ceargaest

[tʃæɑ̯rˠɣæːst]

linguist & software engineer in Lenapehoking; jewish ancom trans woman.

since twitter's burning gonna try bringing my posts about language stuff and losing my shit over star wars and such here - hi!


username etymology
bosworthtoller.com/5952

lokeloski
@lokeloski
This page's posts are visible only to users who are logged in.

pervocracy
@pervocracy

Remember the first couple years of Uber, when you could get a short ride for, like, three bucks? Because the company wasn't trying to make a profit, they were just trying to establish themselves as an indispensable service, and then they'd raise the prices?

This is where I think we're at with generative AI. The thing that is really going to pop the AI bubble is the fact that all that energy they're burning isn't free. There's a lot of consumers using AI for convenience or novelty because when it's a negligible cost, it's kind of a fun toy. Sure, try three hundred prompts until you get something that fits your purposes, why not?

But once the taxi meter starts running at full price, it's all going to fall apart. Then you're not just pushing a button over and over until you get the right number of fingers; you're pulling a slot machine lever. And if you're a business, you're paying someone to pull that lever and count the fingers or Photoshop them into something usable. Is all this actually cheaper than paying that person to buy a couple stock images and Photoshop them? I'm not sure. It's definitely less predictable how long it will take and how much it will cost.

Double-headed fish and recipes for fried gravel are compromises people will put up with to get superficially-polished art or vast quantities of text when it's dirt cheap. As soon as it starts costing real money to get barely-controllable, low-quality results, it's not going to be cute anymore.

Or the technology will suddenly improve so much that it can meet extremely basic quality standards like "never adding random details to document summaries" or "reliably drawing the same character twice." But this seems to be hitting the same limits as self-driving cars, where being kinda okay at it turns out to be 100000x easier than being good at it. And the market for kinda okay is not going to pay a trillion dollar electric bill.


NireBryce
@NireBryce

Then you're not just pushing a button over and over until you get the right number of fingers; you're pulling a slot machine lever.

right now it's an industry that's situated on top of trial-and-erroring your way to a correct answer, and that's the only way it can work without substantial breakthroughs.

and then, once they price it without the massive subsidies from Microsoft and the like trying to make fetch happen, the inaccuracies and hallucinations become a business plan instead of a flaw.

the house always wins in the end.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @lokeloski's post:

I hate Goldman Sachs as much as any other evil megacorp, but I really hope this is a sign that generative AI is on its way out now that the financial people are saying it's BS.

in reply to @pervocracy's post:

Double-headed fish and recipes for fried gravel are compromises people will put up with to get superficially-polished art or vast quantities of text when it's dirt cheap

Although they shouldn't. AI is capable of throwing out answers to questions that can kill people. Even relatively benign stuff like "picture of a woman eating my company's salad" can end your job, if the result happens to feature her nipple poking out or a subtle racial slur embroidered on her shirt and nobody noticed it.

Yep. The main one I know for writing a) markets entirely for fiction, where you don't need to worry about a lot of the "recipe for fried gravel" issues, and b) requires a complete worldbuilding index and the thing it's writing to be outlined at "one section of outline per two hundred words of output" levels. And at that point, yes, it'll often produce something that can be revised into acceptable writing. But that's the level of work that has to go into giving it a foundation, and it still needs revision and polishing by an actual human with writing skills, and it's not cheap. And that's pure text, where the revision stage is a lot easier to push off onto the consumer.

Otherwise, yeah, it's a slot machine that's been giving everyone free plays. The slot machine was very cool, but people are looking at the actual cost and deciding it's not worth it.

Maybe there's some toupee effect* here, but in my observations generative AI is terrible for fiction, because its nature is always to produce the most predictable combination of words, and a lot of the pleasure in reading comes from being surprised by it. AI fiction has a real plodding quality.

I guess it depends just how much you revise, but if you're rewriting almost the whole thing, then the AI didn't actually do much more than break your writer's block.

*people think toupees are obvious because they only notice obvious toupees

That's where the super-detailed outline comes in. Once the human has given it an outline telling it what to do every 200-word segment, all the machine's really doing is filling the blank page - as you said, it's more of a writer's block breaker. If you just tell it to generate from scratch, yeah, it's the most boring thing you've ever seen.