It’s implied in someways I would say. that’s why these folks creating any meaningful leverage is a black swan event. Say all of them walk away and meta can get a million new people it’s still a massive risk for the meta (entity) as they may never be able to recover fully. The million new people when band to gather will not form the same larger entity that was existing earlier that made a lot of money. They are not going to be productive day one or year one. What will emerge is a new entity and it could make even more money or even less money as things may never be the same. And that’s a large risk that Meta may or may not take. But without leverage created by banding together / complete solidarity Meta will never be forever to face the risk of it being transformed into a completely different entity that may or may not be as successful as it’s today. And that’s the power of leverage.
Build trust, collect data from cdrowdsource, if you want to succeed on this.
Build trust by: truly making this a public good, by open sourcing it. Be the maitnainer. Data dump every week as a zipball/tarball. These will ensure you can't rugpull.
With this trust, offer an extension (open source of course) to all, which whever a user goes through crunchbase, traxn, etc, sends any factual data (hence non-copyrightable) to you. If you gained trust, I would also do this.
You get the right to be a maintainer, and figure out if you also want to make a business with it on top.
In India, by law, companies above a certain size are required to spend 2% of profit on social responsibility activities. So in my city, you see lots of things around adopted or funded by companies.
It depends on the application. A low stakes vibe coded personal project? Sure go ahead, that's a perfect use. A proof of concept? Also pretty good use.
For the main product of your company I think it's fair to say that people should know and understand what they are doing
You can understand deeply what you're doing and still make a huge amount of mistakes. This is what we're ironically (in terms of this conversation) seeing AI point out over and over now that companies have mythos in their hands. If I had to bet on it at some point we'll see the shift where if AI hasn't fully reviewed and edited code it's considered unsafe to use. Similar to how we all understand how once self-driving cars are good enough human driving should probably be minimized because we're so bad at it.
How so? How did stealing the entire works of humanity act as “transformative”? Please, this is a serious question I just don’t see it. Perhaps my mind only acknowledges the theft of the sum of human works for private gain.
Also my preferred outcome isn’t knownto you or to me. My feelings on this subject aren’t clear at all and the reports I’ve read were probably all pushing their point of view.
It doesn't have browser support yet because it's WASI-based, so there are a few more steps compared to Emscripten (two different ways to build for WebAssembly). But networking is supposed to work, did you have trouble with it?
I suspect you're a junior engineer if you think that way. Domains (any) are deep, and require thorough understanding before you can have business or revenue impact.
I do feel like a junior engineer sometimes. Funnily I didn't as much for the first 15 years or so, but the longer I go and the more clients I work in, the more I feel like it - and I find it refreshing!
I agree that domains are deep but rarely I'll touch all areas of the domain in any given role. As I mentioned in other comments, I don't have to know all of it, as there are other people in the business and likely within my team who:
- probably don't know 100% either; but
- know things that I don't
We work together so as a team we have as broad and deep a domain knowledge we can for the needs of our products and projects.
> It's perfectly possible for an engineer to be both a fantastic engineer, and bad at using AI
In this era, AI native skills are the major factor, alongside system design, which define who's fantastic. As an example, deep programming language or framework knowledge is a commodity now and not meaningful as a skill difference.
There are tons of behind the scenes pictures and video of the Rocky puppet being used on set, and Andy Weir talks in interviews about how almost no CG was used to enhance the puppet. I guess it's possible to fake all that, but it's a lot of lie to cover up.
Andy Weir is a wonderful novelist and was truthfully relating his understanding but he's not a VFX person.
I didn't see the quote you did but he probably confused the fact that PHM used physical elements in place of some CGI in certain scenes and the separate fact that a realistic physical puppet was used on set for reference. Some parts of that puppet are seen on-screen in some shots but most of the creature in most shots was CGI or CG enhanced (which looked great thanks to the ideal in-camera puppet reference it replaced). I explained more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48198851
I agree PHM was great (and I loved the book before the movie). But as a VFX person, please be careful not to buy into the currently popular studio PR line: "it's all real, almost no CGI". Media and influencers love this line and often unknowingly muddle the studio's very carefully crafted press release wording into outright lies by paraphrasing and making assumptions. The problem is these aren't just white lies, they deprive some very talented VFX artists from getting credit for amazing work.
About the misunderstood puppet: A real Rocky puppet was indeed used on set (actually a few different puppets) and some of the puppet is sometimes seen on camera. But most of the puppet was digitally replaced with CGI or CGI-enhanced in most of the scenes. However, using a much more realistic puppet on set is indeed notable but not because the character wasn't CGI. The puppet is worth talking about because it directly enabled the final mostly-CGI character be really good CGI. It's good because shooting the physical puppet gave the VFX character animators an ideal reference that's "grounded" in the physical reality of the set, camera and lens. The subtle interplay of light, shadow, texture and specularity in the CGI are all grounded in reality. The puppet also let the actor interact with something closer to reality. It's a wonderful technique and should be celebrated instead of obfuscated to promote a "No CGI!" falsehood that trends well on social media.
Also, PHM did use real sets (like most movies) and they were able to avoid using green screen for some of the ship exteriors but those backgrounds were still digitally replaced with CGI rendered elements, they just didn't use green screen to pull the matte. But on social media, "No green screen" (true) was conflated into "No CGI" (false). Instead of green screen they used a black backdrop with careful lighting and some hand rotoscoping to extract the digital mattes. Doing it this way had the advantage of not needing to digitally remove green spill on reflective surfaces by hand and it saved money over doing a StageCraft virtual volume at that size. Done well, a green screen could have produced the exact same shot but it would have cost more and taken longer.
But influencers and media are unintentionally perpetuating "No CGI" myths instead of focusing on the actually interesting, more nuanced reality. Using more and better physically grounded references on-set IS a breakthrough that helps turn bad CGI into great CGI. Another example is Top Gun where "artfully misleading but technically true wording" in studio press releases grew into outright falsehoods online. Tom Cruise was truthful in saying that he was flown in a jet right alongside other REAL jets doing simulated dog-fighting. The lost nuance is that all the other jets Cruise flew with in those dog fight scenes were old Soviet trainer jets that look quite different and are much smaller than real MIGs. So the trainer jets were entirely replaced by CGI MIGs in post and are never seen in the final film. And we couldn't tell because the digitally removed jets provided ideal grounded reference for the CGI pixels that replaced them. And that's how we ended up with several famous YouTubers proclaiming "These are REAL jets, not CGI!" while showing 100% CGI jets. Same with Wicked and the CGI tulips. The fact that Wicked used thousands of specially grown tulips on-set (true) was confused into proclaiming "ALL these tulips are real, no CGI!" (false) while showing a scene where >90% of the tulips were CGI.
AI is already in a bunch of creative workflows. Just look at modern Photoshop. Selecting and hitting delete has AI infill for the background replacement.
Creates can these video gen AI in various ways. There are some youtube channels of people using these in creative workflows that are really impressive, from mocap replacement, character insertion, background replacement, changing camera angle in post, animating/inserting characters from character boards, animated between stills generated in traditional methods, etc. It's not just "prompt and generate". It can be, because it's easy, but it also doesn't have to be. It's a tool.
I do wonder how studios are working around consistent human faces, it's a problem on almost every discussion forum I have read for AI videos and not something that seems to be solved yet.
Do you have any examples of those creative workflows that have made it into Hollywood for example?
i do photo restoration as part of my research (bizarre place to be for a math undergrad), so i do think AI is a lifesaver for very small adjustments that would be tedious or subpar otherwise. i just disagree that its creative output is of value (which isn't the case you made, anyway).
You missed mentioning a million new humans will gladly walk into the deal.
This is a list of 1600 people who should be alrady looking out because meta won't be after this signature.