>Most people don't know a competent <insert job here> or can't afford to hire one
May be relevant in the long run, but it'll probably be 5+ years before this is commercially available. And it won't be cheap either, so out of the range of said people who can't hire a competent <insert job here>
That's why a lot of this stuff is pitched to companies with competent people instead of offered as a general product to download.
Is there a reason to expect it'd be significantly more expensive than current-gen LLM? Reading the "Implementation Details" section, this was done with GPT2-medium, and assuming running it is about as intensive as the original GPT2, it can be run (slowly) on a regular computer, without a graphics card. Seems reasonable to assume future versions will be around GPT-3/4's price.
Perhaps not, but it begs the question of if GPT is affordable for a dev to begin with. I don't know how they would monetize this sort of work so it's hard to say. But making game models probably requires a lot more processing power than generating text or static images.
I have no doubt that 3d modeling will become commodified in the same way that art has with the dawn of AI art generation over the past year.
I honestly think we'll get there within 18 months.
My skepticism is whether the technique described here will be the basis of what people will be using in ~2 years to replace their low level static 3d asset generation.
There are several techniques out there, leveraging different sources of data right now. This looks like a step in the right direction, but who knows.
People still do wood block printing - even though printing is commodified to the nines.
At the moment, making 3d models is a lot of skilled, monotonous work, especially for stuff like scene furniture. I guess I'd be pretty happy if some of that work could be automated away, and I'm pretty confident that there's no point automating away the remainder, for the same reason you don't want ChatGPT writing your screenplay.
Availability =/= viability. I'm sure as we speak some large studios are already leveraging this work or are close to leveraging it.
But this stuff trickles down to the public very slowly. Because indies aren't a good audience to sell what is likely an expensive tech that is focused on mid-large scale production.
>Most people are not a competent <insert job here>. Most people don't know a competent <insert job here> or can't afford to hire one.
emphasis mine. Affordability doesn't have much to do with capabilities, but it is a strong factor to consider for an indie dev. Devs in fields (games, VFX) that don't traditionally pay well to begin with.
Yes, but you were also saying that it would be that way in 5 years, and if you look at the cases for which these tools were practical at the start of 2023 compared to the practical applications now, not even a full year of progress, the relevance of your argument to the reality of the scene is not clear.
Yes, and I do still think it won't be commercially viable for indie devs in 5 years.
>the relevance of your argument to the reality of the scene is not clear.
I feel it's clear if you're following the conversation chain. Is there something you'd like me to clarify?
Practical applications for a medium-large studio is very different from the practical applications of a solo/small dev team. That's all I'm really getting at. There is all kinds of cool tech from 2010 that still isn't viable for indies but is probably used at every AAA studio, so there's precedent I'm basing this on.
May be relevant in the long run, but it'll probably be 5+ years before this is commercially available. And it won't be cheap either, so out of the range of said people who can't hire a competent <insert job here>
That's why a lot of this stuff is pitched to companies with competent people instead of offered as a general product to download.