I was not expecting this amount of hate over this video when I clicked on this post. The video is… normal? I don’t see issues? This whole thread seems oddly anti-military, anti-tech, and anti-Mark Rober. Like, what, is this tech going to be used to murder children more effectively than bombing a school? Even if it is, why is Mark Rober at fault and actually a phony who’s just shelling out for fame/cash? I’m genuinely curious what I’m missing here.

No different than someone calling a janitor a “sanitation engineer”. Fancy titles make people happy.

“sanitation engineer”

It’s commendable to be good at something that requires a lot of effort. Making a hut with your bare hands is a lot more impressive than making a hut with all the construction tools of the modern day at your disposal. However, so what? I’d still rather have a house made with modern tools because it’s cheaper and more efficient for everybody involved.

People dismiss AI art because they (correctly) see that it requires zero skill to make compared to actual art, and it has all the novelty of a block of Velveeta.

I look at art because I find it pretty, not because someone toiled over it for hours on end. Sure, I respect the artist who made it and think their effort commendable, certainly worth a sum of money, but if something is made such that the art of the craft requires less skill and time surely that is a good thing?

Novelty of the tool doesn’t matter. What’s new changes daily, and the point of a tool is not to be new but to be useful.
If you mean the art itself that is generated being samey or problematic in that sense of non-uniqueness, I disagree wholeheartedly. You can do a lot with learning models, and the sameness people perceive is from inexperienced novices dipping their hands in and flooding the ecosystem with beginner works, in much the same way DeviantArt was once flooded with drawings on the level of stick figures and box people.

If AI is no more a tool than Photoshop, go and make something in GIMP, or photoshop, or any of the dozens of drawing/art programs, from scratch. I’ll wait.

A hammer is a tool, and so is an electric jackhammer. You don’t tell a construction worker to go use a hammer when an electric jackhammer gets the job done far better and far more efficiently, and not everyone is suited to using a hammer just as not everyone is suited to using an electric jackhammer. They also have different purposes, but certainly the electric jackhammer did replace some of the uses the hammer once had, but it doesn’t make the hammer obsolete. I view learning models that generate art in the same manner as an electric jackhammer. Useful and powerful, but ultimately lacking in refinement and the work will certainly need other tools to finish the job.

This phrase of yours just doesn’t mean much. I don’t see how making something in GIMP proves anything for anyone?

Humans certainly don’t make new things out of nothing. They also take from different sources and combine them together to make something new, whether that’s direct inspiration or on a more abstract level through the brain.

Learning models aren’t generating art any more than GIMP or Photoshop is. It’s the person behind the tool that makes the art, not the tool. There’s certainly an art to prompt smithing.

I feel like a lot of people dismiss generated art simply because it’s new (and because as a byproduct is spits out dozens of junk pieces before getting anywhere good). I don’t see how it’s that different from someone using photo-editing software built with dozens of algorithms instead of a ‘pure’ drawing pad, or someone using a drawing pad instead of a pencil, or someone using a pencil instead of chalk. It’s a tool, and a great one at that in comparison to many digital tools for artists.

Yeah, this is just people misapplying the AI tools we are given. They’re not close to General AI, you certainly can’t expect them to do all the work for you yet.

On the note of traffic, I still browse Reddit because it has niche communities that I want to interact with. However, I don’t comment, post, or even up/downvote anymore. My interaction is now purely browsing, and I imagine it may be similar for other once-power users.

1. The video’s comment section on its native site is… interesting.
2. I don’t trust this guy. It feels like he’s just slinging things at the wall that most people could intuit without any research. Yes, sometimes things backfire when you try to stifle them. Sometimes, however, the stifling works (otherwise dictators would have a much harder time ruling). That’s just the way things go.
3. I’ma need some actual data to back up Youtube’s anti-adblocker experiment succeeding/failing. People are so quick to jump on the ‘it failed’ or ‘it succeeded’ bandwagon but the truth is we simply don’t know the result yet, and may not for a long while.
4. This could’ve been an email. This guy’s delivery is sprawling and lacks conciseness.

Well, the rate passwords can be tested at now may not always be the rate passwords can be tested at later. Computers were, at one point, growing exponentially faster in terms of processing power. There are still several emerging technologies out there that could cause significant speed-ups.

It’s certainly better to future-proof your passwords.

Youtube had a space devoid of competition. The next guy doesn’t. If the next guy wants to compete, they have to have all the features of Youtube or people will complain. Many of Youtube’s current features cost money and weren’t present when Youtube started.

The space is also more regulated now that Youtube exists, meaning the new guy has to follow regulations which normally costs money. When Youtube started, those regulations didn’t exist, because Youtube didn’t exist.

Youtube got big by building a city in an open field surrounded by nothing but open fields. The next guy has to build a city directly next to Youtube, follow all the same laws as Youtube, and ask you not to drive into Youtube.

There’s a very high chance Musk still has the rights to that trademark, unfortunately.

A big part of the issue is just how long they last, which has been pushed back by big corporations (looking at you, Disney). 20 years should be plenty to recoup an investment, the original time was 14 years + a potential 14 more on renewal (so 28), and the current 95 years is ridiculous.