it took a very long time and completely different technology. To really drive the point home, my comment wasn’t specifically about art or LLMs or the user I replied to. What I am against is the lazy hand-wavy extrapolation which is used to justify anything. As long as you say it’s five years away, you can shut down any interesting discussion. > These technologies, even in current form, were considered science fiction or literal magic up until very recently. I don’t recall science fiction or magical stories—not any that weren’t written as cautionary tales or about revolution, anyway—which had talking robots which were wrong most of the time yet spoke authoritatively; convinced people to inadvertently poison or kill themselves and others; were used for spam and disinformation on a large scale; and accelerated the concentration of power for the very few at the top. Not every science fiction is good. In fact, plenty of it is very very bad. There’s a reason the Torment Nexus is a meme.

voxleone 1y ago

It's a neat tool. But i suspect it can only ever be as good as Blender. Of course I could be wrong.

Etherlord87 1y ago
Python is Turing-complete, so everything is possible, but the tool has a long way to go.

blakcod 1y ago

Let’s be honest most are just looking to get acquired. Then enshittified.

ghurtado 1y ago

> Yeah but remember this tool is, today, the worst it will ever be. True. And it if it stops to be a path forward because a better approach is found (something more likely than not), then this is also the best it will ever be.

parineum 1y ago

Hammers have existed for thousands of years and still can't do my laundry.