Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxst5s wrote

Reply to comment by jepvr in Nvidia has created a text-to-3D generative-AI that will allow people to make high-resolution 3D models from just text prompts. by lughnasadh

By “resource” people normally mean money, not human brains. Less money needed to produce video games = less resources.

2

jepvr t1_ixxv99u wrote

Yes, which is why I said "that's because we don't count the human brain as a 'resource'". What part of that is in need of your clarification?

But aside from that redundancy, it does require more resources. Have you ever looked into the hardware requirements for these AIs? They're fairly steep. Greatly steeper than normal game development. And you haven't taken the human out, because someone has to keep working on prompts.

All this is tangential, because we're not "about" to do anything. This will take at least a decade and more like two or three to get to the level of 3d art we have today. If they manage to get it that way at all. Look up the Pareto Principle. They've done the easy part. Now they have to do the hard part.

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxvxsi wrote

You have to pay a salary to those brains, they're not free. If you don't need to pay them (because you use AI now), then you need fewer resources (as in money), ceteris paribus.

I'm not denying it might increase costs (as long as it increases productivity more), I'm simply pointing out that human brains are considered as resources - in business speak and economics at least, which is ultimately what matters.

1

jepvr t1_ixxw942 wrote

>By “resource” people normally mean money, not human brains.
[...]
>
>I'm simply pointing out that human brains are considered as resources

You're kind of doing a bad job of it. :D

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxwksz wrote

Are you really not getting what I’m talking about?

Human brains by themselves are not resources, but the salaries to pay for them are… fewer brains, fewer salaries, fewer resources…

1

jepvr t1_ixxwruf wrote

Six of one, half dozen of the other. You're splitting hairs.

And as I pointed out, there's going to be much more hardware resources going on, plus the humans to run the AI. And on top of all that, the output is going to be shit for probably the next couple of decades. So all this is a moot discussion.

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxxgaj wrote

I’m splitting hairs? That’s ironic for you to say. You’re the one pretending that resources are not financial resources at the foremost.

The transition will not happen as long as the added productivity is smaller than added costs or, keeping productivity similar, as long as the cost of adopting AI is greater than the cost of paying the salaries.

1

jepvr t1_ixy00c7 wrote

I was never pretending anything. Of course everything is ultimately financial. Such a statement is so obvious to not need stating unless you think the person you are talking to is a total moron (in which case why even bother trying to have an intellectual conversation?)

What I'm saying is that I do not believe the OP was talking about that sort of resource. Hell, they didn't even say development, and I think it very likely they were talking about runtime. Most people don't use the term to mean "resource intensive" when they're talking about "financially expensive." It's more typically used in the context of hardware resources. I think it's likely that's what the OP was meaning.

1