Everyone is now dopamine maxxing on smartphones and internet. There's no desire to have kids because kids were a pre-internet and pre-modernity phenomena.
Now that we're fully entertained, there's little need for having children. The FYP has enough entertainment to overcome the biological itch.
Evolution did not anticipate social media and hyper addictive algorithms.
We're microdosing on pleasure and that's desensitized every biological urge to raise children.
Evolution did not anticipate social media and hyper addictive algorithms.
People have been having children later since about the 1930s. The change has been gradual, so it's only really hitting hard now because they've not had any children during the years when it's relatively easy, and now some can't. That could still be due to technology but not social media exclusively.
Coincidently though, this aligns pretty much perfectly to people's stability also shifting to happen later in life. Specifically the economic stability to raise a family on a single income. That's not really possible any more, so it shouldn't be a surprise that people don't do it.
Just to add a little factual data to this point, the fertility rate in England and Wales has been below two children per woman since the 1970s.
The impact of the new TV programming in rural India has been profound—and very positive, say Jensen and Oster. Their interviews revealed that when the new TV services arrived, women’s autonomy increased while fertility and the acceptability of domestic violence toward women significantly decreased."
Evolution doesn't work like that. What we have here is a dead end. For whatever reason, this system isn't advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, so we don't reproduce. That's natural selection.
Babies are also free labor. They are just like the AI agents of today, parents had their children do a variety of things around the farm, instead of paying for tokens, they had to feed them, thats all.
Your let's redo this in Rust made me wonder if generative AI will also be susceptible to software fads. One LLM writes a few blog posts extoling a new framework/lanaguge. Other agentics read these and get 'influenced'. Then they start clamoring for 'lets redo this in X!'. Can't wait to see it. /g
You can get 80% there with rust which is what is impressive. Then you have a reference implementation that you can always check against. If a Rust library have 0 unsafe, i dont care if it is written by a dog, it still have 0 UB.
What kind of an answer is that? This software is perfect the way it is, you’re just to inept to hold it right?
A high availability protocol should not leak into the client. It should be able to discover other nodes. It should not land in broken states so easily. It should not limit the number of writers. It should not error during failover.
Are these hard problems? Yes. Should we just accept that things are hard because that’s how the gods have given them to us? No.
High availability and abstraction complexity are orthogonal.
Redis is a low-level concurrency primitive, and it made certain choices in dealing with CAP.
It might be single-threaded, but it can easily absorb 100,000+ requests per second.
I've built systems that handle billions of dollars of online payments flow, active-active, with six nines of uptime reliability on top of Redis. It does what it says on the tin, and it doesn't need to be everything for everybody. This is a hard domain and you're going to have to deal with different problems and tradeoffs.
If you want something higher level, there are other systems to reach for.
See the end of the article, after further research quantum gravity could be simulated on a quantum computer. The links between research on quantum computing and quantum gravity are fascinating anyway!
I mean, I don't think we are living in a simulation, but even if we were, there is no reason to believe that simulating something inside of a simulation is going to prove anything about the outer simulation.
If they're powerful enough to build a universe simulation, theoretically they can blur the edges so we can't discover them. They might even be able to construct and limit the systems of maths and physics we have access to.
I suppose the simulation could be smaller than a universe simulation though - and this is actually really compelling -
It could just be you that is simulated.
Maybe your consciousness and sensory inputs are simulated. You're kept largely on rails and the rest of the world is run at lower fidelity. They know you won't go poking at particle accelerators and theory, so they can keep those pieces low effort and you just get fed narrative. The only things to simulate are those that are directly in front of you now.
Almost like a movie. Not a universe at all.
We might have that capability within 50 years. All your sensory input being simulation. And the virtual brain playing with that input or replaying recordings.
That could be totally feasible. And we might have that tech soon.
As far as I know it’s the latter and that’s a big problem for physics. A lot of stuff like string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc. require energies that would take a particle accelerator the diameter of the solar system or something nuts like that.
Without tests it’s just pretty math that can be coaxed into agreeing with reality but that proves nothing.
Physicists try to indirectly test all the time via cosmological observations but that is extremely hard and limited to what you can infer and how well you can eliminate other explanations or sources of error.
I believe there was a science fiction story all the way back in the early '80s describing a scenario where physics gets reclassified as a soft science or an art form because it is no longer feasible to prove anything.
Does the model need to offer new testable hypothesis if it provides a way of explaining existing results that current models can't?
If it is competing against another model that does both that and offers new testable hypothesis (which experiments match), the other model is the clear winner. But lacking that, if no other model explains all existing data, is new testability really necessary when it is the only model that currently explains all existing tests?
That said, aren't most of theoretical models only contenders for such, as in they haven't been expanded to actually explain all testing results, only that, as far as they have been expanded, there are no contradictions yet? So they need physicists to expand them, but if the model is wrong, the effort might largely be wasted, and we have some models that there is disdain for not because they contradict existing experiments, but because they have eaten too many careers without showing value in return?
There's a lot of ire for string theory. It's non-testable and wound up attracting lots of minds, funding, and resources. It hasn't seemingly led to any tangible results. Many scientists express anger about it and claim entire generations of progress were lost.
In fact, America's wealth (and our fairly generous welfare programs, despite what Europeans might think) actually enables the massive obesity rates we have, which is one of the main reasons we have lower life expectancies. If Europeans were richer they'd likely be eating themselves to death more like we do (though cultural and other factors play a role too).
You don't think Europeans can afford to eat the cheap crap that makes one fat? Healthy food is expensive, garbage food is cheap. Obesity is a poverty problem in the whole western world.
No it must be that Europeans can't afford corn fed omega-6 beef, corn syrup water and baked extruded corn mush coated in MSG so they have to get by eating real bread, tomatoes and ham.
2. I'm not sure what this has to do with the case, unless you're arguing Google has an ads monopoly, in which case the best argument would likely not be that adwords lead to bidding wars because that just sounds like they're selling a product people really want to pay for
3. There's nothing criminal about being a very diversified business
That's like saying all fine art would be photography, all film would be CGI, or all music would be synthesized electronica.
That's not how aesthetics seem to work. Artists will make more or less good use of generative AI in their work, and it will probably seep into most media in some way or another, effecting them, but arts mostly don't get replaced and AI doesn't really offer an exception to that history.
> That's like saying all fine art would be photography
Or is it like saying most portraits will be photographs rather than paintings? There are still a lot of portraits painted (maybe even as many as the pre-camera days), but by raw numbers most portraits are created by photographers.
There will also be a longer or shorter period of time in which such technology will be abused by artists (because it's new) and at some point it will stabilize.
Like saying most pictures will be made with digital cameras.
Like saying most music will be captured and edited digitally.
You guys have an anti-AI bug and it's eating you alive and blinding you to the future that is unfolding. It's toxic and you're all 100% wrong. Your hate makes it impossible to see all of the improvements.
I've been a filmmaker for decades. This tech is the most amazing thing I've ever witnessed. And it's just getting started.
Stop being old men yelling at clouds. If you don't like it, you can continue doing things the way you're used to.
The quantity/quality tradeoff is horrific. And I speak as someone who's watched hundreds of low budget "B" movies. AI is going to allow churning out vastly more movies than anyone can ever watch. Even if some might be good, the average quality goes down, and the adverse selection problem of trying to decide if something is going to be worth committing two hours to becomes harder when you have to scroll for longer and longer distances.
There's already a bit of a fatigue with CGI and the "flat lighting" Netflix TV style. AI is just going to make that worse. Mind you, I'm old enough that I would call any movie where more than 50% of the frame for more than 50% of the runtime was never real objects and created entirely on computer "animation". It's a subtly different discipline.
But yes, there's going to be a lot of it, and it's going to rack up a lot of Netflix watch hours, in the same way that "4k crackling fireplace" does.
It seems like you have trouble handling the idea that people disagree with you. You should try listening instead of immediately jumping to being reactionary.
It isn't like saying any of those things because they are referring to recording media and not to a pipe dream invented by tech bros to attract investors so that their deeply-in-the-red company can stay afloat a little while longer. AI can't create anything.
It isn't like saying any of those things because they are referring to recording media and not to a pipe dream invented by tech bros to attract investors so that their deeply-in-the-red company can stay afloat a little while longer. AI can't create anything.
>You guys have an anti-AI bug and it's eating you alive and blinding you to the future that is unfolding
For the moment what is unfolding is a dystopia shoved down most people's throats, whether they want it or not.
And the bug is obviously the "AI bug", a foreign body recently introduced. The "bug" can't be our default previous state (no AI).
>I've been a filmmaker for decades. This tech is the most amazing thing I've ever witnessed. And it's just getting started
Hopefully it will be over soon.
>Stop being old men yelling at clouds
You know that the leading AI providers and experts in the field often discuss how AI can/might/surely will wipe us off?
Not some random guys with signs in some street corner. The main people behind it.
Now, I don't believe it's so, at least not for the reasons mentioned, like the singularity. But there are very dark results from AI in society and in many domains.
But hey, we can make pretty uncanny valley (for now) videos and special effects! No need to involve or employ humans in our art either. And the human art can be drowned in a sea of AI crap, so noone will really see our AI art either. Such amazing tech /s
Aren’t the cameras they are making aimed at professional productions? Those are probably going to replaced last, the first thing will be (or are) TikTok clips shot on smartphones.
I don’t think they’ll see a decline in cinema camera sales due to AI soon.
> I don’t think they’ll see a decline in cinema camera sales due to AI soon.
Happy to bet on this!
Expensive glass and all of the processes around it takes more time, money, and resources than Seedance 2.0. And these models are only a few years old at this point.
Yeah they don't make a single consumer grade product. Prosumer at its lowest, and even then they're way too technical for the uninitiated. No one is picking up a BMPCC and just shooting/posting online.
You are only looking at your own consumption at the moment. There are a lot of problems that still need to be fixed especially with rope artifacting. The 4k most models taunt isn't equivalent to a real 4k image or video as well at the moment you need a quality factor of two to get the equivalent result of a shot image or video. Resolution does not indicate quality.
I doubt it because I wouldn't waste my time watching it and I can't imagine all that many people today that don't already watch AI videos are going to suddenly change their mind and decide they like AI produced Hallmark movies.
I'm an indie filmmaker and I do community theater. We use gaussian splats for 3D filmmaking, and we're already using AI for background plates and VFX shots.
Where this is going - your local community theater will be able to have Lord of the Rings / Gollum-style facial/body rigs that eventually work in real time, and actors will markerless mocap into super high fidelity fantasy and science fiction scenes.
> Movies are dead? I really don't get where this take is coming from.
Movies will never be more real and more personal. The folks at A24 are going to have Marvel powers with way better stories.
Stop being so bearish. These are tools, and creative people will abuse the hell out of them to do wildly cool things.
I’m not bearish. I’m incredulous at their statements and agree with you. Take a second look at it.
Good luck on your journey as a filmmaker (truly not being sarcastic), I’ve been in the industry for 15 years so we are colleagues here who can have a dialogue.
Even the frontier models running on insanely powerful hardware could only generate 15 second clips in low resolutions.
And yeah, I saw some demos from Seedance 2.0, and they were awful. It's ridiculous how much people on Xitter were like "You can't even tell it's AI!" and I was like "It's trivial to tell it's AI" and could easily pick out all the markers. An individual screenshot could look good, but every time the camera angle changed, there would be a glaring inconsistency.
You people are either blind, delusional, or outright insane. AI might be used for a quick clip, or used to enhance something recorded by a camera, but "most video" is definitely wrong.
Everyone is now dopamine maxxing on smartphones and internet. There's no desire to have kids because kids were a pre-internet and pre-modernity phenomena.
Now that we're fully entertained, there's little need for having children. The FYP has enough entertainment to overcome the biological itch.
Evolution did not anticipate social media and hyper addictive algorithms.
We're microdosing on pleasure and that's desensitized every biological urge to raise children.
Technology did this.
reply