...If your goal is to make something that already exists.
Which, again, we already have that. It's called RPG maker. Or Ren.py. Or Unity. Or a hundred other options.
And how do game engines that need your art, story and code, can be the same than an AI that will make the art, story and code for you, possibly using one of those game engines?
It's a business model that's setting itself up for failure because the only way to make AI produce something unique is to feed it data from skilled, qualified programmers and at that point you've just made a worse version of contracted software engineers because you're getting the quality of RPG Maker without the direct access to your contractors you'd get by doing it the old fashioned way.
Actually an AA game cost at least half a millions US dollars and need two years to be developed; this at the cost of half the staff ending in burnout. And I'll not even address the cost and delay for AAA games. Assuming that it is actually efficient, an AI would cost at least ten times less, and would probably need twenty times less times to make the game.
You should take than into account instead of assuming that software engineers works for free and magically produce code by clapping their fingers, like AIs do.
[...] The dude who's sitting on a Facebook or a YouTube style idea ain't sharing tutorials with you to make their own competition. They'll teach you how to make Minecraft.
Cool, because Minecraft rely on mechanisms fucking way more complex than you clearly imagine them.
You look at a list of 70,000 AI companies and assume most of them- never mind half, but most- have a solid business model.
Apparently you aren't better with basic math than with AI...
I pass from ~70,000 to hundreds, what mean that I assume that at most 1.43% will survive.
This is far, far more businesses than could realistically cover the demand for the ~5% of all businesses actively using AI.
It's not like I named two medical AI companies, nor used them later as example, and one that focus on translation... Among the four AI companies I named as example, only one is actually oriented to business related activities.
Yet business is still the only usage you can think about, while it represent in fact a minority of the use and a minority of the AIs companies.
Meanwhile we're in year 5 of AI being six months away from taking everyone's jobs.
Weird, I thought that the 90's where already more than a decade ago. Well, good for me I guess, I'm younger than I thought.
And I'm just saying the party could stop at any time and I find it highly unlikely all 70,000 of those AI companies have a solid business model and aren't just relying on hype to stay afloat.
Why the fucking fuck would you think that "all 70,000 of those AI companies have a solid business model"? Especially when I, relatively explicitly, said that I assume than less that 2% of them will survive at mid term.
Niche-use AI models are probably safe- and a lot of them actually pre-date the AI boom. Machine Learning assistant tools like AI Doc date back to 2016.
Oh baby...
The term "Machine learning" was introduced in 1959 by
You must be registered to see the links
, one of the AI pioneer. And obviously he made it to describe the researches and algorithms he was already working on since few years. So, you could have found a better example than AI Doc. Just staying in the medical field, naming
You must be registered to see the links
(mid 1970's) would have shown a bit more knowledge that the one you learned by following the links I gave you.
The AI boom still has all the same hallmarks of the dot com bubble. And you don't really know how solid a company's business model is till external investment disappears and they have to stand on their own two legs.
And it's precisely why I
explicitly used as example companies that now do not need external investment to exist. They have it, to continue to progress, but they would still have a stable business model without them. With the world population having doubled in 50 years (
You must be registered to see the links
), medical AI assistants are more than welcome and more than needed. Especially in countries with a low birth rate, an ageing population that will, at short terms, have more retiree than active workers, and therefore will have more patients than the medical staff can handle.
Even without going to actually healing AIs entities, just them limited to diagnostics and preliminary evaluation would make each doctor worth two.
It is far wiser to hedge your bets that this is not the next steam engine than it is to blindly buy into the hype.
No, what is far wiser is to fucking read what you answer to, then to use your brain in an attempt to understand what you've read.
It would permit you to not looks like an idiot. Not only you clearly don't know much about AIs outside of GPT-5 level generative AI, but you're also trying to prove me wrong, while I, fucking explicitly most of the time, expressed better arguments than you to explain why AIs aren't a panacea, why most of AI companies will collapse, and why Runway AI idea is stupid and not viable.
All what you're trying to say yourself, while being convinced that you're lecturing me about a reality I don't see...
