top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 218 points 4 weeks ago (16 children)

Infinite supply with zero demand, of course is has no value.

All it does is flood the market with garbage, ruining the value for real creators.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 99 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

    That's not true. It has negative value. We lost a lot of coworkers from layoffs.

    AI companies are burning money by giving the same pile of money to each other and jacking up prices of hardware.

    AI influencers are spending thousands of dollars to make hot garbage that nobody wants.

    It's not zero value.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (6 children)

    CGTrader is a cancerous company. They have implemented every feature they can think of to screw their creators, and increase their profit margins on the back of the hard working 3d artists :

    1- After becoming one of the biggest 3d markets (I think 2nd) they have lowered creator's share from sales from 70% to 60%

    2- They have allowed 3d generated trash to be sold along side human created content taking away traffic from creators

    3- They have introduced a pay to to rank for products. meaning on top of the 40% share they are taking, now they expect creators to pay to have a chance for their products to show up in a very crowded maket

    4- 5 Out of 7 days of the week. CGTrader is running sales, with the lowest discount on weekends being 30 % and on weekdays being 50%. Creators who don't opt-in to those sales shouldn't hope to receive any views to their products. they are pressuring prices down because they can earn more on volume. while mid sized creator shops take the loss.

    5- They are introducing subscriptions akin to spottily. If most customers switch into subscriptions instead of buying single product, than creator's revenue will quickly crater

    6- Now the Cherry on the top : they have introduced the option for users to directly generate AI 3d models. trained on the millions of models the platform is hosting. Despite providing the option to opt-out products from ai training, it is hard to trust such a greedy company to honor creators choice. especialy when no one has access to the training data set and no independent company has made an audit.

    Since CGTrader introduced all these changes my revenue went down 65% compared to before.

    If you care about human created content and creator's agency. avoid buying from CGTrader and TurboSquid ,most creators have their products listed elsewhere. and if you buy from their own shops the creators will receive a bigger share cutting out these cancerous middlemen.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    “AI uploads are currently growing faster than AI purchases, which makes effective discovery and ranking increasingly important,” CGTrader CEO Dalia Lašaitė told 404 Media.

    No, this problem is easy. Put it all in the trash and don’t show it. Problem solved!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

    Almost no value? Slop content has NEGATIVE value.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 48 points 4 weeks ago (8 children)

    CGTrader, a long-established online marketplace for 3D assets ... is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.

    The article is about a single marketplace for 3d models. Those numbers are stark and probably reflect people purposely not buying ai, as the article says. But this is a single website in a small niche of the economy. That's just not at all "The Economy Has Spoken".

    Headlines these days.😮‍💨

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    Is there a marketplace where lots of AI generated assets are selling?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago

    I presume not many if so. But the article doesn't include any examples beyond this one. The headline has vastly overblown what the article actually is. I know that's pretty common now but it just bugs me.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 21 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Even beyond this little example, if people wanted an AI gen 3d asset they will AI gen themselves, no one gonna buy AI gen 3d asset because it has basically 0 value. The same thing probably happened to design company that shifted to AI gen. No one need to pay the AI design company to get an AI gen logo and pamphlet, they can do it themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 47 points 4 weeks ago* (37 children)

    So, Marx’ labor theory of value was correct after all. No labor, no value

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • load more comments (37 replies)
    [–] 35 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    People enjoyed it for about five minutes and then they got bored.

    Because it's all the fucking same and these LLM's are programmed as a race to the middle.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

    It’ll be fun to watch companies that have invested ridiculous amounts of money in data centers scramble to make a return on their investment, or at least cut their losses. Investors have frequently been able to ignore public opinion, but they will not ignore losing their money.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 28 points 4 weeks ago

    Well, yeah. Why buy it when you could just generate it yourself? It's like when people expected others to pay $30 for an NFT that was generated with 0.2ms of cpu time and looks exactly like every other one.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 4 weeks ago

    Slop has negative value because it is essentually spam, the one thing you want to weed out from a healthy community.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    These digital asset markets were already on the edge of gluttony.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 4 weeks ago

    Quite possibly negative value

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 4 weeks ago

    Yeah, it's the new NFT. Some of us were smart enough to see that a long-ass time ago.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    the funni monkey NFTs had more artistic integrity

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 16 points 4 weeks ago

    The consumers of said product knew that way before the economy did.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    I agree it’s as valuable as 1,000 monkey NFTs but why is software engineering using all over what am I missing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 weeks ago*

    I see incompetent people not knowing they've created garbage, yes, but I also see competent people using it as a power tool/time multiplier. Purely in the context of programming, it's like a typewriter. You can give infinite type writers to infinite monkeys and eventually get Shakespeare, or you can give one typewriter to Shakespeare and get more Shakespeare faster.

    It's like IDE's and the old code introspection/code completion. It saves time in competent hands.

    That said, it also erodes skill. I have seen people very quickly surrender their shallower knowledge to the LLM's, which limits IMHO flexibility and creativity.

    Then there's the whole paying a subscription to access your own knowledge black mirror aspect of it all.

    I'm not a fan, but I'm not going to pretend like they don't work in some contexts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 10 points 4 weeks ago* (3 children)

    To be fair, "AI-generated has almost zero value" is a stretch so far from "AI generated 3D models have low sales", that it holds no water.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago

    It's almost as if no one who is doing serious work would buy 1000s of slop models hunting for ones that fit their setting instead of just generating their or god for bid hiring a artist to make them tailored to the intended experience

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago

    And still people are dumb enough to buy AI gemerated pictures on stock photo platforms for a shitload of money. A company I work for as a contractor just payed 400€ for a “1 year exclusive usage” License for a shitty AI generated photo. And then they are proud of themselves for supporting the artists.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago (8 children)

    the marketplace is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.

    Sorry, but that's not valueless.

    And if someone can pump out near infinite trash for nearly no cost and earn 1% of what they'd earn by actually doing real work, they'll continue to flood the market because it is economically viable, unfortunately

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    for nearly no cost

    Big players like OpenAI lose money on every non-paying user. They can do this because they expect to be the one who takes it all in the end. But this will not last. There will be a day the remaining companies will stop giving out freebies and the wide arrange of options we have now will shrink and the remaining options will enshittify. If their costs rise, their prices will increase and they might find themselves in a position not making any money anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›