[HN Gopher] Make-A-Video: AI system that generates videos from text
___________________________________________________________________
Make-A-Video: AI system that generates videos from text
Author : hardmaru
Score : 740 points
Date : 2022-09-29 13:16 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (makeavideo.studio)
(TXT) w3m dump (makeavideo.studio)
| psychomugs wrote:
| I'm very interested in what will come out of this new
| (sub)medium. By virtue of video being a collaborative medium, I
| never feel like I'm getting a message from a singular
| consciousness like I do from less resource-intensive mediums like
| books (I know that book editors exist, but the medium has less
| filters to pass through compared to large products like movies).
| I could see this substantively lowering the barrier of entry for
| video and enabling a lot of new stories to be told.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| I don't want to think reality is a simulation, but wouldn't our
| everyday experience being generated by a neural network be far
| far simpler to achieve than a universe of infinite minuscule
| atoms all interacting.. like ozcam's razor is pointing towards
| our lives being a realistic dream.
|
| Like in 10 years you could plug this tech into high end VR and
| get a prompted reality dynamically generated that would be
| indistinguishable from our own.
| lucidrains wrote:
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01540
| rmah wrote:
| That what we're seeing is really reality is the simpler
| explanation. Because the alternative is that what we see is a
| simulation ... inside another reality that has full complexity.
| Which _increases_ the overall complexity. Thus, Occam 's Razor
| says what we see is likely real and not a simulation.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| The 'outside' reality only needs to be the size of a data
| center, not the entire universe. And maybe the outside
| reality only needs to be a trained 100gb model. A much
| simpler outside reality than we have now. You don't even need
| to sim 8 billion people, just 1, you.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Occans razor in this case applies to the complexity giving
| rise to a situation here though, not the complexity of a
| described system.
|
| Conventional physics giving birth to our universe is
| currently the model with the fewest assumptions.
|
| What would have to take place to give rise to a universe
| the size of a data center, running an AI model of a human?
| It feels like we have to bake in assumptions of stable
| physics, a rise of a stable system for that data center,
| and some path towards creating it and modelling a human.
|
| That said, if we believe we're capable of running billions
| of believable simulations, then we're more likely to be in
| such a simulation than ground reality. But a datacenter
| pocket dimension bakes in a lot of assumptions that make it
| less likely than our own universe.
| cookingrobot wrote:
| You only need a universe the size of a data center with
| nothing in it but a bit of vacuum fluctuation that causes
| particles to appear sometimes. Then just wait.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| The outside universe doesn't require our complex
| particles or physics - all that is overkill to run a
| neural net. Also think of all the data we can store in a
| fingernail, stable diffusion is like 4gb, what could a
| 4tb model produce?
| RupertEisenhart wrote:
| Check out the original simulation argument paper[0]. The
| issue is, if we think we are heading to a world in which we
| can do simulations, it becomes increasingly likely that we
| are in one of those (presumably very many) worlds, rather
| than in the one world that existed before the advent of such
| simulations.
|
| [0] https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| Sounds good because it seems like it explains what our
| reality is, but it really doesn't. It just pushes the
| fundamental problem up X simulations into the supposed
| "real reality". It also assumes that simply simulating a
| universe would generate consciouss beings which nobody
| knows the answer to, but my guess is that it would not.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| It does push the problem up, but it does let us factor
| out a lot of complex particle physics which are not
| needed to run the simulation.
|
| Remember in this case the simulation is not running a
| model of physical reality - it's only running a neural
| net that is fed into your senses.
|
| In that case there are no 'atoms' it's just a concept fed
| into your mind. Just like in dream it's hard to question
| reality, you just go along with it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| ozcam's razor is a human made concept, the universe doesn't
| obey human laws, it's the opposite
|
| > Like in 10 years you could plug this tech into high end VR
| and get a prompted reality dynamically generated that would be
| indistinguishable from our own.
|
| They said that 10 years ago about VR and it still is dog shit
| bottlepalm wrote:
| It's funny because the last 10 years has seen the most
| advancement in VR ever.
|
| The original Oculus was a step change, and current VR is a
| step change from that.
|
| 8k VR is coming and will be close to indistinguishable from
| reality visually at least.
| lm28469 wrote:
| 8k video games are here and very distinguishable from
| reality
|
| At the end of the day you're still sitting/standing out
| there with two tv screens 2cm from your eye balls
| bottlepalm wrote:
| A better test would be a 8k real life recording running
| in 8k goggles.
|
| If the screen is wide enough with eye tracking and
| divested rendering, how could you tell the difference?
| Aardwolf wrote:
| The neural net itself needs something to run in (some
| universe). If the argument is that it needs a smaller or
| simpler universe than ours: first of all it is simulating our
| universe so all complexity of ours is included anyway, but
| also, maybe a neural net in a big chaotic universe is more
| likely than a tiny universe designed to perfectly fit one
| neural net
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Neural nets as an abstract concept don't necessarily need to
| be built with atoms, just the substance of the external
| universe which may be far simpler.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| I also didn't imply this neural network's universe needs
| atoms, but it needs to run the computation somehow, the
| computation itself is the complexity, no matter with what
| physics or other manifestation it shows up
|
| And if it is simulating our universe's atoms, then that
| part of it basically _is_ our atoms. But is a neural net
| doing that really simpler than the atoms just running with
| a more direct mathematical model?
| [deleted]
| bottlepalm wrote:
| You don't need atoms, just a universe with the minimal
| blocks to build a turning machine. Like building a
| computer in Minecraft they could conceivably run these
| neural nets without any sense of 'atoms'. The point is
| the outside universe could have extremely simple design.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Once I heard or realized (don't remember which) that simulation
| theory is just deism for techies, I stopped entertaining these
| ideas.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Exactly. The simulation theory proponents almost always seem
| to presume the existence of some sort of being that
| deliberately created the simulation. What if the simulation
| is a complete accident that has arisen from the complex
| interaction of brainless bacteria competing for scarce
| resources on the surface of a big rock? An accidental
| simulation emerging from randomly initialized 'cellular
| automata' on one rock in a host universe containing trillions
| of such rocks.
|
| The usual presumption of the simulation being a deliberate
| construction of a conscious being makes the whole thing seem
| like nu-religion for people who reject supernatural things.
| With the presumption of a being deliberately creating the
| situation, you pull in these notions: We're special, we exist
| on purpose, we are probably being examined and judged. This
| reeks of religion.
| cma wrote:
| Because even if our reality came from that rock bacteria,
| we're on the cusp of creating simulations within and
| statistically beings may still expect to be in a deliberate
| simulation, if we think we'd eventually simulate more
| beings than exist.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The rules of the presumed host universe are unknown, but
| which do you guess is more common in ours? trillions upon
| trillions of rocks, may of them _probably_ covered in
| organic goo interacting with itself, or intellectually
| sophisticated computer scientists deliberately designing
| simulations? I think it 's got to be the goo.
| soheil wrote:
| If you're assuming each atom is independent of other atoms then
| yes. But if you believe the universe is deterministic and atoms
| are just following the laws of physics then you can think of
| the universe as nothing more than a computer with electrons
| instead of atoms just floating around.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| It'd be simpler to say there are no atoms, just a neural net
| fed into your senses making you think that there are atoms.
|
| The neural net itself is built on a much simpler substrate in
| an external universe.
| soheil wrote:
| And what exactly are your senses and your brain made out
| of?
| bottlepalm wrote:
| In the sim theory, the external neural net tells us our
| brain is made of atoms.. you could theoretically feed
| your senses a Minecraft reality and you'd think your head
| is full of interacting blocks - which is still capable of
| performing the same NN functions as a wet brain... So I
| don't know, the brain could be made out of anything that
| fits the requirements of running the computation.
|
| That's assuming there even really is one - senses can be
| hijacked, just like in dreams, so we may only think we
| have a brain - so strange.
| [deleted]
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Thought of the exact same thing, this seems plausible.
| macrolocal wrote:
| Ever wonder why you weren't born a medieval peasant?
|
| Well, from the outside reality's perspective, it's helpful
| for people to spend the first few decades of their lives in
| an early 21st century simulation, just so they can gradually
| acclimate themselves to all this technology.
|
| /folly
| bottlepalm wrote:
| That thought has crossed a lot of peoples minds especially
| after the Matrix.
| macrolocal wrote:
| Yeah, my grandfather once said that he lived in the most
| exciting possible time, having been born before the first
| automobile, and having lived to see a man on the moon.
|
| But even so, this era feels like it could be a singular
| phase shift. Maybe.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| So how long before we can "Hey music-stable-diffusion-service,"
| play me "relaxing baroque violin and flute music in the style of
| game of thrones" ?
| echelon wrote:
| My start-up is working on this! We'll be launching a web and
| downloadable version soon.
|
| Eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_0JjYUe5jo -->
| https://vocaroo.com/1hgjjnVNqWjk
|
| We're also working on film generation.
| o_____________o wrote:
| I don't understand what I'm seeing here, in ingested the
| Eminem track and recreated it using a different voice?
| mjr00 wrote:
| Not to insult your startup or your work (as this is pretty
| cool), but this is a good illustration of why that last 10%
| is so important. While the AI-generated song is 90% similar
| at a surface level, there's also no way anyone would listen
| to that track on Spotify if it came up on an Eminem playlist.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| I think we all can view a video of 'nails on a chalkboard'
| before we hear audio of nails on a chalkboard.
|
| For some reason, unacceptable uncanny sounds is a much wider
| valley than unacceptable videos/pictures. The hand holding is
| uncanny in the family video, but I'm fine watching it for a
| second - it doesn't cause pain the way that same error would in
| music.
| colordrops wrote:
| I recall AI generated Beethoven years ago that sounded great.
| What happened to that research?
| ragazzina wrote:
| I've found this is my biggest issue with music streaming
| services. Often I just want another song similar to the one I
| am listening to, but no "generate radio from this track" comes
| close.
| mjr00 wrote:
| A long time. Much like self-driving cars, AI can take you 90%
| of the way there, but the last 10% is the difference between
| music that sort-of-seems-competent, and music that people will
| actually listen to and enjoy.
| mattnewton wrote:
| I think it will take a lot less time than self driving cars
| because testing and iteration is so much cheaper. I would say
| that, in 5 years this feature will be part of a major
| commercial streaming service and people listen to it and
| enjoy it enough to keep using the feature.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Honestly, MidJourney, Stable Diffussion, et. al. have closed
| that 10% gap quite quickly (in months!).
|
| I'll give it two years, at most, until we get pretty good
| audio and video generation from AI.
| mjr00 wrote:
| > Honestly, MidJourney, Stable Diffussion, et. al. have
| closed that 10% gap quite quickly (in months!).
|
| Have they? If anything, the past few months has shown that
| after the initial hype dies down, people find the
| limitations very quickly. It was only weeks ago that people
| here and on Reddit were proclaiming that graphic designers
| and artists were no longer needed. But while Stable
| Diffusion is great at making somewhat surreal images of
| Jeffrey Epstein eating an apple in the style of Picasso,
| it's not very good at, say, making a sleek, modern user
| interface mockup for a bank's login portal. And it turns
| out graphic designers are currently only paid for one of
| those things.
| johndough wrote:
| Stable Diffusion does not generate nice UIs because it
| has not been trained to do so. It has mostly been trained
| on the "laion-improved-aesthetics" dataset, which
| includes "aesthetic" images. There are only very few UI
| mockups in there. You can explore the dataset here:
| https://laion-aesthetic.datasette.io/laion-
| aesthetic-6pls/im...
|
| You could finetune the Stable Diffusion model to generate
| UI mockups and would receive much better results.
| skybrian wrote:
| For portraits maybe, but in general no, they have not. It's
| fairly easy to come up with objects they can't do well.
| (One example: a piano keyboard.)
| tartoran wrote:
| Self driving will likely grow to a point where driving will
| become an art, sport or a hobby but outside self driving
| traffic. For movies and music it could be similar in some
| ways. When the next generations will be raised by AI they
| will adapt their taste as well. Classical driving or music or
| films won't completely die off but would become a niche
| thing.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Is it really the same though? A driving system which can only
| create a good outcome 90% of the time is not really useful as
| irl human safety is a factor.
|
| However, a creative system curated by a human could end up
| creating useful outputs, could it not?
| nemo44x wrote:
| Why humans? Build an AI that can judge good outcomes from
| bad. Build another AI that can judge good outcome AIs, etc.
| Its AIs all the way down.
| mjr00 wrote:
| Obviously different safety outcomes, but ultimately it's
| the same idea: unless you can hit that last 10%, it's
| essentially useless. You could pump out AI songs that are
| about as good as the 10,000 songs that get uploaded to
| Soundcloud every day, but nobody listens to those already.
| It's really only the best <1% of music that people listen
| to.
|
| Something that can be further refined by humans is more
| interesting. There's people looking into AI-based sample
| generation which is a lot more promising than full song
| generation, IMO.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > Something that can be further refined by humans is more
| interesting.
|
| Exactly, that is what I was trying to say. The way I look
| at it is that most people who have Ableton installed
| cannot create an amazing song. Now let's say they are
| able to prompt a Stable Diffusion Audio system with a
| prompt like _kanye type beat with flute melody in the key
| of E._
|
| The system might output 90% hot garbage, but it's easy to
| skip that within seconds of hearing it. So they clip and
| loop the good part, add whatever personal skills they do
| have, and upload that.
|
| And wow, I just found out that OpenAI's Jukebox[0] was
| creating this stuff two years ago. This seems like the
| lowest hanging fruit to me, compared to visuals. Also
| could be extremely lucrative. I wonder if we are already
| listen to ML generated music and it's just not
| advertised?
|
| [0] https://openai.com/blog/jukebox/ related post:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23032243
| Teever wrote:
| I'm not so sure that the most popular music is the best
| 1% of music.
|
| Artists don't always become famous or popular because
| they're the best, instead it happens because they're
| pliable in a business sense and fit into a bigger picture
| of what the product is supposed to be.
| zild3d wrote:
| 100%, poor music output can be responded to with "next".
| poor self driving car output can be a collision
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's so last week: https://mubert.com/ (not affiliated)
| tracyhenry wrote:
| Is the limitation that all pixels in the video would come from
| the first frame? since they are predicting pixel motion,
| basically.
| testmzakrzewska wrote:
| Test week
| pesenti wrote:
| Research paper: https://makeavideo.studio/Make-A-Video.pdf
|
| Examples: https://make-a-video.github.io/
|
| Demo site: https://makeavideo.studio/
|
| I am told live demo and open model are on the way.
| propercoil wrote:
| They almost always say that but never deliver. Won't be out
| even in a year's time.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Also I could see this would be a major breakthrough for Anime
| industry.
|
| Imagine, gives a initial frame and a reference video on the side,
| that would be pretty dope.
| birracerveza wrote:
| This is getting more and more impressive by the day.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| "Our research takes the following steps to reduce the creation of
| harmful, biased, or misleading content."
|
| "Our goal is to eventually make this technology available to the
| public, but for now we will continue to analyze, test, and trial
| Make-A-Video to ensure that each step of release is safe and
| intentional."
|
| Are they really going to do a replay of OpenAI and Stable
| Diffusion? Deja vu coming soon.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| What does "intentional" mean here? Does it mean that the person
| intends to type the text that they do? My cat sometimes walks
| across the keyboard, but for the most part I pretty much intend
| to type everything I type. Am I missing something?
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| It's referring to the release of the software. I read it as
| "released with minimal embarassing unintended features".
| Like, as a rough made-up example, a "boy saluting" prompt
| producing a video of a Hitler youth giving a Nazi salute
| wouldn't make for great PR.
| keepquestioning wrote:
| Oh my god.. this is the end.
| dbieber wrote:
| Very exciting to see the field progressing so quickly. I wonder
| how quickly it's going to move forward from here. Will we be
| generating coherent audio to accompany these videos soon? Will we
| have multi-scene videos in the next year? Ones with coherent
| plot? Can we get there just by scaling up, or are other advances
| needed? Excited to see what comes next!
| sphars wrote:
| You can view all their example videos at https://make-a-
| video.github.io (warning: all the ~95 videos are webp and are
| loaded at once on the page so it may take some time to load)
| theschwa wrote:
| Since this uses an T2I model under the hood, would it be possible
| to build a version of this on top of Stable Diffusion?
| andrewnc wrote:
| Yes! It definitely should be
| drexlspivey wrote:
| The tech is very cool but this website fires all 10 cores at 100%
| in safari
| apexalpha wrote:
| While I am absolutely amazed at the speed of the technology from
| dall-E, stable diffusion and now this.
|
| This will absolutely snowball easy videos all over social media
| such as TikTok, Insta and YouTube.
| permo-w wrote:
| I really don't understand the fear people have about these
| things. have I missed something and everyone else was placing
| huge value in out of context videos and pictures?
|
| if you read "France declares war on Canada", you're not gonna
| believe it unless it's coming from an extremely reputable source.
| so why would you trust a random unsourced video?
|
| the absolute worst thing that's gonna happen is that video-based
| social media is gonna be flooded with low (or even high) quality
| AI videos. and I ask you: who the fuck cares? are these places
| doing wonders for society as it is? what's a bit more rubbish
| amongst all the rest?
|
| I can think of many, many more upsides than down
| kertoip_1 wrote:
| > if you read "France declares war on Canada", you're not gonna
| believe it
|
| A lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes truth. We are
| not talking about one out of place, weird news that would
| appear once on someone's newsfeed. We are talking about mass
| flooding.
|
| > unless it's coming from an extremely reputable source
|
| It's 2022, no one is verifying sources
| permo-w wrote:
| there's mass flooding of text too. some people fall for it,
| some people don't. the being of it in a different medium
| makes little change.
|
| >verifying sources
|
| I'm talking about if your news came from Reuters or the BBC
| compared to coming from realnews247.io or a facebook post.
| the same applies. if you'll believe some text on the BBC,
| you'll believe a video from there, and if you'll believe the
| words from AnonTruther on facebook, then you'll believe their
| videos too. this makes no difference
| chatterhead wrote:
| We are quickly approaching a point where these independently
| created AI systems will be wrangled together the same away
| protocols were to create a computer network and the AI that
| emerges will likely be able to create its own code, solve its
| own problems and generate its own recursive processes.
| Everything at a conscious level without the ability to self
| recognize. If AI ever does wake up; we'll never know - first
| thing that happens is it will hide from us.
|
| The fear is real and only seems fantastical because life is
| often stranger than fiction.
|
| Instead of training on data these AIs will soon train on
| "creativity" and these layers of containerized thought will
| merge.
| lossolo wrote:
| > first thing that happens is it will hide from us.
|
| To do this it would need to want to live and know what fear
| is. It's just a piece of code, without being conscious there
| is no need to be online/alive for it. What people call AI
| today is just a few/hundreds GBs of data that reacts to some
| text and push it through a heuristic like system to get an
| answer doing fancy pattern matching. It doesn't do anything
| when there is no input, there are no processes, no thinking,
| no anything, it's "dead". Fear and instinct is not taught in
| any species, it's inherited prior and biological process, you
| would need to explicitly code feeling into AI for it to be
| able to "feel" anything.
| rnk wrote:
| We can't even define consciousness or sentience in a useful
| way though. You can't decide except for extremes, people
| propose inadequate definitions that include say brick,
| flowers, ants, honeybees, cars, people in a spectrum.
| permo-w wrote:
| well perhaps that does sound like it might be an issue, but
| I'm talking more specifically about the societal consequences
| of video being made more like text
| trial2 wrote:
| have you ever had a loved one fall for a scam?
| permo-w wrote:
| there are always going to be gullible people. if you'll
| believe a fake video, you'll probably believe a written lie
| rchaud wrote:
| Think of the SEO blogspam from corporate sites that buried
| genuinely interesting hand-made websites on search results
| pages. That is what AI-generated video is going to do to
| YouTube and pretty soon, Netflix and all other other streaming
| services.
| permo-w wrote:
| Netflix?
| [deleted]
| achr2 wrote:
| The thing that frightens me is that we are rapidly reaching broad
| humanity disrupting ML technologies without any of the social or
| societal frameworks to cope with it.
| tmjdev wrote:
| This looks like the video equivalent of Dall-E 1. Hard to believe
| how far we've come so quickly.
|
| The paper talks about "pseudo 3D attention layers" that are used
| in place of temporal attention layers for each dimension due to
| memory consumption. It seems like AI research is vastly outpacing
| GPU development.
| htrp wrote:
| i wonder how much vram these models cost ?
| elil17 wrote:
| Looks a bit better than DALLE1 IMHO. They've demonstrated
| greater range.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| Hardware was probably always lagging behind cutting edge
| research, just consider video games, they pushed hardware
| limitations very hard since Pong.
|
| It's a good thing to be fair, forcing research teams to
| optimize their projects is beneficial and creates a competition
| for limited resources. This gets a bit skewed when we consider
| a university research team vs. a MANGA type company, but the
| team behind Stable diffusion proved that innovation can come
| from unexpected places.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Indeed - it's not hard from a research point of view - it's
| hard from a compute perspective because adding one more
| dimension requires hundreds of times more compute.
|
| Even then, these videos are only like 50 frames long - and a
| real movie you would want to be hundreds of thousands of frames
| long.
| Filligree wrote:
| So you need to optimise on compressed version, not the whole
| thing. What they're doing right now is akin to a human trying
| to hold an entire picture - or entire movie - in their head
| all at once.
|
| We can't do it. AIs can sort of do it.
|
| Latent diffusion models already demonstrated that operating
| on a compressed representation gives far better results,
| faster, but I don't think we're anywhere near the limit for
| what's possible there. It's no coincidence that this is how
| humans work.
| tmjdev wrote:
| I am curious if there has been any research on temporal
| attention in humans. I'm not sure how you'd quantify it.
| But in myself I know that I'm constantly predicting where
| something will be or what it will look like based on how it
| did a second ago. It's probably the root of reflexes.
| mlsu wrote:
| Your comment reminded me of this video [1]
|
| They put an eye tracker on someone and captured their
| motion when walking in some rough terrain. You can sort
| of see that the person is focusing on the most likely
| place their foot will go next.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6uUHq3a-g
|
| I think that we will discover that there is a more
| efficient way to encode temporal relationships, which
| appears to be "just throw transformers at it." My guess
| is that it will be in a more conceptual latent space that
| this attention will be applied.
| elephanlemon wrote:
| >and a real movie you would want to be hundreds of thousands
| of frames long.
|
| Yes, but consider that most films are made up of many
| different shots, each of which are often just seconds long.
| londons_explore wrote:
| True, but the attention layers still need to be able to
| look at _all_ the shots - for example to make sure the
| background of a room shown at the start of the movie is the
| same as the background of the same room at the end.
|
| Obviously you could do 'human assisted' movie making where
| humans decide the storyboard and make directions for each
| shot, and then that isn't necessary.
| dzink wrote:
| Whenever there is an explosion of content, curation and search
| become important. Meta has many of the products people use to
| show off their taste, so having more content to curate and share
| is good for their ecosystem (until people stop consuming as much
| because they know they can produce even better with their own
| imagination). This may be good for Google - the more content
| there is, the more you need search to find it.
|
| The downsides: there will be less money out there for creators,
| because that becomes a commodity. You will be able to make money
| if you are known for quality content polishing, editing and
| generally bringing that last 5-10% of generated content to look
| perfect (all the way until automated tools are trained to do that
| as well). AI will automate and improve most white-collar jobs.
| Instead of generators, everyone will become curators, as taste
| will be more important (until that's trained into the system as
| well).
|
| For deeper levels of consequence we have to look at history: how
| did the world change when people finally got paper after most
| writing was done on animal skins (more got to write, the richest
| or most powerful didn't have the only say), or water piped to
| your house after you had to carry buckets and dig wells (It freed
| up time for everyone for more interesting tasks). Now GPUs are
| going to be the new paper and the new PVC. Yes, software has been
| eating the world for a while, but you won't be able to brainstorm
| without AI generating the first pass.
| polyomino wrote:
| It's not just about the quality of content. Facebook's value
| prop is about creating a social experience around the content.
| DesaiAshu wrote:
| Creators are already curators. Musicians often don't produce
| their own sounds, they curate and piece together samples.
| Designers and software engineers cut and paste from existing
| work.
|
| The idea of a blank slate creator has been dead long before ML
| tools were introduced :)
| jeffbee wrote:
| All the comments seem to be discussing the implications of this
| as if it worked, but almost all of these look like complete
| garbage. All the humans look deformed and broken, or transparent
| in places they should not be. The only ones that are passable are
| the fantastical ones like the sloth with the laptop.
| ag8 wrote:
| Another video generation model from today:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025189
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| More examples here: https://make-a-video.github.io/
|
| Some of these look like existing videos that have just be garbled
| - check the clownfish one and the litter of puppies - maybe that
| is because the prompts aren't that detailed or they just need to
| up the "creative/randomness" factor.
|
| The sloth one though has a more specific prompt and came out
| looking more better? and more original.
|
| With the huge amount of data being used to back these, how do we
| know the "uniqueness" of the generated content? is it original or
| is it just mangling of existing content?
|
| Even if it is just garbling existing content, it is pretty
| amazing. Frame by frame the mutant unicorns float across the
| beach hah.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Already obsolete XD https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025189
|
| Well, not quite obsolete, but you can see a significant
| qualitative difference between the two approaches.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I'm rooting for this tech. Hopefully this will get modern movies
| out of their low risk reboot loop since it will be cheaper to
| make a movie that have new story lines that are commercially
| untested. I'd be happy to watch a movie that doesn't look AAA,
| but has compelling writing and makes me think. Or maybe I'll just
| stick to books.
| Xelynega wrote:
| I don't think modern movies are stuck in a "low risk reboot
| loop" because of the cost to produce, it's because of the
| potential profit.
|
| Why spend money on a film with new IP and ideas that you're not
| sure will be popular when the data science team has already
| worked with marketing to figure out exactly what movie will
| sell well?
|
| Good luck finding your movie with compelling and thought
| provoking writing in the big pile of movies produced by
| comittee to show up above yours in discovery algorithms.
| asutekku wrote:
| With the future version of this you could theoretically
| prototype movies way faster and try ideas with test audiences
| without requiring to actually film them
| generalizations wrote:
| In the future version of this, the end user asks for a
| movie and gets a custom movie generated just for them.
|
| You want a thought-provoking Bourne-style action thriller
| with hints of Jane Austen and a bollywood dance sequence?
| How about a Matrix sequel that lives up to the first one,
| but ends just the way you like it? Just ask.
| SethMurphy wrote:
| This could certainly be entertaining. The trick will be
| for the studios to continue to brand it as recognizable,
| yet have it be unique. It begs to ask what part of the
| experience will be a shared experience since it could be
| radically different for all of us. Would we then share
| the story created for us with friends? Will there be an
| Oscar for best mind to have a video created for them?
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I think it would be great for people who write scripts
| for a movie they imagined.
|
| You could conceivably write a script and feed it into a
| machine and have a decent 1080p rendition of the movie
| with consistent characters and voice acting which you
| could use to better pitch your movie idea to people, or
| get to watch a movie you created between you and your
| friends even if no one else ever gets to see it.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Having written several feature length scripts, I'm
| certainly looking forward to trying this. But with an
| explosion of cheaply produced content, people will
| probably spend less time watching movies and TV shows.
| I'm a lot more selective now than I used to be because
| there's just too much stuff to watch even if I spent the
| rest of my life on the couch.
|
| The current trend of remaking movies as 10 hour
| miniseries (and then making more and more seasons) is Not
| Great. Whereas I could be fascinated by a quirky-but-
| compelling original movie, I'm less attracted to 10+
| hours of hyper-polished content. Sometimes I've watched a
| series and thought 'that was good, but it could have been
| a better movie.'
| Verdex wrote:
| Xenomorph cop. It's a Dirty Harry style movie except the
| lead is a xenomorph. The other characters are only
| vaguely aware that he's a xenomorph.
|
| Or how about the movie Clue with the three endings except
| an infinite sequence of "or maybe it happened this way"
| sequences. I mean how else are we going to get a sequence
| where Darth Vader and Tim Curry reenact the "No I am your
| father" scene while Martin Mull dies in the background
| due to a heart attack.
| zackmorris wrote:
| I was just thinking about this for the long tail problem in
| recommendation engines for stuff like video games. I blame
| the algorithms themselves.
|
| We're in a situation where the very best algorithms (like the
| one used by Netflix), doing exactly what they're designed to
| do, create inequality and the vacuous economy of influencers
| we have today. Look at Steam or any other marketplace:
| they're all the same, with 1% of the players getting 99% of
| the prizes. In a very real way, the only winning move is not
| to play.
|
| I would suggest that this tendency of capitalism (economic
| evolution) is unstoppable, and that it must be attacked from
| a different angle. If we don't want to inevitably end up in
| late-stage capitalism that looks like neofeudalism, then
| there has to be some form of redistribution or people spend
| the entirety of their lives running the rat race to make
| rent. Traditionally that was high taxes on the winners, but
| UBI would probably work better. Unfortunately, the very same
| people who win are the ones most resistant to any notion of a
| level playing field or social safety net.
|
| So I feel like there may be no solution coming. We're
| probably looking at long slow decline for the next 15 years
| or so until AI reaches a level where economics don't really
| make sense anymore, since economic systems by definition
| control the distribution of resources under scarcity. Without
| scarcity, they're pointless. And we moved into the age of
| artificial scarcity sometime after WWII, probably in the late
| 1960s, but certainly no later than 1990 with the fall of the
| USSR and the rise of straw man enemies like terrorism, using
| divisive politics as the primary means of controlling the
| population. Noam Chomsky saw this coming before most of us
| were born.
|
| In other words, when anyone can wish for anything by turning
| sentences into 3D-printed manifestations of their dreams,
| then artificial scarcity quickly loses its luster. Because
| the systems of control around dependency no longer work. Then
| a new fear-based enemy comes along to fill the void, probably
| aliens. I wish I was joking.
| echelon wrote:
| Films today require institutional capital. There are less
| than a thousand directors a year that get greenlit. There
| isn't enough conceptual or directorial diversity, and it
| sucks.
|
| In the future, kids will be making their own Star Wars movies
| from home. All kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds
| will make novel films that would ordinarily never be made,
| such as "Steampunk Vampires of Venus", starring John Wayne, a
| young Betty White, and Samuel L. Jackson. This is absolutely
| the future.
|
| I'm working on building this. I'm sure lots of others are
| too.
| RupertEisenhart wrote:
| Have you tried MUBI? It takes a lot of the hassle out of
| finding quality arthouse films, there is a lot of good stuff on
| there.
|
| Though I must admit that if I didn't have friends holding my
| hand through the minefield of modern cinema, I would also just
| stick to books.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Not sure we're quite there yet. A real movie needs a lot of
| dialogue, speech, sound effects, music, etc. Even the best
| LLM's don't do really coherent storytelling yet and a script
| for a movie is just the absolute barebones.
| cainxinth wrote:
| The engineers of the future will be poets -Terence Mckenna
| olivermarks wrote:
| A goofy oligarch promoting open source AI ->
|
| Meta is falling fast imo
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Imagine being able to spin up a completely novel movie on netflix
| rchaud wrote:
| Precisely, this is a dream for the likes of Netflix. They can
| perfect their vision of machine-generated assembly-line
| horseshit to feed to 190 countries. No staff, crew, no
| originality needed.
|
| Note the "AI by Meta" watermark in the example. So Zuck gets a
| cut as well.
| bricemo wrote:
| If you look out long-term, 2030s and 2040s, this is where all
| of this is likely going.
|
| Right now the pool of content you might be interested in is
| constrained to all the content that has been made. But there
| may be better content that does not exist yet that you would be
| even more interested in. The future is going to be very weird,
| but also very entertaining
| xena wrote:
| Stable Diffusion but for video is going to eat these guys lunch.
| langitbiru wrote:
| The creator of Stable Diffusion gave the indication of text-to-
| video:
|
| https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1539881228773429249
| hattmall wrote:
| So long Hollywood. You had a good run, now all videos will be
| auto generated from scripts in the Metaverse.
| shisisms wrote:
| Delighted this is in Facebook's hands. No doubt responsible and
| careful thought of implications have been baked in from the
| start.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post snarky comments, or shallow dismissals, to
| HN. You may not owe BigCo better but you owe this community
| better if you're participating in it:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| mouzogu wrote:
| Wonder if all these things will bring about a kind of cambrian
| explosion of creativity.
|
| Imagine a future of Prompt Wizards, who are able to coax the AI
| to generate things in a very specific way.
|
| Although we would probably need a much greater level of human
| curation. The way algorithms curate on youtube and spotify just
| doesn't really hit the spot.
|
| Perhaps stability and Dall-e already kind of showed that the
| value is not so much in the physical act of creating, but more-so
| in the ability to express something that the AI can represent and
| which can connect with you.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Think about 25 or 30 or 50 years down the line. More
| interesting than the next couple of years. Speculate a bit.
|
| After Neuralink and a few other companies torture enough poor
| monkeys, they eventually figure out how to create high
| bandwidth brain computer interfaces.
|
| We go through a few more paradigm shifts in computing and get
| 10000-1000000 X or more performance increase. Metaverse
| protocols have advanced to allow for seamless integration of
| simulated persons and environments across multiple clusters.
|
| The software continues to improve.
|
| What you could get is a simulated realm with simulated AI
| characters living their own lives. But groups of real people
| are plugged directly in to the simulation and can influence it
| with their thoughts. There may be some sort of rules to ensure
| a certain level of stability. But basically you just think
| "there should be a storm today" and maybe visualize some strong
| winds. And then it happens in their world.
|
| So at that point we become Gods.
|
| I am probably getting carried away because I am tired.
| dahfizz wrote:
| I think we will definitely see a _content_ explosion. The
| pessimist in me says that general levels of creativity and
| quality will go down, if anything.
|
| It's AI written blogspam, but for images and video too. The
| signal to noise ratio is getting worse and worse
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Alas, I've found the same thing. The text is more basic and
| repetitive. The ideas are fewer and farther in between.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| Less Cambrian Explosion, more Permian-Triassic Extinction.
| malauxyeux wrote:
| > Wonder if all these things will bring about a kind of
| cambrian explosion of creativity.
|
| Maybe, if memes are the peak of creativity. (And who am I to
| judge?)
|
| If we look at static images, the bar for distribution is zero
| and bar for creation is near zero since the arrival of these
| new AI tools - though it was circling zero before that.
|
| And what seems to be most widely shared is memes, in my feeds
| anyway. When Stable Diffusion landed, people giggled about the
| president of my country rendered in the style of Grand Theft
| Auto. After a week of that my feeds went right back to memes.
|
| Every human with an internet connection can draw like Picasso
| now, but it doesn't seem to matter. Because what we mostly seem
| to want is to take part in a conversation and get some
| validation, it seems to me.
| Bakary wrote:
| We already have evidence that the explosion in availability
| decreases the overall quality, even if the quantity of high-
| quality productions also increases greatly.
|
| Every creative platform is going to be flooded with the
| equivalent of a Reddit comment.
|
| (yes I am aware of the irony)
| mattwest wrote:
| https://twitter.com/chrisalbon/status/1567688342124503040
| folex wrote:
| I wish to have such a tool to generate tutorials for different
| technologies. Like distributed systems, consensuses, replication,
| this kind if stuff.
|
| Something like: there are 10 peers, A sends to B, B waits for C,
| yadayada.
| lairv wrote:
| Reading the paper, what's interesting is that they really build
| upon text-to-image models. Instead of generating 1 image with
| diffusion model, they generate 16, and then use several
| upsampling/interpolation methods to increase the
| resolution/framerate. For the text-image model, they use the
| DALL-E 2 architecture, so in theory just switching to a latent
| diffusion model (like stable diffusion) would boost
| training/inference cost of the model
|
| The shortcoming is that, since they don't use any video/text
| annotation (just image/text pairs), complex temporal prompts
| would probably not work, something which require multiple steps
| like "a bear scoring a goal, then doing the Ronaldo celebration"
| kitx wrote:
| One can imagine that resolving this will require a separate
| model to construct a timeline/keyframe series from a text
| description then interpolate between them.
|
| Fascinating times, either way this is allegedly being open-
| sourced, so I'm hopeful others will be able to build on top.
| lairv wrote:
| I wouldn't have thought we'd have these text-to-video models
| before the end of this year, so we might actually not be that
| far from minutes-long video generation
| luis02lopez wrote:
| Meta Inc? no, thanks.
| karmasimida wrote:
| This is incredible but I can't help feeling those videos are
| cherrypicked from a cherrypicked subset...
| jonplackett wrote:
| Is this a Facebook thing? When you sign up for updates it asks if
| you will receive marketing from Meta.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Facebook changed their name to Meta
| erwinh wrote:
| Hardmaru recently returned to twitter and everything shared is
| immediately fire
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I couldn't find how long the video generation took
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I would guess that it didn't take long running on Meta's
| servers, but if you were doing this at home with a 3090 it
| would take at least 6 minutes per 15 second video, assuming
| your settings take 15 seconds to render a single frame and
| there are 24 frames per second in the video.
| kleer001 wrote:
| After a while they all get kinda samey-samey. It's that whole
| 10,000 bowls of oatmeal problem that lives forever in this
| generative space.
| j_m_b wrote:
| What I want to see is a model that can generate 3D models for use
| in applications such as Blender. It would provide a good starting
| point for someone with talent to make beautiful. Or just save
| people like me time for making games.
| masterspy7 wrote:
| Funnily enough, you might not even need a 3D model if the
| txt2video is good enough. Whatever you wanted to render in
| Blender could just be rendered via text prompt (when this
| becomes 100x better).
| videlov wrote:
| I recently saw a company that seems to be doing just that[0],
| but I'm not sure if their model is open source
|
| [0] https://www.kaedim3d.com/
| sphars wrote:
| I've been looking into some of the 3D model generators this
| past week, and there is some work happening in that field. See
| the following non-exhaustive list:
|
| https://github.com/snap-research/NeROIC
|
| https://github.com/threedle/text2mesh
|
| https://github.com/AutodeskAILab/Clip-Forge
|
| https://nv-tlabs.github.io/GET3D/
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| Have you by chance tried out NeROIC? I'm a 3D printing
| enthusiast, mostly video game stuff, and it seems like like
| it would be excellent for that purpose.
| sphars wrote:
| I actually have been trying it out this week, and in fact
| it's currently trying to process the video generation, like
| their example shows. While I was able to follow their steps
| for training using their dataset, and generate the
| lighting/depth maps for the milkcarton example, the video
| generation is taking a long time (over 24 hours so far,
| using a 3070Ti with 8GB VRAM).
|
| From what I understand with NeROIC, it's not particularly
| meant to be able to generate an 3D model that can be
| imported into Blender (or other software). It requires more
| work to take the meshes it generates to do something with
| it. See https://github.com/snap-research/NeROIC/issues/10
|
| I too was looking into it to generate 3D models for some
| software I've been working on.
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| Thanks! I imagine one could use something like ZBrush's
| dynamesh to create a usable mesh from the output. Shame
| the library doesn't provide it by default, though.
| appleflaxen wrote:
| Agree! And it seems like this should be the easiest thing to
| train!
|
| Let the AI generate random blender files.
|
| Render them.
|
| Train on source => render mapping (which is 1:many)
|
| Repeat.
|
| You should be able to get an incredibly high-fidelity decoder
| to go from image to blender source.
| mbel wrote:
| Here's an attempt at doing that:
| https://dreamfusionpaper.github.io/
| [deleted]
| cercatrova wrote:
| > _3D_
|
| Then you're in luck today as this was just submitted:
| DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025446
| sebringj wrote:
| it looks like bizarre dreams as videos... so far but it will
| improve to less weird... eventually being used in VR or AR to
| give you instant environments/scenarios as you wish, I would
| imagine
| jklein11 wrote:
| How do I get access to this?
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| > _Our goal is to eventually make this technology available to
| the public, but for now we will continue to analyze, test, and
| trial Make-A-Video to ensure that each step of release is safe
| and intentional._
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Can't wait for the Stability-equivalent.
| greenhearth wrote:
| This tech will definitely revolutionize stock footage. Generating
| a post-modern cyber-ghost glitchcore horse drinking water is
| definitely way more exciting than just using some boring old
| video of some stupid real horse drinking water
| Jyaif wrote:
| The progress in AI we are seeing is unprecedented. I can't think
| of any other time in history where I would have had my mind blown
| on such a regular basis.
| forgingahead wrote:
| Amazing. And lucidrains is on the case as well:
| https://github.com/lucidrains/make-a-video-pytorch
| mlsu wrote:
| Clearly, attention really is all you need.
|
| Are GPU vendors (well, gpu vendor, as far as I can tell) focusing
| heavily on increasing VRAM? My understanding is that transformers
| are pretty quick to train, but have significant memory costs.
|
| When they say that video is infeasible with memory... does that
| mean that if we had enough memory (128? 256? gb) we would be able
| to realistically train such networks with temporal attention?
|
| This is insanely exciting. It looks like we are limited, at this
| point, only by compute.
| nicoslepicos wrote:
| Really cool seeing this & excited to really start playing with
| it. 2023 is going to be funky!
|
| It's pretty wild to see how quickly the space of Generative AI
| Media is coming along.
|
| I started a newsletter on the topic, called The Art of
| Intelligence (GPT-3 came up with the name) with the first post
| going out last Friday on the topic of how far are we from AI
| generated videos, and simulated worlds like the Holodeck given
| the rapid progress of these visual A.I. Thought y'all might find
| it interesting: https://artofintelligence.substack.com/p/dall-e-
| stable-diffu...
|
| This type of progress also reminds me of a really lovely
| publication from 2017 in Distill.pub, on the topic of these A.I.
| enabled creation tools - I think y'all would enjoy seeing what
| folks were thinking even then: https://distill.pub/2017/aia/
| imhoguy wrote:
| This is going to be a revolution, I already imagine AI movies in
| cinemas, pioneering hits at scale of Avatar on IMAX 3D, remakes
| of classics just based on screenplay texts.
| nemo44x wrote:
| When will one of these projects finally name themselves "Infinite
| Jest"? I'm guessing when the perfect pornography can be generated
| for you immediately, it will have an entertainment-to-death
| effect on a number of people. An Infinite Jest for conspiracy
| theories; one for shit posts, etc.
| qnsi wrote:
| We should just rename Internet to Infinite Jest.
|
| I mean, there are some theories that the mental illness
| epidemic is partially caused by internet use. I did strict 2
| months Internet fast and I can attest it has a healing effect.
| Does it have entertainment-to-death effect? I guess there is a
| bigger than expected number of suicides that wouldn't happen
| have the people not been addicted to Internet. But I agree with
| every passing year we are moving further and further into
| entertainment-to-death with our civilisations.
|
| Makes me kinda sad to work in tech industry.
| tzot wrote:
| The maximum compression for a video file of a movie is its
| script. Perhaps eventually the most common (and time-tested)
| piracy platform will be email. Or maybe newsgroups (are they
| still on?), but the message payloads will be losslessly
| compressed text.
| tehsauce wrote:
| Does anyone know anything about the size of this model? Number of
| parameters or flops? I couldn't find anything in the paper.
| slhomme wrote:
| As an owner of a Video Production studio, this kind of tech is
| blowing my mind and makes me equally excited and scared. I can
| see how we could incorporate such tools in our workflows, and at
| the same time I'm worried it'll be used to spam the internet with
| thousands and thousands of souless generated videos, making it
| even harder to look through the noise.
|
| A fun related experiment, I thought it was fun to see what kind
| of movies AI would generate, so I created a "This Movie Does Not
| Exist" website[1] that auto generates fake movies (movie posters
| + synopsis). It basically uses GPT-3 to generate some story
| plots, and then uses that as a prompt (with in-between steps) for
| Stable Diffusion. Results may vary, but it definitely surprises
| sometimes with movies that look and sound amazing!
|
| [1] This Movie Does Not Exist: https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/
| hugozap wrote:
| Is the generation happening in real time? I'm curious about the
| costs of running something like this.
| slhomme wrote:
| Yes it's happening real time, so far it's been generated
| about 8k movies over the last 3 hours. The costs right now
| are roughly about $150 for the generated images (Stable
| Diffusion) and $30 for the generated texts (GPT-3).
| Yajirobe wrote:
| $180 in 3 hours?
| maxov wrote:
| I love this! But after trying it a few times I got this result
| :). So fascinating.
|
| https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/the-terminator
|
| Brings up the age-old question of how much the learning in
| these models is just memorization. Though in cases like these
| it's hard to tell.
| slhomme wrote:
| Yep, that's because GPT-3 was trained on real existing data,
| and it's quite a challenge to make sure the story plot is
| 100% fake. When it's too close from an existing film, it just
| sometimes gives it the same film title. I have in-between
| GPT-3 prompts to avoid that as much as possible, but
| sometimes real movie titles slips through the cracks.
| Something I hope to improve shortly.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| I got this on my 4th try or so:
| https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/alice-in-wonderland
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| There are only so many stories to tell. The Terminator is a
| rehash of so many other previous stories. The real art is in
| putting it together so that it seems new and fresh and gets
| people exited about it. The Terminator 1920s style looks
| interesting.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| If a story is a rehash of "many" stories, then it's
| actually a new story. Similar to how an "Airbnb but for dog
| walkers" isn't actually a ripoff of Airbnb, but is in fact
| an original idea.
| acheron wrote:
| > The Terminator is a rehash of so many other previous
| stories.
|
| I know what you mean, but I also laughed at that.
|
| "I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history,
| in every culture, is the story of Popeye." - Jack Handey
| pfalke wrote:
| Here's another Terminator one:
| https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/terminator-war-of-
| th...
| soperj wrote:
| Yeah, just got: https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/the-
| legend-of-zelda-...
|
| It's crazy that it just made up those names...
| babyshake wrote:
| Not sure how I feel about an AI generating a movie concept
| that involves a "rise of the machines".
| maxov wrote:
| I feel like "generate" is kind of a strong word in this
| case though. At this rate if the machines rise up, they
| will do so just to parrot all the "machines rise up" plot
| synopses in their training corpus.
| samstave wrote:
| Ha - getting app too busy errors so can't see your site...
| slhomme wrote:
| Sorry about this, we're having a hard time handling the heavy
| traffic coming from Hacker News. Over 4k movies generated in
| just the last 2hours, this definitely impacts our servers
| performances, not mentioning our Stable Diffusion and GPT
| bills! hehe. Currently working to make things smoother!
| sixQuarks wrote:
| For those who are scared about this technology, it's good to
| look at what AI has done to Chess.
|
| The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with humans. I
| think image and video AI will best be exploited when human
| input is also taken into account.
|
| There is still something special about human creativity, I
| think AI will just be another tool to expand that. At least, in
| the short term I would say 10 years perhaps. AI will probably
| one day take over all aspects of creativity and humans won't be
| able to contribute.
| abeppu wrote:
| I think a key difference here is that with chess, 'goodness'
| is defined by winning. With content generation, the training
| methods point towards some form of comparing the generated
| thing to some observed data, but the 'goodness' of the
| content from the perspective of potentially competing with or
| displacing human creators is "do people like to consume it?"
|
| If one trained using e.g. a tiktok like dataset showing
| viewer response measurements for each video, and do
| conditional generation on those response values ("prank video
| watchers are highly likely to watch the full video"), are we
| really that far from a system that learns to generate content
| that attracts and hold eyeballs? Not so long ago there were a
| lot of concerning trend pieces about how youtube had a
| network of creators making bizarre, disturbing or transfixing
| videos being watched entirely by young children. Before that,
| it was clickbait listicles. "Bad" content that can get
| eyeballs can still wildly steer what humans create and
| consume. I'm wondering if in 2 years we'll have an enormous
| number of short videos that we all agree are "bad" but which
| are nevertheless constantly watched.
| astrange wrote:
| What does "best" mean here?
|
| AI is the winningest in chess, but the real life purpose of
| chess is to produce interesting gameplay for people to watch,
| and so AI is less good than Magnus at that. You'd need the AI
| to throw games and write press releases.
| looknee wrote:
| I may be mistaken but I believe that human/machine pairing
| was dominant for a long while, but the last few years the
| chess solvers have progressed to a point where they're
| dominant on their own.
|
| Poker on the other hand I think human players still win vs
| GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too.
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| > Poker on the other hand I think human players still win
| vs GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too.
|
| Also an outsider, but I think this has changed in the last
| year and that AI now is consistently better than top-tier
| humans at even no-limits poker.
| lairv wrote:
| I think AI now beat humans at poker
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711141343.
| h...
|
| https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-
| Superhuman.p...
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| > The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with
| humans.
|
| I don't think this is true anymore. I don't think I've heard
| about successful centaur chess games in years. I would love
| to be wrong there though (in particular if anyone knows about
| how correspondence chess games have been played in the last 2
| or 3 years with the availability of Leela Zero and Stockfish
| NNUE).
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| Found this interesting article http://chessforallages.blogs
| pot.com/2021/02/correspondence-c... which linked to this
| thread on the topic:
| https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=76382
|
| Based on that thread, it looks like centaur chess is close
| to dead.
|
| > Human input in top-level ICCF [correspondence games with
| chess engine support] games is now 99% eliminated, other
| than personal preference in selection of openings.
| fooblaster wrote:
| top tier chess ais crush human grandmasters and achieve super
| human performance with no assistance
| dotsam wrote:
| Don't worry, humans will still be relevant for ~10 years! _.
|
| _ (and then regrettably irrelevant thereafter).
|
| I think it is a legitimate worry, as the pace of progress is
| considerable. These tools are impressive, and are only going
| to get more impressive: more people should be talking about
| where this is headed.
| trention wrote:
| These models are literally one French court decision away
| from being banned and investment in them being completely
| halted. So I wouldn't worry too much about them
| specifically.
| rnk wrote:
| That is nonsensical. Maybe one country might decide to
| try to stop it, the internet has shown that doesn't work.
| zepolen wrote:
| Yes because banning alcohol, drugs, porn, prostitution
| and profanity in music sure got rid of them!
| trention wrote:
| It would have gotten rid of every single one of those if
| the only method for their production required a tech
| company to invest a 8-digit sum in R&D and said tech
| company was threatened with litigation.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Porn companies, Facebook, Uber, ... these are just the
| latest companies, in a long line, for whom huge lawsuits
| and fortune-sized settlements are simply a line item on
| the expense sheet.
| trention wrote:
| Are you somehow under the impression that, if a
| government decides to impose a fine that will financially
| kill the company once and for all, it is incapable of it?
|
| Incidentally, Uber has been banned in the entire country
| where I live for 8+ years now.
| tehsauce wrote:
| I think the opposite is true. I think we're closer to the
| beginning of a kind of arms race.
| ronsor wrote:
| Why French court? If other countries don't ban them,
| France will just be hurting itself.
| trention wrote:
| A french court banning it will probably be a (short)
| precursor to an EU-wide ban which is effectively a
| worldwide ban. EU courts will be fining companies heavily
| if they don't comply which effectively means big tech no
| longer invests a penny in models. I use 'French court'
| here mostly because I believe it most likely to be
| firstly litigated there.
| rnk wrote:
| Yeah, just like Facebook and Google can't operate in
| Europe, or the US isn't still spying on the whole world
| still. Those eu courts really control them.
| trention wrote:
| EU courts fined google just this week. Way to prove
| exactly how uninformed you are. There has been no reason
| to ban meta or google in EU so far, but you can ask RT
| how good their operations are at the moment.
| astrange wrote:
| EU wouldn't ban homegrown technology. They're making up
| laws an an excuse to punish Google for not being EU
| based, it's not that Google happens to be violating the
| law.
| rnk wrote:
| The EU has had many sanctions against google, tried to
| force them to change various practices, just like the
| pointless attempts to get microsoft to make changes. None
| of them made any real difference.
| CalRobert wrote:
| I imagine plenty of companies in the rest of the world
| will happily make use of it.
| trention wrote:
| Spoiler alert: EU can fine and (if needed) seize assets
| of companies based outside of the EU.
| ronsor wrote:
| Only if those companies have EU assets*
|
| Even still, if the EU chooses to regress, I can imagine a
| lot of non-EU-based companies--especially smaller ones--
| just choosing not to deal with them anymore
| trention wrote:
| EU can pretty much unilaterally cut access to the
| financial system of said companies, demonstrated this
| year to a number of russian entities. Meanwhile, given
| what Xi has done in the last couple of years, I would not
| be surprised if China moves against the model makers
| first.
| synu wrote:
| There are two classes of engines. One is like you describe,
| faster and faster brute forcing. AlphaZero was much more
| creative and didn't use brute force.
| nonima wrote:
| >it's good to look at what AI has done to Chess It completely
| ruined the game to the point where it's more about
| memorization than it's ever been.
| sgrove wrote:
| You should add a "tweet this movie" button that pre-populates
| the image and the title! I immediately wanted to share one of
| the funny suggestions.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| Reminds me of South Park when Cartman was pretending to be a
| robot and was made to invent movie prompts
|
| "Adam Sandler is like, in love with some girl, but then it
| turns out that the girl is actually a Golden Retriever. Or
| something.""
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Or the "Two Brothers" skit from Rick and Morty.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba9k5SWwE38
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| "AWESOME-O", S8 E5, if anyone wants to check it out.
|
| A South Park classic imo
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awesom-O
| pmarreck wrote:
| https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/the-yetis-last-stand
|
| The description text does not convert sentences with carriage
| returns (or probably, newlines) into separate div's or whatever
| html element you'd prefer, FYI! Otherwise, very cool!
| agentwiggles wrote:
| This one is too funny:
| https://thismoviedoesnotexist.org/movie/the-virginity-pact
| BillSaysThis wrote:
| Why would this title bring in superheroes?!? lol
| pkulak wrote:
| Ooo, check out that trademark infringement.
| picsao wrote:
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Saw this clip today in response to a tweet by musk saying a
| cyber truck can act as a boat. I thought either this was made
| by an AI or it will be soon.
|
| https://twitter.com/dvorahfr/status/1575508907593711618?s=46...
| hiidrew wrote:
| I think some refer to this as the dead internet theory, e.g. AI
| content creation becomes the majority of media on the internet
| instead of humans posting (may be wrong in my explanation but
| think that's the premise).
|
| It's scary to think about it but seems plausible--like if
| someone can make an app with Tiktok-like ubiquity of only AI
| content. Although to your point I imagine there will be so much
| nonsensical noise that curating will become a useful skill, it
| is today but even more so.
| Atheros wrote:
| People like interacting with other people, not bots. If a few
| individuals start to feel like they're interacting with too
| many bots, they'll retreat into small private silos. The
| human-to-bot ratio on public forums then drops. Then more
| people realize that they're just talking to bots and further
| and further it goes until practically no humans are left.
| That's the dead internet theory.
|
| I really don't think it applies to us in this context though
| because I think that a decent number of humans _don 't care_
| whether some content is AI generated. Furry porn is all hand-
| drawn and people still like it despite it not being real.
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| Cool toy. One of the most useful side effects of AI right now
| is idea generation. Market this as an idea generator for movies
| and such and people will eat it up. Try posting it on the
| entertainment focused area of Twitter and people will go nuts
| for it.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| These prompts are way better than the drivel I see on Amazon
| Prime. Half their movie descriptions don't even tell you
| anything about the film, they seem to be just a random
| paragraph from the pitch document.
| usefulcat wrote:
| > I'm worried it'll be used to spam the internet with thousands
| and thousands of souless generated videos
|
| I agree, and I think when that happens, it will tend to
| increase the value of curation. High quality curation that is,
| probably done mostly by hand, as opposed to the at-best-
| mediocre automated curation that is commonly used.
|
| It could be bad for things like YouTube, for example. I think
| there will be an arms race between generated video content one
| one side and automated curation on the other. I mean, you can
| still leverage viewer choices for curation (looking at what
| people are watching a lot of), but that is just shifting the
| burden of curation to users. Few people will be willing to sift
| through dozens of cheaply generated crap videos to find
| something they actually want to watch.
| ericd wrote:
| The volume will increase so much that the only choice will be
| automated curation tools, at least as a first pass. The arms
| race is on.
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| I know some extremely hard working independent filmmakers who
| struggle so hard to get noticed. After this tech goes
| mainstream in 5 years and gets really good, I don't know what
| they're going to do
| elephanlemon wrote:
| Make blockbusters, because scenes that would be incredibly
| expensive to shoot now will be practically free with this?
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| Every 15 year old kid will be making their own blockbusters
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| Have you talked to the average 15 year old kid? Hell,
| have you talked to the average 50 year old? It will be
| the same as ever, a sea of absolute shit surrounding some
| true gems, be they from novel creativity or just
| excellent execution of well worn ground. The role of the
| trusted curator will rise and brands will gain more
| power.
|
| I am sure I will watch MY 15 year old's attempts, and
| maybe a few from my extended circle but most of my
| consumed content will still come from what makes the cut
| to Netflix or HBO etc. Technology like this will empower
| the truly creatives once it has matured. I would expect
| closer to 20 years than 5 however.
| electrondood wrote:
| AI is eating the world, and the vast majority of people are
| not paying attention.
|
| I don't know what artists, truck drivers, Uber/Lyft/taxi
| drivers, delivery drivers, programmers, doctors, judges, fast
| food workers, etc. are going to do.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Really have a feeling that if you don't build your nest egg
| in the next 5-10 years, its going to become incredibly
| hard.
| rnk wrote:
| Why will conventional investments have value? Why will it
| be safe? I could be retired and well off with say even 5
| or 10 million and then large numbers of people lose their
| jobs, yet we can still make widgets and grow and
| distribute food with robot everything, society will fall
| apart. There will be fewer people with money to support
| themselves or buy things. I don't see the capitalist
| society in the US giving people basic income, but we
| won't need so many workers, and so anarchy.
| sh4rks wrote:
| > programmers
|
| Surely if we get to the point where programmers are no
| longer needed, humans have essentially been replaced by AI?
| Since the AI programmers could just program better and
| better AI?
| munchler wrote:
| Yes, this is called "the singularity" in AI circles.
| Personally, I don't think it's imminent, but it's
| certainly worth some concern.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
| ddalex wrote:
| Perhaps humanity would happily share the benefits of
| machine work and we can all spend idyllics lifes eating,
| laughing and loving while exploring the galaxy?
| jmfldn wrote:
| Under a different economic system maybe. Have you seen
| how our one actually works? See the film Elysium for a
| more plausible future.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| Great idea!
|
| Under the current system, the rich can do just that while
| everyone else literally starves to death :)
| pkaye wrote:
| Then the rich will have no consumers.
| ericd wrote:
| Why do you need consumers when you have machines making
| most of what you want? Then you just need to be able to
| trade things with other people who have different
| machines and resources from yourself to get the bits you
| can't have made by your machines.
| astrange wrote:
| Where do the inputs for the machines come from? ex:
| having a machine that generates CPUs out of sand and
| works for free would mean cheaper CPUs, but it would also
| mean a lot more employment in the sand industry, and
| there might not be a machine for creating sand.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
| pkaye wrote:
| So you are saying everyone will have those machines?
| passion__desire wrote:
| Nope. He is saying power concentration will increase
| further. This is also Yuval Noah Harari's thesis. You can
| read about how that will get achieved here.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuva
| l-n...
| astrange wrote:
| If they're not trading with everyone else they're not
| rich. Being rich /is/ the ability to trade a lot.
|
| The idea that rich people will all leave and start a
| different rich-people-only economy that somehow takes all
| the economic activity with it isn't how it really works,
| it's the plot of Atlas Shrugged.
| codegeek wrote:
| doctors ? We are a looooooong way to go before AI can
| replace actual doctors.
| dubitably wrote:
| A month ago I would have said that about actual artists.
| have_faith wrote:
| From my personal perspective; knowing how something is made
| affects my interest in it. I guess that's why provenance
| ascribes value. I value human creativity and so I'll likely
| always seek out something created by craft than by shortcuts.
| moron4hire wrote:
| >> spam the internet with thousands and thousands of souless
| generated videos
|
| Unfortunately, that's already happening.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7oiHtYCo0w
|
| From what I can see, YouTube has done quite a bit of work to
| cleanup YouTube Kids, but it's kind of an arms race.
|
| There's this worrying issue in AI ethics discussions where most
| people seem to assume the problems and dangers of AI are still
| off in the future, that as long as we don't have the malicious
| AGI of sci-fi stories, then AI and "lesser" algorithmically
| generated content isn't harming society.
|
| I think that's not true at all. I think we've seen massive
| damage to social structures thanks to algorithmic feeds and
| generated content, already, for years now. I don't think, just
| because they aren't necessarily neural-network-based, doesn't
| make them something to not worry about.
|
| So I don't see AI as a particularly, different, worrisome
| problem. It's an extension of an already existing, worrisome
| problem that most people have ignored beyond occasionally
| complaining about election results.
| sva_ wrote:
| I think we're pretty close to the moving and talking portraits of
| deceased people from the Harry Potter universe.
| agitator wrote:
| What's mind blowing is that you can extrapolate where this is
| going to go. Eventually, you will be able to generate full movie
| scenes from descriptions.
|
| What's interesting to me is how this is so similar to human
| imagination. Give me a description and I will fabricate the
| visuals in my mind. Some aspects will be detailed, others will be
| vague, or unimportant. Crazy to see how fast AI is progressing.
| Machines are approaching the ability to interpret and visualize
| text in the same way humans can.
|
| This also fascinates me as a form of compression. You can
| transmit concepts and descriptions without transmitting pixel
| data, and the visuals can be generated onsite. Wonder if there is
| some practical application for this.
| giarc wrote:
| Would be interesting to input some existing screenplays into a
| future tool like this and see what comes out.
| bdickason wrote:
| Or full 3D scenes that are interactive?
| SuperCuber wrote:
| Related: https://pub.towardsai.net/stable-diffusion-based-
| image-compr...
| treis wrote:
| IMHO this particular avenue is a dead end. It's an
| extraordinarily impressive dead end but it's clear that there's
| no real understanding here. Look at this video of the knight
| riding a horse:
|
| >https://makeavideo.studio/assets/A_knight_riding_on_a_horse_..
| .
|
| The horse's face is all wrong
|
| The gait is wrong
|
| The interface with the ground & hooves is wrong
|
| The knight's upper body doesn't match with the lower and
| they're not moving correctly
|
| I think ultimately the right path is something like AI
| automated Blender. AI creates the models & actions while
| Blender renders it according to a rules based physics engine.
| numtel wrote:
| "Don't look where we are right now but imagine where we'll be
| two more papers down the line" - Two minute papers
| petesergeant wrote:
| Oh great, we can finally start fuzzing the human brain
| area51org wrote:
| "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could,
| they didn't stop to think if they should." -pithy quote from a
| summer action movie
|
| I'll just say it now: this is a mistake, quite possibly a huge
| mistake. The average human is not intelligent enough to deal with
| computer-generated video that they can mistake for reality, and
| so this can and will become a tool for despots.
| simonw wrote:
| I was pretty surprised to see that the WebVid-10M Dataset used as
| part of this training - https://m-bain.github.io/webvid-dataset/
| - consists entirely of video preview clips scraped from
| Shutterstock!
|
| I built a quick search engine over that data:
|
| https://webvid.datasette.io/webvid/videos
|
| Wrote more about that here:
| https://simonwillison.net/2022/Sep/29/webvid/
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| The human hands on the animals are in the uncanny valley for
| sure. Pretty creepy stuff!
| caxco93 wrote:
| So it begins... I am genuinely excited and terrified for the
| technology we will have in 10 or even 5 years
| deworms wrote:
| I remember the threads about StableDiffusion less than 4 weeks
| ago where people were confidently saying this kind of thing is 6
| to 12 months away. Turns out it was a month. Singularity soon?
| Datenstrom wrote:
| The
|
| > A golden retriever eating ice cream on a beautiful tropical
| beach at sunset, high resolution
|
| example is terrifying.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| They forgot 'trending on onlyfans'
|
| But actually, this technology is super exciting. Imagine a
| future where movies and games are choose your own adventure.
| permo-w wrote:
| if people weren't so repressed, this could also be used to
| severely reduce exploitation in the porn industry. what's the
| point in making and selling exploitative porn when it can be
| auto-generated at will?
| Bakary wrote:
| We'll have procedural generation that will be hard to
| distinguish from human-made content. Goodbye repetitive
| Skyrim filler caves!
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I've never played Skyrim - was that the immersive 3d
| version of a maze of twisty little passages?
|
| Besides just textural content, it's intriguing to consider
| the possibilities of full-3d roguelikes.
| tpmx wrote:
| In case anyone else had problems finding it - it's at the
| bottom of the page:
|
| https://makeavideo.studio/assets/a_golden_retriever_eating_i...
| (webp)
|
| That grasp though.
|
| These things still feel a bit like e.g. Google/GCP services to
| me: Super appealing at first glance, quite close to what you
| want, but somehow never quite there. Maybe they'll
| asymptotically get there, eventually? Perhaps that statistical
| model can't really make it to the level we want it to?
| inerte wrote:
| I've found that replacing the bad parts with new ones, like
| Dalle Outpainting, can remove the worst parts of the image,
| like the hands here... doesn't make it perfect, but certainly
| removes the worst offenders that instantly bring attention to
| themselves.
| mach1ne wrote:
| It may be that it's the deep learning tech which will never
| quite get there. GPT-3 has similar shortcomings in its
| mimicry. We're 95% there, I guess, but may never quite reach
| 100%.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Nah, the current issues are just because we're trying to do
| everything in one step. Because we've built tools that have
| so much of a stimulus-response approach, few efforts have
| been made toward interfaces that ask for clarification
| ('when you say X, do you mean XYZ or XXX?').
|
| Image-to-image and tuning already addresses many of these
| issues; just as inpainting works really well, it won't be
| long before we have select-and-repair, where you add an
| additional prompt like 'improve this part - the ice cream
| is fine, just work on the dog's muzzle.'
| [deleted]
| rany_ wrote:
| > the deep learning tech which will never quite get there
|
| Never say never, we've come a long way since GPT-2! All
| this was unthinkable back then
| mach1ne wrote:
| It's certainly possible. I find it somewhat unlikely
| though, despite the fast-paced progress.
| tpmx wrote:
| I get the same feeling as well. This approach may well be
| eternal demo-ware, and you'll actually need AGI (or
| manual direction by a real human) to get to 100%.
| ilaksh wrote:
| On the home page of HN at the moment is something like GPT
| but much better. It's at character.ai
| Jackson__ wrote:
| It is, but to make up for it we got a man drifting a horse.[1]
|
| [1]
| https://makeavideo.studio/assets/A_knight_riding_on_a_horse_...
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Yeah, put some blue sparks on those hooves and you've got a
| meme
| thedorkknight wrote:
| Just needs to show the part where he ends the drift and gets
| a speed boost
| kraquepype wrote:
| The hands throw me off. The same with the cat holding the
| remote... never thought that hands on animals would be able to
| trigger my uncanny valley response, but here we are
| bckr wrote:
| Eugh, thanks for warning me.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making -
| lmao. I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley
| artifacts, and I don't think it will improve much from here.
|
| It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective
| statistical models, certainly better than our previous models,
| but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly
| effective.
| appletrotter wrote:
| > I don't think it will improve much from here.
|
| Any more specific reason why you feel this way? Curious
| criddell wrote:
| > I don't think it will improve much from here
|
| That's a bold prediction. Why do you think that?
|
| The first thing I thought was the exact opposite. This isn't
| very good, but it's only version 1. Motion pictures are less
| than 150 years old. In another 150 years I bet virtual
| filmmaking will progress a lot.
| dgritsko wrote:
| I agree, it feels like this technology is progressing by
| leaps and bounds almost by the day.
| paulgb wrote:
| Case in point, just compare the results of Stable Diffusion
| / Dall-E / midjourney to papers from 5-10 years ago (here's
| a random one I found
| http://proceedings.mlr.press/v48/reed16.pdf). Remarkable
| progress in that time, and as I understand it, a good
| amount (but certainly not all) of the improvement comes
| "free" from being able to scale up to more weights.
| javajosh wrote:
| I don't agree with the prediction but I will say that at
| least in America, we've been overly optimistic about almost
| everything since world war II. Is particularly painful when
| you look at the imagination of science fiction versus the
| reality of science in the realm of say space travel,
| especially interstellar travel. This imagination effect gets
| the public behind your new invention in part because it seems
| to be just the beginning the start of something new. The tip
| of the iceberg. But sometimes it's really just a tiny bit of
| ice.
|
| For the record, I'm actually rather bullish on self-driving
| cars. There's nothing physically impossible about solving the
| problem, but I'm not surprised it's harder than it sounds.
| But I don't see humans being fundamentally prevented from
| solving the problem in the same way that humans are
| fundamentally prevented from ever engaging in everyday space
| travel.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| The key to predicting technological advancement, that is so
| often misunderstood by technologists, is the S-curve.
|
| Laypeople tend to think everything is linear, technologists
| tend to think everything is exponential; more often than not,
| reality tends to be sigmoidal. Technologies have exponential
| takeoffs followed by logarithmic plateaus. We're clearly well
| into the exponential phase of deep-learning ML, but it's only
| a matter of time before this approach hits its logarithmic
| phase.
|
| Of course, the hard part of sigmoidal prediction is
| determining where in the curve we are. Does the current
| paradigm have an even steeper part ahead of it? Maybe. And
| yet, we could just as easily be right in the middle of the
| function, with a leveling off coming as the state of the art
| gives way to incremental improvements.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Absolutely, particularly if you see this as simply another
| tool in the belt, like how Jurassic Park's thirty year old
| special effects absolutely stand the test of time because of
| them being a convincing mix of early CGI and puppetry.
|
| It's not hard to imagine that this kind of thing could end up
| doing a lot of the heavy lifting for things like background
| scenes in the future, opening up the kind of stuff we saw in
| The Mandalorian, Game of Thrones, and the LOTR film trilogy
| to increasingly lower and lower budget productions.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The first Jurassic Park holds up unusually well. They used
| CGI for things they couldn't convincingly do any other way,
| and used practical effects for almost everything else. And
| for the most part they hid the CGI well, they took a lot of
| care to mix it up with close ups of practical effects, the
| way they framed the shots to direct audience attention,
| etc.
|
| I think in a lot of modern stuff they go too far. They now
| use CGI for things that could _easily_ be practical
| effects, but they go with CGI because it 's simply cheaper
| or because they want to A/B test different colors of wall
| paneling behind a character in post production, or who
| knows what. The end result is apparently good enough to
| make a billion dollars, but I can't stand it. Movies don't
| feel authentic anymore. It's hard to describe rationally,
| but the word 'soulless' sums up how movies made the new way
| make me feel. Even the scenes which are wholly
| practical/real get degraded; the excessive CGI and
| compositing used in the rest of the movie cast a miasma of
| unrealness across the entire movie.
|
| https://64.media.tumblr.com/248d25e2185a58bf827d329490480fb
| 9...
| whoooooo123 wrote:
| I can't stand it either. CGI excess has ruined movies.
|
| This video does a good job of explaining why, I think:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-zg8Oo8p4
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Haha, why did I know this was going to be a Critical
| Drinker video.
|
| For real though, I think the best CGI has always been
| when it's a light touch, providing only slight
| enhancements to an otherwise mostly-practical scene. And
| that's also when it's most invisible-- so while superhero
| movies are obvious CGI-fests and can be clearly said to
| have been "ruined" by it, I think the most interesting
| modern CGI use is in lower-budget productions like TV
| shows, enabling the insertion of fantasy- or period-
| themed backdrops that would never be possible if you had
| to actually come up with all those props and extras in
| real life.
|
| And I think to the extent that this is already happening,
| it's a lot harder to track because it's so much more
| subtle than the bombastic in-your-face effects of a
| Marvel movie showdown.
|
| It would be interesting to see a revival of a show like
| Drive [0] as that was pretty ambitious and expensive for
| its time, but might be a lot more possible to do now.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2007_TV_series)
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Absolutely.
|
| I remember listening to the DVD commentary track for X2
| (from 2003), and loving that scene near the beginning
| where Nightcrawler is hiding out in a cathedral but
| losing control of his teleportation powers because he's
| being remotely controlled/possessed by the villain of the
| story. Bryan Singer talks on the track about how great it
| was to fling the character (can't remember if it it was
| actually Alan Cumming or a stuntman) from the rafters,
| and how much better and more weighty it looked to have a
| "real" shot and just have to remove wires/harnessing vs
| filming it as a blank canvas and having to insert the
| character digitally.
| vsareto wrote:
| Most of the AI generated images are good enough to be first
| drafts or sketches, and with some editing, they can be
| coherent images. This makes AI generators a good tool. Not
| sure the same is true for video though. It feels like
| you'll need reliable still image creation before you can
| get to a video generator that's useful since editing video
| takes a bit more than a still image.
| [deleted]
| iamsaitam wrote:
| It will definitely improve from here onward. On the other hand,
| I agree that it's a ridiculous thing to say that traditional
| movie-making is over. There's so much involved in making a
| movie, so much happenstance from the actors performances in a
| specific environment. You will never be able to get this in
| AI.. you might get some sort of mimicry, but the comparison is
| futile.. a movie isn't just a sequence of changing pixels.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| I think it's more complex than that.
|
| What you're going to see is a race to the bottom, the same as
| with claymation films and 3d.
|
| It will suddenly require a lot less (expensive, highly
| trained) people to make the same films.
|
| You'll still need expensive highly trained people to do it,
| but with different skills and a lot less of them can do a lot
| more a lot more quickly.
|
| ...and that means that some studios will make bad, low grade
| films... and some studios will make amazing films using
| hybrid techniques (like 3d printed faces for claymation).
|
| ...but overall, the people funding movies will expect to get
| more for less, and that _will_ mean a downsizing of the
| number of people employed currently in certain roles.
|
| Traditional film making over? Hm... it's complicated. Is it
| over if the entire industry changes, but people are still
| making films? Or is that just the "traditional" part of it
| which is over?
|
| It's definitely going to change the industry.
|
| People will still definitely film things.
|
| ...but, I wager, _less people_ will be doing _highly payed
| skilled manual work_ , which will replaced by a few people
| doing a different type of AI assisted work.
|
| ...and we'll see some really amazing indy films, of small
| highly technical teams producing content with very little
| physical filming.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Accurate, no notes.
| hackerlight wrote:
| This tech went from nothing to beating a human artist in an art
| competition in a few years, and yet you say "I don't think it
| will improve much". So, I disagree.
| ZetaZero wrote:
| Right and wrong.
|
| It's not over for traditional moving-making. It would be
| decades before the software and hardware could surpass. But it
| will improve tremendously, just like computers do for nearly
| everything.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| It's been like a month since people were saying this tech would
| be too hard to apply to video.
| Xelynega wrote:
| The leap from "generating a frame" to "generating a video" is
| not as big as the leap from where we are now to a 'perfect'
| image synthesis engine(which would be required to get rid of
| artifacts).
|
| The much more likely scenario IMO is that people get used to
| the artifacts and notice them less.
| JieJie wrote:
| bottlepalm wrote:
| There is something with the AI needing to have a 'sense'
| for the world the scene exists in so longer videos can be
| created that are coherent. Currently we've only seen long
| videos that have no consistency and jump around a lot like
| an acid trip.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Yep, we're in a real hype cycle.
|
| A good path forward is to fuse these image-element
| compositing tools with some of the 3d scene inference
| ones. So you start out with 'giant fish riding in a golf
| cart, using its tail to steer', then give that as ground
| truth to a modeling tool that figures out a fish and a
| wheeled vehicle well enough to reference some canonical
| examples with detailed shape and structure, the idea of
| weight etc. Then you build a new model with those and do
| some physics simulation (while maintaining a localized
| constraint of unreality that allows the fish to somehow
| stay in the seat of the golf cart).
| mrandish wrote:
| > A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making
|
| While these early versions are primitive, as a traditional
| filmmaker I think in a couple years these technologies will
| creatively empower visual storytellers in exciting new ways.
| The key will be developing interfaces which allow us to engage,
| direct and constrain the AI to help us achieve specific goals.
| bckr wrote:
| > these technologies will creatively empower visual
| storytellers in exciting new ways
|
| Exactly. Every step forward in creative technology is
| additional leverage for the artist with a vision.
| kuu wrote:
| We already have films that use "similar" technology (for
| example, adding Leia in the new SW movies), and this is just
| another step, another improvement into the direction of
| autogenerated videos. Are we far from generating complete
| movies? Sure! Are we progressing? Yes too!
| [deleted]
| antegamisou wrote:
| > A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making
| - lmao.
|
| The groups supporting such absurd claims largely boil down to:
| - Money-driven researchers in the applied AI field. Those are
| the people that spam popular ML conferences with barely novel
| contributions other than some minor tweaks on code from their
| previous papers. - People unable to critically
| think and evaluate the significant limitations of SOTA methods
| occasionally marketed as AGI breakthroughs.
|
| Last is virtually the entire HN userbase and the one that needs
| to be taken the least serious.
|
| The first category is much more troubling however, since they
| can significantly influence research directions due to the
| broken citation system in academia (more citations --> higher
| quality contributions).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| On your second point, a few years ago the SOTA was Google's
| Deep Dream.
|
| I agree with your deeper criticism, though preferential
| attachment/ranking is very much How Humans Do Things. You
| could do a much improved citation system by expanding the
| time dimension and looking at papers that were unpopular at
| first and then attracted wide interest later.
|
| Of course, academics also have a tendency to over-cite
| (because they don't want to be rejected for inadequate
| literature review), so there are incentives to cite a bunch
| of research whose premises or conclusions you hope to
| overturn.
| permo-w wrote:
| > A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making
|
| who is saying that?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Me, film-industry vet.
|
| You'll see an excellent mostly- or all-AI feature within 5-10
| years. There will be terrible ones before that, maybe 2-3
| years. The first really good one will be enjoyed on its own
| merits, ad the artificiality of it will come to light after
| it has gained popularity.
| permo-w wrote:
| I would imagine you'll see one or a few that are _barely_
| AI-produced as soon as marketing teams get wind of this.
| "come and see the first _ever_ AI-produced* blockbuster!
|
| *produced, assisted, or discussed on set one time during
| lunchbreak"
| j45 wrote:
| There's always the next curve of improvement by this tech or
| something else.
|
| It's just the first version and seeing Stable Diffusion come
| out while openai's tools were coming out were something to
| remember and think about.
| uup wrote:
| > I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley artifacts
|
| Ok? It's a nascent technology. Look at the original DALL-E blog
| post from last year [1]. Now compare it to DALL-E 2 and Stable
| Diffusion.
|
| [1]: https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/
| squidbeak wrote:
| This is a good example of the most abject type of Luddism:
| telling yourself that a fast-developing tech you happen to
| dislike is already at or near the limit of its potential and
| that defects you notice now will be there forever.
| dang wrote:
| Please make your substantive points without name-calling.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's not name calling to make a critique of an argument.
| Luddism is a real term that describes a particular
| philosophical tendency that places itself in opposition to
| what it views as a naive technophilia.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The Luddites were a labor rights movement reacting to the new
| shifting power dynamic of centralized production owned by a
| few, in an era with virtually no safety and worker rights
| regulations. How would you feel if your career evaporated and
| you were forced to choose between starvation and sending your
| children to work in a textile factory where they get maimed
| by the machines they're told to crawl into and repair? You
| probably wouldn't find much comfort in the popular retort of
| _" but shirts are really cheap now!"_
|
| That Luddites have been successfully maligned as irrationally
| anti-technology crazy people is a propaganda victory by
| industrialist factory owners and their friends, the newspaper
| men.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Whatever their motivation, their ire is misguided and
| selfish. Is the world supposed to just sit and around and
| never innovate or try to become more productive? So people
| can have a job doing work better done by machines? I don't
| think so. The Luddites and any such analogs today are
| focused on the wrong thing - they should not attack new
| technology or the companies and individuals using them, but
| rather campaign for better social safety net from the
| government.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Maybe new technology _should_ be restricted by default
| until regulation can catch up with it. I 'm not sure, but
| the _' cheap shirts benefit everybody too much to pump
| the brakes'_ argument for unfettered innovation leaves me
| deeply unimpressed.
|
| IMHO the best argument for unfettered innovation is the
| impossibility of slowing innovation globally; it can be
| slowed in one country, but that country can't force all
| the rest to get with that program and will eventually be
| overtaken by technologically superior foes.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| A valid point, but restrictions are often used to build
| or fortify fiefdoms.
| trention wrote:
| You will find plenty of comments in this very thread that are
| the most abject type of !Luddism.
| fullshark wrote:
| The only way it will be over is that tiktok/instagram will
| attract more eyeballs and hurt their bottom line. Ultimately
| this is for amateurs to create really short form content for
| the foreseeable future.
| sterlind wrote:
| self-driving cars need safety guarantees. video's allowed to
| occasionally be crappy, it's not going to kill anyone.
|
| I thought the same way you did about speech-to-text and image
| search, back in the day. boy was I wrong.
| bm-rf wrote:
| CogVideo was released only 4 months ago, you can see some
| samples on this page https://models.aminer.cn/cogvideo/.
| Statistical models can be used more efficiently (see KerasCV,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005585), and computing
| power can increase.
|
| I don't think AI will be able to create a movie anytime soon,
| but I think it will become "good enough" to serve as
| inspiration for creatives, or to replace simple stock footage
| (Much like SD and DALLE-2 is now).
| wslh wrote:
| If this technology (or its future iterations) is not enough you
| can always combine this with your movie cuts. This lowers the
| resources/bar needs for creative people and obviously also for
| the uncreative ones.
| britzkopf wrote:
| I'm not sure I'd agree with the "it won't improve much from
| here" sentiment, but I am a little confused by the sharp
| disagreements with this comment. They seem to contain a tacit
| assumption that the complexity curve for this problem is
| smoothe, but I could easily imagine a very sharp elbow in that
| curve, making any progress come to a seemingly grinding halt.
| liuliu wrote:
| Their video training set is still small (10M + 10M). A lot of
| the interpolation artifacts seems come from the model haven't
| acquired enough real-world understanding of "natural" movements
| (looking at the horse running and the sail-boat examples). I
| suspect scaling this up to 10x would have much less artifacts.
|
| Reading the paper, it seems to be the "right" approach
| (separating temporal / spatial for both convolution and
| attention). Thus, I am optimistic what remains is to scale it
| up.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The horse leg motion in these examples is really poor. But to
| be fair, horse legs are very difficult for human animators
| too, generally necessitating the use of reference photos to
| get it right. The first time somebody got a series of
| photographs showing a horse in motion caused quite a stir:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Horse_in_Motion
| terafo wrote:
| You are hilariously wrong if you think it will not improve.
| Combination of prompt engineering, better and bigger datasets,
| better architectures, bigger models, artifact-fixing tools and
| sheer human creativity will seriously challenge traditional
| movie-making within two years.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| At the rate AI is advancing, are we heading to a post-scarcity
| society, or a class of technolords and the other 99% scavenging
| for scraps.
| washywashy wrote:
| I could see this type of technology being used at some point in
| the future to essentially algorithmically generate content
| (movies, tv shows, etc) for viewers to watch or engage with. I
| wonder if it leads to extremely customized content where what I
| watch is 100% different from any other user on the same platform.
| However, I also wonder if people enjoy watching the same things
| because it becomes harder to talk about a movie you've seen if
| there's no way anyone else could have ever watched it without you
| sharing it with them.
| jcims wrote:
| My daughter just had her first child, a baby boy that was born in
| the first week of July. The rate of progress in AI/ML technology
| is nearly unbelievable and my mind boggles at how it's going to
| influence his childhood (both good and bad).
|
| My daughter was born in 1998. The Internet made a bit of a phase
| change during her early childhood and there were many instances
| where there was no precedent to guide a decision on what to do,
| so we just had to wing it as parents based on our own intuition
| and values. I certainly got some things wrong but we made it in
| one piece. I just worry a bit about what kind of new challenges
| my daughter will face in raising her son in this new environment,
| where powerful organizations wield unbelievable resources to
| create deep, life long co-dependencies on their revenue streams
| and intellectual empires.
| greenhearth wrote:
| No worries, mate, just another shiny toy. As far as us getting
| milked for every bit of money, this has been going on for some
| time now, nothing really new, right? Douglas Adams put it best
| - "I've been to the future. It's the same as anywhere else.
| Just the same old stuff in faster cars and smellier air."
| Xeoncross wrote:
| What is interesting to me is the decline in both
| understanding and communication abilities. When I look at
| modern speech and compare it to books written hundreds of
| years ago the deficiencies are stark.
|
| I can't imagine how poorly people will speak and mentally
| process emotions in 20 years.
| rchaud wrote:
| > books written hundreds of years ago
|
| How many of these books are representative of how average
| people spoke then?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| That is a non-sequitor.
|
| If you took an average working-class, "blue collar" person
| from hundreds of years ago, they would speak very
| differently from how those books are written.
| duderific wrote:
| Ok, maybe a better comparison that is sort of apples to
| apples would be to take a speech by George W. Bush or
| Donald Trump compared to say, George Washington or
| Abraham Lincoln.
|
| Surely you can see there is a sharp drop off in
| vocabulary and ability (or desire) to convey complex
| ideas.
| dont__panic wrote:
| With DALL-E for pictures and this for video, I'm starting to
| wonder if Neal Stephenson was onto something when he wrote _Fall,
| or Dodge in Hell_.
|
| I know it's not the most loved Stephenson book, but bear with me
| (spoilers warning). The book features a couple of major plot
| points that feel increasingly prophetic:
|
| - A global hoax, carefully coordinated, convinces a good chunk of
| the world that Moab has been destroyed by an atomic bomb. This is
| managed via a flurry of confusion, thoughtfully deployed pre-
| recorded video footage, social media posts, and paid actors who
| don't realize the scope of the hoax at the time. Naturally, a
| massive chunk of the population refuses to believe that Moab
| still exists even after the hoax is exposed.
|
| - A group of hackers deploy and open source a massive suite of
| spambots that inundate social media and news sources with nonstop
| AI-generated misinformation to drown out real-world conversations
| about a topic. This is used specifically to drown out real
| conversation about a single individual as a proof of concept, but
| soon after has repercussions for the entire net...
|
| - Thanks to exactly this kind of spambot, the "raw" unfiltered
| internet becomes totally unusable. Those with means end up paying
| for filtering services to keep unwanted misinformation out of
| their perspective of the internet. Those without means... either
| don't use the internet, or work in factories where human eyes
| filter out content that can't be filtered by AI.
|
| I worry that exactly these kinds of developments are speeding us
| faster and faster down the road to a dystopian world where the
| "raw" internet is totally unusable. Right now, stuff like captcha
| and simple filters can keep out a lot of low-effort bot content
| on sites like Hacker News and niche forums (I think of home
| barista, bike forums, atlas, etc). Sites like Reddit are losing
| the war against bots and corporate propaganda; comment sections
| across the rest of the internet lost that war long ago, and just
| didn't realize it.
|
| But those filters and moderators can only keep up with the
| onslaught of content for so long. What happens when GPT is used
| to spew millions of comments and posts at a forum from millions
| of ephemeral cloud IPs? And when DALL-E creates memes and
| photographic content? And when Make-a-Video enables those same
| spambots to inundate YouTube and Vimeo? It's clear that captchas
| are not long for this world either.
|
| Will we see websites force more and more users to authenticate as
| a "real human" using their passport and government-issued ID?
| Maybe a Turing or Voight-Kampff test? And what does it mean when
| there's no longer a way to participate on the internet
| anonymously? As far as I can tell, limiting a site to only real
| human users doesn't guarantee quality -- all you have to do is
| look at Facebook to understand that. And somehow, despite being
| an incredibly easy target for bots and spam, niches of 4chan
| retain (racist, insane, and confusing) traces of genuine thought
| and conversation.
|
| The internet has been such a valuable tool in my life, and I
| still love browsing blogs, forums, etc. to learn about unique
| people doing unique things. What happens when human-generated
| content is hard to come by and near impossible to distinguish
| from promotional AI garbage? I fear for my ability to discover
| new content in that world.
| [deleted]
| soheil wrote:
| > A knight riding on a horse through the countryside
|
| I didn't know you could be drifting with a horse.
| danso wrote:
| It's funny that in terms of popular culture, we've all but
| accepted that Star Trek's Holodeck-type fantasy creation is
| something that will/should exist in a "proper" future. Yet all
| the intermediary technology to get there -- AI-generated visuals
| would be among the first such steps -- still makes most of us
| feel a little uncomfortable at first glance.
| ThisIsMyAltFace wrote:
| Because it's Star Trek technology without Star Trek society,
| and in fact anti-Star Trek society.
| user982 wrote:
| Well, anti-Federation society. Ferengi-owned holosuites.
| testmzakrzewska wrote:
| Tedtq
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-29 23:00 UTC)