I’m of two minds about this. (Destiny)

by INSANEdrive, ಥ_ಥ | f(ಠ‿↼)z | ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ| ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, Friday, August 23, 2024, 17:37 (102 days ago) @ Coaxkez

They have said it would have been cheaper, and less work to simply shoot it themselves traditionally.

That's true for now. Look at the progress OpenAI made within a single year.

Now, 343 is absolutely jumping the gun here. There's no question about that. But my point, economically speaking, is that AI doesn't need to be "as good" as human output in order to cause major disruption; it only needs to be "good enough". Once it gets to a point that consumers are willing to spend money on AI output preferentially over human-generated output, it's over. The cost savings will be too difficult to fight.

Capitalism can be insidious. Money drives decision-making not only on the business side of things, but on the consumer side as well.

I'm about to repeat myself a little here. So here is the quick version in the whole of below; It's about the people.

---

"343 is absolutely jumping the gun here"... no, no. "Capitalism" ... no, yes? but AH! no. It's a scapegoat, this. Vale in a vale in a vale. The problem with the all round terms is how it, like a net, captures all the ...plastic, as well as the fish. (A SOFFISH? I digress.) A trade off in the ease for speech I suppose.

What have we just so recently learned in example through Bungie? All roads lead to the people who's job up on high is to steer the ship. And I've already indirectly stated the motivations on this topic here which, yes, does blend well into the 2nd part here.

As for the 2nd part? Well, boy alive let's see if I can thread what I see in my head into words here... there is no more choice now. Lines are drawn (heh), and the true believers have pushed their chips on to the table, and now they want a result in that... confidence? And they are doing that much like "AI", by seeing what sticks in the frenzy.

There are no choices here, just gambles. A glory of "What if".

AI doesn't need to be "as good" as human output in order to cause major disruption; it only needs to be "good enough". Once it gets to a point that consumers are willing to spend money on AI output preferentially over human-generated output, it's over. The cost savings will be too difficult to fight.

On one hand...

On another...

...

...

No. "It's over"? Such is far too fatalistic a take, me thinks. Disco never died. Vinyl was not destroyed. 2d animation still lives, much as practical effects still do as well. Will there be a shift in the metrics? Yeah, that's pretty much a given at some point I suppose, but... eh. There are still a fair bit of questions in progress which need be answered for.