> In the aftermath of World War I, birth rates in the United States and many European countries fell below replacement level. This prompted concern about population decline.[8] The recovery of the birth rate in most Western countries around 1940 that produced the "baby boom", with annual growth rates in the 1.0 – 1.5% range, and which peaked during the period 1962–1968 at 2.1% per year,[13] temporarily dispelled prior concerns about population decline, and the world was once again fearful of overpopulation. After 1968, the global population growth rate started a long decline. The Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) has reported that in the year 2023 it had dropped to about 0.9%,[13] less than half of its peak between 1962 and 1968. Although still growing, the UN predicts that global population will level out around 2084,[81] and some sources predict the start of a decline before then.
In other words, the last time everyone got worked up over this, the trend reversed itself too hard within a few decades, and then reversed itself again. Meanwhile, over half a century after the "decline" started, we have over twice as many people as we had when it started, and the earliest projections for when growth will stop is another half century from now. I think there are a lot bigger problems we'll need to reckon with before then, and if we manage to remain stable by then, it seems like we have good precedent for reversing it fairly quickly.
As long as everybody is nationalist (not to say racist) and keeps borders closed to protect the homeland, those differences matter. Realizing that one thing people get worked up about (immigration) is a solution to the other thing they get worked up about (not enough kids!!1) would be a great insight.
Yes, but no one is really complaining about "not enough kids." They are complaining about not enough kids of their preferred skin tone. So they see immigration as an exacerbation.
I can't help but agree here. "Declining birth rate in the western world" just comes across as a dog-whistle to me. I guess I kind of only alluded to this myself with my response that they were being "weirdly cagey", and I wish I had been more direct like you were willing to, so thank you for this
The world population has been increasing steadily and shows no sign of slowing down.
The dog whistle in question is the inordinate concern that certain groups show for the population of the "western world" specifically, which is not-so-secret code for white babies specifically.
Well, they were directly asked what they meant and replied with a link to a giant Wikipedia article. If they had a more specific point to make, they're being weirdly cagey about it.
The point is that we should be directing our energy in a direction that’s net useful for human kind which should translate into growth. Dropbox is not one of those because there are many viable alternatives.
How do you know most people don't do this? All my e-book-reading friends buy physical and digital copies of books in addition to whatever they get off AA.
You're misunderstanding me. I never said you should build a framework. I said frontend frameworks already provide style locality out of the box, so there is no need to introduce an additional framework (Tailwind) for that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
reply