Extermin8or3_,
“ok grandpa. I’m sure your turning machine was might my impressive back in the day but could you have said something that made you sound like less of a tit?”
Way to misunderstand the comment—the “I’m old enough” comment is clearly tongue in cheek because it was, what, just a few years ago? But thanks for the useless remark. It was a gentle reminder that the average bulb isn’t terribly bright (since we’re throwing shit like children).
“On your frames not really there point let me put this into some context for you. So it’s using probability to predict there stuff will be to draw additional frames usually. This doesn’t mean the frames aren’t real.”
So what you’re saying is… It’s adding frames that weren’t there before, by predicting the how the next frame appears, then creating them when they weren’t there originally? Sounds like they’re making it up using “educated guessing”, which is what I’m saying. They’re not real frames. It’s generating frames that weren’t there, and we already know from AI upscaling that prediction reduces overhead, but it’s less reliable: it is why we get weird results when using this technology.
“Also as things stand the component shortages aren’t because of Iran.”
FFS, *read* what I wrote, please. I very clearly stated the **helium supply** exacerbated an existing issue. Reread my comment: I acknowledge there is a component shortage, *made worse* by the war. To the extent that I do reference component shortages, I correctly point out that AI is causing a lot of issues here. And yes, the war does have some hand in issues: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/0…
“Let me give you another example: a computer generated an image of a location. Is that real? Why? Can you go there, physically? No….”
Weird example and I don’t even understand your argument here. If a computer generates an image of a real location, then yes, you can go there. If I generate an image of the Eiffel Tower or Angkor Wat, of course you can go there.
If we’re talking about some place fictional like Pandora from Avatar, no, but we clearly agree to suspend our disbelief and treat it as a “location”. In reality, it’s not a real place.
You’re missing the point about the frames. Previously, it would simply output the frames it could based on actual power. If nothing else, there was certainty you were paying for the real performance. Now, you’re paying a premium for the illusion of performance. Do you see my point? It’s a marked increase in cost for smoke and mirrors that might botch the output just because it makes an erroneous prediction.
