dasnihil

dasnihil t1_ix8mqig wrote

it's just a complexity/dimensionality issue. with 3d images, the training and diffusion principles are the same but your matrix gets one more dimension and dataset has to be of different nature. but since we don't have such datasets for training, i think these ppl somehow used the 2d trained model to create output in a dummy 3d space. i've done 3d modeling/rendering before and the challenge is just huge. this is too early but it's gonna mature so soon like everything else we've seen.

just wait for AI to publish more computer science research papers and just outdo itself, we just sit and enjoy the show. deepmind's AI already improved on matrix multiplication a few weeks ago, something humans couldn't do in 50+ years.

8

dasnihil t1_iw6xj7l wrote

true art and honest artists shouldn't have to worry about "being replaced on your job by a machine", but as long as art and entertainment have monetary values in our society, most artists will not get to be happy about what they do. they don't get to live to make art, instead they have to resort to making art to live and thus be upset about something else making art. not just paintings but eventually songs, music, dance, stories and everything else we humans produce.

it seems to me that art a human construct that cohesively binds most our other constructs but it is far from being a sacred institution which shouldn't have to deal with tangible/monetary things. maybe in the coming centuries.

5

dasnihil t1_iv51cou wrote

when most people are meh about your ideas, it could either mean most people are naive, like in Albert Einstein's case. or it could also mean that you are naive. have you done introspection enough to know or do you just say it to defend your ego over random hypothesis weaved together by a conspiratorial mindset. nothing against you tho, if it turns out to be true, you get to be Einstein for a bit.

8

dasnihil t1_istdaln wrote

i don't know of any non-greedy company that would like to keep the same output they have today. but good point of investing the money elsewhere. anyway, who cares man. i don't even care enough about singularity, it's one of the human constructs like many other. it would be nice to live with a universal income/housing provided though. that's the only thing i care about till i die. after that a zillion more ppl will come to earth, humanity might engineer sentience and move on from our biological body, nuclear fusion will slingshot conscious beings into space, what a tourism industry that would be. no harm from radiation, no need for oxygen.. anyway, that's what i see humanity getting into in maybe 200 years from now.

the only benefit i see that people living today "might" get is a basic income to support bare minimum living, that too in a decade if not two.

2

dasnihil t1_irvgisg wrote

yes, but love is not that easy for an AI, hell it's difficult even for us to describe the nature of love. and the nature and validity of biological love comes with other emotions like jealousy and hatred, plus we have plethora of human constructs on top of the primal emotions. the difficult part for an intelligent systems is not solving technical problems and gaining efficiency, the difficult part is solving easy problems that our kids figure out by themselves.

2

dasnihil t1_irtbsir wrote

Reply to comment by SituatedSynapses in AI art 256x faster by Ezekiel_W

i agree, it does need more VRAM to output faster, but im more excited about upcoming videos that maintain coherency like a proper human made video, then add audio synthesis to it and we all can implement our ideas and create amazing things. even if the render takes time, still amazing improvement to have.

2