Predictions about the impact of AI-generated imagery

Intelligence in general will probably decrease due to overreliance on technology. Look at what tiktok etc has done to attention spans. Stephen hawking had to work on massive chalkboard-size equations in his head because he couldn't write them down, and that practice probably helped him become the greatest physicist since einstein.

This reminds me of how you like to make predictions about the wedding business. Typically, the less a person knows about a field, the more confident they are in their predictions.

I don't think that average Joes will have any need to hire a painter. But average joes don't shop at christies
 
There are different types of intelligence, and I don't make predictions about the wedding business; I just like messing with you about it because of how seriously you take yourself and your profession...meaning like you can't even consider that machines might one day work weddings...like that's an offensive thought to you because filming weddings could only be accomplished by humans of course.
 
And just a quick note about SH (and similar): That is the ultimate tedious practice of building brain power. It literally hurts to even think about what he was doing, and some may say he was also born a certain way, but nevertheless humans are able to train and learn which is one of the most beautiful qualities we have.

SH had no choice but to do what he did, but it doesn't mean people after him have to do it the same way.

Maybe he wouldn't have succeeded in the same way if he was born 40 years later and had to think with iPads.

People in the future are going to be thinking differently. That doesn't mean smarter by our own history's definition, just differently. Generation Z already thinks so much differently than X/etc.
 
NorBro said:
There are different types of intelligence, and I don't make predictions about the wedding business; I just like messing with you about it because of how seriously you take yourself and your profession...meaning like you can't even consider that machines might one day work weddings...like that's an offensive thought to you because filming weddings could only be accomplished by humans of course.
Click to expand...

I have no idea where you're getting that from. When it comes to the wedding business, for one thing wedding videos could just go out of style. Or people could stop having big weddings altogether. As far as technology, the most likely impact would be if if cameras get so good that a monkey could stand there holding 1 and all of the exposure and shakiness and framing could be fixed later on . One problem with that is that most of the work is done in directing the subject And choosing the location etc. It's not just about capturing a proper image. Now, the whole thing could be captured by self directed robots but i dont see that much progress in that area yet and I think that would be much easier to do at a hotel venue where all the action is happening in a few rooms with flat floors. A lot of the venues that I film at have uneven and varied terrain And I'm running multiple cameras simultaneously etc. I don't need to recharge my batteries. It won't be free to hire and maintain these robots, so there's also a question of cost competitiveness, break even point etc
 
NorBro said:
There are different types of intelligence,
Click to expand...

Sorry NorBro. The verdict is in

After a marked increase in human intelligence during the first three-quarters of the twentieth century – a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect, after the NZ psychologist who discovered it – recent scientific research points to a clear downturn in human brainpower since 1975.

The average rate of decline has been around three IQ points a decade, amounting to the loss of about 13.5 percent in average intelligence between 1975 and 2020. Results from separate studies carried out in seven different countries describe a general loss of intelligence. So far, researchers have been unable to confidently assign a cause to this noteworthy decline, saying only that it is not genetic and must therefore be due to something in society’s living environment
Click to expand...
https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/idioc...ing-democracy/

https:/www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

Nothing about these results surprises me. The brain is like a muscle and it must be exercised
 
ahalpert said:
Sorry NorBro. The verdict is in


https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/idioc...ing-democracy/

https:/www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

Nothing about these results surprises me. The brain is like a muscle and it must be exercised
Click to expand...

I didn't read it - and I do like this kind of questioning - but what exactly makes this accurate? How do we really know this and why does it have to be a decline in brainpower based on perhaps an antiquated IQ model, and why can't it be a change in brainpower?

I'm not dismissing it, def. not, but who exactly is quantifying that our human brain power is declining? And it's based on the Flynn Effect? Test scores?

I mean, we live in a society with so much new technology - I just experienced my first shopping experience the other day at LaGuardia where you go into a store and put stuff in your cart and walk out and the store knows what you bought and bills you later - and it's like so many amazing things are being created and built, but we lost 13.5% in "average intelligence"? (This is my point about there being different types.)

Look...if life and technology continues to improve the way it is, I don't care if we lose 100% of "average intelligence" based on however they are measuring above.
 
Thanks for illustrating my point, NorBro. They're talking about a decline in the intelligence of the population on average. Not a decline in a certain type of intelligence. Whatever you think about IQ testing, the bottom line is that there were things that earlier generations could do that younger generations can't.

The Flynn Effect was an observation of the opposite -- an increase in average intelligence throughout much of the 20th century
 
Who's they're?

You read and believe these words on paper and that's it? There's nothing else to think about?

If that's how it is then it is what it is, I guess, and I'm happy to illustrate and participate in this decline.
 
The researchers sourced their data from the IQ test scores of 18- to 19-year-old Norwegian men who took the tests as part of their national, compulsory military service.

Between the years 1970 to 2009, three decades of these young men (born between 1962 to 1991) were conscripted, resulting in over 730,000 IQ test results.

What the results show is that a turning point for the Flynn effect occurred for the post-1975 birth cohorts, equivalent to 7 fewer IQ score points per generation.
Click to expand...
https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-sco...y-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence

The thing is - this was a result I predicted based on my previously laid out argument.

There could be some types of thinking that younger generations are better at than older ones. But IQ tests are pretty generalized.

IQ tests begin to assess a person's intelligence quotient by measuring their short-term and long-term memory. It also measures how well individuals can solve puzzles or recall information they have heard, as well as how quickly they can complete these activities.
Click to expand...
https://www.onecentralhealth.com.au... to assess,they can complete these activities.
 
So just to quickly summarize - and I'm asking you - people are doing worse on tests and that's why they are saying human intelligence is declining?

And you agree?

I'm double-checking.
 
I predicted that people's ability to recall information and perform critical reasoning would decline due to overreliance on computers. Much like cabbies no longer know their way around town without a GPS system, but in a more general way.

These tests measure memory and problem-solving. People are getting worse at both. You can call that intelligence, you can call it whatever you like.
 
Sadly people have been dumbed down and conditioned to not be able to critically think, but to believe we can. Took a few decades to fully accomplish that goal:

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Soc____m and current Com____t propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

The prevailing narrative is we are bigger, smarter, better and constantly improving on our way to a man-made utopia, but are we?

Reading ~200 year old books and comparing to today's books paints an interesting picture on how much more "smarter" we are today.:cheesy:

Comparing the average person's working vocabulary in 1611 to today likewise is interesting.

How many of us struggle or are unable to do arithmetic in our head or on paper now?
How about spell or write? Read?
I certainly can't as well as I once could. Computers/devices have made it convenient and easy to worsen, similar to muscle atrophy once a person trades exercise for inactivity.
Seems the combination of convenience combined with intentional dumbing down via the schools has had quite the impact, unless of course you believe the narrative.

We want to be mindlessly entertained with our short attention spans. Deep story? Too much work. Boring!
Tell me what to think and do so I don't have to, and let me make endless payments on everything. And hush so I can get back to my social media, entertainment, sports, etc! :)

Back to the OP :thumbsup: AI content surely will have a sigificant place? It seems to fit right in with the present time. Guess we content producers better figure out how to do it and offer it at competitive rates?
 
Sorry, firehawk, no IQ testing was conducted until the early 1900s so everyone before then is disqualified because we couldn't test them.

So ~200 year old books, 1611 vocab, doing math in head; all kooky talk as far as I'm concerned and could have been robots. or aliens. or both.
 
FWIW, back in 1985, my parents decided to get a NYT subscription ... for me ... on a suggestion of a family friend because they thought I'd then prefer to move to New York rather than LA. (G-d had other ideas off my suggestions). But I did read the paper (read the paper, Jimmy) and I recall seeing a popular music reviewer opining that a hugely popular Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" album portended the rise of soulless but perfectly executed and perfecly recorded digital music. A few years later, we got Nirvana, garage/grunge/Seattle sound. And music sounded like crap ever since.

On the other hand, modern digital recordings of the Great American Songbook are first rate, even if without the great singers of the Ella Fitzgerald and Tony Bennett class (Michael Bublik ain't it).

Likewise, I do believe that a digital content creator, especially with AI, will be able to concentrate on the emotional aspects of the story telling due to having fewer worries about the purely technical. Lighting/composition/camera angle&focal range - let a computer figure it out.

As to the attention span, my high school written algebra/math superfinal in 1978 had five problems and four hours of allotted time for the masses to solve them. That - let me get my calculator - was 48 minutes per problem. I was finished in 12 (but decided to write legibly, which took me more time).

And the IQ debate is ...
 
Talking of the NYT, while scrolling down to work on the daily Wordle (got to keep those cognitive functions sharp :evil:) I came across the following headline in the opinion section.

My Therapist Was a Robot. ‘It Must Be a Strange Time to Be a Human,’ It Told Me.

Haven't looked at the article, but I thought the quote perfectly sums up much of this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top