Opinion AI design discussion

[klier]

Math says so -

A RTX 4090 GPU sustained load is ~400 watts. So one of them running SDXL continuously for a day would consume .4kwh * 24 = 9.6 kwh/day.

An avg human adult including lifestyle consumption in the developed world consumes ~90 kwh/day. Source

So a GPU consumes ~10x < energy than the avg adult human.

And that is not even counting the non-productive years of a human life. Yes, humans are terribly inefficient machines if you reduce them to their mere physical output. But fortunately, we are so much much more than that.

Exactly. But these LLMs clearly do not use just one GPU. And the datacenters also don't work with off the shelf consumer graphics cards. Those are the H100 etc cards.

 

[Design FIRST]

The bad side is, now even mediocre/bad ideas can now become reality. So now everyone and their gold fish is going to design a new Ferrari! And given normal/Gaussian distribution of any skill (designing Ferrari in this case) in general population - there will be an overwhelming amount of mediocre crap (aka AI slop) drowning out any good ones!

LOL-a one sentence long prompt generated this:

 

[Matski]

The ability to produce something that looks like it was done by a professional does not on it's own make something art. Similarly, just because you can sketch, it doesn't make you a designer. AI slop is often just slop because of the minimal thought that goes into it by the user, and the minimal effort taken to refine it (or the limitations of whatever system is being used).

None of that makes the use of generative AI bad, but in my view, it does justify a rethink in how such output is critiqued.

 

[Design FIRST]

The ability to produce something that looks like it was done by a professional does not on it's own make something art.

Yes, I would be inclined to agree. Perhaps the only genuine "skill" involved regarding AI is the ability to envision a concept in one's head based on something already existing and clearly articulate what the result should be. Usually-but not always, the more precise the articulation, the more satisfying the result.

 

[martinbo]

I'll hold off on the debate around the drawbacks and merits of AI in the creative process for now.

What I will say is this: as a staff member who's watched this forum evolve over the years, I can't help but feel that certain types of contribution are detrimental to discussion and debate. This detriment is perceived by many - but not all - as a reduction of "quality" in this forum.

For me, it's all about context and the forum is very nicely laid out to provide members with logical placeholders (read - for context) in which to create threads and posts within threads. Personally, it's irritating to be alerted to a new post in a "Car Maker XYZ - what's next" thread only to see that it's nothing more than AI-generated imaginings with no basis for what is actually next for said manufacturer. This AI-generated slop is a focus robber away from the topic at hand i.e. what is genuinely next for that manufacturer.

The same sentiment stands for a model-specific thread and some pointless, dreamed-up image of what could, maybe, if-you-imagine-hard-enough gets posted with tenuous relevance.

If you're so hell-bent on posting imaginary AI-generated images of what could be then simply create an AI-titled thread in the appropriate section and do it there.