At least on desktop screens I think chronostasis might make animations seem more sluggish depending on where you looked before.
I wonder if this leads experienced users of the app in question to not like any animations, because they know click paths better and place their focus in an anticipatory manner.
Maybe one could measure click speed and reduce animation times based on that.
Great article! I share the experience mentioned in the article, LLMs facilitate a head-on interaction with any topic. It is similar to instructional YouTube videos (that imo were already transformative) but with the ability to ask detailed questions. And this is what becomes better with each iteration. When creative communities finally settle down on generative AI there will be not just a plethora of AI slop, but so much highly creative never seen before content. It might lead to a new golden age of indie low budget movie productions.
There’s already a new golden age of indie low budget movies. Those guys will not use AI to generate significant parts of their content, because it defeats the point of making an indie movie at all.
I never cease to be shocked at how little tech people think of what creative people do and why they do it.
You seem to have an agenda here. I am sure there are many many visions of special effects and story arcs that could never be realized because of not being able to pull it off. This will change now. Green screens and sophisticated SFX tech will not be necessary to create fantastical images. You may call these kind of movies low brow entertainment but I am very curious to see indie movie interpretations of my favorite litrpg books.
An agenda? I just give a shit about the creative people (indie filmmakers, photographers, artists, actors, models) I know, and I fail to see what AI brings them that their creativity does not already; special effects are such a tiny part of filmmaking, for example.
I don’t mean to say I don’t think there are any uses but I think the main misunderstanding here is that what holds indie filmmakers back isn’t access to technology, generally.
Well, at least I assume that currently indie movies are also somewhat defined by budget and technical limitations. With GenAI you will be able to film an action scene with your smartphone in an empty warehouse that will later look like an authentic full street in Medieval Bagdad. GenAI will remove constraints. Constraints that may have led to creativity by themselves, but those constraints also led to constraints in audience and artistic outcome. Imagination will be the limit. And I don't think we will need labels like "organic" to make collaborative efforts with actual actors more accepted than AI only productions, because good actors bring more to the table than just their face and stature.
I totally see that. But I think it's time for new constraints that are less tied to money and more to the imagination of the creators.
It will hopefully lead to a democratization of previously expensive settings (e.g. historic, fantastical, large scale events) etc. Many indie movies still have huge budgets and need some kind of sponsor. Now we will hopefully see a wonderful mix of hobbyist, semi-professional and professional fully independent setups that tell stories without worrying about financial risks that are connected to certain forms of artistic expression.
I don't think it is helpful to gatekeep movie making with arbitrary requirements regarding AI usage nor do I believe that the requirement for patrons or state sponsorships that is prevalent in indie movie making are a good thing regarding the current neo-feudal and authoritarian currents.
> I don't think it is helpful to gatekeep movie making with arbitrary requirements regarding AI usage
I am not gatekeeping at all; I don't understand this argument that this could ever be perceived as gatekeeping. I'm just saying that in my own experience, indie creators tend to perceive generative AI as bullshit, not as liberation.
Artists who tell you that AI is not helping art are not gatekeeping either.
A more obvious example is The Blair Witch Project, which cost less than a million dollars even after all the marketing was done (and cost essentially nothing to make).
The original Halloween was a very low-budget movie considering how long it took to shoot.
Vin Diesel's career was established by his own movie, Strays, which cost less than $50K. Which is zero budget, essentially, for a film that opened at Sundance.
Away from films there are many, many examples of massively popular albums and songs that were made essentially for nothing off the back of simple constraints and creativity.
In the long run, the only way artists will use AI effectively is by deciding on constraints that limit its use.
Because as soon as you don't limit its use, anyone can do what you can do.
So I tend towards thinking that AI won't really move the needle in terms of human creativity. It may reframe it. But nobody is going to be liberated creatively by it.
Tech people, I suspect, tend to assume that AI brings "full creative freedom" to artists the same way a patron does when they say "you can have full creative freedom".
> Tech people, I suspect, tend to assume that AI brings "full creative freedom" to artists the same way a patron does when they say "you can have full creative freedom".
I think you introduce a rather arbitrary separation here. I spoke of the artistic communities in the sense of a normative force which establishes cultural acceptance and means of valuation for AI in artistic processes. Similar to what happened to photography and computer graphics.
Do you really think there is a distinct arch type of a tech person and an art person? If so, I would consider myself as an art person. I am by no means a professional artist, but I am a creative person who sees powerful tools emerge.
I work on video games as a hobbyist since I am 10. But I am not a good artist in the sense that my imagination and feature creep lead me to failure. These new emerging tools might bring me the freedom to pursue more of my ideas. When I started, I learned DirectX programming in pursuit of artistic freedom, now there is Unity3D and other engines that could have made the difference for me in what I would have become.
I am sure there are many more like me, who lost themselves in unattainable visions, and also many professional artists, who have ideas in the back of their heads which seem unrealistic to pursue.
Gen AI will hopefully enable many of those previously unattainable visions to come true.
Some disorders more or less require tracking to make them diagnosable and their symptoms managable (e.g. PMDD). Managing tracking with paper is ofc possible, but apps allow for reminders and gamification that help on challenging days.
Sure, I'm not saying categorically don't just that people especially in the US and other countries that are having backslides on reproductive rights should think really hard about using period tracking apps if they don't have a strong reason to like you mentioned and even in those cases consider a more deniable and private option.
I don't understand the expectations of reddit CMV users when they engage in anonymous online debates.
I think well intentioned, public access, blackhat security research has its merits. The case reminds me of security researchers publishing malicious npm packages.
As far as I remember this disclaimer has only been on /b/, but yes, I love the turn of phrase. I think I used it in conversation within the last day or two, even.
At minimum, it's reasonable for any subreddit to have the expectation that you're engaging with a human, even moreso when a) the subreddit has explicitly banned AI-generated comments and b) the entire value proposition of the subreddit is about human moral dilemmas which an AI cannot navigate.
Are you serious? With services like https://anti-captcha.com/ the bot free anonymous discourse is over for a long time now.
It's in bad faith when people seriously tell you they don't expect something when they make rules against it.
With LLMs anonymous discourse is just even more broken. When reading comments like this, I am convinced this study was a gift.
LLMs are practically shouting it from the rooftops, what should be a hard but well-known truth for anybody who engages in serious anonymous online discourse: We need new ways for online accountability and authenticity.
By that logic, how can you prove you are not a bot on Hacker News? They're also banned on HN for the same reasons as /r/changemyview, after all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945628
You can't! On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog[1] was published over 30 years ago! You've never been able to assume there was a real person on the other end of the conversation, with no agenda, engaging in good faith, with their own earnestly-held thoughts. On what basis would you have this expectation?
This is why I dislike how the Internet has become increasingly about politics and drama and less about memes.
It's not a system that can support serious debates without immense restrictions on anonymity, and those restrictions in turn become immense privacy issues 10 years later.
People really need to understand that you're supposed to have fun on the Internet, and if you aren't having fun, why be there at all?
Most importantly, I don't like how the criticism on the situation, specially some seen here, push for abdication of either privacy or of debates. There is more than one website on the Internet! You can have a website that requires ID to post, and another website that is run by an LLM that censors all political content. Those two ideas can co-exist in the vastness of the web and people are free to choose which website to visit.
> I don't understand the expectations of reddit CMV users when they engage in anonymous online debates.
Considering the great and growing percentage of a person’s communications, interactions, discussions, and debates that take place online, I think we have little choice but to try to facilitate doing this as safely, constructively, and with as much integrity as possible. The assumptions and expectations of CMV might seem naive given the current state of A.I. and whatnot, but this was less of a problem in previous years and it has been a more controlled environment than the internet at large. And commendable to attempt
Sure, but it is dangerous to expect anything else than what the study makes clear. LLMs make manipulation just cheaper and more scalable. There are so many rumors about state sponsored troll farms that I guess this study was a good wake-up call for anyone who is upset now. It's like acting surprised that somebody can send you a computer virus or that the email is not from an African prince who has to get rid of money.
It's like there was a shift in goals after the author made the title. Maybe explaining the basics was so much fun, that the initial idea got lost... I also don't think knowing how a crt monitor works is instrumental for people who want to make software. The domain is cool, but it doesn't match the content. whatissoftware.com might be better.
when it is explained how pixel, gpu or llm work, I would at least expect some intro to Von-Neumann-Architecture.
