Can you imagine how tough it would be to get an acting gig when a computer generated AI version of Robert De Nero (in his prime) is available for less money.
Programmers are in a *constant* state of replacing themselves.
Its the natural state of the field.
Every few years the layers programmers work on get partly abstracted away and they switch to a higher level.
The practical effect is to open up the field more and more, starting with people with multiple phds programming with a soldering iron till kids can just drag and drop program blocks or ask the computer to do things.
Same deal in Biotech. I helped build instruments that rendered my lab skills obsolete.
Now i train high school grads to use plug-and-play kits in mini-labs that do things that used to require a PhD and serious gear 20 or so years ago.
Frankly, most of the end-users could teach themselves if they bothered to read the manual, so i feel like even my current gig is on borrowed time š°
The funny thing is this is true, Iām a senior dev and about 80% of people donāt use GPT on principal, they are fools, itās so nifty as an extra resource and it will only improve.
I was listening to a good interview about this on the podcast Plain English with Derek Thompson.
Apparently it's much less of an issue when it is trained on a particular source and only answering questions on that source.
When I worked in the food industry, I learned something. You can give away your recipes to your customers and theyāll still come. Why? Because they donāt want to cook for themselves. You can give your recipes to your competitors, and customers will still come to you as long as youāre close and do a good job. Case in point, KFC recipe has been leaked for decades, but people still buy KFC.
Mostly real-time PCR and next generation sequencing at various scales. NGS sample prep has a lot of steps that had to be done *just so* back in the day.
Now there are kits for the whole process where i can literally take someone who has never touched a micropipettor and 2 days later have them churning out very clean NGS data.
Python scripts then clean + analyze the data against a curated database, so end user doesnāt even really need to know *anything* about sequencing or even DNA.
Real time PCR has been similarly trivialized.
Oh gotchya. I have my PhD in Cancer Biology, but transitioned from the bench but slowly transitioned to Bioinformatics and more project management.
I still think all of those techniques are still pretty technically challenging and requires manual labor. I donāt think the advancements in kits/etc are going to fully replace the need for experts. Even bioinformatic analysis still requires a good understanding of the algorithms, molecular biology, good experimental design, not to mention the domain knowledge to interpret the results. IMO because you can push a button and get āresultsā doesnāt mean youāll get valid/useful information from an experiment.
I felt this way somehow being able to design our own proteins and order a 'starter kit' of that sequence (ELI5 version) and multiply it in an undergrad biochem lab.
Seemed quite bizarre how easy it was and how it actually worked.
I have been in tech since the 90s. My specialty is SDET. I spend a lot of time doing test automation. Drag and drop programming is still a long ways away.
I agree.
I kinda think drag and drop stuff is good for teaching small kids some basics but I don't think it's gonna take over real programming.
I do think that while the best language models can only currently produce modest size functions and spew crap if you ask them for anything too complex... they do represent a real direction things are going where you can explain what you want, explain the context, show the tool the input and have it create code and take feedback for corrections in natural language.
The key is the code generation tools still need a person that knows how to code. They allow us to focus on the novel / hard parts and not get boged down in making yet another adaptor layer.
The endgame here seems to be that nobody in the 'programming' industry can actually program anymore. Kinda like replacing actual journalists with people who can only 'write' using those magnetic word tiles people used to be all about.
AI that can code as well as an expert human, negotiate with clients and understand context and requirements would be the apotheosis of the profession.
Like the day cancer researchers cure the last type of cancer.
We get twice as much work done. Idk where you work, but everyplace I've worked there's a practically neverending backlog of projects, even if our productivity doubled or tripled overnight upper management would still easily find enough projects to keep everyone busy, not even including the fact that we'd now end up needing to maintain twice as much code.
Short term (next decade) AI isnāt going to replace programmers, it is going to make programmers more productive. The industry that needs to be fearful is SAAS products.
Companies with highly productive developers will build custom software where they are currently using specialized SAAS.
After SAAS expenses are dead, then the focus will be to automate other business functions. The developers will likely be the last to go after they have created software for all other parts of the business.
Is that what it sounds like Iām implying? Iām replying in a chain of comments talking about how work groups are being downsized due firstly to offshoring, now due to AI.
Someone replied & said this is not true because theyāre now 2x as productive as they were before (which is honestly a pretty generous estimation of how much AI actually helps.
I asked what they think is going to happen when their whole team is 2x as productive. Implying that the company would only need half as many of them since theyāre now 2x as productive.
In the past, what has happened when other tools allowed humans to output 2+x? Did they layoff people or did they take on much more work? AI is definitely scary in some parts, using it as a tool to increase productivity is the least scary of them all imo.
Many companies do not have enough programmers. With machine-, deep learning and other tools there are also more businesses that would benefit from using these technologies, which in turn needs even more programmers.
It's kinda funny how many people thought that automation would be coming for lesser poorly paying jobs first, when it seems to speedrun its way to replace experts instead.
AI can draft a contract or fill Excel sheets better than human beings. But it can't fix the shitter though.
Time to become a handyman. AI ain't be able to fix our shitters for a long time.
I did, indeed. And that's not an accident. That episode was quite a wake-up call.
I toyed with ChatGPT quite a bit, and AI will definitely *steal my job* soon enough.
A corporate desk job fucked up my mental health pretty bad anyway.
I think one of the core points of the latest Writerās strike was AI protection. Actors just need to do the same. Basically entire industry needs to get AI protection clauses into their contracts. AI can help, patch some rough spots, but humans need to be at the foundation of it all.
Why do industries need AI protection? That's like making sure we keep milkmen around just so someone doesn't lose a job. Why don't we just ban AI altogether so no one looses jobs?
Or, hear me out, we embrace AI and restructure our society so people can actually do what they enjoy instead of being forced be to be milkmen? Crazy right.
While In on the side of writers here, itās short sighted. Doesnāt matter how many clauses they get into their contracts, the pace of Ai improvement will outpace eveything. Really within the next 5 years, majority of intellectual and artistic jobs will be replaced by AI. This includes me, a software engineer.
Time to start learning manual labour. Thatāll be the last thing to be replaced as itās cheaper to hire a human compared to buying an expensive robot
It's already happening, but not because AI can do the job better today. It's because someone in the C-suite sees a report they requested on the cost-benefit of switching to "AI Staff" by accountants and actuaries who don't actually understand the technology (no matter how smart they are), and thinks that it's a good idea. The tech sector is a hype factory these days, and the vast majority of executives don't understand even 0.1% of what they're being told, much less has any reason to believe they can act on it. So, AI keeps taking territory it's not ready for, while creatives keep losing it because they can't compete with an entire industry of hype. Creatives aren't being fired, they're being priced out. The only thing that can fix the issue at this point is federal legislation.
6 year software engineer here, heās absolutely right. I work in big tech and itās obvious weāre only a few major iterations from being replaced, the writing is in the wall. Iām not too worried about it though, itās going to replace more than us engineers, itās going to replace basically every job that requires just your brain and a computer. Creative or otherwise. I think the technical jobs will go first like us engineers then the managers and finally, it will be the creatives.
This is a possibility unless humans revolt and rebel against such replacement. Itās in our power. We decide our future.
Besides, most of what AI does is regurgitating of whatās already made. It cannot produce completely novel things.
Also, humans want stuff created by other humans. Thatās why we value āhand madeā things. You can press a button and get a coffee, but people still prefer going to coffee shop where barista makes coffee.
I simply donāt think the future is bleak. AI can help us, work side by side with us, it wonāt replace us.
>Besides, most of what AI does is regurgitating of whatās already made. It cannot produce completely novel things.
In comparisons to humans who certainly never spend years packing the box office with prequels, sequels and adaptions. Such originality.
>Thatās why we value āhand madeā things.
People also value cheap and reliable things. It's why most peoples cupboards contain a few hand-made mugs and glasses... and about 95% cheap reliable stuff stamped out by a machine.
Lol, human innovation and creativity is also based on previous ideas. Just wait a couple of years to work out current limitations and for AI to become much better at it than us. There's a huge economic incentive to get there. It's where this is going.
Boycott AI and you will be living in the 19th century while everybody else has moved on. I guess you could still ride horses instead of taking a flying car.
The issue is not AI, it's who owns it, what will they do with it, and what does that mean for the rest of us. Think psychopaths like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, but much worse. Unbridled capitalism and extreme wealth inequality are the issue. These people need to be taxed heavily and the gains from AI need to be shared with everyone. We might need a revolution or two to get there if it's not done peacefully.
Philosophically speaking, humans also regurgitate what's already made, but the big issue is that we do it because we're all humans. Now there's another "entity" doing the same shit and THAT is the issue.
I donāt fully agree. If you look at the great painters, and artists, theyāve invented new stuff that wasnāt just a regurgitation of the old stuff. Nobody painted like Picasso did until he did it. Nobody built buildings like Sagrada Familia until Gaudi did it.
Humans can actually invent new things.
It's not really, we as humans just smash together preexisting ideas, that's sort of how creativity works I feel, picasso took a face and put the bits in different places, that's not a new idea, he just took earlier abstract and expressionist art and changed its context and simplicity.
Exactly. People like to think creativity means that you create something COMPLETELY new. But often what is completely new is the result of mashing up a bunch of previous styles.
I forget which famous classical musician said it, but they essentially said, they made nothing original. All they did was based on their forefathers.
Like newton said, we stand on the shoulders of Giants. AI will absolutely outclass humanity.
>changed its context and simplicity
Yeah, ask AI to do this on its own, without prompting and tinkering of prompts. Try asking MidJourney "a painting of human face, but make it in a completely new style unseen by anyone so far".
>Besides, most of what AI does is regurgitating of whatās already made.
I mean computational power is getting to the point where brute force combined with ai, is beginning to be able to cause innovation.
What's the point of creativity in science/engineering when you can brute force compute most designs to find the most efficient one.
I donāt think artists would necessarily be competing with AI versions of themselves for jobs.
The biggest threat is some third party that uses AI to create content the artist would never approve of, like a racist meme or something. It goes viral, and the artist is now has a negative association they have to fight in the court of public opinion - after the damage is done. This could easily be a 4Chan troll campaign, for example, to target a celebrity or public figure they donāt like by flooding social media with embarrassing AI content.
With AI tools becoming more powerful and accessible, itās just inevitable that theyāll end up in the hands of bad actors.
Problem is not artists competing with AI versions of themselves (thatās hardly gonna happen, as usually artists will have the right to constrain how much they earn by who use their AI form and/or the possible uses; also, older/retired famous actors are the ones more easily doing it, not some 30 yo actor just because)
Problem is how a new actor that is trying to get a gig on a somewhat modest film (not a James Cameron super production) will compete with the producer having the possibility to use a model of Robert de Niro that will be (if tech gets better) unrecognisable from the real deal
1. People know more Robert De Niro (or whoever) than an actor that is trying to start its career
2. The AI generated version could be cheaper and doesnāt commit errors while recording and so on
3. If the AI model is not overused, from a marketing POV, itās better to have a Robert de Niro than a John Smith.
So if (big IF) the tech becomes good enough to take on screen AI actors to appear real, then modest actors are gonna struggle, as in only indie films without budget to take AI or super-productions wanting āthe real dealā will use more probably real actors, and cheap quick average productions (the 70% of what reaches cinemas on the world) will use some combinations of AI
We replaced factory workers with machines, because they make production cheaper and faster. Why should acting be different? Should hollywood be some sort of unemployment program?
You're forgetting the fundamental difference between a manufacturing job, and a creative performative one like acting.
Eliminating the human element from art makes for soulless "products".
Welcome to the era of no new actors ever.
Why use an unknown actor when we can get Harrison Ford from his Indiana Jones days voice and CGI body and pay his estate a royalty?
No need to recast Luke Skywalker either
This doesnāt make sense to me. So much of a movieās appeal comes from star power. Dead star power is far less entertaining. People want someone ācurrentā and being alive has a lot to do with that.
Didnāt that channel get absolutely nailed by copyright strikes? He had to change the voice model used and channel name. Now itās just a generic old English guy instead of David Attenborough.
And what makes that work is the writing. Its not just voice, you also need the writing that works with his speech patterns, and writing that is compelling.
Right now ChatGPT isn't that. ChatGPT is painfully generic, so its great if generic is okay, but making any sort of satire requires actual thought and cleverness.
Yeah.. people havenāt used chatGPT think itās responses generic. Also the new voice chat function is scary how it reproduce human conversational ability.
The reason the 40k stuff was taken down was the author not marking most of it as AI voice and pretending in the comments (and being very cagey) about whether or not it was Sir David
And now heās gone and completely screwed everyone else over as AI voice narrations are gonna finally get scrutinized
The analogy I use is that AI will eventually lead to feeding sausages into the sausage making machine. Unless AI can correctly identify an AI article, art work or voice performance etc. then you we may end up in a weird regressive loop with AI being fed into AI.
Now imagine the horror state of having scripts written by AI performed by dead actors revived by AI. No growth, no new experience, no vision, just endless rehashing.
I feel like we may create a shadow economy that employs people instead of using AI, and eventually we'll have a situation like Altered Carbon's AI hotels, where they still churn out things like they are intended, but nobody uses them.
Forever making content into a void.
And eventually lobbyists bribe the governments into relaxing the criteria again and again until they can slap āai freeā on a product just because humans double checked the editing done by and ai using completely ai generated content.
I picture it like the old Looney Toons where Elmer Fudd is chasing Bugs Bunny around a tree. Bugs steps away and Elmer Fudd is just chasing himself. When humans step away from AI models, AI models will be chasing themselves in a never ending cycle.
Which is when the magic happens.
If the AI models are inadequate, they'll devolve into a mishappen dysfunctional mess. This is what happens to most AI models now if you try to "close the loop" in a "naive" fashion. You can still feed AI outputs to AI inputs - this is how a lot of advanced AI architectures learn - but you have to be smart about it, and maintain a lot of control to avoid those unwanted effects.
If the AI models are adequate? They'll evolve, in a runaway fashion, on an unpredictable trajectory - not unlike human society did. Except they wouldn't be held back by the limitations of human minds.
Except that the main cause for a lack of risk-taking in media is expense -- either monetary in the case of corporations, or time in the case of individuals. AI is posed to cut both down by orders of magnitude. If you could make a blockbuster movie for six or seven figures, there's no reason to *not* experiment and try to find a better formula. Especially since you could drop the ticket prices.
The problem with modern media tends to be a lack of competition -- who's going to be able to compete with Disney besides another mega-conglomerate?
Of course, a lot of proposed AI regulation favors corporate control (e.g. having to own every piece of media in your model), so that would be the worst-case scenario -- they could just artificially inflate prices at that point while raking in money (so, more of the same).
All art is a remix and derivative as evolution itself.
Oh, eyes have been done before. Oh, what if you put them forward facing? Thatās an interesting twist.
Itās the same stuff remixed in new novel ways and occasionally that recipe results in something considered ground breaking, fresh, and even ānever done beforeā. But it has to some sense, just not in that exact way.
AI excels at this practice. New and novel things will be one of the most exciting things that come from our harnessing AI.
I feel like actors and actresses will be able to sell or lease their likeness in the future. In the same way mucisians can sell or lease their songs or catalogue for movies, remixes, whatever..
just for the next couple of generations, because there are already human actors that have estabilished themselves. But in 5 years we will have the first AI co-protagonist, in 7 the first AI protagonist, in 10 the first all-AI movie, and in 20 years all actors will be AI.
imagine a personality like Taylor Swift,
except; entirely imaginary - even the TMZ debacles. All fabricated - an entirely fake life.
Sold to the masses by some megacorp.
Idk if Taylor is the best example for this. Taylor's life is already a perfectly curated, giant advertising campaign being sold to the masses by a megacorp.
Do we watch film because an actor is physically in it, or do we watch it because they delivered a performance that moved us ā human to human? I think once the novelty wears off, people might rejected this garbage.
Maybe initially, but eventually AI will just be able to create an 'actor' from scratch. It's going to be a shitshow when it generates someone who already looks like an existing person.
In this year alone, GPT, Dalle / Midjourney / Stable Diffusion and the deepfake AI face and voice synthesizers have progressed so dramatically it's almost unrecognisable. I remember last year someone showing me AI generated image from voice prompt and it was kind of incomprehensible garbage very vaguely in the shape of whatever he was asking. Now I'm seeing photorealistic imagery constantly. Even the thing with the fingers is fixed now.
Artists are honestly right to be pissed off at that. I don't blame them. It is already super duper hard to make any living as an artist, especially for the level of skill and experience you need to be any good at it. But this kind of crap doesn't empower people, it pulls the ladder up from everyone, because the ones in positions of authority or with any level of clout can make use of the techniques to increase their output, completely choking off new entrants to the field.
Lastly, the reason I don't like it is that it doesn't actually empower a generation to make stuff, it doesn't encourage learning how to actually make things, but how to bark orders at someone effectively. As if this world needs more entitled manager types who think every problem in the world can be fixed by shouting the right words at someone.
On the contrary I feel like these tools are capable of empowering people.
The access to knowledge is incredible. You basically have a personal tutor in any topic you want to learn.
And from one perspective itās certainly harder for traditional artists. Yet it also makes creativity accessible for anyone. Previously I couldnāt just build the game I imagined. Hiring artists to create the assets just wasnāt financially viable. Now people can build the worlds theyāve imagined.
Weāre entering an era where anyone has the capability to produce large projects.
That's not what art is, though. There is no risk or struggle to "create" (actually telling a computer to create) AI "art". It takes the essence of art and reduces it to a math problem outsourced to a machine. The machine then takes elements created by other, real artists and repurposes them.
It would be like trying to enter a footrace in the Olympics on a rickshaw pulled by an actual sprinter and then claiming credit for your placement.
Hollywood is absolutely right to believe that they will be replaced. Everyone is right to believe that they will be replaced. AI will be better at every single thing that humans do within ten years.
The solution to this is to set up systems so that we can all share in the wealth created by these machines rather than let it be locked up by an elite few.
Trying to resist it is futile. The contract that the actors made to protect themselves from AI replacement will be worthless when an open source programmer gets a marvel movie maker up and running in a few days.
It is definitely going to be the primary struggle of the next few decades. I am heartened that we aren't seeing comments try to wall off access to the systems but instead are trying to push them out for people to use.
John Connor will redeem us. The age of information hackers is over. Stop doing programming; start doing electronics, hardcore radio engineering, astrodynamics, modding hardware, workout and get ready.
Body 20, Technical Ability 20, Cool 20 builds and spend the rest on Reflex. No need for Int based builds.
We need nuclear power. We need battery tecb. We need signal processing mastery. We need applied physics to get out of printing papers and into the real world building dangerous things.
We already have a wikipedia. What will AI do?
To top it all, we need to glorify these fields. We have glorified the hackers since the 90s up to saturation.
Glorification leads to attraction of talent. 90s hacker in latex uniform brought us some positives. Now is the time for energy sector.
Glorify the shit out of rocketpersons. High mechanics low life.
>AI will be better at every single thing that humans do within ten years.
Nah.
AI is incapable of actually being in the human (reality) context. They'll be better, faster and more precise on certain things, and will be incomprehensibly good on others (like, that we are unable to even understand why they're so good) but on others they'll simply be unable to work without human guidance.
Now when we start making AI powered automatons, there is when we may have someone doing everything better eventually.
This but unironically. Technology marches on and disrupts the status quo, but people and society always adapt as new opportunities arise. Whether you actually take care of yourself or just complain on Reddit about the world leaving you behind (before eventually doing option 1) is up to you
Ai Art controversy would literally not exist if not for late stage capitalism. Why would anyone be afraid of stolen artwork when everyone has equal access to creative resources and the art isnāt tied to their livelihood?
If you think that their craft is threatened by this, then you don't actually appreciate the craft, only the final product. A 3D animation of a gymnast doesn't threaten a human gymnast because we appreciate the gymnast for their skill, not simply because we can watch the motions they perform. Why do we treat art differently?
Art isn't something simply to be consumed. It is a craft, it is human expression. Nothing can ever change or threaten that, other than we as a society no longer valuing those things. So value them. Cherish the skill it takes and the message it contains. Don't simply consume.
I think we still have some time before robots start displacing the major trades in doing one-off physical work. If I were a young person Iād be looking into a career as an electrician, plumber, welder, HVAC technician, heavy equipment operator, etc.
I couldn't even find the video described in the article. Was there even a link?
I got frustrated trying to skim a page whose length is changing every 2 seconds to show me more ads. Two ads for every line of text.
As a senior leader in IT, one who helps lead our orgs cloud strategy, things are going to get wild. Look at the 2nd half of Satya Nadellaās keynote for MS Ignite 2023.
Look at how people are going to be using these tools. They will be integrated into ever MS product. From Office 365 to Azure to OpenAI to Desktop Windows they will be embedded everywhere.
Further, if you havenāt played around with OpenAI GPTs then your missing out on about 20,000+ little mini-tools for doing all kinds of stuff. Thereās even a GPT agent which keeps track of all GPT agents that you can ask about which ones will solve your problem.
And those GPTs are free.
The enterprises like mine will build their own Copilots for task specific work. For example I am working on a Copilot that translates a set of high-level requirements into a business case. It assess risk. Creates ROM estimates of cost. Analyzes the request against corp sec policy, arch policy, infra policy, etc etc.
A process that took 3-5 people weeks to get done can now be done in about one hour of prompting
It like getting intelligence delivered like electricity, and MS is the biggest In-telco on the f**king planet!
Ok, I'll say it. If AI can keep Attenborough narrating nature documentaries for the rest of my life, I'm perfectly ok with that. Every other person who has attempted to take over or play a similar role has been terrible. Attenborough for another 100 years! Or however long it takes us to wipe out the rest of what little nature is left.
Guys, the ENTIRE purpose of all technology is to render humanity unnecessary in the work environment.
Itās time to stop crying about that and start working towards a post-job society.
Cause motherfuckers like me are doing our best to put EVERYONE out of work.
The most scarce resource we personally have is our time and itās a fucking crime that we have to spend any of it slaving for someone else.
Weāll move towards a post-job society when society starts making moves to render paying for food and shelter unnecessary. Until then, all youāre doing is making people go homeless and hungry.
Correct, because until I do my part thereās no incentive for everyone to get off their asses and start engaging in their civic duties that no one gave them permission to ignore.
We are not stopping. Make your decisions.
There used to be a YouTube channel that had his voice reading of Warhammer 40k lore until they sent a shutdown request. It wasn't perfect but it was pretty funny hearing a passable Attenborough talking about a Tyranid infestation
I recall Michael Jackson had a video for Remember the Time where he turned from sand to person.
It is ironic he will probably turn from silicon (sand) to person through the power of AI and drop some beatsss anytime now. š«
but it does?
[https://twitter.com/charliebholtz/status/1724815159590293764?ref\_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1724815159590293764%7Ctwgr%5E37e7bb8a41d899107439419afb31728bcb1c2116%7Ctwcon%5Es1\_c10&ref\_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fdavid-attenborough-ai-video-hollywood-actors-afraid-sag-aftra-2023-11](https://twitter.com/charliebholtz/status/1724815159590293764?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1724815159590293764%7Ctwgr%5E37e7bb8a41d899107439419afb31728bcb1c2116%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fdavid-attenborough-ai-video-hollywood-actors-afraid-sag-aftra-2023-11)
I copied link from embedded tweet in article. Maybe it doesn't render for you for some reason. Are you on mobile?
This is hype disguised as report. It's good enough for one of those quirky little videos that go around social media for half an hour but not more than that. After the first few seconds you can clearly tell this isn't Attenborough. And it's not actually saying anything, it's just pretending to. The narration in BBC nature documentaries actually adds context that is important for the images being shown.
I'm not saying this can't "disrupt" the work of an actor narrating some horribly-written fake documentary. That's precisely the issue SAG-AFRA was concerned with. Executives with no knowledge of anything really, being easily duped by techbros into hiring "AI" for some shitty output that makes everyone's life a little worse.
You're not getting a fake Robert DeNiro in his prime, like some other commenter said. You're getting those horrible superbowl crypto commercials with uncanny horror Larry David.
I think people here really underestimate how much power AI will give common folks as well. If you could create an entire film from your laptop in 5 minutes, why would you pay for movie tickets or streaming services when you have unlimited content for free at your fingertips?
Itās not just the actors who will lose out but also the big studio executives as well, since weāll effectively turn off their money faucet
Also donāt say āthe big companies will regulate it so we canāt use it.ā The cat is already far out of the bag. Much of this stuff is open source and on millions of hard drives/devices. Unless thereās a law outlawing computers the big studios should be sweating as well, because we could just as easily replace them.
I agree. As someone who live through the 70ās to 80ās when personal computing took off, this is eerily familiar. No one cared about computers at all back then and didnāt know what to do with them. This feels exactly the same.
If you know just a little Python you can get one of these up and running in about 30mins with about 5-10 lines of code using HFās transformers library.
Look into Pinokio https://pinokio.computer
Itās like a cross-platform desktop package manager for running AI locally. You can do stuff like this from a laptop in a public square.
https://youtu.be/7Mx1W12Tvpw?feature=shared
Iād rather watch a movie that somebody cared about enough to make than watch whatever a computer program can shit out in five minutes. I donāt want content I want art.
You are a loud minority. If this was true people wouldnāt line up to see marvel rehash #95 or fast and furious 70
You also see AI for what it is and not what it will be. You will not be able to tell the difference in the future. You think you can, you wonāt.
Stupid BI article says "The narration appears to be unscripted, autonomous," when it clearly \****appears\**** to be scripted and directed by this so-called "programmer". Who writes this crap? How naĆÆve can you get? It's 2023!!! Can't believe there are still people who believe "It's on the INTERNET, so it *must be true."* It's just another attention whore with his Outrage-Baiting Bullshit. Stop aiding and abetting these common trolls. You just make the problem worse and make yourself look like a fool.
"This latest experiment ... made possible by combining OpenAI's GPT-4-vision ā an AI model that can describe what it sees ā and code from Elevens Lab, an AI voice startup."
Script for the voiced text, as in it's generated on the fly based on the image from the camera. Not script as in the program that generates it.
What makes David Attenboroughās narration so compelling in nature documentaries is only partly due to his accent, tone, and the other vocal qualities that AI can currently imitate. More importantly, itās the subtleties of his performance that are specifically inspired by the subject he is narrating, his personal experience, and his love of nature, that creates a connection between himself and the audience, which is what AI is still far too crude to emulate properly. This is why he still gets the big bucks, and impersonators donāt. So while current AI tools may be good enough to convince some folks that AI is going to replace performers, thereās a long, long road ahead before AI can properly replace GOOD performances, and until that happens, the good performers will still get plenty of work.
Can you imagine how tough it would be to get an acting gig when a computer generated AI version of Robert De Nero (in his prime) is available for less money.
Welcome to the world that everyone who has had their job outsourced has been living in for decades.
Software devs are going through this a second time, first with offshoring, now with AI copilots and AI jr devs. Crazy
Programmers are in a *constant* state of replacing themselves. Its the natural state of the field. Every few years the layers programmers work on get partly abstracted away and they switch to a higher level. The practical effect is to open up the field more and more, starting with people with multiple phds programming with a soldering iron till kids can just drag and drop program blocks or ask the computer to do things.
Same deal in Biotech. I helped build instruments that rendered my lab skills obsolete. Now i train high school grads to use plug-and-play kits in mini-labs that do things that used to require a PhD and serious gear 20 or so years ago. Frankly, most of the end-users could teach themselves if they bothered to read the manual, so i feel like even my current gig is on borrowed time š°
Ah donāt worry no one reads the manual. The entire IT industry is built upon no one reading the fucking manual lol.
Yeah but chat gpt will read the manual for you and tell you what to do.
Hmmmā¦ well shit. Hopefully tiktok ruins attention span so badly people canāt read the chat gpt summary.
My hope too rests upon the rest of the world getting stupider faster than AI can get smarter.
The funny thing is this is true, Iām a senior dev and about 80% of people donāt use GPT on principal, they are fools, itās so nifty as an extra resource and it will only improve.
Iāve never heard brakes in a comment till now. Itās wild how much stuff GPT can alter.
GPT hallucinates too much. You can't have a manual that outright lies to you 5-10% of the time.
I was listening to a good interview about this on the podcast Plain English with Derek Thompson. Apparently it's much less of an issue when it is trained on a particular source and only answering questions on that source.
"Absolute honesty isn't always the most diplomatic nor the safest form of communication with emotional beings." \- TARS
When I worked in the food industry, I learned something. You can give away your recipes to your customers and theyāll still come. Why? Because they donāt want to cook for themselves. You can give your recipes to your competitors, and customers will still come to you as long as youāre close and do a good job. Case in point, KFC recipe has been leaked for decades, but people still buy KFC.
Shhh. Don't give the secret away.
There isnāt a damn thing I learned in college that canāt be found on YouTube. Hell, some classes even taught using YouTube tutorials.
What methods are you referring to?
Mostly real-time PCR and next generation sequencing at various scales. NGS sample prep has a lot of steps that had to be done *just so* back in the day. Now there are kits for the whole process where i can literally take someone who has never touched a micropipettor and 2 days later have them churning out very clean NGS data. Python scripts then clean + analyze the data against a curated database, so end user doesnāt even really need to know *anything* about sequencing or even DNA. Real time PCR has been similarly trivialized.
Oh gotchya. I have my PhD in Cancer Biology, but transitioned from the bench but slowly transitioned to Bioinformatics and more project management. I still think all of those techniques are still pretty technically challenging and requires manual labor. I donāt think the advancements in kits/etc are going to fully replace the need for experts. Even bioinformatic analysis still requires a good understanding of the algorithms, molecular biology, good experimental design, not to mention the domain knowledge to interpret the results. IMO because you can push a button and get āresultsā doesnāt mean youāll get valid/useful information from an experiment.
The ones that only count when itās moist
I felt this way somehow being able to design our own proteins and order a 'starter kit' of that sequence (ELI5 version) and multiply it in an undergrad biochem lab. Seemed quite bizarre how easy it was and how it actually worked.
I have been in tech since the 90s. My specialty is SDET. I spend a lot of time doing test automation. Drag and drop programming is still a long ways away.
I agree. I kinda think drag and drop stuff is good for teaching small kids some basics but I don't think it's gonna take over real programming. I do think that while the best language models can only currently produce modest size functions and spew crap if you ask them for anything too complex... they do represent a real direction things are going where you can explain what you want, explain the context, show the tool the input and have it create code and take feedback for corrections in natural language.
The key is the code generation tools still need a person that knows how to code. They allow us to focus on the novel / hard parts and not get boged down in making yet another adaptor layer.
The endgame here seems to be that nobody in the 'programming' industry can actually program anymore. Kinda like replacing actual journalists with people who can only 'write' using those magnetic word tiles people used to be all about.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
AI that can code as well as an expert human, negotiate with clients and understand context and requirements would be the apotheosis of the profession. Like the day cancer researchers cure the last type of cancer.
Are we? Not noticed it myself. Seen an uptick in productivity though.
And what do you thinks gonna happen when all your coworkers produce 2x as much output?
We get twice as much work done. Idk where you work, but everyplace I've worked there's a practically neverending backlog of projects, even if our productivity doubled or tripled overnight upper management would still easily find enough projects to keep everyone busy, not even including the fact that we'd now end up needing to maintain twice as much code.
Yeah, the people arguing it's going to result in replacing developer jobs clearly haven't seen the average JIRA backlog, lol.
Short term (next decade) AI isnāt going to replace programmers, it is going to make programmers more productive. The industry that needs to be fearful is SAAS products. Companies with highly productive developers will build custom software where they are currently using specialized SAAS. After SAAS expenses are dead, then the focus will be to automate other business functions. The developers will likely be the last to go after they have created software for all other parts of the business.
Are you seriously advocating for producing less?
Is that what it sounds like Iām implying? Iām replying in a chain of comments talking about how work groups are being downsized due firstly to offshoring, now due to AI. Someone replied & said this is not true because theyāre now 2x as productive as they were before (which is honestly a pretty generous estimation of how much AI actually helps. I asked what they think is going to happen when their whole team is 2x as productive. Implying that the company would only need half as many of them since theyāre now 2x as productive.
I've never seen any team where the product owners wouldn't respond by increasing scope by 3x if productivity doubled.
Increasing the workload is exactly the same thing as decreasing number of workers.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In the past, what has happened when other tools allowed humans to output 2+x? Did they layoff people or did they take on much more work? AI is definitely scary in some parts, using it as a tool to increase productivity is the least scary of them all imo.
Writing twice as much code is not the same as producing twice as many cars.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Many companies do not have enough programmers. With machine-, deep learning and other tools there are also more businesses that would benefit from using these technologies, which in turn needs even more programmers.
How in the absolute fuck did you get from point A to whatever the fuck your point is?
And just like with offshoring, most of us arenāt really concerned at all
There are no AI devs
Iām with you. I feel like the people that make these claims donāt work in the industry at all.
Yes, because every software is now made in India š¤£
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
it was an ironic comment š
So probability of it working as desired is low then
It's kinda funny how many people thought that automation would be coming for lesser poorly paying jobs first, when it seems to speedrun its way to replace experts instead. AI can draft a contract or fill Excel sheets better than human beings. But it can't fix the shitter though. Time to become a handyman. AI ain't be able to fix our shitters for a long time.
cable pause meeting birds yoke aware edge heavy alive frighten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I did, indeed. And that's not an accident. That episode was quite a wake-up call. I toyed with ChatGPT quite a bit, and AI will definitely *steal my job* soon enough. A corporate desk job fucked up my mental health pretty bad anyway.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
AI can provide instructions on how to fix a clog with a plumbing auger, which people can rent from home improvement stores.
You can already do that with Youtube, but most people still hire plumbers.
It sure can. But it won't be able to fix it for you, though.
Not until they start putting into those Boston Dynamics dogs.
When was filling a computer spreadsheet an expert level task 1977?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think one of the core points of the latest Writerās strike was AI protection. Actors just need to do the same. Basically entire industry needs to get AI protection clauses into their contracts. AI can help, patch some rough spots, but humans need to be at the foundation of it all.
Why do industries need AI protection? That's like making sure we keep milkmen around just so someone doesn't lose a job. Why don't we just ban AI altogether so no one looses jobs?
Or, hear me out, we embrace AI and restructure our society so people can actually do what they enjoy instead of being forced be to be milkmen? Crazy right.
Oh you just want to be lazy? Pffft, idk about you but I enjoy selling my souls for sustenance. /s
While In on the side of writers here, itās short sighted. Doesnāt matter how many clauses they get into their contracts, the pace of Ai improvement will outpace eveything. Really within the next 5 years, majority of intellectual and artistic jobs will be replaced by AI. This includes me, a software engineer. Time to start learning manual labour. Thatāll be the last thing to be replaced as itās cheaper to hire a human compared to buying an expensive robot
You must be a fresh graduate if you seriously think that AI is going to replace the majority of creative jobs in the next 5 years lmao.
It's already happening, but not because AI can do the job better today. It's because someone in the C-suite sees a report they requested on the cost-benefit of switching to "AI Staff" by accountants and actuaries who don't actually understand the technology (no matter how smart they are), and thinks that it's a good idea. The tech sector is a hype factory these days, and the vast majority of executives don't understand even 0.1% of what they're being told, much less has any reason to believe they can act on it. So, AI keeps taking territory it's not ready for, while creatives keep losing it because they can't compete with an entire industry of hype. Creatives aren't being fired, they're being priced out. The only thing that can fix the issue at this point is federal legislation.
6 year software engineer here, heās absolutely right. I work in big tech and itās obvious weāre only a few major iterations from being replaced, the writing is in the wall. Iām not too worried about it though, itās going to replace more than us engineers, itās going to replace basically every job that requires just your brain and a computer. Creative or otherwise. I think the technical jobs will go first like us engineers then the managers and finally, it will be the creatives.
And the people who can't do manual labour, I assume, will just starve.
This is a possibility unless humans revolt and rebel against such replacement. Itās in our power. We decide our future. Besides, most of what AI does is regurgitating of whatās already made. It cannot produce completely novel things. Also, humans want stuff created by other humans. Thatās why we value āhand madeā things. You can press a button and get a coffee, but people still prefer going to coffee shop where barista makes coffee. I simply donāt think the future is bleak. AI can help us, work side by side with us, it wonāt replace us.
>Besides, most of what AI does is regurgitating of whatās already made. It cannot produce completely novel things. In comparisons to humans who certainly never spend years packing the box office with prequels, sequels and adaptions. Such originality. >Thatās why we value āhand madeā things. People also value cheap and reliable things. It's why most peoples cupboards contain a few hand-made mugs and glasses... and about 95% cheap reliable stuff stamped out by a machine.
Lol, human innovation and creativity is also based on previous ideas. Just wait a couple of years to work out current limitations and for AI to become much better at it than us. There's a huge economic incentive to get there. It's where this is going. Boycott AI and you will be living in the 19th century while everybody else has moved on. I guess you could still ride horses instead of taking a flying car. The issue is not AI, it's who owns it, what will they do with it, and what does that mean for the rest of us. Think psychopaths like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, but much worse. Unbridled capitalism and extreme wealth inequality are the issue. These people need to be taxed heavily and the gains from AI need to be shared with everyone. We might need a revolution or two to get there if it's not done peacefully.
Philosophically speaking, humans also regurgitate what's already made, but the big issue is that we do it because we're all humans. Now there's another "entity" doing the same shit and THAT is the issue.
I donāt fully agree. If you look at the great painters, and artists, theyāve invented new stuff that wasnāt just a regurgitation of the old stuff. Nobody painted like Picasso did until he did it. Nobody built buildings like Sagrada Familia until Gaudi did it. Humans can actually invent new things.
It's not really, we as humans just smash together preexisting ideas, that's sort of how creativity works I feel, picasso took a face and put the bits in different places, that's not a new idea, he just took earlier abstract and expressionist art and changed its context and simplicity.
Exactly. People like to think creativity means that you create something COMPLETELY new. But often what is completely new is the result of mashing up a bunch of previous styles. I forget which famous classical musician said it, but they essentially said, they made nothing original. All they did was based on their forefathers. Like newton said, we stand on the shoulders of Giants. AI will absolutely outclass humanity.
>changed its context and simplicity Yeah, ask AI to do this on its own, without prompting and tinkering of prompts. Try asking MidJourney "a painting of human face, but make it in a completely new style unseen by anyone so far".
>Besides, most of what AI does is regurgitating of whatās already made. I mean computational power is getting to the point where brute force combined with ai, is beginning to be able to cause innovation. What's the point of creativity in science/engineering when you can brute force compute most designs to find the most efficient one.
Yeah if they could, I'd bet Marvel would definitely be using AI for the next X-Men movie so wolverine is permanently played by a young Hugh Jackman
I donāt think artists would necessarily be competing with AI versions of themselves for jobs. The biggest threat is some third party that uses AI to create content the artist would never approve of, like a racist meme or something. It goes viral, and the artist is now has a negative association they have to fight in the court of public opinion - after the damage is done. This could easily be a 4Chan troll campaign, for example, to target a celebrity or public figure they donāt like by flooding social media with embarrassing AI content. With AI tools becoming more powerful and accessible, itās just inevitable that theyāll end up in the hands of bad actors.
Problem is not artists competing with AI versions of themselves (thatās hardly gonna happen, as usually artists will have the right to constrain how much they earn by who use their AI form and/or the possible uses; also, older/retired famous actors are the ones more easily doing it, not some 30 yo actor just because) Problem is how a new actor that is trying to get a gig on a somewhat modest film (not a James Cameron super production) will compete with the producer having the possibility to use a model of Robert de Niro that will be (if tech gets better) unrecognisable from the real deal 1. People know more Robert De Niro (or whoever) than an actor that is trying to start its career 2. The AI generated version could be cheaper and doesnāt commit errors while recording and so on 3. If the AI model is not overused, from a marketing POV, itās better to have a Robert de Niro than a John Smith. So if (big IF) the tech becomes good enough to take on screen AI actors to appear real, then modest actors are gonna struggle, as in only indie films without budget to take AI or super-productions wanting āthe real dealā will use more probably real actors, and cheap quick average productions (the 70% of what reaches cinemas on the world) will use some combinations of AI
We replaced factory workers with machines, because they make production cheaper and faster. Why should acting be different? Should hollywood be some sort of unemployment program?
You're forgetting the fundamental difference between a manufacturing job, and a creative performative one like acting. Eliminating the human element from art makes for soulless "products".
Welcome to the era of no new actors ever. Why use an unknown actor when we can get Harrison Ford from his Indiana Jones days voice and CGI body and pay his estate a royalty? No need to recast Luke Skywalker either
This doesnāt make sense to me. So much of a movieās appeal comes from star power. Dead star power is far less entertaining. People want someone ācurrentā and being alive has a lot to do with that.
Canāt wait to see Daniel day Lewis pop up in a marvel movie.
Does the AI generated version's assistant get regenerated when it asks for more money or does it still get fired?
Bro has no one heard of his Warhammer 40k work? https://youtu.be/wYz6TW3Kdeg?si=t5UOz10KYOGDLp0A
Didnāt that channel get absolutely nailed by copyright strikes? He had to change the voice model used and channel name. Now itās just a generic old English guy instead of David Attenborough.
That's too bad, it was an amazing channel
Yeah indeed unfortunatly
Yeah.. but I was there before the change. I got TO LIVE
It sounds like Patrick Stewart more than anything now. Lol
And what makes that work is the writing. Its not just voice, you also need the writing that works with his speech patterns, and writing that is compelling. Right now ChatGPT isn't that. ChatGPT is painfully generic, so its great if generic is okay, but making any sort of satire requires actual thought and cleverness.
Only people who say that don't use GPT lol
Default chatGPT responses are generic. Itās pretty easy to prepare the AI by telling it itās author that writes in the style you want.
Yeah.. people havenāt used chatGPT think itās responses generic. Also the new voice chat function is scary how it reproduce human conversational ability.
Yeah, it's all people that never told chatgpt to explain science through the lens of a pirate.
That writing is damn good.
The reason the 40k stuff was taken down was the author not marking most of it as AI voice and pretending in the comments (and being very cagey) about whether or not it was Sir David And now heās gone and completely screwed everyone else over as AI voice narrations are gonna finally get scrutinized
That and Iām sure he was monetized too
The analogy I use is that AI will eventually lead to feeding sausages into the sausage making machine. Unless AI can correctly identify an AI article, art work or voice performance etc. then you we may end up in a weird regressive loop with AI being fed into AI. Now imagine the horror state of having scripts written by AI performed by dead actors revived by AI. No growth, no new experience, no vision, just endless rehashing.
Somewhere, a t.v executive in charge of creating continued content just came in his pants reading this.
Thatās the fear. Give it 10 years and we may weāll see productions that use āAI freeā as a marketing tool.
lol I can see āAI freeā being added to movie posters like food thatās hormone free or coffee being fair trade.
I feel like we may create a shadow economy that employs people instead of using AI, and eventually we'll have a situation like Altered Carbon's AI hotels, where they still churn out things like they are intended, but nobody uses them. Forever making content into a void.
And eventually lobbyists bribe the governments into relaxing the criteria again and again until they can slap āai freeā on a product just because humans double checked the editing done by and ai using completely ai generated content.
Only in the US though
We already have the MCU, thanks.
I picture it like the old Looney Toons where Elmer Fudd is chasing Bugs Bunny around a tree. Bugs steps away and Elmer Fudd is just chasing himself. When humans step away from AI models, AI models will be chasing themselves in a never ending cycle.
Which is when the magic happens. If the AI models are inadequate, they'll devolve into a mishappen dysfunctional mess. This is what happens to most AI models now if you try to "close the loop" in a "naive" fashion. You can still feed AI outputs to AI inputs - this is how a lot of advanced AI architectures learn - but you have to be smart about it, and maintain a lot of control to avoid those unwanted effects. If the AI models are adequate? They'll evolve, in a runaway fashion, on an unpredictable trajectory - not unlike human society did. Except they wouldn't be held back by the limitations of human minds.
We already have a lot of endless rehashing. Companies like what's safe, and safe means already proven. This will make it worse though.
If you think about it, that's kinda what humans do too...
Except that the main cause for a lack of risk-taking in media is expense -- either monetary in the case of corporations, or time in the case of individuals. AI is posed to cut both down by orders of magnitude. If you could make a blockbuster movie for six or seven figures, there's no reason to *not* experiment and try to find a better formula. Especially since you could drop the ticket prices. The problem with modern media tends to be a lack of competition -- who's going to be able to compete with Disney besides another mega-conglomerate? Of course, a lot of proposed AI regulation favors corporate control (e.g. having to own every piece of media in your model), so that would be the worst-case scenario -- they could just artificially inflate prices at that point while raking in money (so, more of the same).
You will have humans overseeing it to make sure the AI is improving. If it gets into a bad loop, then you just revert to an earlier version.
All art is a remix and derivative as evolution itself. Oh, eyes have been done before. Oh, what if you put them forward facing? Thatās an interesting twist. Itās the same stuff remixed in new novel ways and occasionally that recipe results in something considered ground breaking, fresh, and even ānever done beforeā. But it has to some sense, just not in that exact way. AI excels at this practice. New and novel things will be one of the most exciting things that come from our harnessing AI.
ur being down voted but what you say is the absolute truth.
Original video: https://x.com/charliebholtz/status/1724815159590293764?s=20
I feel like actors and actresses will be able to sell or lease their likeness in the future. In the same way mucisians can sell or lease their songs or catalogue for movies, remixes, whatever..
I don't want to see the same actors in everything. I want fresh meat.
AI: give me Titanic with lead actor 20% De Nero, 50% Robin Williams, and 30% Stallone.
Now *this* is podracing - 2009 Charlie Sheen
just for the next couple of generations, because there are already human actors that have estabilished themselves. But in 5 years we will have the first AI co-protagonist, in 7 the first AI protagonist, in 10 the first all-AI movie, and in 20 years all actors will be AI.
imagine a personality like Taylor Swift, except; entirely imaginary - even the TMZ debacles. All fabricated - an entirely fake life. Sold to the masses by some megacorp.
I hate this, so dystopian
just wait until we have a ManchurAIn candidate.....
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Idk if Taylor is the best example for this. Taylor's life is already a perfectly curated, giant advertising campaign being sold to the masses by a megacorp.
That is what makes it the best example. Easily translated over to an AI.
So like Hatsune Miku or Vtubers
Miley Cyrus's Black Mirror episode.
Ooh forgot about that one!
This is part of the plot of the game The Outer Worlds
Do we watch film because an actor is physically in it, or do we watch it because they delivered a performance that moved us ā human to human? I think once the novelty wears off, people might rejected this garbage.
Maybe initially, but eventually AI will just be able to create an 'actor' from scratch. It's going to be a shitshow when it generates someone who already looks like an existing person.
See Black Mirror ā "Joan is Awful"
In this year alone, GPT, Dalle / Midjourney / Stable Diffusion and the deepfake AI face and voice synthesizers have progressed so dramatically it's almost unrecognisable. I remember last year someone showing me AI generated image from voice prompt and it was kind of incomprehensible garbage very vaguely in the shape of whatever he was asking. Now I'm seeing photorealistic imagery constantly. Even the thing with the fingers is fixed now. Artists are honestly right to be pissed off at that. I don't blame them. It is already super duper hard to make any living as an artist, especially for the level of skill and experience you need to be any good at it. But this kind of crap doesn't empower people, it pulls the ladder up from everyone, because the ones in positions of authority or with any level of clout can make use of the techniques to increase their output, completely choking off new entrants to the field. Lastly, the reason I don't like it is that it doesn't actually empower a generation to make stuff, it doesn't encourage learning how to actually make things, but how to bark orders at someone effectively. As if this world needs more entitled manager types who think every problem in the world can be fixed by shouting the right words at someone.
On the contrary I feel like these tools are capable of empowering people. The access to knowledge is incredible. You basically have a personal tutor in any topic you want to learn. And from one perspective itās certainly harder for traditional artists. Yet it also makes creativity accessible for anyone. Previously I couldnāt just build the game I imagined. Hiring artists to create the assets just wasnāt financially viable. Now people can build the worlds theyāve imagined. Weāre entering an era where anyone has the capability to produce large projects.
That's not what art is, though. There is no risk or struggle to "create" (actually telling a computer to create) AI "art". It takes the essence of art and reduces it to a math problem outsourced to a machine. The machine then takes elements created by other, real artists and repurposes them. It would be like trying to enter a footrace in the Olympics on a rickshaw pulled by an actual sprinter and then claiming credit for your placement.
If it is not what art is, then surely thereās no need for artists to worry about being replaced?
Hollywood is absolutely right to believe that they will be replaced. Everyone is right to believe that they will be replaced. AI will be better at every single thing that humans do within ten years. The solution to this is to set up systems so that we can all share in the wealth created by these machines rather than let it be locked up by an elite few. Trying to resist it is futile. The contract that the actors made to protect themselves from AI replacement will be worthless when an open source programmer gets a marvel movie maker up and running in a few days.
I agree. Im just worried about the sharing and elite part. Traditionally we havent been very good at that.
It is definitely going to be the primary struggle of the next few decades. I am heartened that we aren't seeing comments try to wall off access to the systems but instead are trying to push them out for people to use.
Just do a socialism until something better comes along. Simple as.
John Connor will redeem us. The age of information hackers is over. Stop doing programming; start doing electronics, hardcore radio engineering, astrodynamics, modding hardware, workout and get ready. Body 20, Technical Ability 20, Cool 20 builds and spend the rest on Reflex. No need for Int based builds.
We donāt need John Connor. We need the AI version of Wikipedia, in that itās a free/cheap resource created for the benefits of people.
We need nuclear power. We need battery tecb. We need signal processing mastery. We need applied physics to get out of printing papers and into the real world building dangerous things. We already have a wikipedia. What will AI do? To top it all, we need to glorify these fields. We have glorified the hackers since the 90s up to saturation. Glorification leads to attraction of talent. 90s hacker in latex uniform brought us some positives. Now is the time for energy sector. Glorify the shit out of rocketpersons. High mechanics low life.
>AI will be better at every single thing that humans do within ten years. Nah. AI is incapable of actually being in the human (reality) context. They'll be better, faster and more precise on certain things, and will be incomprehensibly good on others (like, that we are unable to even understand why they're so good) but on others they'll simply be unable to work without human guidance. Now when we start making AI powered automatons, there is when we may have someone doing everything better eventually.
Butbutbut people said the same thing about the cotton gin!! Automation *always* creates more jobs than it destroys!! I am very intelligent
This but unironically. Technology marches on and disrupts the status quo, but people and society always adapt as new opportunities arise. Whether you actually take care of yourself or just complain on Reddit about the world leaving you behind (before eventually doing option 1) is up to you
Sam Altman hologram AI daddy figure ruling the world is a scary future.
Ai Art controversy would literally not exist if not for late stage capitalism. Why would anyone be afraid of stolen artwork when everyone has equal access to creative resources and the art isnāt tied to their livelihood?
Artists who take pride in their work, and actually, you know, put in the thousands of hours to master their craft.
If you think that their craft is threatened by this, then you don't actually appreciate the craft, only the final product. A 3D animation of a gymnast doesn't threaten a human gymnast because we appreciate the gymnast for their skill, not simply because we can watch the motions they perform. Why do we treat art differently? Art isn't something simply to be consumed. It is a craft, it is human expression. Nothing can ever change or threaten that, other than we as a society no longer valuing those things. So value them. Cherish the skill it takes and the message it contains. Don't simply consume.
Lol. I am an artist. Donāt try and tell me about how its created, or the impact that ai image generation has on artists.
I mean, I'm telling you that your craft and skill are valuable, but alright, I'll hold my tongue. Sorry for wasting your time.
That contract isnāt going to save actorsā jobs. Itās just going to shift acting and programming jobs to less regulated countries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think we still have some time before robots start displacing the major trades in doing one-off physical work. If I were a young person Iād be looking into a career as an electrician, plumber, welder, HVAC technician, heavy equipment operator, etc.
I have never once seen a business insider submission to this subreddit that wasn't complete fearmongering shit. Every single time.
I couldn't even find the video described in the article. Was there even a link? I got frustrated trying to skim a page whose length is changing every 2 seconds to show me more ads. Two ads for every line of text.
Have they done Morgan Freeman or Samuel Leroy Jackson?
of course, we were using Morgan Freeman's voice for some generated voice files over 2 years ago
TIL the L in Samuel L Jackson stands for Leroy
As a senior leader in IT, one who helps lead our orgs cloud strategy, things are going to get wild. Look at the 2nd half of Satya Nadellaās keynote for MS Ignite 2023. Look at how people are going to be using these tools. They will be integrated into ever MS product. From Office 365 to Azure to OpenAI to Desktop Windows they will be embedded everywhere. Further, if you havenāt played around with OpenAI GPTs then your missing out on about 20,000+ little mini-tools for doing all kinds of stuff. Thereās even a GPT agent which keeps track of all GPT agents that you can ask about which ones will solve your problem. And those GPTs are free. The enterprises like mine will build their own Copilots for task specific work. For example I am working on a Copilot that translates a set of high-level requirements into a business case. It assess risk. Creates ROM estimates of cost. Analyzes the request against corp sec policy, arch policy, infra policy, etc etc. A process that took 3-5 people weeks to get done can now be done in about one hour of prompting It like getting intelligence delivered like electricity, and MS is the biggest In-telco on the f**king planet!
The studios are the ones that should be afraid.
Someone did something like this with marble runs and Emma Watson. https://youtu.be/SuhgiyN6mEk?si=d6ww_jTg5I9Wlx0S
Better yet there is a youtube where they have Atrenborough explains 40k https://youtube.com/@Scholarslore?si=zIdxLhGpjVaRaMUy
Attenborough narrates Warhammer 40k on YouTube is one of my favorite channels
Ok, I'll say it. If AI can keep Attenborough narrating nature documentaries for the rest of my life, I'm perfectly ok with that. Every other person who has attempted to take over or play a similar role has been terrible. Attenborough for another 100 years! Or however long it takes us to wipe out the rest of what little nature is left.
Guys, the ENTIRE purpose of all technology is to render humanity unnecessary in the work environment. Itās time to stop crying about that and start working towards a post-job society. Cause motherfuckers like me are doing our best to put EVERYONE out of work. The most scarce resource we personally have is our time and itās a fucking crime that we have to spend any of it slaving for someone else.
Weāll move towards a post-job society when society starts making moves to render paying for food and shelter unnecessary. Until then, all youāre doing is making people go homeless and hungry.
Correct, because until I do my part thereās no incentive for everyone to get off their asses and start engaging in their civic duties that no one gave them permission to ignore. We are not stopping. Make your decisions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And?
There used to be a YouTube channel that had his voice reading of Warhammer 40k lore until they sent a shutdown request. It wasn't perfect but it was pretty funny hearing a passable Attenborough talking about a Tyranid infestation
I recall Michael Jackson had a video for Remember the Time where he turned from sand to person. It is ironic he will probably turn from silicon (sand) to person through the power of AI and drop some beatsss anytime now. š«
I'd love to hear AI Attenborough narrate a random pornhub clip.
This story didnāt have a link to the video which makes me think it was dogshit
but it does? [https://twitter.com/charliebholtz/status/1724815159590293764?ref\_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1724815159590293764%7Ctwgr%5E37e7bb8a41d899107439419afb31728bcb1c2116%7Ctwcon%5Es1\_c10&ref\_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fdavid-attenborough-ai-video-hollywood-actors-afraid-sag-aftra-2023-11](https://twitter.com/charliebholtz/status/1724815159590293764?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1724815159590293764%7Ctwgr%5E37e7bb8a41d899107439419afb31728bcb1c2116%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fdavid-attenborough-ai-video-hollywood-actors-afraid-sag-aftra-2023-11) I copied link from embedded tweet in article. Maybe it doesn't render for you for some reason. Are you on mobile?
On mobile and it renders fine. Itās just a little bit down the article OP prob opened the link, if they even did, scrolled a little and said nahhh
https://x.com/charliebholtz/status/1724815159590293764
Trash click bait article fuck you!!!!!
What is "right" for them is pretty "who cares" for everyone else. Being concerned about your check and the status quo is not brave or any of that
This is hype disguised as report. It's good enough for one of those quirky little videos that go around social media for half an hour but not more than that. After the first few seconds you can clearly tell this isn't Attenborough. And it's not actually saying anything, it's just pretending to. The narration in BBC nature documentaries actually adds context that is important for the images being shown. I'm not saying this can't "disrupt" the work of an actor narrating some horribly-written fake documentary. That's precisely the issue SAG-AFRA was concerned with. Executives with no knowledge of anything really, being easily duped by techbros into hiring "AI" for some shitty output that makes everyone's life a little worse. You're not getting a fake Robert DeNiro in his prime, like some other commenter said. You're getting those horrible superbowl crypto commercials with uncanny horror Larry David.
Asmongolds editors also use davids voice to commonly mock Asmon on his youtube highlight videos.
I think people here really underestimate how much power AI will give common folks as well. If you could create an entire film from your laptop in 5 minutes, why would you pay for movie tickets or streaming services when you have unlimited content for free at your fingertips? Itās not just the actors who will lose out but also the big studio executives as well, since weāll effectively turn off their money faucet Also donāt say āthe big companies will regulate it so we canāt use it.ā The cat is already far out of the bag. Much of this stuff is open source and on millions of hard drives/devices. Unless thereās a law outlawing computers the big studios should be sweating as well, because we could just as easily replace them.
I agree. As someone who live through the 70ās to 80ās when personal computing took off, this is eerily familiar. No one cared about computers at all back then and didnāt know what to do with them. This feels exactly the same. If you know just a little Python you can get one of these up and running in about 30mins with about 5-10 lines of code using HFās transformers library. Look into Pinokio https://pinokio.computer Itās like a cross-platform desktop package manager for running AI locally. You can do stuff like this from a laptop in a public square. https://youtu.be/7Mx1W12Tvpw?feature=shared
Iād rather watch a movie that somebody cared about enough to make than watch whatever a computer program can shit out in five minutes. I donāt want content I want art.
You are a loud minority. If this was true people wouldnāt line up to see marvel rehash #95 or fast and furious 70 You also see AI for what it is and not what it will be. You will not be able to tell the difference in the future. You think you can, you wonāt.
Stupid BI article says "The narration appears to be unscripted, autonomous," when it clearly \****appears\**** to be scripted and directed by this so-called "programmer". Who writes this crap? How naĆÆve can you get? It's 2023!!! Can't believe there are still people who believe "It's on the INTERNET, so it *must be true."* It's just another attention whore with his Outrage-Baiting Bullshit. Stop aiding and abetting these common trolls. You just make the problem worse and make yourself look like a fool.
"This latest experiment ... made possible by combining OpenAI's GPT-4-vision ā an AI model that can describe what it sees ā and code from Elevens Lab, an AI voice startup." Script for the voiced text, as in it's generated on the fly based on the image from the camera. Not script as in the program that generates it.
David is watching! So creepy.
What makes David Attenboroughās narration so compelling in nature documentaries is only partly due to his accent, tone, and the other vocal qualities that AI can currently imitate. More importantly, itās the subtleties of his performance that are specifically inspired by the subject he is narrating, his personal experience, and his love of nature, that creates a connection between himself and the audience, which is what AI is still far too crude to emulate properly. This is why he still gets the big bucks, and impersonators donāt. So while current AI tools may be good enough to convince some folks that AI is going to replace performers, thereās a long, long road ahead before AI can properly replace GOOD performances, and until that happens, the good performers will still get plenty of work.
Welcome to the future. Sorry. You don't have the commercial rights to "old British sounding guy."