People or LLMs?
If you truly believe LLMs are transformative, that’s on you. I’d perhaps not believe people going forward, as they tend to lie.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
If you truly believe LLMs are transformative, that’s on you. I’d perhaps not believe people going forward, as they tend to lie.
People or LLMs?
Crotaro@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
I would love for it to be different, but they’re mostly right.
The hardcore shareholders, who probably have shares in more than one company and for sure only see these companies for their mometary value and nothing more, wluld not care if the company’s creative work featured AI giveaways like twelve-fingered people occasionally and inconsistent storylines, if it would mean they could save on all their artists salary by paying only for one AI subscription.
Yes, you can still tell (mostly) when somethings made by AI, but the fact is that we already do see creatives being replaced with AI, leaving them free to do dishes and laundry instead of the other way around. The Coca Cola AI ads are one prominent example. Executives and shareholders don’t care about their product being inferior if it means it saves them even 20% in expenses. And we both know that replacing all your creative team (often even just one or two) with AI is a bigger saving on “Creative expenses” than just 20%. We know that because we can literally look up salaries vs subscription price for stuff like Sora and Veo3.
Yet, contrary to what I perceive as your main argument here, we don’t see widespread adoption of AI in all kinds of companies to do the tedious labor. That seems to still be done often either by traditional methods, because LLMs and generative AI is just not good at repairing a leak in toilets or checking for damages in a factory or welding or even just pushing a button to announce break-time.