←back to thread

317 points laserduck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
aubanel ◴[] No.42158417[source]
I know nothing about chip design. But saying "Applying AI to field X won't work, because X is complex, and LLMs currently have subhuman performance at this" always sounds dubious.

VCs are not investing in the current LLM-based systems to improve X, they're investing in a future where LLM based systems will be 100x more performant.

Writing is complex, LLMs once had subhuman performance, and yet. Digital art. Music (see suno.AI) There is a pattern here.

replies(7): >>42158545 #>>42158550 #>>42158576 #>>42159935 #>>42160061 #>>42165587 #>>42169569 #
duped ◴[] No.42159935[source]
AI still has subhuman performance for art. It feels like the venn diagram of people who are bullish on LLMs and people who don't understand logistic curves is a circle.
replies(1): >>42161059 #
jjk166 ◴[] No.42161059[source]
You ask 100,000 humans each to make a photo realistic rendering of a alpaca playing basketball on the moon in 90 seconds, an LLM is going to outperform every single one of them.
replies(2): >>42163079 #>>42165589 #
duped ◴[] No.42165589[source]
That's not a meaningful benchmark for valuing art or creating art
replies(1): >>42185998 #
1. jjk166 ◴[] No.42185998[source]
What meaningful benchmark would you use? Art by it's nature is subjectively experienced - what one person considers great, meaningful, soul-moving art, another may consider terrible, meaningless, and empty. Both opinions are equally valid.

But if you're using AI to create art, you're typically not trying to move someone's soul. You're trying to create a work that depicts something in a particular style with a particular fidelity with a certain amount of resource consumption. That is the only metric by which it makes any sense to evaluate the machine designed to do that specific task.