Black Mirror creator unafraid of AI because it’s “boring”::Charlie Brooker doesn’t think AI is taking his job any time soon because it only produces trash

  • lloram239@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The research has been stagnating.

    It utterly baffles me how people can make that claim. AI image generation has exists for not even three years and back than it could do little more than deformed Avocado chairs and shrimp. This stuff has been evolving insanely fast, much quicker than basically any technology before.

    Video with temporal consistency doesn’t want to come

    We have barely even started training AIs on video. So far it has all been static images, of course they aren’t learning motions from that and you can’t expect temporal consistency when the AI has no concept of time, frames or anything video related. And anyway, the results so far look quite promising already. Generators for 3D models and stuff is in the works as well.

    Far away from the shock we all got when AI suddenly learned to draw a picture from a prompt

    What the heck do you expect? Of course going from nothing to ChatGPT/DALLE2 will be a bigger jump than going to GPT4/DALLE3 (especially considering most people skipped GPT1,2,3 and DALLE1), that doesn’t mean both of them aren’t substantially better than previous versions. By GPT5/DALLE4 you might really start to worry about if humans will still be necessary at all. We should be happy that we might still have a few more years left before AI renders us all obsolete.

    And of course there is plenty of other research going on in the background for multi-modal models or robots that interact with the real world. Image generations and LLMs are obviously only part of the puzzle, you are not going to get an AGI as long as it is locked in a box and not allowed to interact with the real world. Though at the current pace, I’d also be very careful with letting AI out of its box.

    • havocpants@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should be happy that we might still have a few more years left before AI renders us all obsolete.

      Wow, this is some spectacular hyperbole!

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s the current pace of AI. It’s evolving insane fast and already extremely capable.

        Here is a little game:


        Example: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/LRmYvl

        Result: https://imgur.com/a/ImbNQDk (about 20 seconds of effort)

        It’s ridiculously easy to recreate almost anything on there at a similar or sometimes even better level of quality. Literally seconds to recreate what would take a human hours or even days. What are the chances that humans will still be relevant in this line of work in 5 or 10 years, when we are able to create this level of quality after not even three years of AI image generation?

        And the same will be true for every other job or activity that mainly works on digital data. When you can find enough data to train an AI on, it’s gone. Humans are no longer needed. And more general AI model will sooner or later eat up all the rest as well.

        I seriously don’t know how one can look at the progress in AI over the last two years and not have a bit of an existential crisis.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s ridiculously easy to recreate almost anything on there at a similar or sometimes even better level of quality

          And ridiculously difficult to copyright any of it because it was generated.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, AI doesn’t work with copyright.

            And since AI is here to stay, we better replace our failed copyright system with something proper. Disney be damned.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              we better replace our failed copyright system with something proper. Disney be damned.

              I’d like that? But if you’re expecting the “we” in here to be the current people in their current power structures I suspect you’ll be waiting an awfully long time for that result.

          • lloram239@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That doesn’t change that the value of human art just went down to zero. Nobody is going to pay hundreds of dollar for something AI can produce in seconds. Furthermore the whole “AI art can’t be copyrighted” is just wrong to begin with, any tiny bit of human cleanup automatically makes it copyrightable again and since nobody can tell how the image was created in the first place, you’d be operating in a minefield if you just randomly steal art in the hopse that it was AI generated. Keep in mind that Photoshop already has most of this builtin and it’s becoming a normal part of the workflow of editing images.

            And it’s all pointless anyway. You have AI, you can recreate anything in seconds. Why even bother stealing anything in the first place? You can just make your own and customize it for the occasion.

            The whole idea of copyright might soon be obsolete, as AI can make you something very similar, yet completely original.

            The interesting question left is: Will static art survive at all? Will the future still have static movies or will everybody just generate their personalized dynamic entertainment on demand?

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The interesting question left is: Will static art survive at all? Will the future still have static movies or will everybody just generate their personalized dynamic entertainment on demand?

              Lol this reminds me of when Kramer from Seinfeld asks if we’ll still be using napkins in the year 2000 or if this “mouth vacuum” thing is for real.

              There’s already been court cases suggesting that AI art isn’t copyrightable.

              The AI art I’ve seen so far is about as compelling as random crap from deviant art. The only difference being at least the starving artists on there know how many fingers are on a hand.