Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
AI tools are becoming specialized. Let's say you want to generate a video clip. You'll use one AI tool to create images for the storyboard, then an other one to convert images to video, an other one for voice, an other one for underlying music, and so on. Just like you would need a whole team (of humans) to produce a video clip today. Will it be a winner-takes-it-all for each type of work? Probably not, I think each AI tool will have its own "personality" or specialization: this one is better at making photorealistic images, the other it better at illustrations, an other one is the best for natural landscapes, and so on.
4 replies
0 recast
8 reactions

๐š๐”ช๐Ÿพ๐šก๐šก๐Ÿพ pfp
๐š๐”ช๐Ÿพ๐šก๐šก๐Ÿพ
@gm8xx8
โ€œautonomous swarm intelligenceโ€ https://warpcast.com/gm8xx8/0xc843773e
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

The Wizard pfp
The Wizard
@queue
|โ€”oโ€”|
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Haole pfp
Haole
@haole
It's similar to farcaster clients, each one has its own personality.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

๐’‚ _๐’ฃ๐’…€_๐’Š‘ pfp
๐’‚ _๐’ฃ๐’…€_๐’Š‘
@m-j-r
I picture each of these as close to NP-hard. so, in a way, this is way better bang-for-buck than pretraining general purpose models/agents. and as @vitalik.eth describes in the glue-vs-coprocessor blogpost, I think agents are thalamus-vs-data-in-distribution. we don't need a bigger model supervising smaller models, just a bigger ecosystem that can index smaller models. https://x.com/m_j_rossman/status/1712564985316909389
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction