Really impressive demo. I have to say that, but I do worry with this kind of fidelity to a human interaction that people will get more drawn into AI relationships and replace human contact.
I like voice as a mode of interaction with AI, but it’s always been clear with current tech that I’m talking to AI (and yet folks still got drawn into fantasy relationships thanks to sycophantic models etc) - I imagine with voice models like Dessa that could be worse for humans. This kind of fidelity blurs the lines of who or what the human is talking to and lets humans fall into an isolated world where they believe they are “socializing.”
Now, we could argue this is not a negative, maybe it is actually healthy for those who are looking for social connection or lonely, but my gut feel is that is not the case for most. It worries me that this kind of model will actually cause further deterioration of human socialisation and human-to-human contact.
I suspect the economics and 'shape' of the gaming industry to change over the next few years. Currently we're in this strange place with game dev where a large portion of software engineers (majority?) are using LLMs and AI coding tools, but for some reason the gaming industry (or at least it's customers) are vehemently anti-AI to the point studios have to put out statements about AI usage to assuage the mobs online.
This will change. The silent majority of customers will vote with their wallets once they realise they will get a) more games and b) better games - because the barrier to entry has been lowered, the timeframes, resource requirements reduced, more unique IP or novel games, etc. Yes, there will be more slop/shovelware - that's bound to happen - but we will also get vastly more great games as well if we allow the industry to embrace AI coding and generative AI for assets to assist creatives and developers.
It is sad that EA announced they are choosing not to continue development of the next ME game. I'm sure there are many fans of that franchise here, I know I sank a lot of hours into the series (and the online co-op mode from ME3).
Maybe EA sell off the IP to a studio who can lean into fully AI assisted game development. There's a chance we'll get something decent - and hey, it can't be as bad as Andromeda, right?
I suspect you are right. Interestingly this reminds me of the John Carmack interview on Lex Fridman’s podcast where he mentions that game devs and game artists/designers are different in their need for attribution with the later treating the discipline more like art (which it clearly can be).
The thing is, customers/players generally don’t care. Just look at the annual incremental releases of games that continue to sell well. Sure, there is also a cohort of players who love the indie scene for its more grassroots or authentic approach to games. Both sides of that player spectrum would ultimately be happy with more quality content, but I agree with you that perhaps one side may be more averse to AI “assisted” game development.
I think the nuance here is for a fan of indie games, how much of the artwork has to be hand generated? What if the artist uses AI to help speed up tedious work like additional frames or animation? What the game is entirely coded in AI but hand drawn (or vice versa).
> I suspect the economics and 'shape' of the gaming industry to change over the next few years. Currently we're in this strange place with game dev where a large portion of software engineers (majority?) are using LLMs and AI coding tools, but for some reason the gaming industry (or at least it's customers) are vehemently anti-AI to the point studios have to put out statements about AI usage to assuage the mobs online.
Users hate AI-generated assets, and justifiably so because they're often really terrible, and they take work away from artists. Regarding LLMs, users are far less passionate unless the project has clearly been slopped out as a quick-and-dirty vibecoded app.
Sure, but not all users hate AI generated assets, there are some who do not care either way (or can’t tell). I know plenty of artists (designers) in digital who are embracing generative AI and getting more done - granted, they are not artists who generate assets for games. But hey, maybe I’m biased working in the industry.
I can sympathise why many hate gen AI for the jobs it’s taken (and there is nuance here because often it’s not gen ai - it’s cost cutting or misaligned expectations from executives) but I feel like the craftsman who embraces the tool can create more value for the world than the craftsman who does not.
In any case, there will be a market for 100% human made art, media, and games -I’m just not sure we should obsess with enforcing (and gatekeeping), if someone who is a mediocre artist with a great game idea wants to make a game and use AI to accelerate themselves to deliver a better product for the world then that’s great.
Director (and Lingo) is how I got started before moving to Flash and ActionScript for ad agency projects. Was such a fun time to be a developer - you could build whatever you wanted online and brands were being pretty adventurous.
I’m curious why profitability is the concern here? I was under the impression that abundant clean energy would be of higher concern than profitability of energy companies - unless you mean that profitability concerns will reduce the willingness to invest and develop more nuclear?
I guess we could argue that these sorts of operations should be state owned?
It's not. This whole discussion is confused because it's based on a misunderstanding of how electricity markets work. When states charge a captive customer base whatever nuclear project costs turn out to be, profitability is not a meaningful measure of economic attractiveness. Levelised cost of energy, or system cost of energy, under different regulatory and market regimes, is the relevant benchmark.
Even if they are state owned, they should break even at least somewhere on paper. Explicit and bounded subsidies are very different from implicit, open-ended ones.
Language emanates from intelligence. That means the patterns and structure that make up human intelligence will appear in language. LLMs are created through so much language training that they can approximate (and now to some degree exceed) human intelligence using pattern recognition, statistics, and autocomplete (in layman’s terms).
Not sure how it is now, but early “reasoning” was simply the big labs sticking “wait a minute, what if I…” type language blocks into the process to trigger something like our own internal reasoning.
This is dense. I skimmed through hoping to see examples of the “aesthetics” with screenshots of old school installers (like the ones from Razor 1911, Class, Deviance etc) - it looks like these are scattered around the web, though. If anyone wants to relive some of the old chiptunes from these installers there’s https://archive.org/details/codex-installer-music-5-2018-03-...
I still refer to 1:37 pm (13:37) as "l33t o'clock" and 7:11 pm (19:11) as "Razor o'clock". They seem to come up remarkably often when I glance at the time, like 11:11 for normies, but I think all of these are some sort of pareidolic/selection-bias effect wherein your brain is just more likely to remember/notice times that it considers significant.
> I skimmed through hoping to see examples of the “aesthetics” […]
aesthetics is an umbrella term for the "[…] norms and rules of participation, […] forms of sociality, and […] artistic outputs." — think: sociology, culture, customs, and less visuals. reading chapter five (aesthetics), perhaps unsurprisingly the chapter where the author dives deeper into the topic, is certainly advised.
Is this a US thing? In Australia all sports/shoe retailers have been stocking Nike the whole time. If I understand correctly folks are saying in the US Nike gave up its retail shelf space in favour of their own stores and online?
Can’t speak for worldwide, but in the US Nike decided to aim for exclusivity and basically pulled their shoes from a ton of retailers. It went… not how they hoped.
It would be great and funny to have access to the internal presentation about why they needed to pursue that and all the benefits. That kind of business decks are always so plastered with wishful thinking that really makes me wonder how business people can keep deceiving themselves like that in every single company they work.
Probably went something like - we need infinite growth to appease the stock market morons - we can’t raise prices any more for our shoes - what if we cut out the middlemen retail stores and disintermediated to save money - we will be digital native, COVID is here, the world is digital - RIP.
Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.
Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.
They are a public company and the strategy was very VERY public. You can listen to the earnings calls. It's not like they wanted to hide it. It actually went EXTREMLY well for a year or so. I agree that it was a bad decision, but the logic wasn't stupid. Just a misunderstanding of what made the company valuable.
I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!
I'm not saying that I could do better but just curious about this specific case. I mean, I know that in the web bubble most of us thought that what COVID-19 brought was there to stay forever (shift to mostly online, 100% white collar remote work etc) but from a corporation like Nike which should have a different point of view, I would expect a different line of reasoning as well.
And I've been in enough companies to see that the pitches about "we are going to do this next" are always painted as a bright future and there is no "if it goes wrong we will do X instead", because it will never go wrong.
It went great because they started it in the pandemic when essentially all shopping shifted to online, and at that point, why not buy direct from Nike vs online from Macy’s or whatever.
I totally see why they thought the strategy was a hit but hindsight is 20/20 and it seems now that this was a correlation and causation mixup. They should have been asking why they were losing mindshare to their competition instead of asking how they could wring more profit out of the same customer base.
In my opinion, in US, they became more fashion than athletic. Without realizing athletic is a huge fashion trend. The talk of hoka and on taking share, is true, but it’s also an extension of the fashion trend for something new/fresh/unique/authentic in the athletic category. Apparel has seen similar shifts, newer entrants like Alo and Vuori have put Lululemon and other more established brands on their heals.
I suspect the danger of pivoting into a pure fashion design is that even in the fashion market people crave a little authenticity. Perhaps you never run but you like the idea and so buy running shoes. do you get the fake running shoes or the real ones?
The other one I have noticed is work boots. With a complex market interaction. Real work boots are expensive, built to survive in an adverse environment. However people crave something with substance. So there is a large customer base buying them for fashion. The manufacturer notices this and start to reduce quality(no need to build them so well if the customer won't notice) and you end up with an expensive boot that sucks. The (much smaller) real customer base, the workers, do start noticing and slowly start moving to a different brand, the fashion customers eventually pick up on this and follow. the whole process can take decades.
Someone with a better memory for ideas or concepts will be able to more quickly incorporate those into novel ideas or recall them when necessary to assist in solving a problem than someone with worse memory.
To those here challenging this with “yes but I’m smart and my memory is bad” - a) define smart and b) perhaps your memory for trivial things like life events, what you did two weeks ago on Monday or people’s names is bad, but I suspect your memory for “work” or problem solving is strong.
Another example I used to see (hear, rather) is how musicians rip off each others riffs and hooks without noticing (unintentionally - they claim), which I long suspected as simply “forgotten” riffs they heard in other songs that once they started playing themselves by chance they attributed to their own creativity. Creativity and intelligence are somewhat linked that way I suspect.
In any case, this all boils down to the same thing, you can think of yourself as a dynamic model made up of memories and biases to some degree, and your ability to store and recall useful information to solve problems increases what we call your intelligence.
Interesting question. I suppose it comes down to how much you allocate his involvement or presence to a product? I’d imagine Grok is built by hundreds of engineers who are all unique individuals from various backgrounds. If Elon simply “leads” from a very surface level where he has no direct day to day involvement in Grok releases does that make it more palatable? Or is the question really about how involved he is? Or is simply being the leader (even if he was 100% absent and only had his name attached to a project/company) enough to boycott?
On a similar note, how much Elon hate is about his politics vs his trillionaire status vs what I like to call “watercooler hate” where folks simply parrot the loudest opinion in order to be accepted into the group?
On a final note, my son is in primary school and recently brought up in a dinner time discussion that “Elon is really bad” - this is a kid who has no social media (unlike some of his peers who are already on TikTok) and doesn’t watch traditional media.
> The man did a nazi salute on live TV, not once but twice. And you know he meant it.
He's also publicly and militantly supported quite a few far right political parties throughout Europe, particularly those who have a long track record on race-based topics.
its pretty on the record that musk takes a direct role in writing the system prompts, no? and is eager to make updates if whatever ml products arent sufficiently matching the specific politics and musk adoration that he wants it to?
I like voice as a mode of interaction with AI, but it’s always been clear with current tech that I’m talking to AI (and yet folks still got drawn into fantasy relationships thanks to sycophantic models etc) - I imagine with voice models like Dessa that could be worse for humans. This kind of fidelity blurs the lines of who or what the human is talking to and lets humans fall into an isolated world where they believe they are “socializing.”
Now, we could argue this is not a negative, maybe it is actually healthy for those who are looking for social connection or lonely, but my gut feel is that is not the case for most. It worries me that this kind of model will actually cause further deterioration of human socialisation and human-to-human contact.