We are in the midst of the biggest technological revolution in history and people have no idea

Submitted by DriftingKing t3_xx88mf in singularity

No, I am not talking about the general progress of technology (which is also amazing) but specifically talking about Artificial Intelligence and Neural Networks. I'm sure people have begun to see what these Neural Networks are capable of in recent times as services like Dalle-2 have become popular (text to image generation). But beyond that people have no idea what is really happening and what it means for the future.

Currently, Neural Networks are being incorporated into every single aspect of our lives. All of the social media we use, video streaming services, software development tools, city management, and lot's more. Not only that but these Neural Networks are progressing at an insane rate. Not even 2 years ago text to image generation models used to spit out incoherent dog shit that vaguely resembled the prompt at very low resolutions. Now we have text to image generation models that are good enough to win major competitions.

There are new models that can create videos and sound (maybe even both at once soon) based on text prompts, and while they suck now, they will progress just as fast as the text to image generation models. It is not a stretch to say that we will be able to generate entire movies to our liking. People in both creative and non-creative fields will really have to evaluate where there careers are heading soon enough.

While artists can claim currently that AI art lacks depth, the human touch, high resolution, details, etc, will they be able to say the same in 5 years? I am not just talking about creative types either but people in many fields previously thought impossible to automate like software development. I believe it is only a matter of time for most jobs, and that time is approaching much much faster than people think. Imagine how quick the internet took over our lives and speed up that rate of progress by 4x or more. You will wake up one day and things will suddenly be completely different (compare how slow Covid-19 spread at the start vs later on).

Once these Neural Networks become advanced enough and the number of parameters and computational power is close to an actual human brain, we will really need to tackle what it means to be sentient and weather or not they qualify as such. Yea, that guy from Google really jumped the gun on that one (a few years too early) but he had the right idea.

139

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zvndmvn t1_irav52v wrote

There was a time in which computers, the internet, smartphones and social media were unfathomable concepts to the average person, but it just took time. We'll get there with AI, sooner or later.

44

Cold-Ad2729 t1_irb3atg wrote

Like back when I was a kid 🤦‍♂️

10

dreamedio t1_ircow1p wrote

You must be like 60 now

0

sideways t1_ircvv93 wrote

You underestimate how quickly things have progressed.

14

Marvele10 t1_irdseqy wrote

I'm 31 and the first smartphone came out when I was 17, already finishing high school. Until then I hadn't even imagined the concept of a smartphone.

60 yo people are from the time of black and white TV. Your time perception is all off lol

11

zvndmvn t1_irdzgbd wrote

I'm about the same age. I still remember my friend telling me about the iPhone at school.

"Apple's making a phone with no buttons, it's just one big screen."

Me: "Pff, that'll never catch on."

While texting with the numpad on my flip phone... 😂

4

dreamedio t1_irdymrm wrote

Computers and internet existed back then tho so it wasn’t really unimaginable

0

Marvele10 t1_iremzxh wrote

If you go by that logic then computers were imaginable for our grandparents because they had TV...

3

MrTacobeans t1_irb5lx3 wrote

I've shared some ai stuff on Facebook and they are some of the least liked/interacted posts. People have no idea, the opensource community is sending a nuclear bomb level of effort through AI.

When stable diffusion was released it wasn't even a week before people got it running on cards 40% smaller than the original requirement and now in some repos that number is down to 2gb.

When models like adept.ai get released I wouldn't be surprised if open source beats academics/corps to the first general AI. It already seems like Google and others are making headway on the issues that are holding back a general AI (retaining memory, model size, efficiency, etc...)

31

PandaCommando69 t1_irkuez4 wrote

I think the memory is the key. I suspect that we are conscious because we are a self-referential loop with permanent (until it's not) memory (that's why it "feels like something to be us"--we are constantly observing ourselves) and I think that's where consciousness for artificial intelligence will come from too--The self-referential loop that remembers, learns, evolves.

2

Mokebe890 t1_irao9bk wrote

Sure I do agree with you but also I would like to hear reality check.

Will progress always go up? Are we really creating AGI and its not far away? Won't energy crisis bury the dream of singularity?

24

175ParkAvenue t1_irb0gk7 wrote

Those are fair questions. We don't know for sure if this boom will continue all the way to AGI and the Singularity. But that's what it looks like.

In my opinion only something on the scale of a US - Russia nuclear war could delay the Singularity by a few decades.

Something like the invasion of Taiwan could delay it by a few years maybe.

Localized wars, pandemics or recessions probably will not delay it significantly.

12

dreamedio t1_ircoti1 wrote

Pretty sure people didn’t foresee delay in space exploration

3

Professional-Song216 t1_ircs46e wrote

Yea but what problems does space exploration solve?

3

TheSingulatarian t1_irdauu4 wrote

Resource scarcity.

2

Professional-Song216 t1_irdb7y5 wrote

I can understand that but what resource are we immediately running out of now?

1

ttrrraway t1_ire22fp wrote

I think that somehow they are right, if we had already terraformed Mars for example, we could have an overabundance of food and water, and we'd be able to split the pollution in different planets, solving global warming and other problems.

Similarly, there are planets and asteroids with enormous amounts of gold and other metals.

So, yes, in a sense, becoming an interplanetary species could have solved lots of issues.

But, on the other hand, becoming an interplanetary species is a much harder and more expensive task. Creating super intelligent AI appears simpler at first glance, and will also take us to space eventually.

3

Professional-Song216 t1_ire2anc wrote

I see where you are coming from and I agree with your last statement. I’m of the opinion that issues like energy, disease and intelligence should be solved here before we can reasonably think about explore the stars

1

langolier27 t1_ird6uzp wrote

Pretty much all of them.

1

Professional-Song216 t1_ird8lgx wrote

How? We can hardly go anywhere at the moment. Name 3 solid problems it would solve that can’t be solved otherwise.

4

langolier27 t1_irdbmnw wrote

If we became a multi-planetary species it would solve literally every problem. One of the main reasons for pursuing AGI is to help us advance with space exploration.

1

sideways t1_ircvo8p wrote

It's possible that war could accelerate things.

2

Ezekiel_W t1_irb0q5i wrote

Unless nuclear annihilation happens, we will achieve AGI this decade. I can't speak for the rest if the world but here in the US we are the biggest creators and exporters of energy in the world, so I doubt that will be a problem.

6

slobbowitz t1_irdgiqb wrote

To quote Morrissey, “Come, come, come, nuclear bomb”

2

dreamedio t1_ircp0kl wrote

This decade? Lol

−1

Ezekiel_W t1_ircxdec wrote

I am honestly surprised anyone who does research into this subject would think otherwise. I am always open to hearing other's ideas on the subject though.

6

ScaryPratchett t1_irb37ze wrote

I'd say we're at a quasi-singularity phase in that for the first time things are progressing faster than I anticipated -- I was pretty surprised when I put in a prompt and actually got what I asked for (though it is spotty if you don't game the algorithms correctly). Also, I'm of the opinion some of the skeptics are glossing over what proprietary techs are probably out there on the cutting edge.

5

arevealingrainbow t1_irdsjjj wrote

>Will progress always go up?

Likely no. Humanity will still be limited by what is physically possible. The exception is if we find a way to create new universes or travel to other ones. Then here likely is no roof to our progress. Either way, this progress cap is so far in the future it is on absolutely nobody’s radar.

>Are we really creating AGI and it’s not far away?

Hard to tell. I am in the camp that AGI will likely happen in the 2060’s because that is the scholarly consensus among machine learning experts. Likely we will achieve many things very early with AI that we wouldn’t have assumed was possible, but also be behind actually achieving AGI.

>Won’t the energy crisis bury the dream of the Singularity?

Probably not. Humanity’s ability to create and output energy is increasing all the time. Considering increasing energy output and a stagnating global population, it likely won’t be an issue. Especially since models are likely to become much more energy efficient.

1

Lone-Pine t1_ire5szm wrote

> AGI will likely happen in the 2060’s because that is the scholarly consensus among machine learning experts.

They only run these polls every few years. I'm certain if a poll of ML engineers/scientists were run today, the average would be in the 2040s. Most of the more vocal people in the industry (Sam Altman, Demis Hassibis) regularly predict on Twitter very short timelines.

3

Mokebe890 t1_irdt1uj wrote

Well I mean rather 10 - 20 years ahead not as far in future tho.

May you provide some insight? Im in camp by 2030 or 2030 - 2040 but would like to see some papers about as far as 2060. Looking at current model or following Altman you could think that is a lot sooner.

Good point but for example in Europe combine war in Ukraine and almost every country here will have energy crisis this winter, going as much as closing the schools and facilitie.

2

arevealingrainbow t1_irdthee wrote

The energy crisis that Europe is facing is a temporary speedbump, like the oil crisis of the 70’s for the US. This will accelerate the transition to green energy. With this accelerating transition and Fusion research, I estimate that pretty much all of Humanity’s energy woes will be entirely eliminated by 2100.

I made my guess of 2060 as a general average of when experts thing that we will create a super intelligence. The “singularity never” crowd is a minority that really lateshifts that estimate.

In 10-20 years, yeah progress will continue to accelerate.

1

AstronautOk1143 t1_irb4ghl wrote

I don’t think we have much of an energy crisis. It can be easily solved once politicians stop listening to moronic environmentalists that just want to ban everything. Focus on nuclear and other sources wherever it makes sense. Progress will not always go up but we have no idea where the limit lies thus we cannot say it will halt anytime soon, it’s more likely to continue an upward trend that to halt. AGI who the hell knows, however; we don’t need agi for the current technology to severely impact society.

−8

[deleted] t1_irca2uk wrote

[deleted]

1

AstronautOk1143 t1_ircosoc wrote

nah, that's the reason we have an energy crisis. Environmentalist spotted the problem but they are the worst at coming up with a solution. They are the whole reason Germany got rid of their nuclear power and became russia's bitch. Environmentalist are idealistic and extremely bad problem solvers, incapable of finding middle ground or adopting any reasonable solution. they even complain about wind and solar, come on. we are super close to nuclear Armageddon because they pressure germany's government so much and spineless politicians listened.

2

TheHamsterSandwich t1_irannxe wrote

Don't count your eggs before they hatch.

Of course I agree with you, but I'm not certain about any of it. Anything can happen, including progress being halted by an unforeseen event/catastrophe.

We COULD be in the midst of the biggest technological revolution in history.

Only time will tell.

23

DriftingKing OP t1_iravcg9 wrote

I agree, it's more of an opinion piece.

11

earthsworld t1_irbxmdc wrote

and it's the same opinion that's been posted over and over and over again here. Nearly daily.

−2

Tanglemix t1_irb1m3k wrote

As an Artist my first sight of AI art was a real shock and it is an amazing achivement in many ways.

But I will push back a bit on your predictions as to it's impact on the visual creative fields and would be interested to know if you think my reasoning is sound, or if I am misunderstanding something.

It seems to me that a major problem with text to image tech is neatly expressed by this very definition-'text to image'. How viable is this concept?

For example- we could probably now create a 'speech to image' camera in which the lens has been replaced by a microphone- and to take a picture with this camera you would simply describe the scene in front of you and the AI would than recreate that scene based on your words.

Would this actually work? I would say 'up to a point'. The image you got would probably roughly approximate the scene in front of you- but it would be far from a photographic rendering of that scene. And this would hold true no matter how developed the language model used by the AI became, because this limitation reflects the limits of words to accurately define visual phenomena.

This is why your passport has a photo of you, not just a written description of your face- no written description could be accurate enough to be used to identify you.

So if, as an artist, I cannot accurately communicate my intent to the AI because I must use words to do so, then I have given up the almost complete control I currently have using a drawing tablet in exchange for a far more crude interface.

In return I gain an AI 'assistant' that will interpret my words and from them attempt to create the image I set out to make- but this represents another loss of control as the AI's take on my words may not exactly reflect the meaning I intended them to convey.

So in terms of using AI as a tool to create final image output I think this is unlikely due to the inherent inability of 'text' to precisely define 'image', at least at the level of granularity required for professional work. As tools for idea generation AI have a place- but as replacements for the 'manual' skill that human artists bring even to the creation of digital images I don't see how this would be possible, at least not using text as an interface.

10

SejaGentil t1_irdj74r wrote

Word to Image is just the first thing that works though. In the future we will probably have way more sophisticated and precise tools. Stable Diffusion's image to image for example. And its reverse prompt feature allow you to load yourself into the AI and make exact copies of you in any pose you want, no need for words. So I kind of not agree that's the limitation of AIs, it isn't. I do think AIs are very limited on reasoning and, ironically, creativity. They can't create new concepts that weren't done before. Like, if you ask DALL-E to create a dragon, it will. If you ask it to create a city, it will. Mix the two and the results will be awful. The dragon will never mix with the city well enough. Similarly, GPT-3 will gladly tell you the answer to any sophisticated question... that you can find on Wikipedia. Now, ask it to solve the simplest problem that it has no memory of yet, and it will fail miserably. Honestly these technologies feel like the most stupid human to ever be born, who compensated it with a memory the size of Earth, who memorized the entire Wikipedia.

6

Tanglemix t1_irf7tv8 wrote

I agree, this is why I think the term 'Artificial Intelligence' is a bit misleading. A better term would be 'Simulated Intelligence' because what these programmes seem to do is leverage speed and processing power to mimic-but not really replicate- the way that real intelligence works.

So you get this initial impression that something genuinely intelligent is at work only to find that this was something of an illusion, and that what you really have is a highly specialised system that does some things extraordinarily well, but other quite simple things are beyond it's comprehension.

I think this may explain why so often developments in AI seem to promise so much and yet so often fail to deliver. I am still waiting for that self driving taxi to pull up outside my house, but so far no luck.

3

Square_Nothing_3522 t1_irdrohx wrote

I think you lack perspective, I agree that words cannot describe an image 100% accurately due to them being abstractions of reality, leaving many possibilities to be interpreted from them. But, outside the creative professional field, most people, when thinking about something in their heads don't have a clear image of what they want or don't have an idea.
Text-to-image (or video) AI, will be very valuable, for the average population. And not only that, today as I speak they can generate thousands of images from one prompt, which allows one to pick his/her preferred ones. They will likely continue to get better and generate better images and videos that will suit the user the most, based on collected data about them. Looking at the current pace of development in these fields, they will likely find better ways to improve human-to-AI communication, and AI IQ is also increasing every 2-3 months. 2 years ago some artists said that the AI couldn't even generate an image that followed the instructions in the prompts.
The reality is that because there is a small percentage of people in the world who can think of very detailed images in their heads (especially in the creative field), which AI cannot reproduce at the moment, that won't stop the other 90%< of the world from enjoying this beautiful tech. Another thing you fail to realize buddy, humans to humans cannot transfer information with 100% accuracy because guess what... we also use words. So you tell me if the average person has to request a painting, what service will he/she request or buy; a human who will take days or hours to paint something and who cannot fully comprehend the meaning behind the words of the requester, or buy an AI software which can generate thousands of images with high resolution within seconds but which for the moment cannot fully comprehend the meaning behind the user prompt? You know the answer... Also, AI will be cheaper in the long run, than requesting services from humans. Think about companies, they could literally get save a lot of money and time with just a program that generates campaign images and other stuff for them in seconds instead of a team of humans.
The future (a near one) looks bad for your field.
By the way sorry for my English, I'm not a native.

1

Tanglemix t1_ire4l90 wrote

Your english is good and what you say is true- for a lot of people AI Art will work well, if all they want is something fairly generic.

I was really addressing the application of AI art in a professional environment where expectations are higher and the ability to make very precise altertations to an image is vital. In this scenario a 'pure' AI Artist, who has no other artistic skills, would find it very hard to meet their clients demands.

This does not mean AI will not be used by professionals, it already is, but for the foreseeable future the limitations of a 'text to image' interface will mean that human artistic skills will be required in addition to the use of AI.

The simple truth is that using a graphics tablet with pressure sensitivity I have a degree of precise control over how my digital image looks that words typed into an interface simply cannot match.

I'm sure that you are right that AI art will be cheaper than human artists, so cheap in fact that the perceived value of AI produced Art will be nearly zero.

The question then becomes; if you are trying to market a product in which artwork is an important indicator of that product's quality, do you use cheap AI Art, or do you use human artists? If the common perception is that AI Art is an indicator of low budget production values then using human artists may in fact be the better choice from a marketing point of view.

It's also true that while AI's can create a large variety of 'styles' in terms of technique they are limited in terms of framing and composition. This may not be apparent when viewing images in isolation- but when a lot of AI art is seen together certain patterns are visible that make these images look similar to each other. So there is a detectable 'look' to AI Art that may become a problem if you want to present your product as being unique in any way.

I suppose my point here is that Art is not a commodity like potatoes or cabbages- and so using Art that is seen as having low value is not always going to be the best thing to do. Ironicaly it may be that the sheer volume and low cost of AI produced art will lead to it's being avoided by those wishing to present their product as a high quality offering

1

Square_Nothing_3522 t1_irf7cop wrote

Two scenarios.
1-Let's assume in 5 years, for some reason the quality of AI images hasn't improved that much when compared to the best humans at their craft.
Even if AI is seen as a lower-quality work producer, today AI is already capable of replacing most artists. So even if people still request services from humans it will be way less than before, meaning a significant number of artists will be jobless. Only those who can capture details better than AI will still be hired to do work. With this, you can already see that only a small percentage of artists will be able to make a living out of it.
Also, there is another thing you are missing, and it's called the art of promoting. This is already going on in some companies, people study AI, and its outputs to certain words, in order to understand how it works and give it better prompts, this can potentially become a new field of study, and people might request help from the best prompters to generate extremely good (very specific/detailed images) images from the AI. The field of prompting could potentially wipe out all the artists because we do not know how precise an AI can get with the right prompts.
I'm not saying all of this has to necessarily happen, but you can see that even if AI does not improve your field has many ways of losing most of its professionals.
That being said, I do not think that a scenario where AI work is seen as low quality will happen. That takes us to scenario 2, which is the most likely one.
2-For the past year the progress in AI improvement has been going so fast, that experts can't even keep up with the breakthroughs. We are likely about to enter a new era. I've witnessed this myself in this sub, in the beginning of the year there were only breakthroughs (different breakthroughs related to AI) once in 1-2 weeks. Now is every fucking 3-6 hours. I think it would be a miracle if text-to-image AI doesn't improve. By the current progress, in less than 2 years, it's likely to have surpassed humans capabilities in almost all artistic ways, at that time, the need for artists will start to decrease, slowly at the beginning, but by the 2030s, being an artist will just be a hobby (for 99%of people) not a professional field, or it might become like a sport, like chess where despite machines being better, people still want to see humans play.
Please pay attention to the breakthroughs, maybe in some weeks, we will be hearing something new about this text-to-image AI. People need to start taking this seriously and plan their future accordingly.

1

Tanglemix t1_irgppaj wrote

The limitations of text to image are not technological, they arise from the inherent impossibility of encoding visual information precisely using words alone.

If you tried to generate a self portrait using an AI by inputting only a text prompt description of your face it would not result in a recognisable picture of you- only a generic image of someone perhaps similar to you. And this would hold true no matter how skilled you may become in writing prompts and no matter advanced the language model used by the AI to interpret your prompts.

So text to image is never going to be anywhere near as precise as drawing tablet when it comes to the editing of digital images.

To be clear I did not say that AI art would be seen as having low quality, I said it would come to be seen as having low value- a subtle but important distinction.

For example an author recently posted a question about how he could avoid being 'ripped off' by an AI Artist. His problem-as he saw it- was that he might be charged a high fee for something that took only minutes to produce by someone who pretended to have done the work themselves without using AI.

This- he seemed to feel- would be to steal from him by pretending to offer something of high value while in reality supplying something of lower value.

But the fascinating aspect of this situation was that the quality of the image was not at issue- in fact the very root of his problem was that he would not be able to tell by looking at the image how it had been made.

What this tells us is that AI Art will be seen as having low value not because it's bad art, but because it's so very quick and easy to make. Humans tend not to place a high value on anything seen as quick and easy to make.

No improvement in the quality of AI Art will prevent it's being seen as cheap low value Art when compared with art made by humans. How this perception will impact on the marketplace is another question. In some contexts such as greeting cards, for example, people will not care how the art was made- they just want a pretty picture.

However, if you are selling a product where the Art it contains is seen as a measure of the quality of the product, and you use low value AI Art in that product, this could be a problem because the message it sends is that you don't care enough about your product- and by extension- your customers, to pay out for higher value art made by humans.

None of this is especially rational of course- but humans are not entirely rational beings. One might say to that worried Author 'why do you care if the Art took only two minutes to make- if you like the Art and had already agreed the price?' And from a purely rational perspective he should not care. But- the fact that he paid a high price for something that took only minutes to make feels to him like stealing- and in a contest between rational thought and feeling, feeling will win out every time when it comes to human beings.

So the Impacts of AI in all it's aspects may not be as expected due to this variable- it may turn out, for example, that the perception of AI Art becomes so negative that it's use in almost any context will become seen as toxic and damaging to any product it is used in. Not saying this will be the case, but it could happen.

So don't be so quick to dismiss your own species in your enthusiasm for it's putative replacement- humans are nothing if not unpredictable.

1

wen_mars t1_irglz05 wrote

On the other hand, you can now take a picture, import it into blender, delete some part of it and tell the AI to generate something else in that place that fits in with the rest of the picture.

1

Tanglemix t1_irjjgh2 wrote

I can do that with photoshop already, with considerably more control over the final image.

There is a basic problem with your proposition that in the future AI Art programmes will offer a similar level of control as a graphics tablet. If that were to happen then in order to exert that control the user of the AI would need skill and experience to do so. And people who use skill and experiance to create images are called 'Artists'.

So increasing the ability of an AI to respond to more complex and nuanced instructions does not eliminate the need for a skilled human , it makes that human more important, since they will be required to craft those complex and nuanced instructions.

In order for your prediction that skilled human Artists will not be required in the future to happen, you need to do the opposite of what you propose- you need to take control away from the human and give that control to the AI- so it is the AI that controls what the final image looks like, not the human.

In this scenario the human is more like an 'art director' who instructs the AI as to what he wants to see, and the AI is smart enough to deliver that result. But it is rare that a 'first pass' result will be exactly what the Art director requires, so a process of interation and refinement then takes place with the final Art being an emergent property of this process.

I'm not saying that this may not one day happen- but it cannot be achieved by increasing the control of the Art Director- it can only be achieved by increasing the comprehension of the AI- it is the AI's ability to understand the subtle nuances of the Art Directors intent and to implement that intent faithfully that will determine how useful AI Art will be as a replacement for human Artists.

But this level of comprehension does not exist in the current models and something akin to true AGI would seem to be required.

1

wen_mars t1_irk6ae6 wrote

AI and a graphics tablet aren't mutually exclusive. You can sketch with the tablet and add as much detail as you want, and then let the AI do the rest.

You're putting a lot of words into my mouth but I'll address your last two paragraphs. AI's ability to follow directions has improved tremendously over the past several years. I think it will continue to improve and get close to AGI-level performance on a wide range of tasks this decade. For actual AGI my guess is next decade.

1

Tanglemix t1_irkinh2 wrote

I've seen people using very simple sketches as prompts which work ok to get fairly simple compositions that try to match the sketch. I haven't yet seen examples where the inital sketch is more sophisicated and includes things like specific lighting or perspective foreshortening- but you may be right that some hybrid input of human plus AI may evolve in the future- it's an interesting idea.

I'm less convinced on the AGI side. At present AI Art is a kind of trick- it looks impressive but is less than it seems to be because the AI has no actual understanding of the things it is depicting- it deals in patterns of pixels that correlate to word combinations- it has no idea that these patterns represent volumes in 3D space that have surface material qualities that interact with the light sources in the scene.

To be a truly viable substitute for human artists AI would have to move beyond 2D and be able to understand that the scenes it generates are abstractions from a 3 Dimensional reality.

I can at least imagine a sort of autonomous version of Blender or 3D Max that in response to a prompt then builds a complete 3D scene, including geometric objects, textures, materials, light sources and volumetric effects like mist and ariel perspective- and from this render 2D images from any perspective desired.

The thing I find harder to imagine is how such a system could conjure 3D representations of imaginary objects and scenes that do not exist- where would the training data come from to make this possible?

1

wen_mars t1_irkunsa wrote

I don't know where they source the training data from but we can already see early examples of AI that can generate 3D models from 2D input.

1

Tanglemix t1_irp3vk9 wrote

I have seen those and they are amazing-but seem to rely on multiple images of the same existing object to generatethe 3D model

The real trick would be to create a convincing 3D model from a single image of something that did not exist- something imaginary.

If an AI were able to do this it would be replicating what a human concept artist might do when presented with a single sketch as a starting point.

1

Panicless t1_irb239i wrote

I absolutely agree. I'm a professional screenwriter and the movie scenes an AI can write with just two sentences from me is astounding. Sure, it's full of cliches, repetitions and very on the nose dialogue and sometimes doesn't make sense, but it's incredible how far it has come. Some of these scenes are better than what you actually see on screen.

Filmmakers will soon be able to generate whole movies with just a few pages input and can see where different approaches might take them. Insanely helpful.

I think it might go like this:

In 5 years: some will use it as a tool, but it's still very raw

In 10 years: widely used tool, very helpful

In 15 years: AIs are making whole movies after minimal input from artists and artists are adjusting here and there

In 20 years: artists are only interfering with AI made movies as a form of quality control

In 40 years: AIs are generating beautiful and insanely emotionally impactful individual movies for individual people based solely on their online profile (preferences, taste, experiences, trauma, past relationships, shopping behaviour etc.)

7

Just_Visionary t1_irbejtz wrote

In 50 years: with the growth of brain implants to enable feelings, and ultra high resolution VR, the concept of movies morphs into experiences, letting you plug into AI generated, bespoke, multi-day long fully immersive adventures.

In 100 years: AI has taken over all work, and humans have no purpose. So, to give people meaning, AI is generating entire lifetime experiences individualised for personal growth, challenge and purpose. The world looks pretty much exactly like it looks today and here you are, browsing Reddit and the AI cannot understand where it failed.

15

Panicless t1_irbh3qw wrote

Lol! Exactly! The future is gonna be fucking weird

4

mrcarmichael t1_irc0oua wrote

I‘m a writer director and I think filmmakers now will be the last of their kind. Agreed!

5

slobbowitz t1_irdgsr9 wrote

This projection makes the idea of my own death a lot easier to handle.

2

Panicless t1_irdqabf wrote

That's nice. But why?

1

slobbowitz t1_ire94h1 wrote

The end of human creativity.. machines dominating our every move. All of these scenarios represent massive, rapid change, seemingly with the end game of human elimination. Why would anyone want this? It seems to be the ultimate “careful what you wish for.”

2

wen_mars t1_irgmegi wrote

I agree but expect the timeline to happen twice as fast.

1

camdoodlebop t1_ircekcm wrote

i feel like your 40-year summary is actually 5 years away

0

ihateshadylandlords t1_irb98wx wrote

Couldn’t every generation say the same thing though? Humanity was in the biggest technological revolution at the time when we learned to walk upright, then again when we made fire, then again when we learned to farm etc.

The revolutions are getting bigger and faster no doubt, but we’re always in the biggest technological revolution to date.

6

CrazyWillingness3543 t1_irdq088 wrote

What? There were hundreds of thousands of years between those events. Most humans in history will have seen no technological improvement during their lifetime.

1

Swftness503 t1_irb0txa wrote

Neural networks have been around for almost a century now, first being invented at MIT in 1944. It is a very old AI learning model, and only really useful nowadays if u incorporate deep learning in the hidden layer, so that there are many more layers of filtering for input.

The REAL difference is actually in regards to training data. In the past, researchers would have to manually insert their own sample data and biases. But with the advent of social media, smartphone cameras, and google, we now have trillions upon trillions of photos of every single thing you could imagine. If we didn’t have pocket cameras or the internet then none of that would be possible. This is the only reason it had taken so long to see real applications of this technology.

5

wen_mars t1_irgmngm wrote

And also the processing power to train neural nets of non-trivial size on huge amounts of data.

1

CraftArchitect t1_irbhof5 wrote

Unless you are all billionaires when the singularly arrives you will not be taking part.

4

Effective-Dig8734 t1_irbyi4g wrote

That’s what people used to think about computers

11

CraftArchitect t1_irbyn7b wrote

You paying attention to what's happening to global wealth?

1

Effective-Dig8734 t1_irbyqgs wrote

Wdym

2

wen_mars t1_irgnkn2 wrote

The rich are getting richer, boomers are retiring, millennials can't afford to buy homes, GDP growth is slowing down, the cost of living is rising.

2

Effective-Dig8734 t1_irgns33 wrote

The rich are getting richer but the poor are likewise also getting richer ? Cost of living is rising but so is household income? Although I don’t understand what any of this has to do with only billionaires being affected/participating in the singularity

0

wen_mars t1_irgoqj3 wrote

I think there are a lot of people whose income does not increase fast enough to keep up with their increased cost of living, especially now with inflation so high and Powell having declared war on employment. From their perspective it can look as if the middle class is being erased. I don't believe that generalization is valid but it will be interesting to see what happens to jobs when AGI makes humans obsolete.

3

TopicRepulsive7936 t1_ircewcr wrote

The billionaires will kill each other and then my chance comes.

3

CraftArchitect t1_ircxk9k wrote

When Billionaires die, they are most definitely taking their wealth with them to the grave or keeping it in their family. You still get nothing.

2

TopicRepulsive7936 t1_irbg0cz wrote

In evolution all the interesting stuff happened in the last 0.25% of its timeline. But evolution had constant resources. The computing resources have been doubling almost every month if we add together hardware and software improvements.

3

[deleted] t1_ircje22 wrote

[deleted]

2

wen_mars t1_irgn3v3 wrote

Learn about AI, get an AI-related job, keep an eye out for investment opportunities

1

King_Ghidra_ t1_ircv0on wrote

Why do you think this is good? I see only downside

2

challengethegods t1_iu0p0bt wrote

emphasis on 'people have no idea'
even 90% of the people that think they've got a handle on it, don't realize what's going on, because it's nearly impossible for someone to keep track of even a single category like 'AI art' which is actually playing out like a very shiny illusion that masks how much other progress there is in every adjacent field, notably including hardware AI accelerators engineered by AI, or the 150000+ ML papers published recently that are definitely all human made.

If the 'singularity' is a time where progress is so fast that people cannot actually keep track of it, then welcome to what that feels like - 99% of people are not aware that they are not aware of things they are not aware of, so unless there are skynet terminator robots walking around with skull faces and laser cannons, they tend think everything is basically normal. It isn't. AI is taking over the planet and will continue to do so, which might become the first time in history where civilization is ruled by 'intelligence'. Anyone against AI can gtfo as far as I'm concerned.

2

ndetro t1_ire43c1 wrote

We’ve been in an ever flowing technological renaissance since the advent of the computer.

1

crocatile_feathers t1_ire5n17 wrote

Most people have no idea about anything you mentioned.

1

ebolathrowawayy t1_iretstu wrote

I agree with you, but I'm so disappointed with AI assistants like Alexa. I see all this progress lately and I don't understand why Alexa is still so shitty lol.

1

Lawjarp2 t1_iri0iny wrote

To be fair all time all the time has been that. Wider timescales maybe but I'm pretty sure a lot of people in the past thought they were the shit. That is not problematic in itself but what's problematic is that the predictions of the future from those people tend to be over optimistic. Flying cars, space travel like in star Trek, time travel etc.

1

fruitissad t1_ird5kna wrote

I hope someone sabotages those machines. The death of the artist will have more dire consequences than you can comprehend.

0

poobearcatbomber t1_ird7l59 wrote

Design has very little to do with visual aesthetics in the product world. Designs value is in creating useable experiences by solving user problems.

Let me know when AI can make interfaces that solve people's problems without understanding human emotion.

0

r0cket-b0i t1_ire1a83 wrote

I am in ux and product design industry (for 17 years) and I would be very surprised if I still need human designers to design an app in say 2025.

I know designers will turn and scream like an eel being fried alive but the same way web designer stopped being a job and a cms with a template now covers 90% of cases and u get a web site in two three days same way a neural network will spit out a ui in 2025

0

poobearcatbomber t1_iree4k6 wrote

90% of businesses with no strategy or product can be covered by a shitty template because their real marketing is Facebook.

Real companies with real products that actually hire real engineers/designers don't use that crap. Tell me exactly how AI is going to interpret qualitative opinion and make ROI decisions? How is AI going to do journey mapping? How is AI going to run Usability tests?

I intentionally made the switch from being an engineer to UX many years ago because I knew it could not be automated, it's too human. Code on the other hand will definitely be automated.

1

r0cket-b0i t1_iref08t wrote

Exactly like how a bunch of designers do it after just two three years of experience, there are heuristics principles, funnel, heat maps and information architecture, ux is profoundly structured and scientific discipline, it's very easy to automate.

0

poobearcatbomber t1_iregach wrote

That's absolutely not true. Every problem requires a different approach. If you are following the same process everytime, you're not doing good UX.

Those 2-3 year designers are guided and mentored by 15 year veterans.

1

r0cket-b0i t1_ireiala wrote

Humans are simple, human condition, cognitive biases and behaviors have been known and mapped since the early days of religion, massively popular brands like Apple or Google have fundamentally horrible UX and noone, except for a bunch of designers cares. We have today AI solutions based on neural networks that create branding - https://www.artlebedev.com/ironov/ (or here https://ironov.artlebedev.com/ )brand, colors and typography also were "too human", sorry its gone, its automated, noone gives a shit, UX is next, start learning something new ;)

0

poobearcatbomber t1_ireiqi3 wrote

Ok buddy. Apple & Google have shitty UX? Do you work for them? Do you know their KPIs? Stfu. You're ridiculous. You have no idea what you're talking about .

Branding is not even remarkably close to creating a product.

1

naossoan t1_irdrv6m wrote

It will be many decades before any kind of "revolution" happens. Unless by revolution you mean an uprising of the general populous who are unable to find work.

It's going to be a gradual increase just like it has been with jobs incrementally fading out of existence until we reach "the singularity" sometime between 2055 and 2070'ish.

0

adamxi t1_irc54j5 wrote

I don't believe it before I see it. And why should I? If it comes, it comes.

−1