I’m sorry to say that a AI could recreate that look in a flash. And within 5 years you could have a completely consistent, feature length film done in that look.
Let’s not minimize the threat. If we want to avoid being replaced by computers, it’s now the fight has to be had.
There is a venn diagram of anti ai including both people who believe ai is incapable of producing value and people who believe it will take their jobs,
But they do not mix nor understand how the other exists.
I’m not really sure if your comment is a reaction against my statement, in support of my statement ir adding further nuance to my statement.
I certainly believe AI is capable of producing value.
I certainly believe AI will take people’s jobs. Exactly because it is able to produce value.
I’ve seen both things first thing, many times, already.
My statement was meant to highlight that it is exactly because it is producing value and taking people’s jobs that we ought to have a debate about whether it should and who it will benefit (and who will lose out) from that great replacement.
Right now, all I see is a further concentration of wealth built on the backs of thousands of years of human creativity. It’s the ultimate rent seeking.
I’m sorry to say that a AI could recreate that look in a flash. And within 5 years you could have a completely consistent, feature length film done in that look.
Let’s not minimize the threat. If we want to avoid being replaced by computers, it’s now the fight has to be had.
Fatal mistake.
There is a venn diagram of anti ai including both people who believe ai is incapable of producing value and people who believe it will take their jobs,
But they do not mix nor understand how the other exists.
I’m not really sure if your comment is a reaction against my statement, in support of my statement ir adding further nuance to my statement.
I certainly believe AI is capable of producing value. I certainly believe AI will take people’s jobs. Exactly because it is able to produce value.
I’ve seen both things first thing, many times, already.
My statement was meant to highlight that it is exactly because it is producing value and taking people’s jobs that we ought to have a debate about whether it should and who it will benefit (and who will lose out) from that great replacement.
Right now, all I see is a further concentration of wealth built on the backs of thousands of years of human creativity. It’s the ultimate rent seeking.
Its part nuance part friendly warning because your attempt to rally people is easy to be misunderstood.
In the first part you try to convince that ai will be capable of producing quality.
In the second part you try to rally against the threat of ai taking jobs but the people you just adressed don’t believe this is going to be a problem.