This seems like an unnecessarily unkind response. The post you're replying to is sharing their opinion and asking what people who are in the industry think about it.
That's exactly what I think will happen. 3D is endgame for AI. 3D models are deterministic objects that provide continuity, while AI does non-deterministic abstract generation(thinking) + plans action plan for these 3d models.
Recent news on major AI scientists starting "world AI" companies confirm this trend.
So 3D soon will become a very important tech even compared to today.
If AI is at the point where it is exactly as capable of your average junior 3D professional in 10 years, it will probably have automated a ton (double digit percentage?) of current jobs such that nothing is safe. There's a lot of complexity, it's fairly long time horizon, it's very visually detailed, it's creative and subjective, and there's not a lot of easily accessible high quality training data.
It's like 2D art with more complexity and less training data. Non-AI 2D art and animation tools haven't been made irrelevant yet, and don't look like they will be soon.
I design projections for independent theatre in Baltimore. I use AI in my workflows where it can help me and won’t compromise on the quality of what I’m making. I frequently use AI to upscale crappy footage, to interpolate frames in existing video (for artistic purposes, never with documentary archival stuff) and very occasionally to create wholesale clips in situations where video models can do what I need.
I recently used WAN to generate a looping clip of clouds moving quickly, something that’s difficult to do in CGI and impossible to capture live action. It worked out because I didn’t have specific demands other than what I just said, and I wasn’t asking for anything too obscure.
At this point, I expect the quality of local video models (the only kind I’m willing to work with professionally) to go up, but prompt adherence seems like a tough nut to crack, which makes me think it may be a while before we have prosumer models that can replace what I do in Blender.
You will still need the tool but the interface to it may start to change.
A lot of the editing functions for 3D art play some role in achieving verisimilitude in the result - that it looks and feels believably like some source reference, in terms of shapes, materials, lights, motion and so on. For the parts of that where what you really want to say is "just configure A to be more like B", prompting and generative approaches can add a lot of value. It will be a great boost to new CG users and allow one person to feel confident in taking on more steps in the pipeline. Every 3D package today resembles an astronaut control panel because there is too much to configure and the actual productions tend to divvy up the work into specialty roles where it can become someone's job to know the way to handle a particular step.
However, the actual underlying pipeline can't be shortcut: the consistency built by traditional CG algorithms is the source of the value within CG, and still needs human attention to be directed towards some purpose. So we end up in equilibriums where the budget for a production can still go towards crafting an expensive new look, but the work itself is more targeted - decorating the interior instead of architecting the whole house.
As someone who's actually used Blender for small video projects, I'm fairly confident you'll still need this type of tool even with AI assistance doing some of the work in it, especially for at least the next 10 years.
AI coding agents didn't make IDEs obsolete. They just added plugins to some existing IDEs and spawned a few new ones.
I don't think the "what will it train on" argument is bullet-proof, but animation and 3D art can encompass so much more than just things that exist in the real world.
The more I’ve learned over the years about health has now lead me down the path to practice periods of fasting.
Anyone trying to eat a perfect Whole Foods diet may also still consume the occasional garbage food. I feel like fasting is a missing tool in the toolbox we don’t hear about enough.
Doing periods of 2 to 5 day fasts just seems to kind of reset things. Give organs a break that would otherwise never have a break. Many benefits to speak of..
But excited to see what the science shows in the coming decades.
There just seems to be something inherently natural feeling about feast and fast. Human ancestors were probably not eating 3 good size meals every single day forever without EVER giving there systems a break. The body seems to benefit from having a break from the constant toxin ingestion.
Just gonna put this out there that this is dangerous, faddy advice. Fasting is a road to eating disorders and is much harder on your organs than eating nutritious food.
If it "works for you" thats fine but I hope someone will always put it out there that fasting is dangerous, unsupported by evidence and more dangerous than you can know.
Fasting gives you a dopamine dump to give you the energy to find food. Not because it is in anyway good for you. Fasting makes people feel good after ending the fast because your body is relieved to no longer be starving. These dynamics are well understood in the context of eating disorders where "health fasting" is a well known symptom and excuse.
It's crucial to note that most studies on intermittent fasting have been short-term and conducted on animals, focusing on immediate changes like glucose levels rather than long-term health outcomes. This lack of extensive scientific data calls for caution in adopting intermittent fasting, especially for individuals with specific health conditions or vulnerabilities.
Usually it's more like skipping breakfast and not snacking after dinner. Skipping lunch isn't much of a fast if you're eating breakfast at at 7am and dinner at 7pm. But eating dinner at ~7pm and having your next meal be lunch is ~16 hours without eating.
> Fasting gives you a dopamine dump to give you the energy to find food.
The hunger-hormone ghrelin actually has substantial and broad benefits to health, including an evolutionary sharpening of cognitive functions [1], albeit possibly at the cost of a narrowing of focus to food-related topics.
The fast/feast cycle was recently found to recapitulate in humans the improvements in health biomarkers typically observed with caloric restriction, with less detrimental effects on the immune system and bone density [2].
Anyway the line between dietary restriction that improves health and an eating disorder is a fine and dangerous one. The difference is made by meticulously monitoring your micronutrient requirements to avoid any deficiencies. Assuming otherwise optimal nutrition, caloric + protein restriction is consistently associated with improvement in health biomarkers. But long-term human trials with hard endpoints like longevity and suitable controls don’t exist and are impractical.
There are certainly complicated physiological effects caused by fasting however the heterogeneity and limited number of studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions
Mental deficits are associated with fasting across a review of a variety of studies
Fasting can also cause other mental issues:
"Additionally, fasting was found to be associated with alterations in mood, including worsened mood, heightened irritability, difficulties concentrating, and increased fatigue, as well as an increase in depressive score in mentally healthy humans"
All in all it remains highly suspect that fasting has anything but long term and short term negative effects. As I said in another comment it makes sense to me that so called "health fasting" tends to be more common among people who are already vulnerable and at risk for disordered eating. I will continue to spread awareness about the link between "health fasting" (as well as other health and diet based fads) and actual life threatening eating disorders.
There is a huge lack of research into eating disorders generally and even less research into the interaction of health fads and eating disorders. I encourage everyone to advocate and support any and all research in this area to combat misinformation spread by "health" gurus and companies looking to make a quick buck.
Well fasting is hardly a consumerist conspiracy, as that would be a contradiction.
It’s likely that the downsides are a necessary trade off for a longer lifespan. The body reduces its metabolism in order to conserve resources and survive long enough until access to sustenance returns. The most dramatic change is the loss in libido; maintaining an active reproductive system has significant metabolic demands, so they are deprioritised. It’s possible that what we consider “healthy baseline” in the contemporary age of caloric abundance is actually a hyper-active state that accumulates rapid damage and dietary restriction brings metabolism down to a frugal and entropy-conserving state.
Edit: those two fantastic papers should provide you with all the help you will ever need in your efforts:
Critiques of caloric restriction (CR) studies include issues with control groups in animal research where these groups might eat more than usual complicating comparisons. Also, CR's benefits could vary based on eating habits and may not apply to everyone. There's a concern that extreme CR can weaken the immune system among other issues like bone density loss etc. The overall impact of CR on health and longevity clearly needs more research to be understood.
While its undeniable that some of the strains of mice and fruit flies did live longer, extrapolating that to humans and associating that with "health fasting" is questionable at best. If this becomes a viable technique for human health and life extension it ought to be undertaken in a supervised and managed way with the assistance of health professionals. Not sold as a magic treat-yourself cure for all ailments on the internet.
All in all CRL outside of an academic and scientific setting is almost certainly just going to spread dangerous misconceptions about health and our bodies.
> "Well fasting is hardly a consumerist conspiracy, as that would be a contradiction."
No fasting clearly isnt but most of these "health fasting" diet types also shill other dangerous "health" advice from juice "detoxes" to radioactive "aura cleansers"
About that "CALERIE" trial:
"many of them had BMIs that fall in the overweight category at the start of the trial. This means that any health benefits observed cannot be fully decoupled from the weight loss most participants experienced on their restricted diets. It is already well-known that going from being overweight to a healthy weight has a positive impact on the body; however, the trial results do not clearly answer the question of whether metabolic changes due to calorie reduction beyond a normal diet can improve health. Moreover, the trial was too short to determine the long-term effects, good or bad. "
So like I said above portraying this as somehow proven to be healthy in humans is a vast oversimplification of a complicated field and really isnt related to "health fasting" at all
Uhh. This is so strange. I now realise that you're not really interested in engaging attentively, you just have a bizarre fixation with fighting against fasting.
I already brought up osteopenia and the effect on the immune system two posts ago. Furthermore, they are discussed at length in 2 of the sources I linked. Yet you repeated this point as if it was something completely new. It contributed nothing to adding further context and moving this particular conversation forward. I also never brought up the CALERIE trial (which btw had an average BMI of 25 and excluded anyone abouve 28); however, I did post a source to a different trial in healthy (normal weight) people, which you didn't engage with. You actually didn't engage directly with a single point of mine.
All in all, it seems I'm just wasting my time expecting a nuanced conversation that I can learn something new from. You're just eager to repeat a memorised script.
Youre right I havent really engaged with the specific sources you cited and to some extent probably wrongly assumed you to be advocating health fasting as a cure-all. I apologize this was probably not a productive way to go about having this conversation.
This is partly a knee-jerk reaction as I have had subjective experiences with vulnerable and at risk loved ones and acquaintances falling for faddy scam health advice and triggering underlying EDs and other health problems. It is way more common than you think.
While I dont have any sources or other good information to provide I can say that I think we really need more research into EDs hereditary nature, long term health effects, psychological effects among other factors before this technique begins to be widely used.
Like you said earlier "the line between dietary restriction that improves health and an eating disorder is a fine and dangerous one." I really think this is very true. Specifcally I worry about people who dont know they are genetically predisposed to EDs and attempt to do health based dietary restriction. This could be catastrophic for those individuals.
I don't encourage people to fast but it's also not true that it's unsupported by evidence. It's an ancient and widespread practice in nearly all of the major world belief systems. Billions of people fast, and there is a massive cross-cultural body of writings about the effects of it.
Which is not the same as modern peer-reviewed medical study, no. But it's not "no evidence" either.
I take the stance that health fasting is vastly different in effects from fasting as a religious observance. For instance the frequency and duration of so called "Health fasting" among other factors including the fact that "health fasting" seems to self select for people already at risk of disordered eating.
Yeah I think I agree with that. I'm skeptical of fasting outside of a specific tradition and guidance. But don't like to see the value of those traditions dismissed either.
You fast from food for five days straight? I regularly fast for religious reasons and don't flinch from a two day fast a few times a year but five is intense.
I did five days one time, and broke the fast by eating watermelon. A few minutes later I vomited just pure watermelon pulp. It wasn't even gross, it was like there was no digestive liquids in my stomach to do anything to it. I had to teach my body to eat again. You do this regularly?
Why? I’ve seen arguments (highly simplified) that cancerous cells are more resource hungry than healthy ones, and fasting might help (selectively) starve them to death — leaving only the healthiest cells surviving.
The "occasional garbage food (that isn't straight up poison)" is quite literally irrelevant. You can fast for many reasons but this is really a silly one to mention
> Give organs a break that would otherwise never have a break. Many benefits to speak of..
Meaning no offense but this seems like such a silly claim to make. I'm sure it's appealing to feel like you've found a way to hack the system but... color me skeptical. Our bodies evolved over millions of years to operate continuously and generally do so quite successfully for 60-80 years with no special effort required.
That said, I do look forward to seeing Tiktok videos touting the benefits of intentionally induced cardiac arrest to give your heart a break. Or holding your breath for long periods to give your lungs a break.
I don't think that argument really holds up. IME people who are highly interested in fasting, cleanses, or "resting their organs" claim to feel like they're being overwhelmed by "toxins" and need to do those things despite eating a very health conscious diet.
The national library of medicine isn’t quite as extreme as the suggest that certain cancers are prevented, but does indicate support of fasting having positive outcomes for human systems:
A comment below states some cancers risks have a great increase from obesity, so the claim of intermittent fasting reducing cancer risk may to have some credence.
How sad that the FDA sucks so badly at their job that people are now like: "I have to try not to eat in order to reduce the amount of poison I'm ingesting from all of our food". Regulatory capture at work I guess.
My experience: I was in the middle of typing a message when I was immediately locked out with a modal. I was really concerned at first that there might be a phishing attempt happening or something like that. Not the typical UX I would expect for an application recommending or even requiring 2FA.
Users report being kicked out of huddles and issues with signing in with 2FA.
I don’t know that I fully regret starting a business but boy does it suck like 90% of the time.
I’m fortunate in that the business does really well, but…. I just can’t stand it anymore. The stress, the boring, the frustrating, the getting taken advantage of, the weekend hours….
I suppose I fell a little bit into the trap of someone wanting to open a cafe because they like being at a cafe… well I like programming, I like solving problems… but running a business (and a successful one at that) is tough.
I can see why most CEOs are non-technical, because it’s a special type of sadistic person who would ask for this.
I’ve tried steering the ship towards some goal or task that would maybe make things better but there’s no point. The business is on autopilot.
The business is like it’s own person with its own wants, needs, desires… and they come first. They always come first. Bending over backwards to keep something running, get some bug fixed, satisfying some customer, putting out fires… takes higher priority than friends, family, personal time, etc…
It has to. I can’t let the business suffer. People depend on its success, most of all my family.
I’ve been thinking of starting my own business and I hadn’t heard of this before. It sounds draining. If you’re comfortable, would you mind sharing an example of how people try to take advantage of you?
I noticed this as well. Now if i have to rearrange i try to remember to open spotlight (CMD+Space) and type "arrange".. will take you straight to the option.
Git is a tool that helps people keep track of changes to files, especially when working on a team. Here's how it works:
1. Imagine you have a folder with some important documents in it. You can think of the folder as a "repository" in git.
2. When you make a change to one of the documents, git helps you keep a record of that change. It does this by creating a "commit," which is like a snapshot of all the files in the repository at that moment in time.
3. Each commit has a special message that explains what changed in the files. For example, you might write a commit message like "added a new paragraph to the report" or "fixed a typo in the spreadsheet."
4. You can have many different commits in a repository, and they all form a timeline of changes. This is called the "history" of the repository.
5. If you ever need to go back to an earlier version of the repository, you can use git to find the commit you want and restore the files to that version.
I built a side project recently to help with this. It searches Google, then feeds the relevant results from the pages into GPT-3 to get a summary. It seems to be accurate so far in my testing - https://github.com/VikParuchuri/researcher .
Combine it with an individual that is eager to learn and willing to treat ChatGPT as unreliable, and it stops being such bad advice.
Just like when one is hiring consultants. Don’t lie to yourself about the situation and there are cases where it can be useful. Treat it like a magic, expensive bullet that will somehow save time and money, and, well, you’ll put your eye out.
Seems like in 10 years AI will basically make it pointless to use a tool like this at least for people working on average projects.
What do folks in the industry think? What’s the long term outlook?