Casting doubt on a very unrealistic prediction made with certainty is not the same as making a very unrealistic prediction with certainty.

>I don't need to know EXACTLY when or what is going to happen, only that pace of change has increased in will likely continue to increase over time due to, in large part, AI.

Well that is certainly a change of goal posts. I agree that the pace of change will increase OVER TIME. Long term exponential growth is different than short term.

Predicting text to movie in one year is different than saying it will happen eventually lol. You need specific information to be able to say it will happen in one year, not just a general feeling of being wowed by the pace of technological change. One year is an exceedingly short time frame.

If you ask the people actually working on this stuff, I guarantee even they would not predict that in one year we will be able to type out a prompt and AI will turn it into a coherent feature-length film production.

These are the predictions of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Come back and tell me "I told ya so" if I'm wrong in one year. I'll be more than happy to say you were right.

Oh there are certainly workarounds! I agree 100%. These workarounds are just that though, workarounds. We won't be able to leverage the full power of long-form content generation until we solve the memory issues.

Which is fine. There is still so many more advances that can be made in the space of the current limitations we have.

>did you know about gato? did you know about palm? or minerva? or how about stable diffusion? or cog video? or the meta one? or the google video model? why didn't you warn us just before they came out?!?!

I knew about the state of the technology and what was possible with it. None of what has been released has been surprising in that regard. Nothing has exceeded the current limitations we have, which are memory issues having to do with the running time limitations of our current algorithms.

>You have no idea what they got in the lab that's unreleased/under NDA.
>
>if you think you know exactly what's coming then where are your exact predictions on things to come?

I don't know exactly what's coming when. That's why I'm not making exact predictions. I do know the current state of the technology and without major breakthroughs, there is a limit to how advanced AI will get in the short term.

Sure, Google could theoretically reach said breakthrough behind closed doors, but we don't know when that will happen, and so making precise predictions like "text to feature length movie will happen in one year MAX" despite the fact that the necessary breakthroughs for such a technology to even be feasible haven't been reached yet, is patently ridiculous.

Things happening faster than you thought is not some benchmark you can use to predict the future. There are reasons things happen faster than you thought, and without knowing those reasons, trying to extrapolate the rate of future short-term progress based on past short-term progress is folly.

I hope you're right. Truly, would be amazing if we had text to feature film in 1 to 2 years. I don't see any reason to think you will be though.

AI growth comes in spurts and waves. We are in an AI summer right now. What's happening right now will slow down without some additional breakthroughs.

We gotta fix the memory problems we have and until we do, AI will be limited to short-term content generation. Really amazing short-term content generation, but short-term nonetheless.

The memory issue is not trivial. It's not a matter of better hardware. It's a matter of hitting exponential running time limits. We need either a much more efficient algorithm or a quantum computer. I'd presume we will end up finding a better algorithm first, but it hasn't happened yet.

I hope I'm wrong because that would be awesome to generate a feature length movie from a line of text, but I probably won't be.

Here's the thing people don't get, we already know more or less what is going to be released next year because we already know more or less what's in the pipeline right now.

The people who didn't think what we have now would be possible were just not informed on the current state of the industry and what was being worked on.

Oh I could definitely be wrong, hence why I'm not saying "anyone who disagrees with me is deluded". Lol.

If I am wrong though it will be the result of some unforseen development, as there is nothing in the works right now that indicates you'll be able to generate an entire feature length movie from a line of text next year.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Saying that "anyone who doesn't buy into extraordinary claims that lack evidence is deluded" is what I took issue with.

Not to mention we have a huge limiting factor right now with context windows. Image generation is basically just catching up all at once to where text generation already is. It seems crazy because it's happening all at once and there is a lot more improvements that can be made before progress will stall, but until we figure out the memory problems inherent with our current AI algorithms, this progress will start to slow down.

Lol k.

Get your casual racism out of here.

LLM's cannot write feature length scripts yet. Not even close. They've got a tiny context-window problem they need to sort out first.

Text-to-video isn't even out yet and what we've seen so far is just very basic interpolation like showing a teddy bear mixing a bowl of Ramen. Things are moving fast but we will not have text-feature length film productions in a year. I'm sorry. That is a fantasy.

People who are so certain of themselves about their prediction abilities regarding something with so many unknown variables are deluded.

Well what I am saying is that most entry level tech jobs are not programming jobs anyways. They are software engineering or full stack web dev, which is a lot more than just programing. It includes programming, but if programming becomes automated, those jobs don't go away, they just become easier.

The task of a software engineer is to design software. The only thing that changes in the medium term future is the tools used to do so. As the lowest level of software engineering becomes automated, jobs will become easier but software will become more complex as a result and it'll all balance out.

This has been happening ever since the beginning of software, it's just happening faster now. High-level programming langues automated many aspects of low-level programming languages, such as memory management. That didn't kill jobs at all, in fact quite the opposite.

When our current high level languages of today become automated, we'll just have new programming languages with the current ones abstracted away, enabling more complexity and scaling to software. So the jobs will increase due to the increased possibilities.

With all that said, I don't think that the programming of today will become fully automated in 5 years. People here are overly optimistic. I don't think it's a good idea to choose different paths due to potentially very inaccurate estimates from people on Reddit.

I would say the best way to prepare is to not put all your eggs in one basket and to have a flexible mindset. If you want to be a web developer then shoot for being a web developer. Just try to be skilled in other areas of computer science to and just make sure to stay versed with new technology and to constantly update your skills as they start to become outdated.

No need for more sophisticated readers here. It's usually always safe to assume the Sun is a sensationalist pile of trash. Next time, see if you can find a more credible source reporting it first and then post it. If not, just leave it be. A lot of Redditors only look at the headline and will be misinformed by this.

Programming is the the lowest common denominator of tech jobs. Where the money is really at is software engineering, which often includes programming but is really more about designing software systems. So it may threaten the lower level programming jobs, but actual software engineers are not going anywhere.

>It's the implication that I never asked for these specific images that truly impressed me. I never asked for a picture of forest or cottage or mountain. I asked them questions that only a thinking and feeling agent could answer.

Except that's not true. A chatbot that emulates a thinking and feeling agent can answer them too. And that's what it does. I know that it feels impressive, but these chatbots are just predictions machines that are really good at predicting what a human would say given the prompt and context of the conversation.

Also, you're the one that plugged it into the text to image maker. It would be no different than if you had just drawn it by hand. It's not like the image outputted is actually what it was imagining, you're using two different systens.

Your extrapolating erroneously. My statement was specifically about creating intelligence. Not every experiment is about creating something and the question of artifical vs natural is not something that applies to the situation you are referring to.

Also, social media itself is not an experiment. The existence of an experiment within the context of social media does not mean that the entire social media paradigm is some experiment in a lab.

Instead of doing "whataboutism" why don't you explain why my logic is faulty. If a process is created though artifical means, how is it not artificial? Artifical refers to the intelligence, not the substrate.

The entire process of human development is natural. The only human directed effort is sex, which is basically the planting of a seed. Even then, since sex is driven by natural instincts, it too is natural.

What? That makes no sense. Humans using smart phone with social media is not intelligence at all or any discrete phenomena being studied in a lab. Nobody is claiming that humans using smartphones with social media is artificial or natural. That's not even a useful descriptor for such a general set of activities as such.

The data being processed is also not manipulated by scientists conducting experiments. What scientist is conducting an experiment on the set of all humans using smartphones? You totally are confused here.

My logic would say that the smart phones themselves are artifical, because they were developed by humans. Likewise, if intelligence arises from an artificial process, then that intelligence is artifical. For something to be natural, it has to have arisen from a natural process.

Nope. It's still artificial because they are grown by humans using extracted stem cells and are artificially stimulated and modulated by humans.

Natural intelligence would be intelligence that emerges entirely from natural processes, aka evolution.

Its not about the material but the process. They are natural cells and we are making use of their natural properties, but intelligence refers to the overall activity taking place. Neuron cells in a petri dish don't naturally act intelligent without human intervention.

I doubt it had any conscious experience. Way too low complexity of a system for that. Still, really fucking insane that they could basically build AI with human neurons. I didn't even know that was a thing.

None of them. Make your argument without automatically putting opposing arguments in the category of "dumb/stupid/unintelligent/etc". It makes it sound like you aren't open to the possibility of somebody having a differing perspective that could be correct, which is pretty close-minded when it comes to futurism and the singularity, given how none of us really know for sure what's going to happen.

Try making your arguments without calling things "dumb" repeatedly. Doesn't make you sound intelligent.