Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (24,671 visits to this link)
17,337 topics in this forum
-
- 1.3k replies
- 537.8k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 2m views
-
- 706 replies
- 344.8k views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.9m views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 826.2k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 27 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 27 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 32 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 316 views
-
- 15 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 31 replies
- 11.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 489 views
-
- 81 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 323 replies
- 166.8k views
-
- 1 reply
- 306 views
-
- 38 replies
- 5.2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 256 views
-
- 22 replies
- 4.1k views
-
- 5 replies
- 736 views
-
- 34 replies
- 54.1k views
-
- 32 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 19 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 10 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 449 views
-
- 17 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 30 replies
- 5.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 967 views
-
- 548 replies
- 252.1k views
-
- 521 replies
- 183.9k views
-
- 1 reply
- 668 views
-
- 6 replies
- 1k views
-
- 29 replies
- 52.6k views
-
- 57 replies
- 11.9k views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 22 replies
- 4.7k views
-
- 74 replies
- 16.4k views
-
- 5 replies
- 919 views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.5k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts352.8k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
Hey, sorry no... that was a typo... there isn't an OG2.5K. However, I can shot open gate 2K to a V60 card, and in lossless, I can also shoot open gate 3K (OG3K) to a V60 card as well. -
@mercer Did I get that right, 2.5K open gate? Does it work with internal SD, in 8, 10 or 12bit? Is battery life ok on the FP though? You still have that Minolta 35mm 1.8!:) -
You are not wrong and I am not disagreeing. But there is value to be had in being able to drill ideas down to first principles, and this is going away. Possibly not for good, because real innovation happens at the fusion seams of disciplines and being able to get down to bits and bolts in more than one field does have advantages. I've been working with the top models for a long time now -- it is unwise not to, and they do exhibit tunnel vision and make suboptimal architectural decisions not rarely (including, most recently, Fable 5.2) . You may have all the knowledge in the world compressed in your weights, but you still have a limited context window at any given point in time, and "memory" only helps so much. But that's not what I'm concerned with and I am sure this is going to improve further. The real problem for me is brushing "process" under the carpet. Great things simply don't prompt themselves into existence in a couple of weeks. Process has been paramount to almost anything of value; ideas rarely crystalize in a final form in their initial iteration. And process takes commitment and implies duration. You don't distill a great book to a couple of quotes, even though this is what happens all the time on social media, and seemingly everyone is too busy for anything longer than a summary. And process needs understanding. I don't know of a field where you gain real understanding without going down to the core. You may point a camera and shoot, and sometimes you may even stumble onto a great image, but there's a road to walk and images and impressions to accumulate before you are really a photographer. Everyone is a manager now, or a shepherd of a herd of bots, if you will, but steering the herd to produce a great artifact still needs more than just vision. The tools may have changed, but we need to teach appreciation of details as much as before, perhaps more than before. -
By Andrew - EOSHD · Posted
Computing was once about a machine always waiting for the inputs from a human, in a deterministic way, it sits and waits - you enter the inputs. Coding was like this, you write all the code, you look stuff up on stack overflow and cut and paste algorithms occasionally and then with a lot of testing and iteration you get what you want after many many months. For those whose skill was 90% this and 10% ideas its obvious they'll want to carry on the old way and that they're on the defensive about the new way. For those with 10% coding skills and 90% ideas it's working out much better. 1. You can't say "AI gives a false sense of having super powers" as a blanket statement 🙂this applies only to those who lack technical thinking, ideas, taste, purpose and so on. As a blanket statement, it falls down. It's also very easy to get out of date with your experience of the tools - they can evolve in extreme ways in a matter of weeks, as was case of Claude Opus 5.0 and 5.5, the step to 5.5 was a massive step change so all the people basing their judgement of AI's capabilities on 5.0 were out of date over night. 2. I agree it removes the need to "deeply understand how systems work and click together" but only in the details, not the broader picture. It is better at understanding how systems work and click together than most humans on this planet, at this point. What you need now is the type of brain that can take the new way and run with it rather than a mind that gets bogged down in the details or tries to duplicate what the AI is better at. Coming from a position of ideas and imagination is great, because you don't feel on the defensive about your syntax skills and whether its better than you at your main job or not... Ideas people don't feel threatened by it and are happier to let Claude get down to business without constantly micro managing and looking over its shoulder... or worse, looking at the code. We have to face facts. Computing is never going back to human comprehension, writing or reading of millions of lines of code, our minds are no longer the best tool for this. The capability of the AI to understand more complex problems than a professional programmer or even a whole team of them means you can be much more ambitious. Between February and October in one year, I went from making a teleprompter app for the iPad, to porting Quake to the S9 and developing an NLE, and an F1 sim. My coding skills didn't change, they're still in the pre-2026 days, but my tool use did. It has lifted me up from the muddy field and put me on the road at 200mph to finished products. There are some like the lead dev of Magic Lantern that simply refuse to take the wins, but everyone is entitled to their own principals and beliefs. I'd just prefer to be on that 200mph road to amazing software, than to still be stuck in the mud figuring out how to get a 1100D to write a .txt file to an SD card. -
There is a pun on the statistical nature of models that goes "AI lifts a bad programmer into a mediocre programmer, and it lowers a good programmer into a mediocre programmer". The first part is definitely true, and the second is mostly there for symmetry. With the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, the two main issues I've noticed working almost exclusively with (much) younger tech people: 1) AI gives a false sense of having super powers. While models grow more and more capable, they still lack taste and judgement of purpose. And taste and judgement need time in any line of work, one doesn't magically acquire these by having a tireless slave worker do one's bidding. Or as that fella Hegel put it: a quality leap needs a gradual accumulation of quantity. 2) Related, and looping back into your OP. It removes incentive to deeply understand how systems work and click together. This, too, requires a lot of time, an analytical mind and a long attention span, and the skill to do this appears to go extinct in the coming generation. Somewhat paradoxically, the dwindling of another prerequisite -- natural curiosity -- seems to be amplified by the fact that solving the mystery of any question is a prompt away. The first point probably self-resolves when the world feeds the person back a reality check at some point. The second I'm not optimistic about.
-
