正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

AI made creation effortless. But that also made creation worthless. Here’s what actually matters now 👇 Every decade, a new technology resets the playing field. AI just did that. Now anyone can code, design, or produce in seconds. What used to take teams, agencies, and budgets, now takes a...

20,806 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Strauss Zelnick, the CEO behind Grand Theft Auto 6, is skeptical of AI creating new, original, hit video games: “What AI is, despite the fact that there are people in Silicon Valley who don't want you to believe this, is big data sets, lots of compute, and a large language model mushed together. Data sets by their very nature are backward-looking. Creativity by its very nature is forward-looking. Right now with AI we can more efficiently create a completely derivative property. Derivative properties don't work. Where the thread has been lost is that AI so far is really great at asset creation. But hit creation isn't asset creation. Asset creation is a necessary but insufficient condition for hit creation. I would love to say that AI will make it easier and quicker and better to make hits because who would benefit more than we? We're in that business already. We own IP that you know. Creating new IP is really really hard to do—with or without AI. Getting someone to buy a new video game is incredibly hard. Getting them to buy GTA 6? Not so hard by comparison. So it's not that I take lightly the potential benefits of new technology. It's just that when our stock goes down by 50 points because people are like: "With AI anyone can make a video game.” It's like anyone could make a video game last week. Anyone could make a video game five years ago. The technology's readily available. It's been commoditized. You know how many mobile games get put out a year? Thousands. You know how many hits are made in a year? Zero to five. You know who makes them? We do thank you very much.”

David Senra

42,916 次观看 • 1 个月前

Jensen Huang just explained why every company cutting engineers over AI is asking the entirely wrong question. Huang: “People say, I don’t need software engineers because apparently coding is going to be automated.” That was the narrative. Here is what Huang actually did. Huang: “I’ve given AIs to every one of my software engineers and hardware engineers and engineers period. 100% of NVIDIA has AI assistants, AI coders, and they’re busier than ever.” Not fewer engineers. Not smaller teams. Busier than ever. That is the line most companies are getting completely wrong right now. They hear “AI can write code” and immediately start cutting headcount. Huang did the opposite. He armed everyone. Huang: “And so the question is, what is the task versus what is the job? No different than a financial analyst; the task is mess around with spreadsheets, but the job is to make financial advice. The job is to help a customer.” Writing code was always the task. It was never the job. The job is architecture. Knowing what to build. Why it matters. How it fits into a system that actually creates value. Code is the execution layer between the idea and the outcome. Nothing more. When you automate that layer, you don’t eliminate the engineer. You eliminate the bottleneck between what they can envision and what they can ship. The companies using AI to cut headcount are optimizing for cost. The companies using AI to multiply output are optimizing for territory. Nvidia chose territory. Every engineer at the most valuable semiconductor company on Earth now operates with an AI assistant. Not a pilot program. Not an experiment. Company-wide. Every function. Every team. And the result is not less work. It is more work. Faster. At a scale that was physically impossible twelve months ago. The companies that understand the difference between eliminating engineers and unleashing them will build what comes next. The ones that don’t will watch their best talent walk out the door to the ones that did.

Dustin

82,737 次观看 • 3 个月前

The CEO of Take-Two, the company behind GTA, just said something the entire AI industry doesn't want to hear. And he said it without being anti-AI. Strauss Zelnick's argument is precise. AI is built on datasets. Datasets are backward-looking. Creativity is forward-looking. A model trained on everything that already exists cannot, by definition, produce something genuinely unexpected. And all hits, by their very nature, are unexpected. Asset creation and hit creation are not the same thing. AI is getting very good at the first one. The second one is what actually makes money, builds franchises, and changes culture. Nobody has shown AI can do that yet. The derivative property problem is real. You can clone GTA with existing technology. You could do it before AI. It would take 3 years and look identical. It still wouldn't sell. Because it isn't GTA. It's a clone of GTA. And consumers, despite what the industry occasionally pretends, can feel the difference between something genuinely new and something assembled from the residue of things that already worked. Thousands of mobile games ship every year. 0 to 5 hits get made. The same studios make them every time. The technology to make more games has been commoditized for years. It didn't democratize hit creation. It just flooded the market with more forgettable product. The Silicon Valley thesis that AI unlocks game creation for everyone is true in the same way that cheap cameras unlocked filmmaking for everyone. They did. And the same 5 studios still make the movies everyone watches. What Zelnick is saying, without quite saying it, is that the thing AI cannot replicate is taste. The instinct for what hasn't been done yet. The cultural antenna that detects the gap in the market before the data can see it. Data tells you what people wanted. Hits tell people what they want next. Those are different jobs.

Mario Nawfal

1,619,433 次观看 • 1 个月前