Not the same. With AI, you give away all artistic control and become the client. If I pay somebody to make me an image, I'm not an artist, no matter how well I describe the content (ok maybe if description is too good, maybe I'd be an author). It's turning from a creator to a consumer.
FWIW it's not double the effort - game engines share similarities. Also, if Fortnite money dries up (and it is reducing), the "ever-changing" nature of our tech fields might hit UE as hard as it has been hitting Unity.
Did you even read even the summary? I know we're on Slashdot though, so
Your anecdote vs my anecdote:
-Me: "what approach do games studios use for this software problem"
-AI: "Most use XYZ, they basically do this and that"
-Me: "Really? Not sure about that. Provide me your sources please"
-AI: "Well, there's no exact source that says XYZ, but most do say QWE"
-Me: "Really? Show me some sources please"
-AI: "Of course! Here they are". Proceeds to show some links that talk about something which is not QWE...
Not anywhere near. At least H1-B replacements are human. With needs, maybe families, etc. As sad as it is for you, it would be an opportunity for a better life for them. Not comparable to spinning another instance of a lifeless algorithm, which provides Altman et al a tiny teeny bit more pocket change.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Haha that's brilliant! I know I'll get the most soothing music when I'm on hold with banks and especially insurance...
IMO it's not rocket science - if the user is frustrated, start being extra manipulative, agreeable and soothing, to avoid losing customers.
Fun fact, the first picture in here has a wrong timestamp, dated April 2nd 2016...
https://www.nasa.gov/image-det...
Are they manually typing those fields?
Every day is April Fools day. Just look at most examples of journalism out there, especially the most financially successful and thriving.
You misunderstand, either on purpose or because you can't read. Photoshop, and genAI can be used while authoring, yes. To get the look one wishes, as part of the creative process. DLSS is runtime working ON THE RESULTS of their work. It's like working first, making your artistic decision, and then passing it over to the AI to make its own judgement and interpretation. Just no.
Some may want to bend the laws of physics. Others will be steadfastly against it.
And *all* would like their work to appear as *they* intended. It's not hard to grasp. Point me to one artist (who is not a burnt out husk) that would say "sure I don't care about the skin texture I labored to hard to make fucking pores and wrinkles for, just turn DLSS so you can see it better, as NVIDIA knows best". Give it a rest.
So one cannot have an understanding what's going on in a particular industry? I've worked with and talk to people in both games and film industry. My statement is derived from an understanding of artists and of pipelines. Film and game studios - they all enable artists to do their work. For example, Pixar's RenderMan, includes "non-physical" controls, which "are designed to help artists make art-directed imagery by ignoring certain laws of physics we usually simulate." (from the docs). First time I saw this in a paper. So, yeah, "artists", and you also seem to have no clue.
I was talking about the games industry. You know, the place that would use DLSS for their product. Well let's see if it gets adopted I suppose. And by whom.
Bullshit. When optimization algorithms compress the hell out of geometry, textures, etc, the aim is to
You had mail. Paul read it, so ask him what it said.
