[Delphiza]

It is the financial risk that is obvious. The big players are struggling to show meaningful revenue from the investment. Because the investment is so high, the revenue numbers need to be equally high, and growing fast. The 'correction' is when (ok, if) the markets realise that the returns aren't there. The worldwide risk is that AI-led growth has been a large chunk of the US stock market growth. If it 'corrects' US growth disappears overnight and takes everyone down with it. It is not an issue about the usefulness of AI, but the returns on investment and the market shocks caused by such large sums of money sloshing around one market.

[whimsicalism]

I think we have only scratched the surface of what we can do with the existing technology. A much more present risk from stagnation IMO is that if we stagnate, it is almost certain that the value of the tech will not be able to be enclosed /captured by its creators.

[Pxtl]

Imho it will take off in animation/illustration as soon as Adobe (or some competitor) figures out how to make good tooling for artists. Not for idiot wantrepeneurs who want to dump fully-generated-slop onto Amazon, but so that a person can draw rough pencil sketches and storyboards and reference character sheets and get back proper illustrations. Basically, don't replace the penciler but replace the inker and the colourist (and, in animation, the in-betweener).

That's more of a UI problem than a limitation in Diffusion tech.

That's a customer who'll pay, it might be worth a lot. But a $trillion per year?

[justlikereddit]

There's a free addon for free Krita that did pretty much that when I tried it, last year.

The glaring issue with it back then was that unlike an LLM that can be understanding of what you try to explain and bit more consistent the diffusion models ability to read and understand your prompt wasn't really there yet, you're more shotgunning keywords and hope the seed lottery gives you something nice.

But recent image generation models are significantly better in stable output. Something like qwen image will care a lot more about your prompt and not entirely redraw the scene into something else just because you change the seed.

Meaning that the UI experiments already exist but the models are still a bit away from maturity.

On the other hand, when looking at how models are actually evolving I'm not entirely convinced we'll need particularly many classically trained artists in roles where they draw static images with some AI acceleration. I expect people to talk to an LLM interface that can take the dumbest of instructions and carefully adjust a picture, sound, music or an entire two hour movie. Where the artist would benefit more by knowing the terminology and the granular abilities of the system than by being able to hold a pencil.

The entertainment and media industry is worth trillions on an annual basis, if AI can eat a fraction of that in addition to some other work-roles it will easily be worth the current valuations.

[dzhiurgis]

> big players are struggling to show meaningful revenue from the investment

ChatGPT's $10b per year is not insignificant tho.

[bigfatkitten]

It is when compared with their capex, and where is that revenue coming from? It’s predominantly coming from other AI hopefuls incinerating capital.

[dzhiurgis]

> where is that revenue coming from?

800M active users aka 10% of worlds population.

[bigfatkitten]

Of which a small minority are paying subscribers.

[dzhiurgis]

Math says about 10%