The really sad thing is that the natural instinct for many will be to screenshot the page and upload it with "please create me a home assistant dashboard in this style".
It's not sad, it's literally what those tools are for.
Yes, this is the "you wouldn't download a car" moment. Yes, I would.
(And no, I'm not doing it, because I have my own preferences, which involves hitting a very small target in design space, that is applying "dark cockpit" principles and a mix of industrial HIGs and nuclear reactor control room interface standards to LCARS.)
He didn't say it's illegal (even if it's debatable and kinda loophole-ish, but lets pretend for now that society has fully embraced a world-encompassing copyright exception if you're named Altman or Amodei).
He said it's sad, and no matter how you want to spin it, it still is incredibly sad and depressing that we're hailing the age of "semantic photocopiers" as some sort of intellectual achievement.
If you consider it incredibly sad and depressing for the majority of people to have cheap access to things that would have cost a small fortune due to being inevitably hand-crafted only a few years ago, I hope you're renouncing clothing manufactured using automated looms, printed books etc. as well?
Absolutely, I think fast fashion brands like Shein and TEMU-style shops are incredibly sad, toxic for the economy and the environment, and I've never bought anything from them.
Are you arguing that the only type of clothing an automated loom can help produce is fast fashion? Is every piece of clothing you own hand-woven, crocheted etc.?
Man I hate this argument. You're comparing cognition to reproduction. You're giving examples of duplication but comparing them to unique artifacts. It's not the same and you must understand this.
On top of this is the gross ethical concerns where all AI companies were allowed to steal all of this information/wisdom/art to train these models. At least with the power looms, a few skilled craftsmen were hired to help design them. This is blatant intellectual theft we're choosing to ignore because we're addicted to cheap products.
We choose temporary sensory pleasure over a healthy society.
I don't think the closest T-Shirt comparison is quite exactly either of those. E.g. you can get any image you like printed on a T-Shirt without hiring someone might be closer, though still not really the same. Thinking about that a bit more, everything seems like unique cognition until the technology to treat it as simple duplication exists. "Duplicate this project with this layout and style" has crossed that line now, just as taking a photo with a filter did long ago which itself long ago replaced a painter and so on. They technologies often produce something of lower quality than what the people they replaced would, few would say a photo filter is as good as a custom painting, but they tend to do the job well enough it replaces most of those kinds of workers.
I think the concern should be more on "you can't just extrapolate the same process forever and expect the same kind of outcome". Just because it was good in small amounts before doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently good to have an infinite capability to do that.
Regardless of all of that, I think it's important if we do have the AIs we're making we treat it as a common good in terms of wealth (regardless if people were paid) rather than a way to funnel a small amount of money to the companies who initially drive it as we are now. I.e. don't even mind if we "steal" (copy) everyone's available outputs as long as we all decide it should really benefit everyone rather than a handful.
> You're giving examples of duplication but comparing them to unique artifacts.
No, I definitely see the difference, but I'm acknowledging that many people probably never cared all that much about how a beautiful thing is made, or at least not as much as they care about being able to have it.
I think it's a net good for the world for more people to be able to afford the things they like (after accounting for all externalities), even though of course it sucks for the craftsmen that lose their economic basis in the process.
> At least with the power looms, a few skilled craftsmen were hired to help design them. This is blatant intellectual theft we're choosing to ignore because we're addicted to cheap products.
I'm pretty sure this was little consolation to e.g. the Swing Rioters [1]. I suspect that this only seems less bad in hindsight. For many people whose livelihood was destroyed by mechanized agriculture, the power loom and other advances of technology during industrialization, I'm pretty sure it seemed equally catastrophic, if not more (18th century government welfare programs were somewhat lacking compared to modern standards).
All that said, while I do believe in human rights, I don't think there should be something like a "right for everyone to continue living like they are used to", which ultimately always means something like economic protectionism, artificial/subsidized demand etc. I'd much rather we find dignified ways to manage the transition for everybody than to engage in some elaborate pretense of economic necessity when there isn't one. If we only grant value or even basic human rights to economically productive workers, maybe that's something worth addressing anyway?
> He said it's sad, and no matter how you want to spin it, it still is incredibly sad and depressing that we're hailing the age of "semantic photocopiers" as some sort of intellectual achievement.
We've been talking about being sad about a lot of different things in this thread.
But here's another thing to be sad about (somewhat related to what I was originally sad about): building "semantic photocopier" is probably quite an intellectual achievement, but so was the atom bomb. intellectual achievements, even impressive ones, can't be assumed to be good.
To hail a "semantic photocopier" requires a pretty myopic and parochial view. Looked at holistically, this stuff amounts to a project to rub out the human and replace it with cheap, inhuman slop. One aspect if that is when I see a picture like this, it's ruined because when I look at it I'm unsure if I'm communing with a human or getting fooled by a simulacrum. Another aspect is how the slop undermines the viability of creative and intellectually engaging professions.
We really ought to look at the kind of world we want to live in (which would probably have maximum satisfying creative work, and a minimum of drudgery), preserve the good parts of what we have, and focus on intellectual achievements to subtract the bad parts. But instead we're just mindlessly building whatever we can manage, damn the consequences or end result (which seems to be: more drudgery, less creative expression).
> It's not sad, it's literally what those tools are for.
If someone spreads poison on your street to kill the strays and mutts (yes, that’s a thing that happens) and it kills your dog, would you like someone to tell you “that’s not sad, that’s literally what poison is for”?
Using a tool for its intended use has zero relation to it being sad.
Yes, I do see that problem. I just wish we'd call it what it is instead of drawing imprecise and confusing analogies that are often thinly veiled appeals to emotion.
That would be the first step to addressing the actual issues: Who will advance the field, assuming that generative AI will always be limited to copying instead of innovating? What will be the place in society for the people that lose their job due to these changes? etc.
> I just wish we'd call it what it is instead of drawing imprecise and confusing analogies that are often thinly veiled appeals to emotion.
And I wish people on HN would steel man arguments and not assume intentions in others, but here we are. There was no “appeal to emotion”, veiled or otherwise. The example used harming dogs because hopefully most¹ of us can agree that’s repulsive and bad.
Everything else you’re saying has nothing to do with the point. AI isn’t the point (hint: that’s why I didn’t mention it), the point is spelled out in plain English at the end of the comment:
> Using a tool for its intended use has zero relation to it being sad.
¹ I promise you that qualifier is necessary. I’ve seen some vile opinions on HN.
My comment was specifically regarding your example of harm against animals, yes.
Why do you need to invoke an image of something widely considered repulsive to strengthen your point against something much more nuanced/controversial?
It was not to “strengthen the point”, it was to have a clear example where most of us can be on the same page of what is wrong. This is HN, anything other than an obvious example attracts an infinite swarm of nitpickers arguing that that whatever bad thing “is very good, actually”.
I designed my basement renovation using a combination of image modelsand a 3D scanned Houzz Pro FloorPlan, and I gotta say it REALLY helped the contractor deliver on the vision that I had.
Decorating when you can easily swap out pieces and parts in images with realistic dimensions makes rapid iteration on physical things much faster and it's easy to figure out what "speaks" to you. Great use of these tools.
I tried a couple of the web-based design-a-floorplan sites and all of them were kinda like using crayons to draw a circuit diagram. Ended up doing a pile of sketches on paper, then when I had what I liked finalised it in Visio and sent it through to an architect who turned it into proper plans which, since they were architect-drawn plans I had to check for f_ckery and then the builder checked it for stuff I'd missed but ended up with a rebuild that was exactly what we wanted.
Well with one bit of f_ckery that both of us missed until after the concrete had been poured because it was too small to see easily on the plan, and a second also too-small bit that I caught once they'd put the framing up and asked them to take it out again.
I’m genuinely curious how you use image models for this type of design. I need a way for my wife and I to visualize a remodel project and don’t know where to start or which tools are best for the job.
dump the plan, make sure it has height etc, after dump pictures if needed,
refs of colors. atropic has some nice recipes somewhere online, entire prompts you can feed into cc. i used their workflows feature, otherwise it's painfully slow.
do it in two steps, first generate just the named 3d model, walls, stairs etc inspect for correctness, after proceed to the fun part, materials, colors, etc.
I did it in extra one step, not sure if that was needed, i build a local harness first for extra small room 6 ft by 6ft, and after that expanded into real size. It installed lots of tools.
It’s not different . One case you chose tiles , you take a picture of your bathroom , and give it a rough sized of tile + room and it will
Give you visual check . Second option if you want it also to calculate materials . This is a 3d path . First one can be done by just chat , another one is coding agent .
yes, it's amazingly/depressingly good at things that would take a $1000+ software, and years of education just a year ago. Now I'm doing this with leftover claude/codex weekly quotas( i do have both due to some testings at work).
Sad, but at the same time it's worth asking how many people would actually pay an artist to do this, versus those who would never do this unless it was for AI.
I want mine in watercolor. I’ve been wanting to take a watercolor class, so I figure this can be my mini-thesis project. I’ll still pass it to an AI to refine and animate.
Sounds sensible. In my country (and probably many others), if you and your neighbour own identical houses or apartments and have identical mortgages, and instead of living in your own one you rent the neighbours one and live in that and vice versa, then you can both offset your mortgage interest against the rental income and both be better off than if you lived in your own house.
I accept the premise on the math, but "better off" is subjective. I'm in the UK so that's my context.
When your renter informs you of the boiler breaking, or a roof needs replacing, that's going to get thorny - "It was fine when I was using it/living in it, did you break it?"
Perhaps the latest round of updates to property law for renters come along and suddenly as a landlord you have to above and beyond what you need to as an owner; you both have to do X, Y or Z to your properties because they're rental and not a basic owner situation.
I have the same memories from many years of working with stored procedures - although you should certainly have been using source control.
But nothing quite matches the satisfaction of someone in a far off engineering group reporting a problem that prevented them from committing data that would have corrupted the database - because your referential integrity constraints protected the database.
In the age of AI and a massive explosion of code touching the database, maybe it makes even more sense to embed logic and constraints inside the database where there's no way to get around them.
I'm old enough to remember the arrival of RDBMS, once IBM primed the space with DB2.
There was a pitched battle over features like row-level locking as competitors like Sybase, Ingress and Oracle scrapped it out. New features arrived on a monthly cadence, with immense engineering effort behind them. The winners (Oracle mostly) won a great moat which led to them to where they are today.
The fact that so many AI companies can produce amazing coding tools so quickly shows there is no moat, supporting your theory.
That is impossible to fund. At some point someone will decide to stop throwing money on the firepit that's the current business model and then hardware prices crash back to earth as 60-70% of the global demand disappears overnight.
The hardware miniaturization gains have finally dried up, though.
I am pretty certain that the current state of the art silicon feature size won't shrink again for at least another decade or two.
It normally takes about a decade to mature a tech which can create a smaller feature size into something commercially viable for mass production scale, and no further improvements have been in the pipeline for that long now.
So it's like the "next piece" indicator while playing Tetris is just blank.
It is more of a regulatory capture byproduct to prop up an artificial token driven Ponzi scheme.
There is a serious alternative to NVIDIA "AI" hardware dropping out of China in February 2027. There is no moat, but a whole lot of unpaid debts in the near future.
I honestly have no expert knowledge about this stuff. What I say is based only on intuition.
- China is heavily, heavily incentivised to enhance their own chip making
- Looking at the rate Chinas has expanded into just about every single other
space, and from quantity to quality, I just think it is impossible that they
don't compete on equal grounds pretty soon.
- I don't buy the insurmountable moat of TSMC
Reminiscent of tank warfare in WW2. The soviet T-34 was not remarkable in any particular way, but the sheer volumes it was produced in made it a very serious enemy to German tanks. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own".
I feel that abandoning your car at an intersection and fleeing the scene in front of armed officers as a presidential drive by was about to arrive - in Dallas of all places - could have had far worse consequences.
Wonderful name. You may know this, but Kai means food in Maori. Many words and many, many place names also embed it, e.g Moana == sea, so Kaimoana is seafood.
Yes, I'd like to see the "cheap shade" that could span as far as shown in the pics as well as survive strong gales. It wouldn't be like a cheap shade in your back yard.
reply