> You aren't understanding that even when chatGPT makes up bullshit code that's close to working it's STILL revolutionary.
I can ask google and it will bring up a stackoverflow answer as well, that has a better hit rate. This is exactly the same thing that ChatGPT does, but it is simply a better search engine. Is it revolutionary? As a search engine, sure. As a programmer? I haven’t seen any evidence of it genuinely generating novel code, and not just regurgitating found code in another language’s syntax.
Did I say, chatGPT will write software? No. It's the precursor to the thing that will. chatGPT wasn't even specifically trained to write software. It just happens to do it as a random side effect. Wait till they make the thing that specifically targets writing software.
Actually curious what evidence you have to back this up, I can imagine ChatGPT augmenting people's skills, or even being used for inspiration, I've also not seen anything to suggest it will "git gud" and just replace everyone.
Evidence for the future? Nobody has any real evidence for the future. You don't even have evidence that AI won't get better.
I will say that my prediction is more likely given the immense progress of AI over the last decade. If AI continues improving at the same rate then I will be right. If it hits a plateau then parent will be right.
By virtue of my statements following the slope of a historically increasing trendline, my statements are more likely to be correct.
I didn't say "AI" (which is a ridiculously broad term to use in this context) won't get better.
I said this statistical language model likely won't end up replacing coders in it's current form. I think something really quite new and novel will have to be invented to do this.
I kind of which I could use it to be writing code for me now while I was outside in the sun, but no :)
Edit: I re-read your original comment and I think you edited to be a bit more inline with my thoughts?
No, I think we are still in disagreement here. The generative model is capable of replacing you... it just needs proper training. The tech is here but the proper application of that tech hasn't happened yet and we are dangerously close.
It was trained in a very general way, but with further training and different training it can get even better.
Put it this way. The step to chatGPT was gigantic. The step to the thing that will replace you is comparatively smaller.
I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about. Have you ever considered our jobs will just evolve? Like as if coding computers is the last job in the world? Like, we might not even have jobs in the future. So in that respect, it might be ha.
People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend.
Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it.
The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is.
I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design.
>I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about.
It's not intentionally hostile. "Replace All of us and many people outside of coding" is a better term. Apologies.
>People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend.
By replace I mean replace your job. You'll still be around.
>Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it.
Why not? That's literally the only thing that's predictable and pretty much inevitable. Destroying civilization is really grand speculation. Again by "replace" I mean replace your job. Not replace your life.
>The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is.
What I'm saying is that this AlphaCoder is built off of the same basic technology as chatGPT, just targeted to replace a specific Job role. chatGPT is trained more generally. But the Generator model... the underlying technology is the same. It's just the training data and reinforcement is different.
>I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design.
Oh man you chose the wrong example for me. I'm highly critical of designers. I think it's the most generic simple sector of the art world that any one can actually pull off with little training. Minimal designs that are clean take time and effort to make... THIS I agre...e but talent? No I disagree. It takes no talent to think hard about design fundamentals. Literally it's all flat geometric shapes on a page and text placement and font selection.
I am FAR more impressed with an artist that can draw something that's more photorealistic rather then arranging text and shapes on a page. If you hire a "designer" for a company you're building and you pay him top dollar. I'm sorry you're getting ripped off. This is one of the greatest delusions of modern times that Design is hard when in actuality it's trivially easy.
I think you do need an art department. But that art department will be full of people with a very basic and generic skillset and it's a job that deserves really low pay imo. Don't believe me? Look at googles logo. Some designer got paid top dollar for just a multicolored G... you have to be next level insane not to see how little talent was involved in that. I mean the G is clean and symmetrical and iconic... but it's also TRIVIAL to create.
All of this is besides the point. The point is, especially for Design, you can hire a guy with no training to use an AI specifically made to generate things with a specific "design" theme for your company and it will generate designs that are ON par with what a designer can do.
There's much more to design than just pictures, including color theory. I think you've overlooked this because you didn't mention it. I'd also say colors are the more important aspect of Googles branding than just the text.
Color is a gradient of wavelength. It does not arise from 3 primary colors. Realize that those three colors are picked arbitrarily and placed in some technical framework called "color theory." Color theory is a highly inappropriate term for this as it implies the concept is fundamental rather then arbitrary.
Color theory arose from the observation that mixing those 3 colors got you other colors but they didn't realize that the 3 colors were actually arbitrary and that there are many sets of 3 colors that can produce the SAME effect. It's an archaic concept that's still taught in art because of tradition and not because of any science or logic.
The human eye does, however, utilize 3 primary cones to do color sensing. These colors, however, are not the primary colors: Red yellow and blue. It's RGB. Your screen uses RGB because engineers who came up with the concept of RGB weren't so full of it.
For that reason the web designer you hire SHOULD technically be using RGB and NOT color theory. Color theory is literal BS that I feel many designers buy into the bullshit. It makes them sound like they know what they're talking about when really all it comes down to is whether or not something looks good or not.
Additionally, color theory is a TRIVIAL concept. It's EASY to learn and apply. There's nothing advanced here that you can't look up on the internet. You don't need to hire a designer if you want to miss-apply some bullshit called color theory to your "designs". Just make sure you ask your gut whether the design looks good or not because that's actually the thing that needs to be studied here. If any theory needs to be formulated around design and color it needs to be centered around biology/culture to determine what we think "looks good".
>I've also not seen anything to suggest it will "git gud" and just replace everyone.
You have seen artists complaining really violently about DALL-E and mid-journey right? There's even a law suit. This is happening because they think it's a real threat.
With all the events in the news you'd be lying to yourself if the possibility of AI "getting gud" isn't even something that's on your mind.
No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently".
AI won't "replace artists", artists might use AI to generate something and then tweak it and do something more creative with it. It's actually silly to suggest "art" or "artists" are replaceable.
In the digital space, it might be a thing, but until a robot starts painting actual oil paintings and carving wooden sculptures, at which point, someone will do a "collaboration" with a robot and then it will be art in it's own right.
But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything.
I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you.
When AI "git's gud", people will start using it to break other peoples software, then there will be a whole industry around this problem, AI proofing your software against AI hacking and on it all goes.
>No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently".
I am saying this in the nicest way possible with no intended offense. But you are actually living under a rock if you haven't been following the news.
>But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything.
"Violently" is just an expression. There's no actual violence here. But there is intense resistance on legal grounds and online attacks.
>I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you.
That's just an excuse. These AIs and megacorps were appropriating the art for decades. Google hijacks images from artists for years and caches them on their servers. No artist complained to this extent EVER. Not until AI got to the point where it can create art just as good as the artists themselves... then all of a sudden it's a problem? come on man. This is an attack on AI not on copying art. Don't kid yourself.
>Not to be an ass but they're the most inflammatory sources of news I know, I won't even open an article from "Independent" for my own mental health.
omg, then don't click on the link, there's OTHER links I posted too. Relax bro. I just googled the term and found a bunch of links and posted them because it's literally everywhere. You don't have to follow ANY of the links if you don't want to. The point is to show you that this stuff is everywhere.
I think your sources are limited that's how you missed something as big as artists launching the first resistance against AI. There were SEVERAL articles about this on HN as well.
>Sorry, but you're just wasting my time with rot and weak arguments.
Now this is just rude. You say "not to be an ass" but you deliberately call my arguments rot and weak and say I'm "wasting" your time? That is OFFENSIVE. And is literally against the rules here and inflammatory. Please leave HN or follow the rules.
Yes good day to you I don't want to engage in a flamewar you almost started.
I just did a bit more research, artists AND corporations, including Getty images are in lawsuits against companies stealing their work to train AI models.
There's a big, big, big difference between copyright based lawsuits and you claiming "artists launching the first resistance against AI".
I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming.
The resistance involves copyright lawsuits and online bullying to attack people using AI. That's exactly what I mean by "resistance"
>I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming.
I already told you that's an excuse. Google and thousands of AIs and other megacorps have been scraping artists work for decades. The backlash wasn't a big deal then. Why suddenly is it a huge problem when AI art hits an inflection point and can produce art that's equal in quality to the artist?
Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory?
Because you can't use that memory to produce original works of art in the same style as the artists. That's why the artist doesn't give a shit about you copying the art into your brain. They do give a shit about DALL-E copying the art into it's neural net because these AI's can potentially replace them.
You're just arguing some people are afraid of being replaced by AI, new flash? Some people are afraid by peoples sexual orientation. Some artists are already replaced by better artists, they don't just resign from doing art. Art isn't really about money, it's about self-expression, there is no case where an AI is going to replace that, it's personal.
By the way, are photographers rioting in the street? Because they should be too, I've not seen it but they should be?
Artists already knew this and photographers too, there were more photos and images available online for free or next to nothing, than you could ever imagine or possible consume. It didn't change much, people still did art and people still got hired and not much will change. People will still be involved in art and photos. For fun and for money.
I guarantee you there is a whole group of people who see using DALL-E to generate new interesting ideas as being a thing too, who see it as an opportunity. Similar to who Chess players are using AI to study new moves.
If it's your profession, yeah it might suck, but on the other hand, I choose to hire artists because I enjoy working with people and building something together, it's a whole different creative process and in my opinion, creates better products for the specific use case. I actually wouldn't mind sitting with artists who use AI to create things?
Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory?
You're naive actually about how these things work, these things use statistics to draw pictures based on statistics, they don't understand anything, it's why when I use DALL-E, it makes some nice stuff, but when I look more closely it also does weird things like, has objects sticking out of peoples heads. So no it doesn't do the same thing, it doesn't "understand" anything. I would understand if I was asked to draw a picture of someone that it would be strange to have a wooden stake sticking out of their ass. DALL-E doesn't. Go and get it to draw you a photo of children playing, it will be quite a nightmare.
While this stuff is impressive, it's a very, very big leap to go from painting by numbers to understanding something and being creative in that way. I personally think it will be a fun and exciting time when this happens, but fundamentally, it's quite a different system.
I actually get the feeling as humans, we're also overlaying our own ego onto how great these creations we've created are without being practical and objective enough to actually figure out if these things are actually important.
Style, design, etc is more than just "having the image". Selection is important, for example musicians write thousands of songs and never actually record them. There is a time and a place for specific art to be deployed, consumed, displayed, I don't think this is going away either, "style" and having an eye for the correct imagery is not something that will be replaced anytime soon. Essentially, having infinite images also means making the right choice becomes harder, that will be a new trade in itself.
These days I struggle to watch a movie, there are just too many options, AI is only going to make this problem worse. We'll be drowning in shit.
Nothing is as simple as it seems.
From the perspective of psychology, I think the most salty people are those who don't do art, it's almost like people hope this is the end of people being able to freely express themselves. Kind of like the quest to crush artistic freedom is in progress.
This is a continuation from my other reply. Read the other comment first. Or not, it's rather long. I type fast.
>These days I struggle to watch a movie, there are just too many options, AI is only going to make this problem worse. We'll be drowning in shit.
Holy shit. Now you need to hire a guy to choose the movie for you. Pay him a movie directors wage. Clearly this choosing stuff is so hard we need experts! No I'm kidding. Let's be honest, choosing things is easy.
>Nothing is as simple as it seems.
The irony here is that your conclusion is the simpler one. It's the easy way out. People are optimistic by default and pessimism is actually the harder path because it's so much uglier to admit. The truth is actually more inline with pessimism as the world is more or less built on competitive darwinian fundamentals with cooperation existing only as a side effect. The brain paints a delusional reality in such a way so that you don't get constantly scared or depressed. If you find your thoughts always being overly optimistic there's a good chance you're biased.
>From the perspective of psychology, I think the most salty people are those who don't do art, it's almost like people hope this is the end of people being able to freely express themselves. Kind of like the quest to crush artistic freedom is in progress.
I look at this statement and there are things about it that are obviously wrong. And I wonder how come you're blind to it? Like you're obviously referring to me somewhat. But that's not even the issue.
The most salty people are the people who entered into a lawsuit. You have to be really fucking salty to spend the time and the effort to do that. Who's in the lawsuit? Not me, I don't give a shit about artists. Let me spell it out: Artists are suing AI companies because Artists are the ones that are the most SALTY. That's not even a huge revelation. The revelation is how this came to be NOT obvious to a pretty smart person like you?
You use psychology to imply I'm the one out of touch? Take a look in the mirror.
A better analogy for this is oil companies and climate change pre 2000s. I'm the environmentalist saying something is fucked up here. You're oil baron. You're the person in Software who's in denial about how Software and ML is about to make some drastic and extremely negative changes to the way the world works. I can assure you oil barons couldn't face the cold hard truth and grasped at every positive angle they could get there hands on to build a universe where they weren't responsible for harming the world. They couldn't face the reality. Can you.
Can you face the truth that the artist working for your company is about to become useless. Can you fire him and tell him that to his face? No. You need a narrative. What about your own skills as a software engineer. Are you able to face a reality where your job is basically within 10-20 years going to be phased out for AIs? Likely not. So consider the possibility that you're the one that's biased and you're the one with the overly rosy outlook.
>You're just arguing some people are afraid of being replaced by AI, new flash?
No I'm saying many people are afraid enough such that they organized a law suit against AI. Something that never happened before. THAT is sufficient evidence in support of the fact that AI has surpassed certain limits and CAN replace certain occupations. THIS point is OBVIOUS and YOU know this.
Why are you delivering talking points to make me explain what's obvious?
>Art isn't really about money, it's about self-expression,
You have got to be joking. You realize art is a HUGE part of business right? Movies, Video Games, Websites, Comic books ALL ARE businesses that use art. I think it's gotten to a point where you're just grasping for concepts to defend a point and you're not realizing how obviously wrong these concepts are. Art is Categorically a business. It is also self-expression at the same time but you are delusional if you think it's not business.
>Artists already knew this and photographers too, there were more photos and images available online for free or next to nothing, than you could ever imagine or possible consume. It didn't change much, people still did art and people still got hired and not much will change. People will still be involved in art and photos. For fun and for money.
Photographers didn't riot for three reasons. First reason, it doesn't take much skill to be a good photographer. So it's not a huge thing when something takes it over because most people never invested much into it. For art there's huge investment into getting good at it.
Second Reason. The technology came too slowly. It's not as sudden as AI and art. Smart phones turning everyone into somewhat good photographers and even consumer cameras before that took several decades of progress and gradual improvement to be where we are at today. When something comes slowly people don't really react, JUST like how global warming will fuck the world up but it's so slow nobody can bring themselves to care.
Third Reason. AI is not actually replacing all forms of photography. AI is like art. People know it's made up. There's still actual demand for captured stills of reality AND that is a separate niche from captured made up stills that don't exist in reality.
>I guarantee you there is a whole group of people who see using DALL-E to generate new interesting ideas as being a thing too, who see it as an opportunity. Similar to who Chess players are using AI to study new moves.
Sure.
>If it's your profession, yeah it might suck, but on the other hand, I choose to hire artists because I enjoy working with people and building something together, it's a whole different creative process and in my opinion, creates better products for the specific use case. I actually wouldn't mind sitting with artists who use AI to create things?
Of course. But you see there's a difference here. In the past if I wanted a person to paint me some really high quality and completely original fantasy art, I'd dish out a lot of money because such a skill is hard to find. Now I can hire any person who just has a bit of design sense and HE can use AI to do 99% of the work at minimum wage. I get all the benefits of personal interaction while I reap way more rewards by paying lower wages. ART skill was expensive, The comradery of working with someone was and still is cheap. But now the world is changing and art is just as cheap as comradery.
>You're naive actually about how these things work, these things use statistics to draw pictures based on statistics, they don't understand anything, it's why when I use DALL-E, it makes some nice stuff, but when I look more closely it also does weird things like, has objects sticking out of peoples heads. So no it doesn't do the same thing, it doesn't "understand" anything. I would understand if I was asked to draw a picture of someone that it would be strange to have a wooden stake sticking out of their ass. DALL-E doesn't. Go and get it to draw you a photo of children playing, it will be quite a nightmare.
Bro. Most of the things these things draw ARE already better than anything you can do. It's better than the average human being at drawing already. You're pointing out flaws but even with those flaws it's STILL better than average.
That being said this is just DALL-E. Other Generative Models that are trained more thoroughly on specialized sets produce WAY better output. MidJourney for example.
>While this stuff is impressive, it's a very, very big leap to go from painting by numbers to understanding something and being creative in that way. I personally think it will be a fun and exciting time when this happens, but fundamentally, it's quite a different system.
Painting by numbers? Bro. This thing is CLEARLY not painting by the numbers. You give it a sentence DALL-E gives you SEVERAL variations that are on par with what a human would do in terms of creativity. Just go onto deviant art and it's all similar from the perspective of originality.
Lack of Creativity or "painting by the numbers" isn't the issue. The issue is translation accuracy. Some things are "off", hands are inaccurate, some things are misplaced. AI is already killing it in terms of creativity. The problem now is to fix these artifacts. Fixing artifacts is not in your words "a huge leap". Once those artifacts are fixed and these AI models generate pictures with pixel perfection it's over.
>I actually get the feeling as humans, we're also overlaying our own ego onto how great these creations we've created are without being practical and objective enough to actually figure out if these things are actually important.
This is cliche. You're repeating what everyone has been parroting all over HN that these AI's have limits, they aren't as good as humans, yadayadayada. What your saying is EASY to believe. It's a common trope and the deceptively obvious conclusion. It takes extra effort to get passed this bias and see the extent of AI. I'm not amazed because I'm just taking the easiest conclusion. No. I'm amazed because I took steps to overcome my bias.
Think of it this way. You know of the turing test? For the longest time and for most of my life this test: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Turing_test was basically the standard test to see if something was more or less an actual intelligence and self aware. It was quite obvious to most people that this test was virtually impossible for an AI to pass and if an AI passed it, it's more or less a self aware intelligent being.
Yeah we just rocketed passed this test. LLM's regularly can beat this test, TRIVIALLY. But then there's a whole bunch of clones with your outlook. You guys move the bar higher and higher everytime a milestone is hit. Beating that test would be impressive in the past, but now that something actually beat it, it isn't sufficiently impressive anymore. You unconsciously place the bar higher without realizing and begin nitpicking and magnifying the little issues AI still has. You guys will forever think there's lightyears to go before AI matches human intelligence no matter how many turing type tests AI surpasses.
>Style, design, etc is more than just "having the image". Selection is important, for example musicians write thousands of songs and never actually record them. There is a time and a place for specific art to be deployed, consumed, displayed, I don't think this is going away either, "style" and having an eye for the correct imagery is not something that will be replaced anytime soon. Essentially, having infinite images also means making the right choice becomes harder, that will be a new trade in itself.
You think these models will only output pixel?. It can output anything that can be described in a natural language. Be it English, pixels or HTML styled with CSS. That's the first part. The second part is, it takes 100000x less talent to SELECT something that was ALREADY created then it does to CREATE something that didn't exist. EVEN when you have a lot of selection. You want proof? The internet and amazon has INCREASED my shopping selection choices by a huge magnitude. You still don't see me paying 200k to an expert chooser to choose for me what to buy. Why? Because selecting these things will be EASY.
Previously you pay 200k to each of 5 artists to do some art job. Now you pay one person minimum wage to do AI to do the same thing. That's 4 people with no job and one person being paid minimum wage. That's the future.
