Really makes me wonder if any of this incredibly computationally expensive research is worth it, which seems only useful in potentially promising a future in which humans are given less opportunity to express themselves creatively - while delivering them an infinitely produceable amount of ai generated 'content' to passively consume
I'm wondering the same thing. 256 H100s were hot for two days straight to be able to make short clips of cartoons that almost don't look like shit?
It just isn't compelling to me.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've tried to understand where you're coming from with this and the only logical conclusion I can make is that you spend a lot of time engaging in debate about creativity and art as it relates to new AI technology, and you are simply re-igniting previous debates instead of engaging with me.
>It’s a really lame circular routine and lived experience being around my peers these days; oh I hate my job but this new thing is an abomination and affront to my chosen job.
It sounds like you're arguing with your peers, and not me, because I don't hate my job and I don't think AI is going to replace it any time soon.
>Are we that creative copy-pasting and git pull deps someone else maintains? IT is librarian work these days. Little in the day to day is novel creativity.
This isn't what I do at my day job, and if that's what you do... I think I have a good idea of why you interact with the internet like this.