| I will suggest that in a critical way, none of us, you included, "know" that this is a starting point. So much of the reaction and subsequent reasoning about such tools is bounded (predictably, inevitably, naturally) by human cognitive error—in particular, our total collective inability to reason with non-linear extrapolations. We "know" this is a starting point, but even the linear line from "nothing like this existed at the start of 2022" to now, projects into a "what exists in 18 months" which is itself an effectively instant timescale (residential A&D projects here in SF are often 3-year endeavors...)... ...what this looks like for a loose interpretation of "this," is literally unimaginable to us. One technical thing: I was just telling someone 30 minutes ago, in the lats week, my #aiart timeline and feed on Twitter started saturating this week with extrapolations into AR/VR applications. The toolchains which will exists in this domain prior even to the launch of Apple's long rumored AR goggles are already eyebrow-raising. Assuming there is a path to deploy experiences onto Apple glass, there's going to yet another infusion of energy (cough money) into the precambrian explosion going on around ML/imagegen etc. Don't make the mistake of thinking flaws in proof-of-concept first-passes like this (which is already IMO quite compelling for ideation), are going to be a permanent fixture or blocker. If you review the evolution of imagegen over the last two years, you can get a taste of how ephemeral most such limitations are... ...and the egregious ones tend to attract a frenzy of work. To put a point on it, I think you're OK saying "near" term, but "mid"... absolutely not. This is just one more place where disruption is clearly visible on the horizon. |