As a filmmaker, my friends and I are getting more and more done as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAAiiKteM-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqoCWdOwr2U
As long as humans are driving, I see AI as an exoskeleton for productivity:
https://github.com/storytold/artcraft (this is what I'm making)
It's been tremendously useful for me, and I've never been so excited about the future. The 2010's and 2020's of cellphone incrementalism and social media platformization of the web was depressing. These models and techniques are actually amazing, and you can apply these techniques to so many problems.
I genuinely want robots. I want my internet to be filtered by an agent that works for me. I want to be able to leverage Hollywood grade VFX and make shows and transform my likeness for real time improv.
Apart from all the other madness in the world, this is the one thing that has been a dream come true.
As long as these systems aren't owned by massive monopolies, we can disrupt the large companies of the world and make our own place. No more nepotism in Hollywood, no more working as a cog in the labyrinth of some SaaS company - you can make your own way.
There's financial capital and there's labor capital. AI is a force multiplier for labor capital.
While i certainly respect your interactivity and subsequent force multiplayer nature of AI, this doesn't mean you should try to emulate an already given piece of work. You'll certainly gain a small dopamine when you successfully copy something but it would also atrophy your critical skills and paralyze you from making any sort of original art. You'll miss out on discovering the feeling of any frontier work that you can truly call your own.
Claims of productive boosts must always be inspected very carefully, as they are often perceived, and reality may be the opposite (eg spending more time wrestling the tools), or creating unmaintainable debt, or making someone else spend extra time to review the PR and make 50 comments.
There's no chatbot. You can use image-to-image, ControlNets, LoRAs, IPAdapters, inpainting, outpainting, workflows, and a lot of other techniques and tools to mold images as if they were clay.
I use a lot of 3D blocking with autoregressive editing models to essentially control for scene composition, pose, blocking, camera focal length, etc.
Here's a really old example of what that looks like (the models are a lot better at this now) :
for an 2011 account that's a shockingly naive take
yes, AI is a labor capital multiplier. and the multiplicand is zero
hint: soon you'll be competing not with humans without AI, but with AIs using AIs
"OK, so I lost my job, but even adjusting for that, I can launch so many more unfinished side-projects per hour now!"
But to be more in the spirit of your comment, if you've used these systems at all, you know how many constraints you bump into on an almost minute to minute basis. These are not magical systems and they have plenty of flaws.
Real creativity is connecting these weird, novel things together into something nobody's ever seen before. Working in new ways that are unproven and completely novel.
[1] https://www.russiabeyond.com/arts/327147-10-best-soviet-bus-...
It's ostensibly doing things you asked it, but in terms dictated by its owner.
and it's even worse than that: you're literally training your replacement by using it when it re-transmits what you're accepting/discarding
and you're even paying them to replace you
Do you know anything about "Hollywood grade VFX" ? Have you ever worked for any company that does it?
No more nepotism in Hollywood
Do you think "Hollywood VFX" is full of nepotism?
True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people".
Saying that the tools make mistakes is correct. Saying that (like people) they can never be trained and deployed such that the mistakes are tolerable is an awfully tall order.
History is paved with people who got steamrollered by technology they didn't think would ever work. On a practical level AI seems very median in that sense. It's notable only because it's... kinda creepy, I guess.
Incorrect. People are capable of learning by observation, introspection, and reasoning. LLMs can only be trained by rote example.
Hallucinations are, in fact, an unavoidable property of the technology - something which is not true for people. [0]
Also, you don't know very many people, including yourself, if you think that confabulation and self-deception aren't integral parts of our core psychological makeup. LLMs work so well because they inherit not just our logical thinking patterns, but our faults and fallacies.
it's not a person, it doesn't hallucinate or have imagination
it's simply unreliable software, riddled with bugs
It is, though. We have numerous studies on why hallucinations are central to the architecture, and numerous case studies by companies who have tried putting them in control loops! We have about 4 years of examples of bad things happening because the trigger was given to an LLM.
And we have tens of thousands of years of shared experience of "People Were Wrong and Fucked Shit Up". What's your point?
Again, my point isn't that LLMs are infallible; it's that they only need to be better than their competition, and their competition sucks.
But human systems that don't fuck shit up are short-lived, rare, and fragile, and they've only become a potential - not a reality - in the last century or so.
The rest of history is mostly just endless horrors, with occasional tentative moments of useful insight.
I mean, I think you have not put much thought into your theory.
After you eliminate anything that requires accountability and trustworthiness from the tasks which LLMs may be responsibly used for, the most obvious remaining use-cases are those built around lying:
- advertising
- astroturfing
- other forms of botting
- scamming old people out of their money