[stephen_cagle]

I suspect these models will be like old Gutenberg's printing press. A rapid rise in the amount of content; most of it not that great. However the sheer volume will result in even more high quality content actually being created in aggregate.

Put another way, the average game quality will go down, but the actual rate of "Great" games will go up.

[mplewis]

But these aren't great games. They are not even good. They are just tech demos with nothing of interest to gamers.

Why do I need more slopware? I have an entire Steam library of excellent games that deserve to be played first.

[stephen_cagle]

Agreed, these aren't even games currently. I am just saying that world models will lower the barrier to entry to making games. Which might mean that 1 in 1000 of the lower-barrier-to-entry-people might someday makes a great game. So more great games in aggregate, but more bad games on average.

[DrewADesign]

And theoretically AI does a great job at helping HR filter unqualified candidates, and it helps candidates optimize their resumes and application strategies to help them land the right role. So people should be landing dream roles left-and-right. Is that how it’s working?

In reality, I don’t see any of this trending towards the theoretical happy path everybody always talks about. Most people give up trying to find something good on Amazon and just buy whatever vaguely plausible knock-off garbage shows up in the first few search results. Most people just take any job interview they’re offered even if it sucks. Most HR people don’t use it to enhance the quality of their decisions — it replaces their decision-making roles in many respects.

I’m an art school graduate and talk am in many art discussion communities. This is causing a massive industry-wide morale crater. In any sort of art, it damn near eliminates the reward of craftsmanship in favor of marketing useless trend-of-the-week bullshit. Far fewer people enter a market that can’t sustain them. The idea that this is going to create ‘more artists’ and therefore that must mean there must be more skilled artists is fantasy. The skills you learn by prompting are not even on the same track to learning how to create things yourself. You essentially become a high-school intern acting as an art director, commissioning pieces. It’s instant gratification for people who don’t care enough about something to learn how to do it for real.

[stephen_cagle]

Just to be clear, I'm visualizing the usage of world models that can consistently render visual and interactive renderings of a specified world. I think interacting with them will be markedly different than interacting with many text based LLMs (though I don't know, I have never had direct access to one).

I don't think these will create "artist" in any sense, but I do think it will lower the barrier dramatically for people creating games. Most people will interact with it like Lieutenant Barclay interacting with the holodeck, doing little more than wish fulfillment. But I think a few people will be able to interact with it in ways that create art.

In no way am I implying that the net net of AI will be good for humanity as a whole (I think that is too big a question), but I do think the power of World Models will probably result in a far more people being able to say "I have created a game".

I honestly don't have anything useful to say about what LLMs are doing to many human fields. I can understand how frustrating it must feel to see LLMs demonstrate superhuman "skill" (I don't really think they are skilled) at orders of magnitude less cost than a good artist. It isn't just that they don't seem to innovate (only permute), it is that they will literally take even the tiniest bit of creativity and novelty and immediately fine tune and create derivative works on any idea at scale. I can see how that might really demotivate any desire to push the boundaries of art for any human being.

[DrewADesign]

Sorry I probably conflated LLMs and diffusion models, et al in what I wrote, but there’s no real difference in art.

Artists make thousands of tiny decisions when creating art— many of them unconscious. It’s true across mediums— e.g. digital art, oil painting, collage, sculpture, and architecture photography— and even realms, like music, visual art, and animation. Learning to make art is a process of learning to make those conscious and unconscious decisions to create something that communicates what you want it to, using the subtle visual language developed by everything from your personality, to your physical capability and limitations, your cognitive capability and limitations, your experience, taste, likes, available tools and media, environment, inspiration, etc. etc. etc.

AI simultaneously makes it harder to make those decisions and imbue your work with your artistic perspective while supplanting it with the amalgamated decisions of other artists. Novices love AI because they don’t have to learn how to make those artistic judgements, or the craft of implementing them… unfortunately, learning that stuff is learning art. Using AI to generate very specific images can be a difficult, deep, and creative process, but it is fundamentally different than creating art— it is art direction. The skills to do it are fundamentally different. It’s not an incremental change like physical media to digital media, which requires the same exact underlying set of cognitive skills and processes even if the logistics were different.

You could definitely consider a meaningfully curated collection of images other people (or machines) generated to be ‘art,’ but no matter how closely an art director micromanaged an artist making an individual piece, it is still, fundamentally, the artist’s low-level sensibility, experience, and perspective on the micro level that made that piece what it was. If that art director put their name on that artist’s piece, they’d justifiably be run out of town with pitchforks.

But AI does not make learning art more accessible to people. They make it nearly free to commission art from a computer. This isn’t a purely philosophical distinction — it would be like someone saying they’re an experienced driver because they use Waymo cars. Even if they get a new ride every block to make sure they take the exact route they want to take, that doesn’t mean they’re driving. Even if you could tell the Waymo to speed up, slow down, or change lanes, you’re still back-seat driving at best. It’s just a different thing. And if you’re banking on more Waymo cars making it easier for people to get in cars, and increasing the number of car trips to increase the number of experienced drivers in the world, that’s a fundamentally flawed way of reasoning about it.

[whilenot-dev]

Have to disagree here as I don't subscribe to your analogy. GenAI can be considered a tool, yes, but it's less a "circular saw for workshops"-tool, and more a "microwave for kitchens"-tool... and I doubt microwaves led to higher quality content in aggregate.

[stephen_cagle]

I feel like a circular saw is a creator tool, while a microwave is mostly a finishing tool.

I take raw material and make something out of it with a circular saw, largely unrestrained by anything other than cost, skill, and material.

With a microwave, I make things hot so I can eat them.

Aside: Also, I wonder why that is? Why do we regard the microwave as "degenerate" compared to the oven? Why is baking seen as a calling while microwaving is, well, not? Is it the ease of the microwave makes the effort less impressive? Maybe it is that you can't achieve certain effects like browning? Is it because of it's 1970's association with "radiation" and tv dinners? Is it just cultural inertia?

[hattmall]

Tbh, most people actually don't know how to microwave. The typical microwave users just trys to "one-shot" it by punching in a time and using high heat.

Proper microwaving is what gave rise to the entire concept of "fast casual" restaurants, famously AppleBees (or "club B's" in the late night focus iterations!)

Complex entrees that could be partially cooked and frozen. Then rapidly microwaved on a custom program that varies the timing and intensity of cooking. Then finished on a grill or conventional heat source for less than 1 minutes.

Microwaving food generally produces a lower quality finished product. But you can take a similar approach at home. The short cut is to just double the cooking time and cook at 50% power. Then throw whatever the item is in a preheated pan for about 1 minute if it's applicable. Other variations are possible too, I air fry finish most things like chicken nuggets, tater tots etc and the difference is considerable while still offer a significantly reduced cooking time.

[stirfish]

I have a collection of vintage microwave cookbooks and they get real fancy, with techniques like wrapping the thin parts of fish with aluminum foil so they don't burn. Volume 5 had a full Thanksgiving dinner. I think the goal was to sell more microwaves to people who weren't sure what they could do. Fascinating stuff.

I have used none of those recipes. The microwave is for making cold pizza 10% more palatable (or 80% more palatable if I've been drinking). In that regard, the LLMs are microwaves really works for me: if I'm using one I either I want something fast and casual, or I'm drunk.

[hattmall]

>I have a collection of vintage microwave cookbooks

Of course you do! Please take the time to upload and share that's an amazingly niche knowledge pocket.

[hatsix]

You reheat pizza in the microwave? I hope someone cooks salmon in your microwave!

[dasyatidprime]

You might both be interested in https://malmesbury.substack.com/p/my-journey-to-the-microwav... regarding the history of microwave cooking (not mine). The microwave oven wasn't known destined to be relegated to lowbrow cookery from the beginning, even if that's how it turned out from our perspective, and some of the more advanced techniques developed for it fell out of use.

[stephen_cagle]

Neat article.

I think it is interesting (though I only partially agree) that microwave meals require standardization to scale. Let's say that was true, why couldn't a modern microwave have a small camera and a set of heuristics for how to cook just about anything by turning the gun on and off at particular points when it recognizes a food? Maybe without intelligence, a microwave does need standardization; but we can put intelligence (ideally offline) in just about anything these days?

I wonder if with sufficient control if a microwave could ever brown? I wonder if it could reliably bake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tg3-93jKvc - Chicken Good!

[dasyatidprime]

Most of the problem with browning is the physics: it requires temperatures well above boiling, but the default microwave absorber is water which will tend to saturate around boiling temp. But physical cookware design can be used to make it work: the article I linked prominently describes the use of a browning skillet with a tin oxide coating on the bottom that can safely absorb large amounts of microwave radiation and get hot enough to brown foods.

So partly due to that, I think if you wanted to do full robotic cookery with a microwave beyond the TV-dinner stage you'd still need control over the other objects rather than just switching the magnetron. Stirring for even heat distribution is another thing.

And then it's separately interesting how, in a really skew way, “deliver heat using RF energy” came back from a different angle with the rise of induction stoves!