Soon, you should be able to put in a screenplay and a cast, and get a movie out. Then, "Google Sequels" - generates a sequel for any movie.
All this is in line with my prediction for the first entirely AI generated film (with Sora or other AI video tools) to win an Oscar being less than 5 years away.
And we're only 5 months in.
I bet they will soon add rules that AI movies can't even compete on it.
We are about six years into transformer models. By now we can get transformers to write coherent short stories, and you can get to novel lengths with very careful iterative prompting (e.g. let the AI generate an outline, then chapter summaries, consistency notes, world building, then generate the chapters). But to get anything approaching a good story you still need a lot of manual intervention at all steps of the process. LLMs go off the rail, get pacing completely wrong and demonstrate gaping holes in their understanding of the real world. Progress on new models is mostly focused in other directions, with better storytelling a byproduct. I doubt we get to "best screenplay" level of writing in five years.
Best Actor/Actress/Director/etc are obviously out for an AI production since those roles simply do not exist.
Similar with Best Visual Effects, I doubt AI generated films qualify.
That leaves us with categories that rate the whole movie (Best Picture, Best International Feature Film etc), sound-related categories (Best Original Score, Original Song, Sound) and maybe Best Cinematography. I doubt the first category is in reach. Video Generation will be good enough in five years. But editing? Screenwriting? Sound Design?
My bet would be on the first AI-related Oscar to be for an AI generated original score or original song, and that no other AI wins Oscars within five years.
Unless we go by a much wider definition of "entirely AI generated" that would allow significant human intervention and supervision. But the more humans are involved the less it has any claim to being "entirely AI". Most AI-generated trailers or the Balenciaga-Potter-style videos still require a lot of human work
You're assuming Oscar voting is primarily driven by film quality but this hasn't been true for a long time (if it ever was). Many academy voters are biased by whatever cultural and political trends are currently ascendant among the narrow subset of Hollywood creatives who belong to the academy (the vast majority of people listed in movie credits will never be academy voters). Due to the widespread impact of Oscar wins in major categories, voters heavily weight meta-factors like "what should the Hollywood community be seen as endorsing?"
No issue in recent memory has been as overwhelmingly central as AI replacing creatives among the Hollywood community. The entire industry is still recovering from the unprecedented strikes which shut down the industry and one of the main issues was the use of AI. The perception of AI use will remain cultural/political poison among the rarified community of academy voters for at least a decade. Of course, studios are businesses and will hire vendors who use AI to cut costs but those vendors will be smart enough to downplay that fact because it's all about perception - not reality. For the next decade "AI" will be to Academy-centric Hollywood what "child labor" is to shoe manufacturing. The most important thing is not that it doesn't happen, it's ensuring there's no clear proof it's happening - especially on any movie designed to be 'major category Oscar-worthy' (such films are specifically designed to check the requisite boxes for consideration from their inception). predict that in the near-term AI in the Oscars will be limited to, at most, a few categories awarded in the separate Technical Oscars (which aren't broadcast on TV or covered by the mainstream media).
This "fixes" Hollywood's biggest "issues". No more highly paid actors demanding 50 million to appear in your movie, no more pretentious movie stars causing dramas and controversies, no more workers' unions or strikes, but all gains being funneled directly to shareholders. The VFX industry being turned into a gig meatgrinder was already the canary in the coal mine for this shift.
Most of the major Hollywood productions from the last 10 years have been nothing but creatively bankrupt sequels, prequels, spinoffs and remakes, all rehashed from previous IP anyway, so how much worse than this can AI do, since it's clear they're not interested in creativity anyway? Hell, it might even be an improvement than what they're making today, and at much lower cost to boot. So why wouldn't they adopt it? From the bean counter MBA perspective it makes perfect sense.
Except it bankrupts Hollywood, they are no longer needed. Of people can generate full movies at home, there is no more Hollywood.
The end game is endless ultra personalized content beamed into people's heads every free waking hour of the day. Hollywood is irrelevant in that future.
That's why I think Hollywood is rushing to adopt gen-AI, so they can churn out personalized content faster and cheaper straight to streaming, at the same rate as indie producers.
LLMs have been in the oven for years longer than this, and I'm not seeing any signs of people generating their own novels at home. Well, besides the get-rich-quick grifters spamming the Kindle store with incoherent slop in the hopes they can trick someone into parting with a dollar before they realize they've been had.
Most humans are also not good at writing great scripts/novels either. Just look at the movies that bring in billions of dollars at the box office. Do you think you need a famous novelist to write you a Fast & Furious 11 script?
Sure, there are still great writers that can make scripts that tickle the mind, but that's not what the studios want anymore. They want to push VFX heavy rehashed slop that's cheap to make, easy to digest for the doom-scrolling masses of consumers, and rakes in a lot of money.
You're talking about what makes gourmet Michelin star food but the industry is making money selling McDonals.
The good "creators" are already making bank, helped by app algorithms matching people up to content they'll find addictive to view.
The content doesn't have to be good it just has to be addictive for 80% of the population.
Then the first fully non-human (but human-like) actors will be created and gain popularity. The IP of those characters will be more valuable than the humans they replaced. They will be derided by old people as "Mickey Mouse" AI actors. The SAG will be beside themselves. Younger people will not care. The characters will never get old (or they will be perfectly rendered when they need to be old).
The off-screen dramas and controversies are part of the entertainment, and these will be manufactured too. (If there will even be an off-screen...)
This is the future, and we've been preparing for it for years by presenting the most fake versions of ourselves on social media. Viewers have zero expectation of authenticity, so biological status is just one more detail.
It will be perfect, and it will be awful. Kids born five years from now will never know anything different.
Very few actors have an appearance or a voice worth a lot in licenses. That's like the top 1% of actors, if that.
I think if done right, humans could also end up getting emotionally attached to 100% AI generated characters, not just famous celebrities.
So the appearance licenses for these 1% are valuable in Stage 1 of the takeover.
The rest are just forgotten collateral damage. Hollywood is full of 'em.
Origami for me was more audio than video. Felt like it's exactly how it would sound.
With the media & entertainment hungry world which is about to get worse with the unempoyed/underemployed tiktok generation needing "content", something like this has to have a play.
Nowadays when I randomly open a news website to read some article, at the bottom of the page all the generic "hack to lose your belly" or "doctors recommend weird japanese device" or "how seniors can fly business class", I've been noticing lately 1/3rd of the images seem to be AI generated...
I simply don't think it's fair to cheat service providers when we don't like their service. You have a choice, and that choice is to not use that service at all. They're providing it under the terms that it is ad-supported. If you don't want to support it, but you still want to use it, then you're cheating someone. That is dishonest and unethical.
Advertisement-Permission: [required|requested]
In the meantime, I'm browsing every site with all content blockers set at maximum, because any other choice is incomprehensible on the modern web.
If I consequently visit some sites that want me to consume advertising of which I am unaware, then that is entirely their issue, not mine.
A lot of content is like this - you just need an approximation to sell an idea, not a perfect reproduction. Makes way more sense to have AI generate you a quick image for a sight gag than to have someone spend all day trying to comp it by hand. And as AI imagery gets more exposure in these sort of scenarios, more people will be accustomed to it, and they'll be more forgiving of its faults.
The bar for "good enough" is gonna get a lot lower as the cost of producing it comes way down with AI.
Drive the storytelling, consult with AI on improving things and exploring variations.
Generate visuals, then adjust / edit / postprocess them to your liking. Feed the machine your drawings and specific graphic ideas, not just vague words.
Use generated voices where they work well, record real humans where you need specific performance. Blend these approaches by altering the voice in a recording.
All these tools just allow you to produce things faster, or produce things at all such that would be too costly to shoot in real life.
In 2 years we have moved from AI video being mostly a pipe dream to some incredible clips! It’s not what this is like now, but what will it be like in 10 years!
Now it's "good enough" for a lot of cases (and the pace of improvement is astounding).
AI is still not great at image gen and video gen, but the pace of improvement is impressive.
I'm skeptical image, video, and sound gen are "too difficult" for AI to get "good enough" at for many use cases within the next 5 years.
Also "create static + video ads that are 0-99% complete" suggests the performance is hit or miss.
My guess as to determining whether it's 64 attempts to a pass for one and 5 attempts to a fail for another is simply "whether or not the author felt there was a chance random variance would result in a pass with a few more tries based on the initial 5ish". I.e. a bit subjective, as is the overall grading in the end anyways.
If there's only a few attempts and ends in a failure, there's a pretty good chance that I could sort of tell that the model had ZERO chance.
It's a very interesting resource to map some of the limits of existing models.
I want to interrupt all of this hype over Imagen 4 to talk about the totally slept on Tencent Hunyuan Image 2.0 that stealthily launched last Friday. It's absolutely remarkable and features:
- millisecond generation times
- real time image-to-image drawing capabilities
- visual instructivity (eg. you can circle regions, draw arrows, and write prompts addressing them.)
- incredible prompt adherence and quality
Nothing else on the market has these properties in quite this combination, so it's rather unique.
Release Tweet: https://x.com/TencentHunyuan/status/1923263203825549457
Tencent Hunyuan had a bunch of model releases all wrapped up in a product that they call "Hunyuan Game", but the Hunyuan Image 2.0 real time drawing canvas is the real star of it all. It's basically a faster, higher quality Krea: https://x.com/TencentHunyuan/status/1924713242150273424
More real time canvas samples: https://youtu.be/tVgT42iI31c?si=WEuvie-fIDaGk2J6&t=141 (I haven't found any other videos on the internet apart from these two.)
You can see how this is an incredible illustration tool. If they were to open source this, this would immediately become the top image generation model over Flux, Imagen 4, etc. At this point, really only gpt-image-1 stands apart as having godlike instructivity, but it's on the other end of the [real time <--> instructive] spectrum.
A total creative image tool kit might just be gpt-image-1 and Hunyuan Image 2.0. The other models are degenerate cases.
More image samples: https://x.com/Gdgtify/status/1923374102653317545
If anyone from Tencent or the Hunyuan team is reading this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE OPEN SOURCE THIS. (PLEASE!!)
In this AI rat race, whenever one model gets ahead, they all tend to reach parity within 3-6 months. If you can wait 6 months to create your video I'm sure Imagen 5 will be more than good enough.
It's honestly kind of ridiculous the pace things are moving at these days. 10 years ago waiting a year for something was very normal, nowadays people are judging the model-of-the-week against last week's model-of-the-week but last week's org will probably not sleep and they'll release another one next week.
I don’t know which is more important, but I would say that people mostly won’t pay for fun but disposable images, and I think people will pay for art but there will be an increased emphasis on the human artist. However users might pay for reliable tools that can generate images for a purpose, things like educational illustrations, and those need to be able to follow the spec very well.
- wine glass that is full to the edge with wine (ie. not half full)
- wrist watch not showing V (hands at 10 and 2 o'clock)
- 9 step IKEA shelf assembly instruction diagram
- any kind of gymnastics / sport acro
Hmm.
On a more societal level, I'm not sure continuously diminishing costs for producing AI slop is a net benefit to humanity.
I think this whole thing parallels some of the social media pros and cons. We gained the chance to reconnect with long lost friends—from whom we probably drifted apart for real reasons, consciously or not—at the cost of letting the general level of discourse to tank to its current state thanks to engagement-maximizing algorithms.
This naming seems very confusing, as I originally thought there must be some connection. But I don't think there is.
But then again, the do no evil motto is long gone, so I guess anything goes now?
Its something that is only obvious when it is obvious. And the more obvious examples you see, the more non-obvious examples slip by.
The demo videos for Sora look amazing but using it is substantially more frustrating and hit and miss.
Not in 10 years but now.
People who just see this as terrible are wrong. AI improving curves is exponential.
People adaptability is at best linear.
This makes me really sad. For creativity. For people.
Of course this is not because of AI. It's because of the ridiculous system of social organization where increased automation and efficiency makes people worse off.
These larger companies are clearly going after the agency/hollywood use cases. It'll be fascinating to see when they become the default rather than a niche option - that time seems to be drawing closer faster than anticipated. The results here are great, but they're still one or two generations off.
Plus in local generation you're not limited by the platform moderation that can be too strict and arbitrary and fail with the false positives.
Yes comfy UI can be intimidating at first vs an easy to use chatgpt-like ui, but the lack of control make me feel these tools will still not being used in professional productions in the short term, but more in small YouTube channels and smaller productions.
Foundation models are starting to outstrip any consumer hardware we have.
If Nvidia wants to stay ahead of Google's data center TPUs for running all of these advanced workloads, they should make edge GPU compute a priority.
There's a future where everything is a thin client to Google's data centers. Nvidia should do everything in its power to prevent that from happening.
It's for advertising.
The Tencent Hunyuan team is cooking.
Hunyuan Image 2.0 [1] was announced on Friday and it's pretty amazing. It's extremely high quality text-to-image and image-to-image with millisecond latency [2]. It's so fast that they've built a real time 2D drawing canvas application with it that pretty much duplicates Krea's entire product offering.
Unfortunately it looks like the team is keeping it closed source unlike their previous releases.
Hunyuan 3D 2.0 was good, but they haven't released the stunning and remarkable Hunyuan 3D 2.5 [3].
Hunyuan Video hasn't seen any improvements over Wan, but Wan also recently had VACE [4], which is a multimodal control layer and editing layer. The Comfy folks are having a field day with VACE and Wan.
[1] https://wtai.cc/item/hunyuan-image-2-0
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jIfZKMOKME&t=1351s
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1k8kj66/hu...
It makes me sad, though. I wish we were pushing AI more to automate non-creative work and not burying the creatives among us in a pile of AI generated content.
Just wanted to add representation to that feeling
Creativity is a conversation with yourself and God. Stripping away the struggle that comes with creativity defeats the entire purpose. Making it easier to make content is good for capital, but no one will ever get fulfillment out of prompting an AI and settling with the result.
Isn't the creativity in what you put in the prompt? Isn't spending hundreds of hours manually creating and rigging models based on existing sketch the non-creative work that is being automated here?
Of course that's not what I believe, but let's not limit the definition of what creativity based on historical limitations. Let's see what the new generation of artists and creators will use this new capability to mesmerize us!
Their placement of books. Their aesthetic. The collection of cool things to put into a scene to make it interesting. The lighting. Not yours. Not from you/not from the AI. None of it is yours/you/new/from the AI. It's ALL based underneath on someone else's work, someone else's life, someone else's heart and soul, and you are just taking it and saying 'look what I made'. The equivalent of a 4 year old being potty trained saying 'look I made a poop'. We celebrate it as a first step, not as the friggen end goal. The end goal is you making something uniquely you, based on your life experience, not on Bob the prop guys and Betty the set designer whose work/style you stole and didn't even have the decency to reference/thank.
And your prompt won't ever change dramatically, because there isn't going to be much new truly creative seedcorn for AI to digest. Entertainment will literally go into limbo/Groundhog Day, just the same generative, derivative things/asthetics from the same AI dataset.
If I see a painting, I see an interpretation that makes me think through someone else's interpretation.
If I see a photograph, I don't analyze as much, but I see a time and place. What is the photographer trying to get me to see?
If I see AI, I see a machine dithered averaging that is/means/represents/construes nothing but a computer predicted average. I might as well generate a UUID, I would get more novelty. No backstory, because items in the scene just happened to be averaged in. No style, because it's just a machine dithered blend not a creative re-imaging. It represents nothing no matter the prompt you use because the majority is still just machine averaged/dithered non-meaning. Not placed with intention. Not focused with real intention/vision. Nothing obvious excluded with intention. Just purely exactly what a machine thinks is exactly average for the scene it had described to it.
Just like a 3-4 year old taking a poop averages the meals that their parents lovingly prepared into... something. Again, the poop is a start to an individual developing their own capabilities, enabled by external inputs, cheered on by people that see development coming. It is not the end goal. No one cheers on a 40 year old for pooping. But AI prompt people seem to think it's worthy. It's not. It's 'computer please generate for me the exact average scene you would predict based on the following:'. And you can never get away from that. It will always just be the averaging of thousands of hours of creative work put in by other people and stolen to use in AI.
Merely changing a seed number will provide endless different outputs from the same single prompt from the same model; rng.nextInt() deserves as much artist credit as the prompter.
Personally I can't wait to see the new creative doors ai will open for us!
"Creating" with an AI is like an executive "inventing" the work actually done by their team of researchers. A team owner "winning" a game played by the their team.
That being said, AI output is very useful for brainstorming and exploring a creative space. The problem is when the brainstorming material is used for production.
This would include almost everyone who’s used any editing software more advanced than photoshop CS4.
You could come up with your own story and direct the AI to generate it for you.
A film director is a creative. Ultimately, they are in charge of "visualizing" a screenplay": the setting, the the design of the set or the utilization of real locations, the staging of the actors within a scene, the "direction" of the actors (i.e., how they should act out dialog or a scene, lighting, the cinematography, the use of stunts, staging shots to accommodate the use of VFX, the editing (meaning, the actual footage that comprises the movie).
There's an old show on HBO, Project Greenlight, that demonstrates what a director does. They give 2 directors the same screenplay and budget and they make competing movies. The competing movies are always completely different...even though they scripts are the same. (In the most extreme example from one of the later seasons, one of the movies was a teen grossout comedy, and the competing movie was some sort of adult melodrama.)
2. Using AI can be can be an iterative process. Generate this scene, make this look like that, make it brighter colors, remove this, add this, etc. That's all carefully crafting the output. Now generate this second scene, make the transition this way, etc. I don't see how that's at all different from a director giving their commands to workers, except now you actually have more creative control (given AI gets good enough)
Both things which were dismissed as not art at first but are widely accepted as an art medium nowadays.
There's a line to be drawn somewhere between artist and craftsperson. Creating beautiful things to a brief has always been a teachable skill, and now we're teaching it to machines. And, we've long sought to mass-produce beautiful things anyway. Think textiles, pottery, printmaking, architectural adornments.
Can AI replace an artist? Or is it just a new tool that can be used, as photography was, for either efficiency _or_ novel artistic expression?
The work a camera does is capturing the image in front of the photographer. "Art" in the context of photography is the choice of what in the image should be in focus, the angle of the shot, the lighting. The camera just captures that; it doesn't create anything that isn't already there. So, not even remotely the same thing as AI Gen.
The work of Krita/Inkscape/etc (and technically even Photoshop) is to convert the artistic strokes into a digital version of how those strokes would appear if painted on a real medium using a real tool. It doesn't create anything that the artist isn't deliberately creating. So, not even remotely the same thing as AI Gen.
AI Gen, as demonstrated in the linked page and in the tool comparison, is doing all of the work of generating the image. The only work a human does is to select which of the generated images they like the best, which is not a creative act.
AI cannot “democratize art” any more than the camera did, until the day it starts teaching artistry to its users.
I've tried AI image generation myself and was not impressed. It doesn't let me create freely, it limits me and constantly gravitates towards typical patterns seen in training data. As it completely takes over the actual creation process there is no direct control over the small decisions, which wastes time.
Edit: another comment about a different meaning of accessibility: the flood of AI content makes real content less accessible.
Other disapproval comes from different emotional places: a retreading of ludditism borne out of job insecurity, criticism of a dystopia where we've automated away the creative experience of being human but kept the grim work, or perceptions of theft or plagiarism.
Whether AI has worked well for you isn't just irrelevant, but contrarian in the face of clear and present value to a lot of people. You can be disgusted with it but you can't claim it isn't there.
https://www.youtube.com/@NeuralViz
It would have cost millions. Now one person can do it with a laptop and a few hundred dollars of credits a month.
AI is 100% making filmmaking more accessible to creative people who otherwise would never have access to the kind of funding and networks required to realise their visions.
The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. What AI is doing to creative professionals is putting them out of a job by people who are cheap and lazy.
Art is not inaccessible. It's never been cheaper and easier to make art than today even without AI.
> Personally I can't wait to see the new creative doors ai will open for us!
It's opening zero doors but closing many
---
What really irks me about this is that I have _seen_ AI used to take away work from people. Last weekend I saw a show where the promotional material was AI generated. It's not like tickets were cheaper or the performers were paid more or anything was improved. The producers pocketed a couple hundred bucks by using AI instead of paying a graphic designer. Extrapolate that across the market for arts and wonder what it's going to do to creativity.
It's honestly disgusting to me that engineers who don't understand art are building tools at the whims of the financiers behind art who just want to make a bit more money. This is not a rising tide that lifts all ships.
Why is effort a requirement?
Why should being an artist be a viable job?
Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete?
That's how human brains work. People have an intrinsic need to sort, build hierarchies and prioritize. Effort spent is one of viable heuristics for these processes.
> Why should being an artist be a viable job?
Art itself has great value, if it weren't, museums, theaters and live shows wouldn't exist.
> Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete?
The analogy doesn't work. The results of a medical process is a [more] healthy person. The result doesn't have any links to the one performing it. Result of an artistic creative process is an art piece, and art is tied to its creator by definition.
And who owns the AI?
It’s delusional. Stop falling for the mental jiu Jitsu from the large AI labs. You are not becoming an artist by using a machine to make art for you. The machine is the artist. And you don’t own it.
Similarly with music, prior to recording tech, live performance was where it was at.
You could look at the digital era as a weird blip in art history.
Have a look at the workflow and agent design patterns in this video by youtuber Nate Herk when he talks about planning the architecture:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9yzBp14EM
There’s less talk about automating non-creative work because it’s not flashy. But I can promise it’s a ton of fun, and you can co-design these automations with an LLM.
Making a movie is not accessible to most people and it's EVERYONES dream. This is not even there yet, but I have a few movies I need to make and I will never get a cast together and go do it before I die. If some creatives need to take a backseat so a million more creatives can get a chance, then so be it.
It's just not what gets the exciting headlines and showcases
They all got smoked by Google with what they just announced.
Sora, the image model (gpt-image-1), is phenomenal and is the best-in-class.
I can't wait to see where the new Imagen and Veo stack up.
Google what is this?
How would anyone use this for a commercial application.
I mean obviously the answer is "no" and this is going to get a bunch of replies saying that inventors are not to blame but the negative results of a technology like this are fairly obvious.
We had a movie two years ago about a blubbering scientist who blatantly ignored that to the detriment of his own mental health.
Thank you, researchers, for making our world worse. Thank you for helping to kill democracy.
I imagine video is a far tougher thing to model, but it's kind of weird how all these models are incapable of not looking like AI generated content. They all are smooth and shiny and robotic, year after year its the same. If anything, the earlier generators like that horrifying "Will Smith eating spaghetti" generation from back like three years ago looks LESS robotic than any of the recent floaty clips that are generated now.
I'm sure it will get better, whatever, but unlike the goal of LLMs for code/writing where the primary concern is how correct the output is, video won't be accepted as easily without it NOT looking like AI.
I am starting to wonder if thats even possible since these are effectively making composite guesses based on training data and the outputs do ultimately look similar to those "Here is what the average American's face looks like, based on 1000 people's faces super-imposed onto each other" that used to show up on Reddit all the time. Uncanny, soft, and not particularly interesting.
I don't follow the video generation stuff, so the last time I saw AI video it was the initial Sora release, and I just went back to that press release and I still maintain that this does not seem like the type of leap I would have expected.
We see pretty massive upgrades every release between all the major LLM models for code/reasoning, but I was kind of shocked to see that the video output seems stuck in late 2023/early 2024 which was impressive then but a lot less impressive a year out I guess.
I'm always hesitant with rollouts like this. If I go to one of these, there's no indication which Imagen version I'm getting results from. If I get an output that's underwhelming, how do I know whether it's the new model or if the rollout hasn't reached me yet?
However, looking at the UI/UX in Google Docs, it's less transparent.
Can’t wait to see what people start making with these
Interesting logic the new era brings: something else creates, and you only "bring your vision to life", but what it means is left for readers questioning, your "vision" here is your text prompt?
Were at a crossroads where the tools are powerful enough to make the process optional.
That raises uncomfortable questions: if you don’t have to create anymore, will people still value the journey? Will vision alone be enough? What's the creative purpose in life? To create, or to to bring creative vision to life? Isn't the act of creation is being subtly redefined?
Even if they hadn’t , i’d still struggle, i was a horrible guitarist. I could only sing decent, even when i wanted to make music I couldn’t.
Now with suno.com AI , I make songs daily, for myself, for my friends, everyone and it has played a huge impact in my positivity day to day even after gruelling workweeks.
I don’t know about your means of production stuff, but i sure as hell couldn’t afford to spend $10000 a month hiring or bringing singers, musicians to compose songs for me.
Now I can with $10-$15 / month. My mom who can’t code is barely tech literate, uses openai advanced voice mode to create prompts to build software with Replit agent (replit then builds an entire app with one or two prompts and deploys it for her)
Then copy pastes it into replit and gets back financial dashboards to help her analyse the options market, her trading portfolio, building simple calculators etc. She can drill down into math she has no clue of with a teensy bit of my help and a ton of help from gemini, replit assistant and claude.
She makes good money now by herself which is a big deal for her as she was a housewife before and always wanted to build her own thing. These AI tools have given her fulfillment that nothing else before could. She reads and understands complex books now with gemini and openai by clicking photos of pages, and if she’s confused she asks them to translate with examples in her mother tongue (non english speaker). She is far more confident now and positive about her life and looks forward to it everyday.
I don’t know about you’re means of production theory, but with current trends of model distillation making small AI models affordable to train for anyone and constant rapid progress of even unknown startups launching better and better opensource models.
It’s the common plebs like me and my mom who finally have the means of production.
This view also aligns with how generative AI is marketed – it's a way to accelerate realization, not a way to focus on the act of crafting.
That said, outcome-first thinking does run the risk of disconnection, and our current culture is all about disconnection.
Build out your app idea first with replit -> Then export the codebase into your computer -> Run claude code on it and ask it to scan all the files and describe the tech stack to you and how it operates while giving you all the major components you need to learn to understand it with youtube channel and book recommendations for each topic + work exercises -> Use perplexity deep research once a week to further research every topic as you start to learn them
If you’re a busy man/woman make gumloop or lindyai workflow to check your calendar and pack in timeslots to do all of this learning, and then auto send you worksheets via email as homework to test you skills
All of this for a price of 1/15th of a college degree (not even an expensive college)
This is not hypothetical conjecture I do this daily.
So everyone has now 1) Low cost access to build stuff with one prompt to realise the value of tools 2) A personal tutor that can then help you scour the depths of the craft and force you to practice and learn deeply now with your added motivation of knowing what’s possible with building stuff
So it has the potential to connect us more too, it’s upto humans to choose whether they do at the end tho. That is their liberty.
...what do you think a human would choose the most?
That is probably the more likelier possibility. However it just shows the lack of philosophy in our modern times, people don’t do things they are lazy about and a Choice between the easy way and hard way is no longer a choice for majority the easy way’s dangling carrot is the final ultimatum.
I think i’ll leave it at the thought that as time progresses to find value in day to day life, to force ourselves to choose the right thing, philosophy will again have to become a much stronger actor in our lives, or else we’d all drive off a cliff at current rate.
At the end what happens will be decided by choice and liberty of humans as their choices expand.
Step two is... sure, every pleb can now create art.
That devalues art. More than that, that makes for a "winner takes all" marketplace. So even fewer people than now benefit from it. More than that, guess who wins out: middlemen, the marketplace owners.
Read the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, especially the chapters about Extremistan and Mediocristan. Basically every time we invent something that scales and unlocks something for a great amount of people, we commoditize it and the quality of life for the average person in that field goes down while the leeches, pardon me, the middle men, are the only ones that become constantly rich, after the initial struggle to achieve market dominance (so when the market matures).
This allowed people in those crafts to be very rich.
Then came the evil leeches of middle men who brought cheap fine clothes for the masses and music in the hands of every broke college kid in his dorm room. So evil !
Get the sarcasm ? Calling ability for masses to do more things is somehow horrible is elitist, calling the people who make that possible leeches is just elitism in velvet glove.
As long as the majority gets more value in their daily life, world is better.
What are they doing other than consuming with extra bells and whistles tacked on to it? I'm sorry, but it's not art.
Sorry for being blunt, but you do not. You receive some music matching your request from a service offered by an entity which aims to control as much of content creation and distribution as possible, up to total monopolization.
> I’m not a musician... Now I can with $10-$15 / month.
If you want to create music, do it, it doesn't require much money. If you just want to listen, there's literally thousands of authors creating all kinds of authentic, sincere, daring, skillfully performed, carefully mixed music, giving it away for next to nothing and still striving to find their listeners.
What you pay for is avoiding the effort of finding what suits you.
When he received that song from me, he was super excited for next 3-5 days and still listens to it and flexes them to their friends.
Same thing happened with a lot of my other friends and me too, I have an apple shortcut script that generates songs for me daily based on my routine for that day pulled from todoist.com
I still listen to and pay for others music and songs, but this experience with AI is entirely different.
What I pay for is not avoiding effort of finding what suits me but creating what suits me.
> You receive some music matching your request from a service offered by an entity which aims to control as much of content creation and distribution as possible, up to total monopolization.
What I receive is a high fidelity song made from prompts that i’m given full ownership of , when pooled at scale between all users allows people to make their own song generators with GPUs.
Its very nature is the opposite of monopoly. I’d love to hear how you think the big 3 corps (Universal, Sony, etc) who own all the music almost globally are not a monopoly ? Never had an experience where your spotify or apple music streaming albums disappear randomly due to those big 3 corps ?
My friend’s song of himself will never disappear that mp3 file he can store on a pen drive, load ig anywhere, gift to anyone. How is that the “monopoly” ?
I can assure you, local generation is to become a fringe activity, same as self-hosting web services, only worse, because the quality gap (which in case of software is often negligible) will be insurmountable.
> I’d love to hear how you think the big 3 corps (Universal, Sony, etc) who own all the music almost globally are not a monopoly?
It's not a monopoly, it's a cartel. Luckily, they don't own everything, though, too much they do.
> no artist out there made a japanese song on my anime obsessed schoolteacher friend and his life.
Ok, what you describe is commissioning. Yeah, you can't argue with the fact it now can be done almost free and is becoming good enough for most, but you have to keep in mind, this process had been feeding a considerable amount of artists who do it to keep producing their art. Cutting this source of income is not wrong per se, but the consequences are the opposite of supporting the diversity and abundance in arts.
I made 5 songs about 5 different people in a week, with carefully crafted lyrics and tones described by me in the custom prompt, that led to 10 mp3 files of songs (suno generates 2 songs per prompt) Those songs are out there, it’s different, it’s not sloppy it’s actually quite enjoyable.
Now there is more diversity and abundance those songs wouldn’t have existed without AI and there are millions doing it like me out there, those artists who produce songs also have same tools as me, they can be better than me, faster, better, more albums now made by them, edit stuff to perfection, ideate and iterate faster. Who is stopping them ?
Tell me this song is trash and slop : https://suno.com/song/c36741d6-ec62-4922-86f9-6fd0b6f37497
This is in replacement of me and my friends listening to their same 20-40 artists who would be in billboards list each month.
Tell me it has hurt the abundance and diversity of songs out there, that it stopped someone from making their own thing or others listening to their songs, I listen to that song, it’s made by someone else with AI, I don’t mind, it’s awesome !
If you take any high quality AI content and ask their creator what their workflow is, you'll quickly discover that the complexity and nuance required to actually create something high-quality and something that actually "fulfills your vision" is incredibly complex.
Whether you measure quality through social media metrics, reach, or artistic metrics, like novelty or nuance, high quality content and art requires a good amount of skill and effort, regardless of the tool.
Standard reading for context: https://archive.org/details/Bazin_Andre_The_Ontology_of_Phot...
This comes off as so tone deaf seeing your AI artwork is only possible due to the millions of hours spent by real people who created the art used to train these models. Maybe it's easier to understand why people don't respect AI "artists" with this in mind.
Software Engineers bring their vision to life through the source code they input to produce software, systems, video games, ...
Theatre and opera are regarded as high art because they are performed live in front of an audience every time, demanding presence, skill, and immediacy – unlike cinema, which relies on a recorded and edited performance.
Right. Imo you have to be imagination handicapped to think that creative vision can be distilled to a prompt, let alone be the medium a creative vision lives in its natural medium. The exact relation between vision, artifact, process and art itself can be philosophically debated endlessly, but, to think artifacts are the only meaningful substrate at which art exists sounds like an dull and hollowed-out existence, like a Plato’s cave level confusion about what is the true meaning vs the representation. Or in a (horrible) analogy for my fellow programmers, confusing pointers to data with the data itself.
Photography increased the abstract and more creative aspects of painting and created a new style because photography removed much of the need to capture realism. Though, I am still entranced by realist painting style myself, it is serving different purpose than capturing a moment.
The guy in the third video looks like a dressed up Ewan McGregor, anyone else see that?
I guess we can welcome even more quality 5 second clips for Shorts and Instagram
https://www.figure.ai/ does not exist yet, at least not for the masses. Why are Meta and Google just building the next coder and not the next robot?
Its because those problem are at the bottom of the economic ladder. But they have the money for it and it would create so much abundance, it would crash the cost of living and free up human labor to imagine and do things more creatively than whatever Veo 4 can ever do.
In the forecast of the AI-2027 guys, robotics come after they've already created superintelligent AI, largely just because it's easier to create the relevant data for thinking than for moving in physical space.
Since Google seems super cagey about what their exact limits actually are, even for paying customers, it's hard to know if that's an error or not. If it's not an error, if it's intentional, I don't understand how that's at all worth $20 a month. I'm literally trying to use your product Google, why won't you let me?
IncreasePosts•4h ago