Text generative AI isn't ready for prime time. The accounts of it making things up are so common they've been given a name, and the nature of those mistakes - a religious AI insisting it was a real priest, gluing the cheese onto your pizza, making up legal precedent complete with quotes, a suicide hotline AI telling callers to commit suicide, etc - makes it very clear that it's not useless so much as dangerously broken.

Image generative AI is a different beast. Text AI is supposed to report true things but makes things up, where image AI is supposed to make things up and makes things up. Even then, it's got its limits. The more precision you need in the details of the final image, the more difficult it is to get what you want. But Midjourney and its siblings is already producing commercial quality artwork for some uses.

Self correcting machines go back about a century. Mechanical ones. (And those, by and large, actually work.)

So it's exactly like all the rest?

You are clearly unaware of how MBAs "think."

"Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

A better, and more direct comparison is the advent of Photoshop and similar digital graphic programs for generating artwork for advertising. Prior to that technology revolution, artists worked with pen and ink or paint and canvas, and it took a lot longer to produce each piece of art, which then had to be converted into the format needed for the printers. Photoshop reduced production time by probably an order of magnitude, and produced digital files that the printers could read directly. A lot of artists needed new careers, because they physical art skills no longer applies

Generative AI for images, like Midjourney, is exactly the same transition. Work that used to take hours or days to produce now takes seconds, and skill with Photoshop is less important than skill with writing prompts. The end result is that each artist can produce more images more quickly, and the companies will need fewer artists.

It's the shape of things to come, and trying to stand in the way of progress is likely to get you run down.

I've had no use for the press for longer than Trump has been a politician. I literally can't remember ever finding any of them credible.

And expecting any kind of thought from any "news" outlet (be it CNN or Faux News) is an exercise in hallucination.

Since the fascist pigs outnumber you by enough to win control of the White House and both houses of Congress, I'd say you're the freak of nature.

Turned into? When was it ever not a cesspit? How naive do you have to be to believe that "let's let the internet write the content of our web site" could ever possibly produce anything but sewage?

And Anaheim use to be called Klanaheim.

But the 60s were 60 years ago. Even Orange County is starting to lean a bit left, and Malibu is full of people who are communists in all but name.

Not in the local news. Only the famous get to be on TV, and they're almost universally people (and I use the term loosely) who consider Mao a right wing reactionary.

Republicans are angry as hell? How many Republicans do you believe live in Malibu? It's about as lefty as it gets up there.

Everybody is worked up because it's rich celebrities being affected, and the "new" media is shilling it as hard as they can because a) it sells advertising, b) some of the better known newsies have lose their homes, too, c) it sells advertising, and, last but not least, it sells advertising.

Aside from your mentally deficient hate on the right, and inability to suppress it long enough to make a single post, no matter how stupid you sound doing it, I agree.

Every one of your "good enough" examples isn't good enough. Failures are easy to find, and well known.

I can only assume you've foolishly invested your life savings (all $5 of it) in some AI company, and are desperate to keep from losing it.

I didn't say otherwise. Which you'd know if you'd actually read what I posted. It is, indeed, in widespread use today. That's why we have so many examples of how spectacularly it fails on a regular basis.

That's why it's a problem. It's like Russian roulette. And the more we use it, the fewer empty chambers there are in the revolver. We're rapidly approaching playing Russian roulette with an automatic.

Given how spectacularly, and often, AI fails, no, it hasn't matured to usefulness, no matter how much you get paid to shill for it, or how stupidly you invested your life savings in the hype. Go read the article linked above. There are some examples of AI errors that could have put people in jail. Then there's the AI priest that said it was OK to baptize babies in Gatorade, which is funny, and the suicide hotline AI that told callers to commit suicide, which is not funny at all.

Is that really technology you what you want your life to depend on?

Perhaps you should point that out to the idiot that wrote the article.

I was merely pointing out that if he applied the same logic to AI hype as he did to quantum computing hype, he wouldn't say such stupid things.