Quite a long time, maybe. One of the key limitations of GPT-4, as well as other language models in its class, is the context window.

In the case of GPT-3, the context window is approximately 2,048 tokens. This means that when generating text, GPT-3 can only consider the 2,048 tokens immediately preceding the point at which it is generating text. This can make it difficult for the model to maintain coherence and consistency when generating longer texts, such as a book.

When GPT-4 is developed, it'll likely still be limited by the context window . Researchers would need to develop new architectures that are able to take into account a larger context window. This is complex as hell, and it is not clear if it'll be possible with our current hardware limitations.

Honestly, I’m disappointed in OpenAI. Each release seems to make it more sanitized and dumber, albeit more useful for corporations.

Again, UBI will only support people at a subsistence level. What you're suggesting is basically servitude to the state.

>The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters.

No. Ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea is worthless by itself. It's the execution of an ideas that makes it unique and valuable and interesting. Since you're abdicating the execution to an algorithm, you're also abdicating your role as the creative agent.

>If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.

Please. 🙄 I've used all of the current AI engines and they're nowhere near sophisticated enough yet to realize even a basic idea:

1. They can't show complex backgrounds, landscapes, or interiors.
2. They can't generate interacting people.
3. They can't draw tools of weapons.
4. They can't create expressive faces.
5. They can't create consistent characters.
6. They can't frame shots.

And there's lots more it can't do, as well. There's no way a genuinely creative person who has a story they want to tell would find any of the current iteration useful in any way.

>Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative.

This is a bullshit reply made by the uncreative. There are still such things as "originals." They may have drawn from the artists who came before them, but then they took those influences and made something wholly new.

The algorithms cannot do that. All they're capable of doing is mocking already existing styles.

>It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal,"

If all you made was art that seemed like a bad Van Gogh knock-off, you'd be quickly forgotten by an artist. You would need to quickly develop your own unique style. Since the algorithm cannot do this, it's destined to fail as anything other than pure kitsch.

>It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering.

The disabled can create great art. There are numerous examples of people with physical and mental disabilities overcoming those limitations and making gorgeous music, paintings, and other artistic pieces. If you have the creative bug, nothing will stop you from creating. And there is a power in having to fight to get your true vision into the world. If you don't understand that idea, you are not an artist.

There’s zero creativity in what you do, I’m afraid. The algorithm is just copying ideas from better minds, badly. If you truly want to be creative and show the world your vision, learn to express it in your own way. The algorithm will always, by definition, be derivative.

There is zero evidence that anything like “UBI” For the entire population will work, or will lead to anything other than people living at a subsistence level.

>With the help of these tools, I can create the most genuine version of what I see in my head

The most genuine version of what you see in your head would be created by your own labor, not an AI algorithm.

>Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?

Because there won't be post-scarcity. There's no indication AI like this will usher in a post-scarcity world. So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose. We've already seen what a society with lots of purposeless people looks like in other parts of the world. Violence almost always follows.