I get that there are people who are into this stuff, but honestly, I can't think of a single use for myself, unless the movie watching experience is really, really good.
I'm never going to wear a thing like this in public, and at home, I have my laptop and TV. The TV I'm usually watching with someone else, and this is worse than the laptop...so what's my use case?
As avaer already mentioned it seems to be a thin wrapper around H3 Max Director, which generates real-time video and takes “natural language directions” that are then relatively seamlessly incorporated into the continuous video stream.
It's like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure dialed up to 11.
I played around with it briefly on Fal.ai generating a cartoon, but it’s more of a technical curiosity for the time being since I don’t have a Scrooge McDuck vault of gold coins.
It's not on the page, but the creator (@WillTheRapper_) said on Twitter:
> This is our first experiment in building a persistent Social World Engine — a world that continues to exist, evolve, and remember even when nobody is watching.
The audience is meant to direct the show. There's a crypto token involved in paying for it. Make of that what you will.
Personally I think it's an invitation to a lawsuit. Back in the day people were running AI Spongebob on Twitch and that got killed for copyright infringement. And this isn't a cartoon, it's Jim Carrey.
LLM didn't invent it themselves, they are plagiarism machines. Obviously these kind of patterns had to be popular in the first place to be overused by LLMs
Also we have reached the point where LLMs are pubkishing more contents than humans so we have probably reached a point where humans will inconciously start copying and using LLMs style too.
c'mon, it's literally the top 2 AI writing tropes in a single sentence. i googled "AI tropes", and here are the first 2 tropes listed in the first search result:
1) negative parallelism: "It's not bold. It's backwards."
2) em-dash addiction: "The problem -- and this is the part nobody talks about -- is systemic."
again, i'm not saying the author wrote this sentence using AI. i was just tickled by how stereotypically AI it sounded. for better or for worse, those characteristics are just going to set off the AI detector in people's heads now, as evidenced by the fact that there are like 10 separate comments on this post that picked up on the exact same thing.
That was not an attack on Github itself. GH made enormous impact in the open source movement and is still beneficial for every software engineer by providing a free and very useful service.
Meanwhile, for a software business, Github is a wide and deep attack vector and nobody seems to be concerned about it.
Of course the same can be said about any other public git hosting, especially if it combines CI/CD, artifact distribution, identity and trust management.
It's really depressing that I have gotten into music composition right when this is happening.
All of these projects are basically just destroying entire fields of human creativity.
It doesn't seem so bad at first when the quality is mediocre, but as soon as they get good, then any human composition will be completely devalued, despite the enormous amount of knowledge, skill and effort that goes into producing one.
A composer who writes a piece of music themselves, instead of being recognised and admired basically becomes the equivalent of someone who bakes their own sourdough instead of going to the supermarket: a curiosity, someone who does things the hard way for their own amusement.
Graphic artists and bloggers were the first to suffer this, but it feels like it's just going to happen to basically every type of creative expression that can be represented digitally. It's just a question of how many months until that happens.
I'm also saddened by the impact of tech on creative industries. But art always was something you do for yourself and to share with others, for some fundamentally human experience. Could an AI pray for you or ride your bike? I don't know anyone in my personal life who wants to listen to AI music, view AI art, or read AI books. I wish art careers were easier, but I don't think a career alone is the right reason to make art.
Prayer for external effects has long been mechanized [1]. But praying for your inner effect is a different thing. Similarly, production of songs for external consumption is being mechanized. But what you feel when you sing cannot be mechanized. Sing for yourself, play for yourself and for those immediately around you in the moment. It's as valuable as ever.
Much like the restaurant industry, creative industries will probably bifurcate. Cheap (AI, drivethrough, takeout) for daily and most use cases, experiential (vinyl records, concerts, upscale restaurants) for special occasions, connoisseurs.
Yeah and for those of us who can't afford the "upscale" experiences, this sucks: our pleasantly diverse and human-crafted middle class lives replaced by the machine.
> but as soon as they get good, then any human composition will be completely devalued
I think it will take many more years until an AI is able to compose like e.g. John Williams and play a score and sound like e.g. the London Symphony Orchestra. So there is room left for human contribution. On the other hand, the majority of humans even before AI was not able to value good vs. bad musical composition and performance, and instead satisfied with the commercial slop the market was flooded over the last thirty years. Studies of e.g. Spotify consumer behaviour demonstrated for many years before AI that more and more people consume anonymous playlists never caring who composed or played the music, just using music for its functional purpose like a commodity. It's depressing, but that's how society develops.
> a curiosity, someone who does things the hard way for their own amusement
That development already started long ago. In the eighties and nineties, music schools florished and children wanted to learn instruments and play in bands or orchestras. That completely changed over the last thirty years. Musical instruments will be a curiosity in a decade or two people are going to watch in a museum, wondering why anyone would have learned these skills in the past.
> The world is being handed an infinite creation machine that conjures entire worlds into existence, radically reshaping the future of the species and what our descendants will be able to do, and your reply is ~"they took our jobs!"
I didn't even mention anything about economic impacts, jobs, money. It's truer to say my reply is "they destroyed what it is to be human".
It's being handed an infinite slop machine, drowning out genuinely good content and making it harder than ever to discover. As it becomes harder to discover, fewer talented creatives are able to make a living. We are destroying our own culture with a machine that enforces regression to the mean on creativity.
Check it out: As millions of people have recognized, we have a new discoverability problem! How about, out of the 9 billion people on Earth, we figure out how to get a few dozen of them motivated to work on that instead of sitting and moping for the rest of our lives about the end of human creativity?
You are free to perform create expression, I love writing blogs, my friends like reading and talking about the blogs with me, I dont care if Claude or GPT can write much better blogs. In the same way if it was just about creative expression, there would actually be 0 problems with AI-generated music, you would keep on making and listening to music you like, and you wouldn't care, but usually its not it, its people who want to make money, get famous, tie their value to the product that complain about this.
> you would keep on making and listening to music you like, and you wouldn't care
It becomes harder to find and therefore listen to music you like when every avenue of discovering music is drowned out with 1000 AI-generated songs for every 1 human-made song.
> people who want to make money,
Is it such a bad thing to want to be able to pursue your creativity full-time? For creative fields that require thousands of hours of practice to achieve results other people will enjoy, should we reserve such skilled expression only to those born wealthy enough to not need to work?
> It becomes harder to find and therefore listen to music you like when every avenue of discovering music is drowned out with 1000 AI-generated songs for every 1 human-made song.
Creative expression and consumption of media are different questions. You are right about that, but that's a separate issue.
> Is it such a bad thing to want to be able to pursue your creativity full-time? For creative fields that require thousands of hours of practice to achieve results other people will enjoy, should we reserve such skilled expression only to those born wealthy enough to not need to work?
Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay. And if you dont like it, you can always wait for the coming times when informational work is completely automated, which means that traditional social mobility completely disappears, and capital is locked/frozen forever and we will have serfdom instead. So I would recommend you enjoy the present.
Makes no sense - why would anyone use humans as serfs when AI is there. I think everyone will have AI and probably robotic automations, they will all be cheap and accessible.
We are still human and have human biases and desires, many humans can be good use to for example let rich people express power, experience sexual pleasures, and other emotions that are pre-wired in us. An AI cant be a good proxy for emotions, you cant whip a machine and know that it feels pain because of you. You cant pin a machine down and know that it can do nothing and has to feel powerless in your hands. You cant slice a machine open and know that it cannot do anything to you. All of this has already happened in the richest circles, you can imagine what happens when everyone has access to cheap robotic automatons, you think the richest people have been content with having what everyone has? Historically?
It is devaluing it. Just like you can still paint, and you can still play a musical instrument, but these aren't skills the average person cares about very much anymore. But instead of a couple of skills like that being slowly displaced over decades or centuries, we're seeing dozens and dozens of occupations being rendered completely almost worthless within just a couple of years.
Have you observed the sheer monotony of this avalanche of AI-generated "creative" expression at all?
You have people pumping out an entire album in a few days simply because they can, repeatedly, and then they flood streaming services with their garbage. I forget which network it was but as of a few months ago, AI-generated submissions were at least half of all submissions.
Yeah, and yet for a lot of people apparently this "garbage" is...good enough...so the human-crafted stuff can hardly compete.
I recently heard an anecdote about a family that finally found a podcast that they all enjoyed listening to on road trips...and only realised when they tried to find out more about the hosts that the whole thing was AI generated. Bam, another field of creative expression (and income!) destroyed.
I'm never going to wear a thing like this in public, and at home, I have my laptop and TV. The TV I'm usually watching with someone else, and this is worse than the laptop...so what's my use case?
reply