People that don't understand this is best to explain to with AI music.
AI music appears to be reasonable music, but it carries no human emotion, it has no intent to exist and stand up on its own.
That's key to explain when it comes to writing or anything. AI assisted anything, sure, maybe, but AI for creative purposes is bland and ultimately poisons the well.
No one really wants to go see an AI movie at the cinema, except maybe to say that I tried an AI movie as a novelty item, like scented movie screening.
Well said. There is a social context, there is a process and a struggle that can be more important than the result. It is sad to reduce art to the final product, or to approach it with an industrial mindset: maximizing commercial value while minimizing effort.
I can't agree. Or, part of me wants to, but I know that the Powers That Be will push AI generated propaganda music pretend to be grassroots / "someone just like you", and / but pay to have it promoted.
Avoid streaming services if you want to listen to political music. Go for live music and connect with humans, or at the very least just be among them and listen to them live. They may still be government plants but the chances are much lower.
And yet many people listen to AI music, some examples on HN even [0], one of the main reasons being it can create songs tuned to very specific niches that cannot normally be found much. I also have found very entertaining videos and content made with AI, such as Pokemon "nature documentaries" [1] and I imagine people in the future will want to see an AI movie if it appeals to them, because it's content that would otherwise be too time consuming or unprofitable to create without AI.
That is to say, it is unwise to dismiss what the mass populace will do simply because it doesn't meet one's internal threshold of quality; many don't give a shit about quality.
I can hardly imagine anything more unappealing that watching AI slop "nature documentaries". It's truly inconceivable to me to look at things from the prism you are looking.
That's my point, you find it unappealing yet that genre has millions upon millions of views, so clearly some people do find it enjoyable, if only to see on a screen in high detail the types of pocket monsters they imagined in their minds as a kid, and maybe you don't have such a fascination so I can see why you can't conceive of the notion that others do.
My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doesn't make it go away, and sticking one's head in the sand about how "no one" would like AI generated content is a fool's errand when I can already see that maybe 5 or 10 years in a future there will be a blockbuster hit that's fully made with AI, and in the decades after that, no one will bat an eye at AI usage, much as they don't about CGI these days, even though directors from the golden age of cinema would find our modern movies as inconceivable as you do today with AI.
The links you gave have 500-3000 views each. I'm not sure that, even with trillions of dollars being poured into it my the marvel that is the financial system of the 2020s, that it will ever be able to manufacture enough demand for it to ever get to the point you describe.
> My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doesn't make it go away, and sticking one's head in the sand about how "no one" would like AI generated
Possibly AI overuse has already thinned your faculties because I very explicitly said I personally don't find it appealing. That fact does change based on whether those videos have 500 views or 5 million.
First, I said the genre, not the specific channel I gave as an example. Second, sorting by most popular shows hundreds of thousands of views, for this one channel alone. Third, maybe you shouldn't be accusing others of having thinned mental faculties when you are not understanding the point I made in the first place. It doesn't matter what you do or do not find personally appealing in this thread.
My bad, I thought this discussion forum was a discussion forum. If I can't discuss what I personally think what is this post even for? Why should I care what George Orwell personally thinks? Who is even that guy compared to the wisdom of the financial system or to faked youtube views on some channel?
Always makes me laugh when you get some dimwit that claims the Earth is flat, but then uses Google maps in his car. Magic!
GPS are amazing. If you understand how they work, and how they reliably know the time etc. you'd think you live in the future; and yet it's everywhere, in our pockets.
The supply of actual people that think the earth is flat and aren’t trolling far exceeds the supply of people that want to mock a group that largely doesn’t really exist.
There are a couple of dozen of people that seriously think the earth is flat, and a billion people ready to mock them for it.
ITT we've never been around fundimentalist christians or other sorts of easily manipulated counter-culture types
it's more than a couple dozen people.
i'll concede the point that its far, far fewer than those who feel otherwise, and that they like to hate on each other, but the idea that this is tiny and growing smaller is just not true. the surge in homeschooling, for example, would suggest otherwise...
Science illiteracy looks less like someone vocally exposing that the world is flat, and more like someone who has never considered the topology of the earth from a perspective other than their own eyes.
Yes but the math (which happens in the receiver, so can be replicated by a user with an open source receiver) would be very different. You actually wind up with a 3D position relative to the Earth's center, which then needs to be mathematically mapped to lat/lon - that's what the WGS84 datum is for.
All of which is irrelevant to GPS users. I can't remember the last time I checked the math that my GPS was performing, to be sure it was mapping to a rough sphere.
I worked on a system to do train positioning for the NYC subway system using Ultra Wideband radio beacons using the same sort of multilateration that GPS uses to determine position, so it was basically a flat system (obviously not fully flat, elevations still existed, but the UWB radios were roughly on the same plane as the train tracks at least compared to satellites).
...but at the end of the day the ECEF coordinates we used for everything still require a roughly spherical earth, but I don't think flat earthism is a real thing for most people who talk about it. Most of it is joking/trolling. There are surely some conspiracy-minded people who believe it because they don't give any serious thought to how anything works, but the people that publicly push alternate theories (eg. GPS is balloons, not satellites) have got to just be trolls.
That is seriously the logic behind a (very intelligent, well-educated) climate change denier I know: "The stations are in cities, which are locally heating up, and the remote sensor data is being faked."
Yeah, I worked at a company with a Windows application dating from the early 1990s - I suspect it was a case of them needing to move off some ancient hardware and software and Linux was in its infancy and Unix was probably still quite expensive.
Frustrating that the experience changes, and then they retire the better older model because it costs more, although it was better for everyone. The new ones are just geared better towards beating the benchmarks at a cheaper cost!
reply