>Kodak: digital is so low quality and bad. This will never take off, film is clearly superior.>general public: me no care, digital is just more convenient>Kodak: But film is superior in nearly every aspect!>general public: me no care. Digital easy! Film hard.>Kodak: *goes bankrupt*Same story is happening with AI. Doesn't matter that it's shit quality, it's easy and convenient.
i think one interesting side effect of AI is that the internet will feel more dead because a lot of things that could've been group discussions will instead be taken to llm chatsfor example, i want to know how something works, i go on a forum or reddit or whatever, ask people, people reply, discuss shit togethernowadays, i want to know something, i ask a chatbot, i get an answer, that's a discussion that never happened
I can deliver literally any product for free on /g/ since the digital supply chain is "trivial" (post-scarce) if you can stand letting me have attention.
Image processing is a real science. I've looked at AI papers and I get the feeling nobody knows what they're doing.
>let me just take this photo of me with a dildo up my ass, hand over the film roll to the photo hut to get it developed, pick it up 2 days later, scan it into my computer, then upload it to /b/my boner would be completely gone by that point
>>106426517What if the AI ran out of original stuff to copy from?
>>106426574could happen. i am interested on how they will train these models in 5 or 10 years when most online content is coming from the models themselves, or at least will be indistinguishable from the human content
>>106426574What were you searching for?
>>106426545I would hope so, humans aren't supposed to have boners for more than a few hours.>>106426589AI content is already incestuous in large parts of the internet. The answer is you just can't train a model anymore on that stuff.
>>106426589Man, this shit won't even assist me writing literotica type of stuff. Are the paid versions censored as well?>>106426606Anything that Google Search used to show. Like, whatever was the exact thing that I typed. Modern google search acts like a nanny and treat the user like a 5-year old kid.
>>106426696Well yeah a search giant will dry up from AI processing faster than literally anything else since by definition it could never have anything original.
>>106426722This isn't true. Google is still perfectly capable of searching the internet for technical stuff that AI doesn't care about like "what is the part number for X" and Google can't do that anymore because they just want it not to.
>>106426485Digital *was* bad, but it kept getting better. Today the difference is too small to justify the hassle, except for a small pro niche.
>>106426485Until AI can fit on my phone without cloud/internet it is useless. Costs billions of dollars to make anime girl pictures. They need to shrink it down before going for AGI bs.
>>106426640no I mean surgically
>>106426485>Horror died in 2012
>>106426485If you use AI, you are soulless, simple as that.
>>106426485>Same story is happening with AI.Difference is AI is a tool to supplement, not a replacement. AGI is a complete meme and even the best LLMs hallucinate all the time. If you've ever seriously used LLMs outside of your ERP goon sessions you'd know this. It's a great tool, but you have to have someone verify what it's actually doing.
>>106426485Kodak actually invested a lot into digital cameras, you retard.
>>106427338The applel cameras are just bad, has nothing to do with analog vs digital
>>106426485>>106427338>digital photo=bad>digitized analog photo=good
>>106426485All that matters is price and time.
https://youtu.be/h_Z_k50ltkY
>>106426728Operators don't work. Before:2020 helps but not that much. What else could be done besides paying for Kagi?>>106427351Freetard ones can't even goon properly.>>106427407Based. Should've done this before bitrot ate my photos from 2016-2021. Smh.
>>106426485Personally I think AI is going to collapse either from the exponentially ballooning infrastructure costs or heavy handed regulation rather than "quality" concerns.
>>106426485Your leaving out that Kodak literally invented and patented the first digital camera. They didn't make it because it threatened their film business, and they let the patent expire.
>>106429212not op, but i have heard that they at least did some research into it pretty early on. i have looked into some of the history of digital cameras, but i don't know what kodak was really thinking. i don't think they're stupid or anything for not putting more effort into digital photography, i know they did put a good amount of effort into it. it's probably just that being experts at producing film doesn't translate to digital photography, like the latter simply doesn't use film, so kodak would be starting from the same point as any other company wanting to get into developing digitial photography (no pun intended)
>>106429212>>106429371-- oh i will say i don't share op's sentiment that suggests kodak brushed off digital photography because it's "low quality", there's no way they were that oblivious. if anyone understood that most people taking photos weren't professional photographers, it was kodak
What happened in 2000?
>>106429557y2k
>>106426485except that digital was better?fuck sake, digital sensors are waaaaay better than film, if film were better we would still use it in science applicationsthe "advantage" of film is a logarithmic response curve, if you like or want that. i prefer linear, and postpocress any curve i like
>>106431028not op, but it is now, his mention of "this will never take off", is likely in reference to the '90s where digitial photography was indeed quite shit image quality wise. naturally even in the early days the conveniences were still there, like being able to capture photos onto rewritable media, delete photos on the camera, exposures cost literally nothing, etc. it was even early on a really convenient technology. once the quality caught up it was over for film outside of just nostalgia
>>106431059-- like, i first used a digital camera in 1999. a friend of my parents had a floppy-based sony mavica. it could take 1024x768 jpeg's. the quality, while not as good as film, was competitive for non-professional use, like it was /good enough/. but the fact i could just go around taking photos of anything and later just pop the disk into his win95 computer and view them was downright futuristic. no waiting until the roll was done, no going to a shop to have it developed, no development cost or waiting until the next day to pick it up. you could take a photo and have it emailed or printed at home right then and there.
>>106431028Pentax EI-C90 camera made in 96 had 0.41MP, the dynamic range was awful and it could only fit 20MB memory card.Any film camera would probably fair better in 96 than that shit.Digital was the future and as soon as they got decent resolution and memory wasn't as expensive then digital really took off.
>>106431059by the time digital surpassed analog, that was not true for some time, so op imaginary convo doesnt make sense
>>106426517Same. Reddit killed independent forums, LLMs will kill Reddit. The problem going forward is that LLMs will no longer have Reddit to use as training date for new information and topics, as >>106426574 mentioned.
>>106426517>>106426574>>106431110It will kill Q&A posts but hobby, interest, and general discussion will still go on. People still have a reason to discuss new events or new ideas and opinions. People will always talk about the news. When a new video game is out people are still going to congregate to shill it or call it shit. When someone has a new idea for AI generation workflows or how to make espresso better they are going to report it to their community. People will still talk about personal experiences and stories. And that's just what I came up with thinking for a few seconds, people discuss a lot of things that aren't questions and answers.
>>106431649Thought of another one, people will discuss the future, just like this thread.
>>106426485Its a story as old as time. Thousands of years ago the quality of pottery and plate art was much higher. Then a thousand years later the quality dropped massively.
>>106426485>t. kike
>Digital easy! Film hard.Such a stupid strawman. Film was point, press shutter and done. Nothing hard about it. it was though infinitely more convenient so it took over when quality was good enough.>>106431680Not really, quality goes up and down with civilizations, but in the case of photography, this wasn't even a downgrade.
>>106426517the internet could feel even more dead?
>>106431736>Film was point, press shutter and done. Nothing hard about it.Film required careful transportation to someone who could develop it which requireda darkroom, chemicals etc. That sucked. I was alive then.
>>106426485>Its easy and convenientThis is underrated. People will bitch about it, kick and scream, hem and haw, and just generally deny it basically forever, citing the importance of their hard work retaining its singular value in order to protect their revenue sources, but the truth is that basically all of human history can pretty easily be seen under a lens of constant progression towards better access to convenience and cheap goods. We invented the wheel, domesticated beasts of burden, enslaved combatants from other nations, and eventually built machines all because we wanted to do less work for more product, not because we wanted higher quality products.AI will ultimately win this one, followed by full physical automation, because people want cheap, easily accessable goods that we don't have to do the work in order to create. Having machines make everything is literally that verbatim. Everything else that people say about it is wholly irrelevant. You want artisan, hand-made goods made by human beings to retain their value in the marketplace? Better start making them for free, then people will happily consume them.
>>106426485didnt kodak make literally only the cameras and not lenses, accessories, software, etc.other camera companies ate kodak's lunch because kodak made one(1) thing and when it was obsolete they had no other products to lean on, at least if you get a nikon seethe as much as you want about digital vs analog but nikon at least still makes good lenses, mediocre editing software, they'll ship you a rebadged mic or light stand, etc
>>106426517>>for example, i want to know how something works, i go on a forum or reddit or whatever, ask people, people reply, discuss shit togetherthis part often didn't work because -already answered 16 years ago locked-banned from answering questions-account too new to answer questions-mod is seething his neovagina is leaking so banned-deleted-deleted-deleted-no answer-ghosted-ignored-don't make a topic on this already in forum-this thread is too old don't necrobump locked and banned-here's some political talk for no reason -why do x? do y so z!-sure we can answer that, give me your government id and phone number and log into this discord server on the night of a full moon -we don't know
>>106426485Kodak didn't do what they did because they thought it was low quality and they thought it would never work, they patented it and hid it to prevent others from using it until the patent expired. Why? Because Kodak wasn't a company that made cameras, they made chemicals. They weren't as profitable as they were because of people buying cameras, or because they made the best ones, they were profitable because they made all the chemicals, and anyone who wanted to actually see the pictures they took had to buy them, or pay someone else who did. A camera that didn't need those chemicals meant the end of their (near) monopoly. Kodak's failure wasn't a tale of not moving with the times, it was a company that wanted all of the money, and when they couldn't have that, they chose none of the money instead of some of it.
Imagine the level of talent Kodak once had and still ended up dying.
>>106433657>didnt kodak make literally only the cameras and not lenses, accessories, software, etc.No, Kodak made lots of things, including cameras, printers, scanners, photocopiers, medical imaging equipment, and chemicals.
>>106426485I don't use AI and never will.
>>106436452no problem, AI uses you.
