Bacon is proof that God loves us.

Yes, I saw that. And when combined with the quote towards the end, explains why his position is so fucking insulting.

This basically means that if your part of the movie making process can be performed by this tech, now or in the future, then your job doesn't really matter. Which is a wild take considering that he felt like he could not release the video without the parts AI provided, and which would have been handed to a person to do before AI exists, or if he'd had the budget for it.

Fact is the job DOES matter. He just does not want to have to address the difficult question of what is lost by using AI to do creative work that would previously have gone to a human profession, or what it means that he is willing to make that substitution without any apparent concern for the folks that decision harms. He is yet-another rich-fuck who does not care about the human consequences of technology, so long as they do not impact him personally. Fuck him, and fuck anyone who agrees with him.

Heâ(TM)s saying that Visual effects designers are not important. Because heâ(TM)s replacing somebodies work with AI output.

if I were someone who worked in that field, making the kind of content he used AI to create, and then dismissed my work as unimportant, Iâ(TM)d be salty as fuck.

their work is important enough that the film could not be considered complete without it, but not important enough to have a person do it. There is a clear double standard being promulgated here, that amounts to victim bling. Essentially that if AI can do your job, then by definition, your job is not important. Easy for the guy deciding where and when to us AI to decide in a way that does not put his own contributions to the process at risk of being replaced by AI. Fuck this guy and anyone who accepts this BS justification.

Or does "other costs" mean bonuses for those at the top? I'm guessing Chuck needs a new yacht and a new private jet.

That makes no sense at all. If the company is spending $2-3k, for something they charge only $200, then it is an introductory price. To get you hooked. They have to charge you $3-4k at some point of they want to make money. Their suppliers want to get paid, and their investors want to stop losing money eventually. By ask means take advantage while the deal is good, but donâ(TM)t be so naive as to expect the deal to be good forever.

I wonder what they will do when the cost of AI increases?

We all know that AI companies are selling their services at a loss. Often on a cost-of-compute- basis, but even more so when you factor in model training costs incurred with investor cash. And that is even before we account for how the shortages of relevant hardware and server space for running all of this are driving up the costs of memory, chips, etc. Or the fact that the energy crisis is only getting started, and will impact literally every part of the value chain for addressing the current and future demand.

Most of the sunk costs to date, have been funded with investor cash, but those investors are going to start wanting to get paid back with a strong multiple of their investments to date. That means, as companies reorganize around the use of AI - at the current prices - they are creating a potential nightmare of cost forecasting and control when the AI vendors all decide it is time to start generating that pay-back by sticking the screws to their customers. This is CLASSIC ENSHITIFICATION.

This. I built my desktop PC 11 years ago and it still does everything I need. And I have a 5 year old Android phone that's still just fine for watching YouTube in the bathroom.

Libraries. Why write code when you can just import an enormous library that already does that one simple thing you need.

Notepad+=1

There are already limits. One of the problems is that you can buy a legal e-bike that is limited to the specifications, but it's actually capable of a lot more performance, and it just takes a firmware update to unlock the potential. I have no idea how they can enforce this law if they pass it.

This is a case of spreading FUD by presenting true facts in a sensationalist light.

we have been breeding agricultural plants for higher carbon concentrations, at the expense of everything else in the plant, since the dawn of human domestication of plants. This. Is. Not. New. And as such, should not be scary or cause for alarm.

to the extent that global CO2 levels are adding to the normal trend of breeding pants for higher yields, itâ(TM)s is likely to be the least significant way in which global CO2 levels pose a risk to you. Sea level rise, heat stroke, water shortages, resource wars, ecological systems collapsing ⦠all far, FAR more dangerous than a few extra calories per ton of grain. Most western diets are biofortified with minerals and vitamins already, so the plants natural contribution to your diet is already negligible in many situations.

I drove by my local mall recently (in the U.S.) and the electronic sign at the entrance was in Spanish. It didn't alternate between English and Spanish, it was only Spanish.

They've been limiting requests for premium models to 300/month for quite a while now, and gradually removing the free models. The only free model left now is GPT-5 mini, which is nearly useless. I've moved on to Cursor AI. It is vastly superior to Github Copilot.

Expect AI to get a lot more expensive as people and companies become dependent on it. This is by design.

Leave the phone somewhere that supports your alibi.

Buy the anti-drone drones from Ukraine. They already know how to make them, and could use with the money.

It's almost like the U.S. military completely ignored that Russia gets all its drones from Iran, and now we're shooting down $20k drones with $3 million missiles.