Contradicts

> not what I was discussing. I was talking about programming.

To be concrete: my argument is that to

> "simulate humans or reproduce all of human nature"

Is exactly what would be required for an LLM to replace a human as an effective interface for programming. Crazy hill to die on, I know, but that's the goal.

I am purely talking about programming. The reasoning looks something like this.

1. LLMs are undeniably useful as assistants when programming.

2. At some point though, they are leveraged too much. This leads to humans having an inability to reason about the generated code.

3. The LLM now needs to be as good of an interface as a human being to be of any use.

I think most people would agree with this distinction. Where people argue is where the cutoff point lies - and it's actually hard to find. How do you know when you have transitioned between the three stages? It's tempting to say, if the speedup is marginal, it isn't worth the risk.

If we consider (and I’m not saying this is true, just for arguments sake) that this agency is important as other humans enjoy talking to humans about a goal, rather than machines, and we think this will never change.

In this peculiar case, it actually doesn’t matter how “good” llms get - they will never cross a barrier fundamental to human nature?

Like all AI co-authored code it’s a matter of time before this becomes unmaintainable and abandoned.

If the vision is diluted due to lack of control afforded by AI tools, then the tools won’t be used.

Many times in Hollywood have we seen directors spend unjustifiable amounts of money in the pursuit of creative control.

Hand camera tracking a dinosaur in Jurassic Park, developing a novel diffraction algorithm for THE ABYSS, hand-drawing 3-Dimensional computer animations for 2001, creating an entire scale model practically for a single fight scene in LOTR.

AI allows you to get anything. The best movies are a direct reflection of a particular vision. AI can’t provide this and I see no way to solve it.

A natural response is - well directors already outsource some creative control to VFX artists so why not to a machine instead.

Because an artist can control everything. Even if the artist is prompting a model, at the end of the day an artist can drill right down to the tooling itself (photoshop for example) and exactly achieve the vision.

I don’t see AI achieving this granularity while maintaining its utility. It’s a sliding scale of trading utility as a time saving device for control.

If you lean too far to the control side, well you might as well fire up photoshop. If you lean too much to the utility side, you sacrifice creative control.

When looked at under this lens the utility of AI generation is actually limited as it solves a non existent problem. One can think of it as an additional piece of tooling for use only as a generational tool where there is less need for control, such as for background characters.

The team at Red Barrels, for example, train a local model on their own artwork to automatically generate variant textures for map generation. Things such as this. No need to be doom and gloom about this stuff.