Still $550 for a 28 second game, so we need around 1-3 orders of magnitude in price and 3-6 in playtime. Hard to say what that actually corresponds to in terms of compute or intelligence but my ballpark is 1 more year (lets hope increased intelligence and emergent capabilities improves the game controls and design). The accurate comparison is a person making games for themselves or their friends.
In other words it's a problem when poor students have the same advantage as rich students. The goal of education is to teach or to extract money and decide social hierarchies?
The point of watching your children is to make sure harm doesn't befall them, if you have to harm them to watch them then you've lost the plot.
Would you mail your child's location & schedule to anonymous strangers? You are making the world much more dangerous by doing this, by many orders of magnitude.
I don't think you understood my point. My point is that it "reinforces inequalities" in the sense that those with more money benefit from better tools, which in turn helps them makes more money.
That's exactly the point I responded too, I explained why it doesn't. They are burning money to show the future, it's not cost effectve. All tech is logarithmic, the calculator on my desktop isn't far off a modern super computer in terms of significant figures.
Edit: to be clear they spent lets say 50,000 dollars to make something that is worth 0 dollars (or negative). If there is money to be made with AI it's in serving and the ideas of the users, but the biggest users will get ripped off by smaller, and so a race to the bottom.
What I am saying is that AI makes it easier for the rich to brute-force their way into something they don't really know, while the poor who knows what they are doing is slower than the brute-force, wasteful method of the rich.
This makes the rich, richer. And the poor, poorer. Therefore it reinforces inequalities.
The first is just like quite a few of the AI pitch start-ups that have gone bust. IMO the quality of the spam isn't good, it reads like it was written by an illiterate drunk that constantly mixes and abandons metaphors.
So the world is noisy and uncertain, and we have this light that eliminates noise and illuminates some object inside the chaos, actually no madness not chaos sorry. And now that object is hope and now you're on a journey to get that object and the book is drawing you in... to the world you already inhabit? Oh and the book is also light and the vehicle??? WTF!!! is this magic school bus cracked out bot trying to say??
OpenAI lacks process knowledge and technical experience, so they acquire it. They are so lacking that acquiring almost any established tech company needs no justification.
OpenAI continues to do everything right, using their position to acquire as many companies as possible. If you don't take a peak at the horror show that is Anthropic everything would look good.
Not really, you could imagine another technique that 3D models it without force but with raytracing, puts it in that scene and takes a picture, the result would look better. That could then be a starting point for trying to get the lighting an panels just right to make the best reflections.
When you forgo process the odds that you'll make good art drop to 0. Tool use is a much better path forward for self driving, artistic computer than big data. Images 2.6 only has use as a tool.
reply