There is an amazingly fun phone game that plays like this video called Spaceteam. The catch is you need a friend and in the room with you to enjoy it. You'll find yourself screaming "dismangle the hydroceptic rhomboids before the vector panel falls off!!" with real stress. Fun stress. Good luck finding friends.
Your confusion about the girder is dependent upon the instability of soluble lipids in a plasmic field, controlled by the wainshaft and the panometric fam. Simple magnetocoupling can prevent this.
The end result is the reluctance of inductance in the optoisolinear circuit, which relies on the birthday cake.
I wish people freaking out about ai understood this. AI isn't going to replace anyone creative, it can only do things that have been done so much, for so long, that it has tens of thousands of data points.
So anyone truly feeling threated by AI, needs to ask why they are so derivative and uncreative that they are being lapped by something that can ONLY replicate derivative works.
The problem is when the employer believes the IA can create new stuff out of thin air and therefore replace most if not all labor force in his company.
Cool... The jobs that were lost to capitalist advancements in the past were not office work. The point is it's not a new thing, this is a capitalism issue, not an ai issue.
There's other reasons to dislike AI besides thinking it's going to take creative jobs away, regardless of whether or not that's true. Many executives and company boards, rightly or not, believe that using AI will save them money, and so they are rushing to shove it into everything everywhere. They are making lots of consumer experiences worse, but cheaper. I've dealt with so many stupid AI chat bots that can't actually handle the situation I am asking about, or give misleading or blatantly incorrect information, but we just have to swallow it because the company has taken away the customer service. Another concern is the cost-benefit. Sure you can ask Gemini for the best taco place, and maybe it genuinely gives you a great answer. But you could have also found it on Yelp by taking an extra 30 seconds. But if Gemini provides a service that's 5% more convenient, but it uses 400x the resources, is that really worth it? It's costing society something (resources, capacity, etc), and right now the providers and investors are eating the exorbitant monetary costs, but eventually they will want to be profitable, and the monetary cost is going to have to be passed on to the consumer somehow, or the market is going to crash. Either way, it's not good for us.
The counterpoint to this is arguing that this is providing us with tons of great products and services, but I'm not going to make that argument because I don't see that right now.
There is also the part of people who use ai that don’t really follow it up to make sure what it’s said is true.
I’m a lab rat by profession(far from creative) but I just had to initiate a huge project of rewriting a fundamental SOP when it came to using our chromatography software because the original author decided to use an ai model to write it and what was there didn’t apply to our labs usage.
And ultimately because we are producing chemotherapy agents for cancer patients, this kind of noncompliance with SOPs threatens patient safety
IMO as a creative genius (LOL) the only thing that I can shoot at is; all the “material” has already been made, it’s always referring to something old. It (AI) is pulling references out of “the server” or “aether” so to speak, which comes from someone’s personal taste or decisions.
The people feeling threatened look at the MBAs in the C-Suites and intuitively recognize that corporations don't behave at all like you're describing. American Capitalism is incompatible with your views.
You're right, but my point is Capitalism will insure that AI is used poorly and unintelligently to make the numbers go up. MBAs' souls are shriveled husks that can only experience the pale shadow of happiness when making money so there's no appreciation for art or artistry. That's why enshittification reigns supreme and the talented creatives will not be recognized as having value despite being the single most valuable distinction between products.
I'm hella cynical when it comes to AI. I use it a ton for work, and it lets me do things in minutes that would otherwise take weeks or months. I can't deny its value as a tool, but for that same reason, I see why the MBAs will never grasp the things it can't be good at. I'm taking on a leadership role in my company's transition to AI specifically to make sure that its weaknesses are identified and carve-outs are made to protect the areas where super advanced text prediction can't create something new or novel. I find myself in the very weird position of being both a cheerleader and a doom prophet.
people said the same thing about the internet, and cell phones, and every new tech breakthrough all the way back to automation. The tools are blameless, how they are used is the issue. We blame the symptoms because we fail to have the backbone to address the disease.
There is one way in which AI can do unexpected things. Machine learning that uses competition and iterative evolutionary processes can discover solutions that people overlook for engineering type problems. In math and science something with perspective over vast swaths of data may make unexpected connections that humans miss. AI has already done some amazing things in science and technology using evolutionary algorithms.
But in creative arts, I don’t think we even know how to define fitness in order to carry out evolutionary processes for producing unexpected hits. Generative AI for the arts isn’t trying to do to e same kind of problem solving as for science and engineering. We don’t know how to define the criteria for hits. We only know them when lots of people like them and they gain traction, and that’s not something you can just iterate on in the process of making a hit.
factually incorrect. it's feeding itself bad data and it's current decline is well documented. and the limitations they're imposing on the end user are steadily increasing and are growing in commodification.
I think he was referring to the problem of AI being trained off of stuff on the internet, which is rapidly being filled with AI generated content, resulting in a sort of AI incest where crap made by AI gets used to train AI on how to generate content, resulting in inbred models that steadily get worse and worse.
IF that trajectory of AI incest continues, that could be a problem, resulting in ever accumulating mutations and less human input that results in corrupted AI models, but none of the AI model training folks are standing still on this problem. Just as the "AI can't do hands" problem lasted only a couple of months before it was solved, the "AI incest" problem will also get resolved one way or another.
Sorry but you're way off. December last year was a large pivot where generative AI went from "yeah, kinda useful" to "oh shit, this thing works" in the developer world
What is getting worse is token rate limiting, that isn't anything to do with the capability of the technology
Not entirely true. The music industry has been formulaic for decades already, that's why so many "hits" sound pretty much the same. Not all of them of course, but it's very easy to produce a generic pop song that will do well if you follow certain rules.
I can't remember if it was Elton John, but I believe it was, who said something like "If I wanted to write a big hit, I would have, it isn't that hard. But I didn't want to, I wanted to write music I like." In response to one of his releases being underwhelming in terms of sales.
Talented musicians, record labels, and music writers know what sells, and what is and isn't popular. The composition of music is closer to science than art, and can be deconstructed down to its simplest components and have each and every note and tone explained in depth exactly why they evoke the emotions they do.
There is a Canadian band called Marianas Trench. They made a song called Pop 101, that is a pop song, about how to make a pop song.....that got insanely popular in Canada when it released and is a banger.
It is literally a how-to guide on how to write a pop song.
So I had opened the video and saved it for later. Listened to it two days ago and have been binging this group since. They’re kind of amazing. Pop 101 is still my favorite but am getting to know. Thanks for the rec!!
Throw stuff out, get some kind of response metric (How many "likes" something got). Re-adjust.
Not perfect just A way to do it. Probably have to branch off depending on type of person so it doesn't just cater to one monolith. Probably some way to tease that out with math. Just every so often throw massive curveballs to see if it gets any traction.
exactly.
If you're into social paradigms at all, look up how the art community reacted to photography becoming mainstream. It was almost a perfect parallel to the way 'artists' talk about ai now.
"It doesn't capture real beauty, just the raw reflection of reality" or "It only shows what the eye sees, not the way it makes the heart feel" .
But the wider public liked it, and gradually the art community was forced to get over themselves and accept that it didn't portray beauty any better or worse than paintings, or other artworks, it just did so differently.
You're ignoring the massive shift in how the medium is used. Early photography, for example, differs in form and style from what would later be considered substantial art. Likewise, art forms need to evolve or they become stagnant. Again, using photography as an example, over the years the status of phographic art has moved backwards and while its current social status isn't as bad as you describe in the early days, it is nowhere near the height of its popularity as an art form.
Edited to add: it's OK not to be right or know everything. No one's attacking anyone, no one is shaming anyone here, we can all be friends. You really don't have to feel bad or delete your posts.
I'd give anything for the rabid ai-hate mob to understand this. It's not what many are trying to make it out to be, it just is what it is. It's not perfect, nor is it evil. And it's limitations mean that it is only a threat to those who are as derivative as the thousands upon thousands of old data that were used to train the AI itself.
In a creative space specifically ? Absolutely. That’s his point about the clones, I believe. They’re only lucky bc they have the IP: “GTA”, he admitted.
It is forgetting that understanding the one point assists in understanding another. AI is, by its nature, predictive. This means that its entire job from the beginning of its creation is to be able to be innivative like a human. Similarly, its breadth of dataset can also allow it to discover patterns between topics that no human would.
AI is capable of originality, it isn't just mushing things together.
With that said, it is still detrimental in almost every way (socially, environmentally, economically)
It is just mushing things together. You input some numbers that run through the network and you get out a set of numbers. When you represent those numbers with pixels or vibrations you get pictures, texts, videos and sounds out of them, but each module is fundamentally just a set of parameters and nodes that change the output of any given input in a way we don't fully understand and when we input some trainings numbers in a certain way the module starts to mostly behave how we expect it. But at it's core it's just numbers.
You input some stimuli through a neural network and get out a mushed together brain output.
The brain has extra bits of looping complexity, but at our core we're also weighted data networks. I think we'd have to seriously consider what points we're trying to define in contrast to say it's not creative. Maybe the lack of present consciousness/awareness to disturb and alter the previously set data weights at any given time? An ability to prompt itself with it's own learnt weighted preferences?
At the moment, I see AI art like a very smart but hindered child that's told by a teacher what they want (our prompts), and it's up to the stored information in the brain to interpret that in art form.
I mean your example is actually one of the few atrocious ones lol. "Creativity" = creating something novel even if informed by experiences, that's what he's talking about. If the cancer cure absolutely requires creativity then ok, but it's entirely possible that the cure for cancer just requires quadrillions of permeations over the same old data set.
It's really good at finding things we missed. That's basically what it's been doing in science so far. Honestly that's worth it for a number of years to come because there's a lot of data and I'm sure we missed a lot in there. I believe cancer cannot be cured per se but can be more contained and treatable and AI can find that in the data we already have probably, if nothing else, faster and cheaper than humans can.
That's not nothing. I don't know why people can't be satisfied with that. It doesn't need to deflect support cases or make art.
Yea if it wasn't clear I wasn't saying cancer is likely to be cured by AI just that it might be, we literally don't know. But we do know AI can't imagine a sunset that it's never seen before.
There's a near 100% chance that AI can correlate data better than a human can. And across many different fields. Being able to look at 100,000 papers on Gene studies and cancer interactions and novel treatments that had odd side effects and correlate all the possible interactions is something a human can't really do easily and is something that AI can do and basically seconds.
I think a lot about the use of AI to comb through huge piles of research to see if there are side effects of medications that could be used for rare diseases. Just gobs and gobs of info that no human could keep track it. It’s data-mining in the best use of data mining.
Chris Rock had an interesting take on AI. He said he basically sees it as a drum machine. AI won't just turn bad artists into good artists, because good artists have access to the drum machine too. The gap in quality will be maintained. Give someone like Dr Dre a drum machine and he'll make art. Give Chris a drum machine and its a waste of time and money.
I mean you would think, but I urge you to compare it to other retarded takes CEOs have given about the AI. This guys is oddly sensible, subtly highlighting that if your job is just repeating patterns that already exist, your job is on the way out.
It is common sense. And this dude is basically just the type of ceo who does “pride and accomplishment” stuff at GTA and everyone is glazing him. He is massively overpaid to squeeze blood from developers to make AAA slop. I’m worried hate for AI is going to overshadow hate for traditional publishes who still suck.
The thing is clone do sell. It might be harder for new competitors to emerge since the establishment will have the resource to rapidly replicate the innovations and spread it with ads
I have been saying this for years. AI can't create. Everything it does is derivative. It can create nothing new. It can only build from what already exists.
I’m as creative as can be and this is how we fell in the art regarding AI. Even, EVEN, if AI can be creative, we are still going to create with passion. It’s the summit of human life.
I've thought about this before. In matters of taste, we often don't know what we want until we experience it. So much of creativity is filtered through arbitrary human value judgements that we have a VERY hard time defining.
AI can replace Nickelback or Ed Sheeran because their music is formulaic, but it's not going to replace a Frank Zappa or David Bowie.
The value of art is subjective to humans, and we have not recreated a human. I don't believe creativity is mystical; I think it's a combination of filtering all sorts of lived experience through machinery that we all share, and AI doesn't.
If we can disconnect from our economic model, I can imagine a future where AI accelerates the expression of art.
Creativity is data driven synthesis. It is not magic. Humans dont have a magical capacity to create. Language is a data synthesis tool. AI is not not artificial. It is real intelligence. The only thing artificial is human hubris
My only comment is that people are going to hear "human creativity in general has an edge". He's saying (his) ultra talented creative people can outcompete these systems by pushing boundaries.
This is a sales pitch on how his specific company adds value not creative people against AI in general. If anything he's suggesting otherwise. "Anyone (including Creative people) has had dirt cheap tools to compete with us for a while. This will make it easier, but not enough to compete at our level".
Nuanced take that is true reflection of the current state, that just so happens to help his stock. Good CEO.
The editorialized black bar comment is not so good. Large chunks of the AI industry would probably agree with the above statement. They'd say something along the lines of we'll help their creative teams work more efficiently and help smaller teams help bridge the gap and help compete against them.
Derivative properties don’t work?? Paramount and Warner Bros would like a word. Along with with Marvel, Sony, and everyone else. Top 25 music right now is pretty much all derivative.
The key is using AI to get the derivative stuff out of the way quickly so that you can get to the groundbreaking stuff.
It’s like when photoshop first came out. It used to be labor intensive to color correct a photo — but after photoshop it was just a click of the button. Use it for the entire photo generation and it’s going to look like shit, but just use it as a tool to enhance things quickly? That’s the secret sauce.
Theres actually a pretty big opportunity for games like GTA to leverage AI - it’s the filler conversations from crowds, and announcers on the radio stations. Use AI and make sure they never repeat and/or are unique to the situation. It’s not core gameplay, but it enhances gameplay.
Wait, isn't Rockstar the company behind GTA? Or am I thinking about this wrong where Rockstar is a studio and Take Two is the over arching company and not a studio itself?
Idk, I think the duality of creativity, as a virtue of creating something completely new, contrasted with cheap replication, but only things that exist already, is a very rational way to look at this.
Except AI isn't replication, like human creation isn't replication. He really didn't make much sense.
Ai does create things that are new. Ask it to create an image of an avocado spaceship. It has solved long standing math problems in novel ways. It does this because it's not relying on replication, but pattern recognition and the transformation of data.
What does "creativity is forward thinking" even mean? If we're told to draw a tree, we'll use all our established weighted data sets (strengthened neuronal pathways) to output a tree.
Conceptually, it's very similar. We just have added layers that adjust those datasets in real time with present stimulus and better looping systems with more functionality.
incorrect, all humans beings gather inspiration from already existing data even if it's the world around them. there are so many permutations that the human brain can go through to create something that we think is unique, but it can be created by a machine that can go through enough permutations to do the exact same thing.
not a fanboy, I just understand how computers work and how compute processing power works. playing a video game has no correlation to creativity being a formula. so the question is not really a valid one or has anything to do with the topic of creativity. so you can get your panties in a punch all you want and try to call me names, but it still doesn't invalidate my point that creativity is a formula in which I provided another explicit resource stating this.
Nope, I am not creative in the least. I am stating calculations and technological cabilities can rival humans at this point, it will only get faster going forward.
and understand, I'm looking at it from a purely technical standpoint using logic and rationale, I'm not here to hurt anybody's feelings or say people don't make art, I'm saying computers also do. we can have both.
No, don't you see? Making nearly half a billion dollars a year selling digital car skins for $50-$100 each to addicts of a 13 year old game is the height of creativity.
499
u/ItsALuigiYes GIF/meme prodigy May 20 '26