Hi Nat & readers, Even though I would highly endorse remaking the ending of GOT with the use of AI (since any version of the final season can only be better), there is more than enough reason to be critical. Thanks for an interesting video where you compiled a lot of different points of view into eleven minutes. Especially the "dark side" part was well phrased. The perspective I have to offer is that people tend to take hyped subjects to the next level, whether it's out of pure interest, for the greater good or the terrible worst. They might only consider backing down until things go terribly wrong (as history has proven). It will offer us amazing tools for sure, but if only a few people take it too far, we might have to abandon it altogether. So I remain sceptical as to how this "tool" will finally impact our world. I do believe however that within the field of architecture, we are still far from AI having the final word (and it should never), since a. the field is so terribly complicated that it will have to absorb the knowledge of thousands of different jobs and years of experience of experts within the field. b. the creative, sensible and thus human aspects, which are fundamental parts of the job, are so difficult to explain and describe, that it won't be able to understand them in the way people do. I'm talking about those slight, inexplicable, emotional or untangible nuances. Lacking this, it will never produce something truly "new" or valid. Hope it adds something to think about! It's good to have you back making video's!
Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts! GOT rewrite for the win! It's definitely intriguing to consider whether this tool will end up being a game-changer or just another shiny distraction. I mean, sure, if it can tackle some of the more tedious tasks, that could free up time for architects to focus on other important stuff. But then again, we've got to weigh the benefits against the potential drawbacks, right? It's wild to see how students are already diving into tools like midjourney and Dalle. The possibilities are just mind-blowing! It's like we're on the brink of something big, but there's still that lingering question of whether it'll truly capture the essence of what makes architecture so uniquely human. BUT I also am curious if we will become overly dependent on this AI generation wave, and just totally lose all of our creativity.
@@UnravelingArchitecture It's a pleasure having those discussions! Let's get one thing straight: the first person to design an AI that could do all the tedious paperwork for us will surely become a billionaire and I will praise his/her name. However, It's as you said about weighing all the aspects, keeping ethics and morals in mind. I think the answer to your final argument will depend on ourselves, the architectural community! If the tools were to become so powerful that they can do our jobs, we will still have the power to collectively say no. (Of course it won't be that simple, because many will argue that we'd hold back this "unavoidable technological progress".) Nevertheless, we need to draw a line somewhere, probably in the middle. I think we will, because I assume (mostly) every architect wants to avoid that architecture becomes this dull and repetitive job which is solely about typing in the right prompts. Being an architect is part of our identities, so we'd basically be replacing a part of our personality with a ("smart") robot! We'll see what the future brings, but I appreciate you creating this video because it reminds us to be critical of things which seems to good to be true (unfortunately). I'll finish by apologising for the lengthy texts for the TLDR-practitioners😅
Dealing with AI always arises that one question with me: at what point do we need go too far and create the same scenario as Terminator was based upon? Technology is supposed to simplify our lives, but when is the tipping moment where it could also doom us?
Elimination of jobs is always the straw man argument. Fortunately history tells us the opposite, more jobs will be created and then policy and Ai policy will come forth. No one thinks of how AI could be used to protect fraud or create alerts. Ai is amazing and it won’t end the world.
Because its shit at protecting against fraud. It was, stupidly, used at the DWP to decide if people applying for benefits should be given them or not. It costantly cocked all this up so they finally saw sense and disabled it.
Similar key phrases are often used as an audience retention tactic, as many viewers have shorter attention spans. I appreciate you choosing to watch my video, which took me a few days to edit amidst working two jobs. I appreciate the encouragement. have a nice one
QOTD: where do you see text-to-video AI going in the future? Is it a good thing? A bad thing?
It won't, its over hyped shit, created by startups to get the next round of funding until they can cash out and sell up before the bubble bursts.
We are very close to an AGI-ASI. Sora is just one piece of the huge technological advancement that is in front of us.
We are years, even decades away from AGI.
Hi Nat & readers,
Even though I would highly endorse remaking the ending of GOT with the use of AI (since any version of the final season can only be better), there is more than enough reason to be critical. Thanks for an interesting video where you compiled a lot of different points of view into eleven minutes. Especially the "dark side" part was well phrased.
The perspective I have to offer is that people tend to take hyped subjects to the next level, whether it's out of pure interest, for the greater good or the terrible worst. They might only consider backing down until things go terribly wrong (as history has proven). It will offer us amazing tools for sure, but if only a few people take it too far, we might have to abandon it altogether. So I remain sceptical as to how this "tool" will finally impact our world.
I do believe however that within the field of architecture, we are still far from AI having the final word (and it should never), since
a. the field is so terribly complicated that it will have to absorb the knowledge of thousands of different jobs and years of experience of experts within the field.
b. the creative, sensible and thus human aspects, which are fundamental parts of the job, are so difficult to explain and describe, that it won't be able to understand them in the way people do. I'm talking about those slight, inexplicable, emotional or untangible nuances. Lacking this, it will never produce something truly "new" or valid.
Hope it adds something to think about!
It's good to have you back making video's!
Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts! GOT rewrite for the win! It's definitely intriguing to consider whether this tool will end up being a game-changer or just another shiny distraction. I mean, sure, if it can tackle some of the more tedious tasks, that could free up time for architects to focus on other important stuff. But then again, we've got to weigh the benefits against the potential drawbacks, right?
It's wild to see how students are already diving into tools like midjourney and Dalle. The possibilities are just mind-blowing! It's like we're on the brink of something big, but there's still that lingering question of whether it'll truly capture the essence of what makes architecture so uniquely human. BUT I also am curious if we will become overly dependent on this AI generation wave, and just totally lose all of our creativity.
@@UnravelingArchitecture It's a pleasure having those discussions!
Let's get one thing straight: the first person to design an AI that could do all the tedious paperwork for us will surely become a billionaire and I will praise his/her name.
However, It's as you said about weighing all the aspects, keeping ethics and morals in mind. I think the answer to your final argument will depend on ourselves, the architectural community! If the tools were to become so powerful that they can do our jobs, we will still have the power to collectively say no. (Of course it won't be that simple, because many will argue that we'd hold back this "unavoidable technological progress".)
Nevertheless, we need to draw a line somewhere, probably in the middle. I think we will, because I assume (mostly) every architect wants to avoid that architecture becomes this dull and repetitive job which is solely about typing in the right prompts. Being an architect is part of our identities, so we'd basically be replacing a part of our personality with a ("smart") robot!
We'll see what the future brings, but I appreciate you creating this video because it reminds us to be critical of things which seems to good to be true (unfortunately).
I'll finish by apologising for the lengthy texts for the TLDR-practitioners😅
A 1987 film The Running man starring Arnold Schwarzenegger had this same technology and it wasn’t used for good.
Dealing with AI always arises that one question with me: at what point do we need go too far and create the same scenario as Terminator was based upon? Technology is supposed to simplify our lives, but when is the tipping moment where it could also doom us?
It will be good, but there enough cons of it.
Elimination of jobs is always the straw man argument. Fortunately history tells us the opposite, more jobs will be created and then policy and Ai policy will come forth.
No one thinks of how AI could be used to protect fraud or create alerts. Ai is amazing and it won’t end the world.
Because its shit at protecting against fraud. It was, stupidly, used at the DWP to decide if people applying for benefits should be given them or not. It costantly cocked all this up so they finally saw sense and disabled it.
If you didn’t know huh …
I’m tired of you RUclipsrs cashing in on the same topic . At least be on time if you’re gonna regurgitate Information
Similar key phrases are often used as an audience retention tactic, as many viewers have shorter attention spans. I appreciate you choosing to watch my video, which took me a few days to edit amidst working two jobs. I appreciate the encouragement. have a nice one