[HN Gopher] Sora: Creating video from text
___________________________________________________________________
Sora: Creating video from text
Author : davidbarker
Score : 1580 points
Date : 2024-02-15 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| cod1r wrote:
| OpenAI is definitely cooking
| htrp wrote:
| > All videos on this page were generated directly by Sora without
| modification.
|
| I hope there is at least some cherrypicking here. This also seems
| like some shots fired at some of the other gen video startups
| palmfacehn wrote:
| The example cat had two left forelegs.
| senthilnayagam wrote:
| samples look amazing , Looking forward for access, and hope they
| price it competitively
| treesciencebot wrote:
| If we go from DALL-E 3, it won't be nowhere near competitive
| while they have the superior ground. Generating a high quality
| 1024x1024 image with costs around ~$0.002, but $0.08 on DALL-E
| 3 (20x more expensive per-image). For videos with very high
| computational needs (since each frame needs to be temporally
| consistent, you need huge GPUs to serve this) I'm expecting
| this to be so much more expensive than its competitors (Pika or
| SVD1.1)
| zemo wrote:
| > Prompt: Historical footage of California during the gold rush.
|
| this is the opposite of history
| minimaxir wrote:
| It's a test prompt to demo the model, not a clickbait social
| media post.
| zemo wrote:
| yeah I think a tech company showing how their tech can be
| used to cause damage to a humanities field as one of their
| leading product demos is bad
| diputsmonro wrote:
| Yes, but the point is that in a few years, there won't be a
| difference. Those clickbait accounts already exist for AI
| generated images. How many impressionable or young people
| have been fooled into believing history that never happened?
|
| More importantly, how can these accounts subtly direct the
| generations to instill modern ideology or politics into
| "historical" images, giving them historical credibility?
| Think of all the subtly white supremacist "retvrn" accounts,
| for example, falsely recontextualizing inventions and
| accomplishments to support their ideology.
|
| We all need to be thinking much more creatively and cynically
| about how these tools will be abused. The technology will get
| better. The people who want to abuse it will get smarter. And
| your capability to distinguish fake information is likely
| much worse than you believe - to say nothing of younger
| people who have less context and experience to form a mental
| "immune system".
| minimaxir wrote:
| Granted, the blog post is about opening the model up for
| red-teaming, so highlighting potential vectors for abuse is
| actually the desired intent.
| pimlottc wrote:
| Yeah, my heart sank when I saw that.
|
| Social media is really good at separating content from context,
| things like this will distort people's understanding of
| history.
| zen928 wrote:
| only if you consider "historical footage" to exclusively mean
| the "[original] historical footage [stored in archiving]"
| versus e.g. "historical[ly accurate] footage"
|
| if "historical" is going to be used subjectively with no
| further qualifying statements then the meaning of "history"
| will be subjucated to the context it's being presented in, I
| don't see it's use here as contradictory
| zemo wrote:
| I think most people consider "history" to mean "things that
| have actually happened" and not "the aesthetic of the past"
| as you seem to be suggesting.
| hownowbrowncow wrote:
| Amazing.
|
| One wonders how you might gain a representation of physics
| learned in the model. Perhaps multimodal inputs with rendered
| objects; physics simulations?
| ilaksh wrote:
| Just lots of videos from Youtube probably.
| zmk5 wrote:
| These samples look pretty amazing. I'm curious the compute
| required to train and even deploy something like this. How would
| it scale to making something like a CGI Pixar movie?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Pretty sure you plus tier not be using this free, too much
| processing power needed
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I love the downvote, could be an OpenAI employee in the know.
| anon291 wrote:
| Wow!
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Totally a coincidence that it's announced immediately after the
| new Gemini reveal.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Timing is everything. Smart move
| nuz wrote:
| AGI at the quality of sora or dalle but for intelligence is gonna
| be quite the thing to witness
| treesciencebot wrote:
| This is leaps and bounds beyond anything out there, including
| both public models like SVD 1.1 and Pika Labs' / Runway's models.
| Incredible.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Agreed. It's amazing how much of a head start OpenAI appears to
| have over everyone else. Even Microsoft who has access to
| everything OpenAI is doing. Only Microsoft could be given the
| keys to the kingdom and still not figure out how to open any
| doors with them.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Eh. MSFT owns 49% of OpenAI. Doesn't really seem like they
| need to do much except support them.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Except they keep trying to shove AI into everything they
| own. CoPilot Studio is an example of how laughably bad at
| it they are. I honestly don't understand why they don't
| contract out to OpenAI to help them do some of these
| integrations.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Every company is trying to shove AI into everything they
| own. It's what investors currently demand.
|
| OpenAI is likely limited by how fast they are able to
| scale their hiring. They had 778 FTEs when all the board
| drama occurred, up 100% YoY. Microsoft has 221,000. It
| seems difficult to delegate enough headcount to all the
| exploratory projects of MSFT and it's hard to scale
| headcount quicker while preserving some semblance of
| culture.
| frabcus wrote:
| They don't own 49% of OpenAI. They have capped rights to
| 49% of OpenAI's profits.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Apparently all the rumors weren't true then, my mistake.
|
| I don't think what you're saying is correct though,
| either. All the early news outlets reported 49%
| ownership:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#:~:text=Rumors%20of%
| 20t...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/23/23567448/microsoft-
| openai...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-antitrust-regulator-
| cons...
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/23/microsoft-invests-
| billions...
|
| The only official statement from Micorosft is "While
| details of our agreement remain confidential, it is
| important to note that Microsoft does not own any portion
| of OpenAI and is simply entitled to share of profit
| distributions," said company spokesman Frank Shaw.
|
| No numbers, though.
|
| Do you have a better source for numbers?
| Voloskaya wrote:
| Microsoft doesn't have access to OpenAI's research, this was
| part of the deal. They only have access to the weights and
| inference code of production models and even then who has
| access to that inside MS is extremely gated and only a few
| employees have access to this based on absolute need to
| actually run the service.
|
| AI researcher at MSFT barely have more insights about OpenAI
| than you do reading HN.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| I didn't realize that. Thank you for the clarification.
| toneyG wrote:
| This is not true. Microsoft have a perpetual license to all
| of OpenAI's IP. If they really wanted to they could get
| their hands on it.
| 93po wrote:
| Yeah but what's in the license? It's not public so we
| have no way of knowing
| Jensson wrote:
| Microsoft said that they could continue OpenAI's research
| with no slowdown if OpenAI cut them off by hiring all
| OpenAI's people, so from that statement it sounds like they
| have access.
| costcofries wrote:
| I promise you this isn't true.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| Many people say the same about Google/DeepMind.
| davidbarker wrote:
| I'm almost speechless. I've been keeping an eye on the text-to-
| video models, and if these example videos are truly indicative
| of the model, this is an order of magnitude better than
| anything currently available.
|
| In particular, looking at the video titled "Borneo wildlife on
| the Kinabatangan River" (number 7 in the third group), the
| accurate parallax of the tree stood out to me. I'm so curious
| to learn how this is working.
|
| [Direct link to the video:
| https://player.vimeo.com/video/913130937?h=469b1c8a45]
| calgoo wrote:
| The video of the gold rush town just makes me think of what
| games like Red Dead and GTA could look like.
| 93po wrote:
| holy cow, is that the future of gaming? instead of 3D
| renders it's real-time video generation, complete with
| audio and music and dialog and intelligent AI conversations
| and it's a unique experience no one else has ever played.
| gameplay mechanics could even change on the fly
| monlockandkey wrote:
| Shove all the tech you mentioned into a VR headset and it
| is literally game over for humans
| Xirgil wrote:
| Digital Westworld
| rightbyte wrote:
| You'd still get a headache after 20 minutes. No matter
| how addictive, it wont be bad until you can wear VR
| headsets for hours.
| krapp wrote:
| Even otherwise, and no matter how good the screen and
| speakers are, a screen and speakers can only be so
| immersive. People oversell the potential for VR when they
| describe it as being as good as or better than reality.
| Nothing less than the Matrix is going to work in that
| regard.
| trafficante wrote:
| Yep, once your brain gets over the immediate novelty of
| VR, it's very difficult to get back that "Ready Player
| One" feeling due to the absence of sensory feedback.
|
| If/once they get it working though, society will shift
| fast.
|
| There's an XR app called Brink Traveler that's full of
| handcrafted photogrammetry recreations of scenic
| landmarks. On especially gloomy PNW winter days, I'll lug
| a heat lamp to my kitchen and let it warm up the tiled
| stone a bit, put a floor fan on random oscillation, toss
| on some good headphones, load up a sunny desert location
| in VR, and just lounge on the warm stone floor for an
| hour.
|
| My conscious brain "knows" this isn't real and just
| visuals alone can't fool it anymore, but after about 15
| minutes of visuals + sensory input matching, it stops
| caring entirely. I've caught myself reflexively squinting
| at the virtual sun even though my headset doesn't have
| HDR.
| gdubs wrote:
| That's why NVIDIA's CEO said recently that in the future
| every pixel will be generated -- not rendered.
| Keyframe wrote:
| five years ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayPqjPekn7g I'm eager to
| see an updated version.
| dartos wrote:
| Sometimes, but for specific or unique art styles,
| statistical models like this may not work well.
|
| For games like call of duty or other hyper realistic
| games it very likely will be.
| yard2010 wrote:
| The answer is most definitely YES. Computer games, and of
| course, porn, the stuff the internet is made up for.
| joegibbs wrote:
| I think for the near future we'll see something like
| this:
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=P1IcaBn3ej0
|
| From a few years ago, where the game is rendered
| traditionally and used as a ground truth, with a model on
| top of it that enhances the graphics.
|
| After maybe 10-15 years we will be past the point where
| the entire game can be generated without obvious mistakes
| in consistency.
|
| Realtime AI dialogue is already possible but still a bit
| primitive, I wrote a blog post about it here:
| https://jgibbs.dev/blogs/local-llm-npcs-in-unreal-engine
| notpachet wrote:
| Lucid Dreaming as a Service.
|
| See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_Sky
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| The diffusion is almost certainly taking place over some sort
| of compressed latent, from the visual quirks of the output I
| suspect that the process of turning that latent into images
| goes latent -> nerf / splat -> image, not latent ->
| convolutional decoder -> image
| mizzao wrote:
| Must be intimidating to be on the Pika team at the moment...
| jsheard wrote:
| Where is the training material for this coming from? The only
| resource I can think of that's broad enough for a general
| purpose video model is YouTube, but I can't imagine Google
| would allow a third party to scrape all of YT without putting
| up a fight.
| Zetobal wrote:
| It's movies the shots are way to deliberate to have random
| YouTube crap in the dataset.
| cma wrote:
| You can still have a broad dataset and use RLHF to steer it
| more towards the aesthetic like midjourney and SDXL did
| through discord feedback. I think there was still some
| aesthetic selection in the dataset as well but it still
| included a lot of crap.
| xnx wrote:
| It's very good. Unclear how far ahead of Lumiere it is
| (https://lumiere-video.github.io/) or if its more of a
| difference in prompting/setttings.
| ehsankia wrote:
| In terms of following the prompt and generating visually
| interesting results, I think they're comparable. But the
| resolution for Sora seems so far ahead.
|
| Worth noting that Google also has Phenaki [0] and VideoPoet
| [1] and Imagen Video [2]
|
| [0] https://sites.research.google/phenaki/
|
| [1] https://sites.research.google/videopoet/
|
| [2] https://imagen.research.google/video/
| vunderba wrote:
| The big stand out to me beyond almost any other text video
| solution is that the video duration is tremendously longer
| (minute+). Everything else that I've seen can't get beyond 15
| to 20 seconds at the absolute maximum.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Let's hold our breath. Those are specifically crafted hand-
| picked good videos, where there wasn't any requirement but
| "write a generic prompt and pick something that looks good",
| with no particular requirements. Which is very different from
| the actual process where you have a very specific idea and want
| the machine to make it happen.
|
| DALL-E presentation also looked cool and everyone was stoked
| about it. Now that we know of its limitations and oddities?
| YMMV, but I'd say not so much - Stable Diffusion is still the
| go-to solution. I strongly suspect the same thing with Sora.
| treesciencebot wrote:
| The examples are most certainly cherry-picked. But the
| problem is there are 50 of them. And even if you gave me 24
| hour full access to SVD1.1/Pika/Runway (anything out there
| that I can use), I won't be able to get 5 examples that match
| these in quality (~temporal consistency/motions/prompt
| following) and more importantly in the length. Maybe I am
| overly optimistic, but this seems too good.
| htrp wrote:
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1758200420344955288
|
| They're literally taking requests and doing them in 15
| minutes.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Cool, but see the drastic difference in quality ;)
| z7 wrote:
| Depends on the quality of the prompts.
| golol wrote:
| Lack of quality in the details yes but the fact that
| characters and scenes depict consistent and real movement
| and evolution as opposed to the cinemagraph and frame
| morphing stuff we have had so far is still remarkable!
| ShamelessC wrote:
| There are absolutely example videos on their website
| which have worse quality than that.
| karmasimida wrote:
| It has a comedy like quality lol
|
| But all to be said, it is no less impressive after this
| new demo
| gigglesupstairs wrote:
| Drastic difference in quality of the prompts too. Ones
| used in the OP are quite detailed ones mostly.
| minimaxir wrote:
| The output speed doesn't disprove possible cherry-picking,
| especially with batch generation.
| djoletina wrote:
| What is your point? That they make multiple ones and pick
| out the best ones? Well duh? That's literally how the
| model is going to be used.
| dang wrote:
| Please make your substantive points without swipes. This
| is in the site guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| efrank3 wrote:
| Who cares? If it can be generated in 15 minutes then it's
| commercially useful.
| timdiggerm wrote:
| Looks ready for _Wishbone_
| raydev wrote:
| OpenAI people running these prompts have access to way more
| resources than any of us will through the API.
| og_kalu wrote:
| It doesn't matter if they're cherrypicked when you can't
| match this quality with SD or Pika regardless of how much
| time you had.
|
| and i still prefer Dalle-3 to SD.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| In the past the examples tweeted by OpenAI have been fairly
| representative of the actual capabilities of the model. i.e.
| maybe they do two or three generations and pick the best, but
| they aren't spending a huge amount of effort cherry-picking.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Stable Diffusion is still the go-to solution. I strongly
| suspect the same thing with Sora.
|
| Sure, for people who want detailed control with AI-generated
| video, workflows built around SD + AnimateDiff, Stable Video
| Diffusion, MotionDiff, etc., are still going to beat Sora for
| the immediate future, and OpenAI's approach structurally
| isn't as friendly to developing a broad ecosystem adding
| power on top of the base models.
|
| OTOH, the basic simple prompt-to-video capacity of Sora _now_
| is good enough for some uses, and where detailed control is
| not essential that space is going to keep expanding -- one
| question is how much their plans for safety checking (which
| they state will apply both to the prompt and every frame of
| output) will cripple this versus alternatives, and how much
| the regulatory environment will or won 't make it possible to
| compete with that.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Generate stock video bits I think.
| theLiminator wrote:
| I suspect given equal effort into prompting both, Sora
| probably provides superior results.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I suspect given equal effort into prompting both, Sora
| probably provides superior results
|
| Strictly to _prompting_ , probably, just as that is the
| case with Dall-E 3 vs, say, SDXL.
|
| The thing is, there's a lot more that you _can_ do than
| just tweaking prompting with open models, compared to
| hosted models that offer limited interaction options.
| blibble wrote:
| they're not fantastic either if you pay close attention
|
| there are mini-people in the 2060s market and in the cat one
| an extra paw comes out of nowhere
| dartos wrote:
| The woman's legs move all weirdly too
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| Stable diffusion is not the go-to solution, it's still behind
| midjourney and DAllE
| educaysean wrote:
| Would love to see handpicked videos from competitors that can
| hold their own against what SORA is capable of
| throwaway4233 wrote:
| While Sora might be able to generate short 60-90 second
| videos, how well it would scale with a larger prompt or a
| longer video remains yet to be seen. And the general logic of
| having the model do 90% of the work for you and then you edit
| what is required might be harder with videos.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| 60 seconds at a time is much better than enough.
|
| Most fictional long-form video (whether live-action movies
| or cartoons, etc) is composed of many shots, most of them
| much shorter than 7 seconds, let alone 60.
|
| I think the main factor that will be key to generate a
| whole movie is being able to pass some reference images of
| the characters/places/objects so they remain congruent
| between two generations.
|
| You could already write a whole book in GPT-3 from running
| a series of one-short-chapter-at-a-time generations and
| passing the summary/outline of what's happened so far. (I
| know I did, in a time that feels like ages ago but was just
| early last year)
|
| Why would this be different?
| throwaway4233 wrote:
| > I think the main factor that will be key to generate a
| whole movie is being able to pass some reference images
| of the characters/places/objects so they remain congruent
| between two generations.
|
| I partly agree with this. The congruency however needs to
| extend to more than 2 generations. If a single scene is
| composed of multiple shots, then those multiple shots
| need to be part of the same world the scene is being shot
| in. If you check the video with the title `A beautiful
| homemade video showing the people of Lagos, Nigeria in
| the year 2056. Shot with a mobile phone camera.` the
| surroundings do not seem to make sense as the view starts
| with a market, spirals around a point and then ends with
| a bridge which does not fit into the market. If the the
| different shots generated the model did fit together
| seamlessly, trying to make the fit together is where the
| difficulty comes in. However I do not have any experience
| in video editing, so it's just speculation.
| Solvency wrote:
| You do realize virtually all movies are made up of shots
| often lasting no longer than 10 seconds. Edited together.
| Right.
| schleck8 wrote:
| Wrong, this is the first time I've seen an astronaut with a
| knit cap.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| It is incredible indeed, but I remember there was a humongous
| gap between the demoed pictures for DALL-E and what most
| prompts would generate.
|
| Don't get overly excited until you can actually use the
| technology.
| sschueller wrote:
| Yes, but I am stuck in their (American) view of what is
| consider appropriate. Not what is legal, but what they
| determine to be OK to produce.
|
| Good luck generating anything similar to an 80s action movie.
| The violence and light nudity will prevent you from generating
| anything.
| Xirgil wrote:
| I suspect it's less about being puritanical about violence
| and nudity in and of themself, and more a blanket ban to make
| up for the inability to prevent the generation of actually
| controversial material (nude images of pop stars, violence
| against politicians, hate speech)
| wilg wrote:
| No, it's America's fault.
| SamBam wrote:
| Put like that, it's a bit like the Chumra in Judaism [1].
| The fence, or moat, _around_ the law that extends even
| further than the law itself, to prevent you from
| accidentally commiting a sin.
|
| 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumra_(Judaism)
| UberFly wrote:
| Na. It's more like what he said: Cover your ass legally
| for the real problems this could cause.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's not a particularly American attitude to be opposed to
| violence in media though, American media has plenty of
| violence.
|
| They're trying to be all-around uncontroversial.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| I am guessing a movie studio will get different access with
| controls dropped. Of course, that does mean they need to be
| VERY careful when editing, and making sure not to release a
| vagina that appears for 1 or 2 frames when a woman is picking
| up a cat in some random scene.
| Fricken wrote:
| We can't do narrative sequences with persistent characters
| and settings, even with static images.
|
| These video clips just generic stock clips. You cut cut
| them together to make a sequence of random flashy whatever,
| but you still can't do storytelling in any conventional
| sense. We don't appear to be close to being able to use
| these tools for the hypothetical disruptive use case we
| worry about.
|
| Nonetheless, The stock video and photo people are in
| trouble. So long as the details don't matter this stuff is
| presumably useful.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| I agree in terms of raw generation, but runway especially is
| creating fantastic tooling too.
| jug wrote:
| Yup, it's been even several months! ;) But now we finally have
| another quantum leap in AI.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I know it's Runway (and has all manner of those dream-like AI
| artifacts) but I like what this person is doing with just a
| bunch 4 second clips and an awesome soundtrack:
|
| https://youtu.be/JClloSKh_dk
|
| https://youtu.be/upCyXbTWKvQ
| rvz wrote:
| All those startups have been squeezed in the middle. Pika,
| Runway, etc might as well open source their models.
|
| Or Meta will do it for them.
| cuuupid wrote:
| Not loving that there are more details on safety than details of
| the actual model, benchmarks, or capabilities.
|
| > That's why we believe that learning from real-world use is a
| critical component of creating and releasing increasingly safe AI
| systems over time.
|
| "We believe safety relies on real-world use and that's why we
| will not be allowing real-world use until we have figured out
| safety."
| diputsmonro wrote:
| Yeah, it would be way better if they just released it right
| away, so that political campaigns can use AI generated videos
| of their opponents doing horrible/stupid things right before an
| election and before any of the general public has any idea that
| fake videos could be this realistic.
| serf wrote:
| you joke, but the hobbling of these 'safe' models is exactly
| what spurs development of the unsafe ones that are ran
| locally, anonymously, and for who knows what purpose.
|
| someone really interested in control would want OpenAI or
| whatever centralized organization to be able to sift through
| the results for dangerous individuals -- part of this is
| making sure to stymie development of alternatives to that
| concept.
| imbusy111 wrote:
| I had a good laugh looking at the sliding and twisting legs in
| the "Girl walking in City" video.
| ummonk wrote:
| I'm a little concerned that so many people in these comments
| say they wouldn't be able to tell that it's not real.
| kjqgqkejbfefn wrote:
| Indeed @0:15, the right leg goes to the left and vice versa.
| minimaxir wrote:
| I do wonder why OpenAI chose the name "Sora" for this model. AI
| is now going to have intersectionality with Kingdom Hearts.
| (Atleast you don't need a PhD to understand AI.)
| meitham wrote:
| Sora is pictures or movie (visual) in arabic!
| hk__2 wrote:
| I'm confused as well because "sora" means "sister" in
| Neapolitan.
| GaggiX wrote:
| I'm glad I'm not the only to have think of that, it's usually
| used for insults. I thought it was kinda funny.
| pavlov wrote:
| "Scene-Oriented Rank Adaptation"?
|
| I have no idea, just guessing...
| yogorenapan wrote:
| Hear me out: Someone on the team is a fan of Yosuga No Sora
| starshadowx2 wrote:
| Sora means sky in Japanese, their reasoning is akin to "the
| sky's the limit".
|
| > The team behind the technology, including the researchers Tim
| Brooks and Bill Peebles, chose the name because it "evokes the
| idea of limitless creative potential."
| xandrius wrote:
| It also means up/upstairs in some dialect
| renewiltord wrote:
| That's because it means AI Model in Wiltordian.
| ristomatti wrote:
| Obviously for it's meaning in Finnish, "gravel".
| nerdjon wrote:
| It is honestly quite concerning just how good these videos look.
|
| Like you can see some weird artifacts, but take one of these
| videos, compress it down to a much lower quality and with the
| loss of quality you might not be able to tell the difference
| based on these examples. Any artifacts would likely be gone.
|
| Given what I had seen on social media I had figured anything
| remotely real was a few years away, but I guess not...
|
| I guess we have just stopped worrying about the impact of these
| tools?
| agomez314 wrote:
| Imagine someone combining this with the Apple Vision Pro...many
| people will simply opt out of reality and live in a digital
| world. Not that this is new, but I'll entice a lot more people
| than ever before.
| pants2 wrote:
| Basically the Holodeck.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I was just thinking that -- I used to think the Holodeck was
| far-fetched. Now it seems like it's practically around the
| corner (with VR/XR glasses).
| ctoth wrote:
| Presumably the Post-atomic horror set back technology for a
| while, so we should be able to expect TNG-level technology
| before the war. This also explains why Kirk's Enterprise
| uses datatapes.
| TechnicolorByte wrote:
| Had the same thought. Seems like we're entering the era of
| generative AI and mixed reality in a very real way very soon.
|
| As much as I love the technology, I'm really not looking
| forward to this becoming ubiquitous. Time and time again we've
| allowed technological progress to outpace our ability to weight
| the societal pros ands cons.
|
| Smartphones and the rise of image-heavy social media has
| rapidly changed social norms. Watch a video of people out in
| public 20 years ago: no screen to distract them at bus stops,
| concert events, or while eating dinner with friends. And if
| that seems trite, consider how well correlated the rise in
| suicide rates is with the popularity of these technologies.
|
| Not sure if this makes me a luddite or if the feeling is common
| in this crowd.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| but you cannot walk/feel it, just watching. It's still a huge
| gap to reality, less so, but you will still feel it's fake very
| vividly because those senses are missing.
| kuprel wrote:
| chips will have to come a long way for this to be generated
| in real time, but there's no reason a generated 3D
| environment can't be interactive
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| I wonder what served as the dataset for the model. Videos on
| YouTube presumably, since messing around with the film industry
| would be too expensive?
| tinyhouse wrote:
| How would they access youtube tough?
| achr2 wrote:
| Almost certainly troves of stock footage. The type of
| exaggerated motion seen in these examples is very reminiscent
| of stock footage. And it is heavily textually annotated for
| search.
| chasing wrote:
| Yeah, you just can't let all media, all the cost and hard work of
| millions of photographers, animators, filmmakers, etc be
| completely consumed and devalued by one company just because it's
| a very cool technical trick. The more powerful these services
| become the more obvious that will be.
|
| What OpenAI does is amazing, but they obviously cannot be allowed
| to capture the value of every piece of media ever created --
| it'll both tank the economy and basically halt all new creation
| if everything you create will be immediately financially
| weaponized against you, if everything you create goes immediately
| into the Machine that can spit out a billion variations, flood
| the market, and give you nothing in return.
|
| It's the same complaint people have had with Google Search pushed
| to its logical conclusion: anything you create will be anonymized
| and absorbed. You put in the effort and money, OpenAI gets the
| reward.
|
| Again, I like OpenAI overall. But everyone's got to be brought to
| the table on this somehow. I wish our government would be capable
| of giving realistic guidance and regulation on this.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| It's funny, people dreamed of AI robots doing the shitty work
| that nobody wants to do so that we are free to pursue things we
| actually want to do.
|
| But in reality it seems like the opposite is going to be true.
| AI is automating the creative, intellectual work and leaving
| the rest to us.
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| Blue collar workers have the last laugh
| Drakim wrote:
| Turns out the only jobs robots can't take are the ones
| where humans are specialized, such as cleaning staircases.
| theultdev wrote:
| It's just cheaper to put humans on tedious physical
| tasks. See Amazon.
|
| AI is cheaper than a high paid designer, developer,
| writer, etc.
|
| A robot is more expensive than a human laborer.
|
| It's really funny to see the squirm from those thinking
| truckers would be automated away, not them.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > A robot is more expensive than a human laborer.
|
| Not when intelligence is cheap and highly abundant.
| Perfecting general robotics as an improvement on humans
| will be quick. The upper limit of strength and
| consistency is much higher.
| theultdev wrote:
| I mean today, in the real world.
|
| It is currently more expensive to build a robot for many
| tasks than it is to have a human do it.
|
| > Perfecting general robotics as an improvement on humans
| will be quick.
|
| It has not been nor is there any indication it will be.
| hansonkd wrote:
| Today in the real world AI can replace very little of
| designers, programmers, etc. Lots of potential and
| extrapolation, sure. but hasn't happened. What has
| actually been produced by AI has been panned as not quite
| ripe yet.
|
| Same with robotics. Lots of potential, but hasn't
| happened yet. If you read the description, Sora, is based
| out of trying to simulate the physical world to solve
| physics based problems. Something that would be perfect
| for the next leap in robotics.
| theultdev wrote:
| I use to pay designers for artwork, now I just use AI.
|
| There's no physical task that robots have replaced humans
| for me.
|
| Hell, even the roomba sucks (pun intended) and my wife
| has to pick up the slack.
| nogridbag wrote:
| Haven't you seen Migo Robotics? :)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKN8k-OFG8
| prisenco wrote:
| Plumbers keep winning.
| Xirgil wrote:
| What happens when anyone can put on their AR headset and
| have AI diagnose and walk them through exactly how to fix
| their plumbing problems?
| prisenco wrote:
| What happens when their AR headset gets wet?
|
| Less glibly, no matter how good you are at following
| instructions, tearing out a wall filled with water than
| can destroy your home, fiberglass insulation that can
| damage your lungs and electrical wiring that can kill you
| will never be something I'd recommend a layman do. No
| matter how good the ai tutorials are.
| Vetch wrote:
| Don't take tacit knowledge for granted.
| throwup238 wrote:
| This is the beginning of the end for many of them too. Look
| at the opening line of the page:
|
| _> We're teaching AI to understand and simulate the
| physical world in motion, with the goal of training models
| that help people solve problems that require real-world
| interaction._
|
| Text-to-video is just the flashy demo that everyone can
| understand after exposure to text-to-image. Once the model
| can "simulate the physical world in motion" it's only a few
| steps away from generic robotic control software that can
| automate a ton of processes that were impossible before.
|
| Humans still have the benefit of dexterity and precise
| muscle control but in the vast majority of cases robots can
| overcome those limitations with better control software and
| specialized robotic end effectors. This won't soon replace
| someone crawling under a house or welding in awkward
| positions, but it could for example replace someone who
| flips burgers or does manual labwork.
|
| This could eliminate the limiting factor for automating
| many manual processes. ( _ruh-roh_ )
| karmasimida wrote:
| Think about it. Sora demonstrate AI can understand real
| world physics to a scary degree.
|
| If you use Sora like models to imagine what actions needed
| to be taken, then realize it, well, the only thing left is
| to create an arm/fingers that can took action, then you are
| done.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Just like it's far more likely for AI to replace middle-
| management and stream instructions to meat-bots than replace
| menial labor.
| mwigdahl wrote:
| Sounds disturbingly like "Manna"
| (https://marshallbrain.com/manna1)
| throwup238 wrote:
| I'm sorry but as a large language model I must insist that
| you get back in the kitchen and make me a burger.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| It's bimodal. AI can automate a lot of low level knowledge
| work, but as wide and deep as its knowledge is, it is also
| incredibly superficial when it comes to logic and creativity.
| What it's going to do is hollow out the middle class, as
| creative people who know how to wield AI will become wealthy
| while the majority of white collar workers are forced into
| trades.
| nopinsight wrote:
| A major follow up to GPT-4 later this year is rumored to be
| (far) superior at logical reasoning than GPT-4. What's
| likely to happen if that becomes real?
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| That might let it encroach more into some fields like law
| where it's almost good enough already. Shitty time to be
| a junior lawyer, firms are going to hire and promote
| people not for their legal skills but for their ability
| to manage/attract clients.
|
| In general though, I don't think the extra reasoning
| ability is going to enable it to displace that much
| farther than it already will, GPT lives in a box and
| responds to prompts. When it's connected to multiple
| layers of real-time sensor data and self-directing,
| that'll be another story.
| nopinsight wrote:
| From last week: OpenAI shifts AI battleground to software
| that operates devices and automates tasks
|
| https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-shifts-ai-
| bat...
|
| There were independent efforts to create AI agents since
| last year as well. AutoGPT and BabyAGI iirc. They didn't
| go far probably because the LLM used was not good enough
| for that.
| dilap wrote:
| Maybe we'll see a resurgence in live theater.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Somehow, according to that logic, and in general the logic of
| all AI danger hysteria, humans have no agency in determining
| what the limits of what AI is fed and of its use and abuse.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| _Some_ humans do - the investors and executives in AI tech
| companies (and the legislators who theoretically could
| regulate them) , who all stand to make a lot of money from
| every one of the "AI danger hysteria" scenarios, and are
| therefore highly motivated to bring them to fruition.
|
| The rest of us have no choice. Despite millions of artists,
| animators, etc. all being resoundly opposed to AI art, the
| models that infringe their work are still allowed to exist,
| and it seems they're fighting a losing battle.
|
| A lot of people are being "hysterical" because a lot of
| people _don 't_ have a choice.
|
| To be clear, the problem of these scenarios is tightly
| intertwined with the problem of unfettered capitalism and
| wealth inequality in general. Food and shelter require
| money, and we get money by working a job. If millions of
| jobs disappear overnight, then of course millions of people
| are going to be distressed over no longer having ready
| access to food and shelter.
|
| The idea of "just getting another job" doesn't scale to the
| destruction of entire industries employing tens of millions
| of people. This is how depressions are made.
|
| The idea of "the depression will end someday" is not only
| not necessarily true as wealth inequality skyrockets, but
| is also cold comfort to the people who will lose their
| houses and for some, lives, due to the disruption.
|
| A different economic system could perhaps allow us to
| appreciate these technological advances without worrying
| about them displacing our ability to live. But the American
| political system consistently and firmly rejects any ideas
| not rooted in social darwinist capitalism.
|
| For your sake, I hope your resume is _very_ impressive.
| visarga wrote:
| If millions of jobs disappear overnight it means AI is
| amazingly good, which means people will also have AI
| empowerment on a whole new level as open source trails
| companies by 1-2 years. Everyone will just order their AI
| "take care of my needs", maybe work along with it. You
| got to agree that we already have some amazing open
| models and they are only getting better - that
| empowerment will remain with us in times of need.
|
| "Companies employing people" will be replaced by "people
| employing AI". Open models are free, small, fast,
| trainable and easy to use. They capture 90% of the value
| at 10% the cost, and are private.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| "Companies employing people" getting replaced by
| _anything_ is pretty dangerous in an economic system
| where employment is synonymous with having food and
| shelter. It won 't matter that AI could help me keep a
| to-do list or generate pretty videos if I don't have a
| job or income.
|
| What we're looking at is a massive decrease in the
| relative economic value of the average human's work. If
| the economic value of a hundred people is less than what
| the company can produce with a single human operator
| running AI models, then those 100 people are economically
| worthless, and don't get to eat.
|
| We drastically need to tax the usage of AI models on the
| huge windfall they're about to create for their
| operators, and use that to fund universal basic income
| for those displaced. Generally speaking, as automation
| and wealth disparity skyrocket, UBI will be required to
| maintain any semblance of the society we currently have.
| I am incredibly pessimistic about the chances of that
| happening in any real way though.
| visarga wrote:
| We don't have any control because we don't trust each
| other. Prisoner's dilemma
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Is it automating the creative part of the work or the
| mechanical part of creative work?
| whstl wrote:
| It's automating a big chunk of the money-making part of
| creative work.
| Hoasi wrote:
| It's automating some of the craftsmanship part, which is
| substantial, but in a sense, it also threatens the creative
| part.
|
| It's already very tempting for large entertainment
| businesses to create lazy remakes as it involves less risk.
| Automating creative jobs will create a shift at the
| production level but also on the receiving end: the public.
| zemo wrote:
| that would never happen because someone owns the robots and
| rich people can afford more robots than poor people and rich
| people aren't rich people if poor people aren't poor
| croes wrote:
| The problem, as long as people need money to live, every work
| is necessary and every automation is a threat.
| 93po wrote:
| Robotics is going to catch up extremely fast
| danavar wrote:
| I would agree. While we are seeing all this creative work
| get automated by AI, how big of an impact would that really
| have on the economy?
|
| Fully-functional autonomous driving will have a much larger
| economic impact - and that's just the first area where
| autonomous robots will come into our lives.
| nerdix wrote:
| I'm kind of excited to see how scifi authors will tackle the
| generative AI revolution in their novels.
|
| As of now, the models still need large amounts of human
| produced creative works for training. So you can imagine a
| story set in a world where large swathes of humanity are
| regulated to being basically gig workers for some quadrillion
| dollar AI megacorp where they sit around and wait to be
| prompted by the AI. "Draw a purple cat with pink stripes and
| a top hat" and then millions of freelance artists around the
| world start drawing a stupid picture of a cat because the
| model determined that it had insufficient training data to
| produce high quality results for the given prompt. And that's
| how everyone lives their lives....just working to feed the
| model but everything consumed is generated by the model. It's
| rather dystopian.
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| I would read that! But hopefully it won't be written by
| ChatGPT.
| dsign wrote:
| I would say it's very profitable in terms of ideas...if you
| put the work. The problem is that most main-market sci-fi
| is not about ideas, but about cool special effects and good
| vs bad guys.
| dovin wrote:
| Sure, 90% of everything is crap.
| Hoasi wrote:
| > As of now, the models still need large amounts of human
| produced creative works for training.
|
| That will likely always be the case. Even 100% synthetic
| data has to come from somewhere. Great synopsis! Working
| for hire to feed a machine that regurgitates variations of
| the missing data sounds dystopian. But here we are, almost
| there.
| ItsMattyG wrote:
| Eventually models will likely get their creativity by:
|
| 1. Interacting with the randomness of the world
|
| and
|
| 2. Thinking a lot, going in loops and thought loops and
| seeing what they discover.
|
| I don't expect them to need humans forever.
| Hoasi wrote:
| Agreed, by some definitions, specifically associating
| unrelated things, models are already creative.
|
| Hallucinations are highly creative as well. But unless
| the technology changes, large language models will need
| human-made training substrate data for a long time to
| operate.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| I have a novel I've been working on intermittently since
| the late 2000s, the central conflict of which grew to be
| about labor in an era of its devaluation. The big reveal
| was always going to be the opposite of Gibson's Mona Lisa
| Overdrive, that rather than something human-like turning
| out to be AI, society's AI infrastructure turns out to
| depend on mostly human "compute" (harvested in a
| surreptitious way I thought was clever).
|
| I've been trying to figure out how to retool the story to
| fit a timeline where ubiquitous AI that can write poems and
| paint pictures predates ubiquitous self-driving cars.
| cubefox wrote:
| It's ironic that you nonetheless think "scifi authors" will
| be writing those novels, not language models.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| This was known for a long time:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox
| dingnuts wrote:
| if it was actually AI, instead of a stochastic parrot, we
| could ask it to design robots that could do the manual labor
| that we still have to do, because we haven't been able to
| design robots to do the manual labor.
|
| Unfortunately, LLMs aren't intelligent in any way, so you
| cannot ask them to synthesize any kind of second-order
| knowledge.
|
| This is why they won't take away the creative work, either.
| They are fundamentally incapable of creating anything new.
| golol wrote:
| Come on, don't you see that the capability to understand the
| physical world that sora demonstrates is exactly what we need
| to develop those household robots? All these genAI products
| are just toys because they are technology demonstrators.
| They're all steps in the way to AGI and androids.
| Hoasi wrote:
| > AI is automating the creative, intellectual work and
| leaving the rest to us.
|
| Indeed, there is a risk it completely devalues creative jobs.
| That's ironic. Even if you can still use AI creatively, it
| removes the pleasure of creating. Prompting feels like
| filling Excel sheets while also feeding a pachinko machine.
| neilk wrote:
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/sad-2
| bsza wrote:
| Machines have replaced a lot of blue-collar jobs alright.
| It's just that most of it happened during the Industrial
| Revolution, so we aren't even aware of all the shitty (and
| not-shitty-but-obsolete-nonetheless) jobs that used to exist.
| palmfacehn wrote:
| Similar things were said about Internet piracy in decades past.
| Geep5 wrote:
| Your argument is used time and time again with technology's
| progress.
| hk__2 wrote:
| That doesn't make it invalid. It's a tough question, there's
| no easy answer.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| I really don't think that's true. Essentially the argument is
| that these models are more or less just outputting the work
| of others. Work already done- not theoretical future work,
| which is what people usually criticize new technologies for.
|
| The question here is really about whether it's sufficiently
| transformative, or whether that's even the right standard to
| be applied to generated media.
| chasing wrote:
| Yup! Technology is powerful. It impacts people's lives.
|
| I love tech, but if you take the stance that it's okay to
| hurt people for the sake of technical progress, you get into
| some very dark and terrible places...
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| It doesn't help that the tech industry is trying to make it
| seem black and white. Like you're either endlessly
| optimistic and let tech run rampant or you're a depressing
| doomer pessimist. We should reject this framing whenever
| possible.
| hackerlight wrote:
| > it's okay to hurt people for the sake of technical
| progress
|
| That's a strawman. The real view is that protecting jobs
| that are made extinct by technology and automation is
| historically a bad idea because it leads to stagnation and
| poverty. It's better to let people lose their jobs, and for
| those people to find other jobs, while supporting them with
| a social safety net while they make the transition. Painful
| for them but unfortunately very necessary for a prosperous
| society.
| throwanem wrote:
| > for those people to find other jobs, while supporting
| them with a social safety net while they make the
| transition
|
| This is the part that no one is expecting to see actually
| happen, though. Without that addressed, your argument is
| sound but footless.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Instead of using this outrage and energy to push a
| political will to grant something that benefits everyone
| forever, we should use it to grant something that helps
| prop up a few people in dying industries so that they can
| stifle innovation which would lead to a creative
| revolution?
|
| What no one is asking is: 'it this makes it easy for
| anyone to be an artist, a director, a musician... what
| are we going to get, and will it be worse than what we
| have now?
| throwanem wrote:
| > What no one is asking is: 'it this makes it easy for
| anyone to be an artist, a director, a musician... what
| are we going to get, and will it be worse than what we
| have now?
|
| _Everyone_ is asking this.
|
| But that's also not the only question. The one you're
| ignoring here is: If these tools enable one artist to do
| the work of a hundred, what happens to the other 99?
|
| AI boosters have as yet offered no satisfactory answer
| for this question. Given the intimate involvement some of
| them have with politics at the national and global level,
| this absence constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion
| that no answer is intended or forthcoming, and that
| suspicion is what's asking here to be addressed.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > If these tools enable one artist to do the work of a
| hundred, what happens to the other 99?
|
| Not really -- as people have gotten more efficient at
| their jobs, we tend to just produce more/better things,
| not impoverish a bunch of people. If one person can day
| (8 hours) making a shoe by hand, and one person can make
| a shoe in an hour using a shoe making machine, then we
| don't have one less shoe maker, we have two people making
| 16 shoes a day. As an effect, shoes are now much cheaper,
| so they aren't only worn by rich people. If the one-shoe-
| per-day maker refuses to use a shoe making machine, he or
| she can upsell their 'hand crafted' shoes to rich people
| who want to distinguish themselves.
|
| Believe me, I am not a 'free market fixes everything'
| person, at all, but in these cases, that is how it has
| worked since the industrial revolution. This is not a new
| process (automation making a task much more
| accessible/efficient) and this is not a new complaint
| (what happens to the people who made a living doing
| task).
|
| Change is scary -- and everyone has the right to be
| afraid of an uncertain future, but I can't recall an
| instance of the regressive approach actually working to
| allay the fears of those who imposed it. Yet, we all see
| huge reminders of how our lives have been improved by
| making hard things easier and accessible to more people.
| throwanem wrote:
| The argument as presented so omits even the possibility
| of harm being done anyone in this process as to seem as
| if it seeks to foreclose the thought at root.
|
| It would not surprise me if anyone called this
| pollyannaish, or even Panglossian.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| The social safety net component of your idea is both
| extremely important and not at all likely in the modern
| ultra-capitalist, "even healthcare is socialist
| extremism" political atmosphere.
|
| _Maybe_ mass unemployment will create a sea change in
| that mentality, but most of the people who 's opinions
| need to be changed will probably just laugh at "the
| elites" getting screwed over.
| cabalamat wrote:
| It's a shame Andrew Yang isn't running this year, as his
| 2020 platform of UBI because of AI is looking very
| prescient.
| sekai wrote:
| > okay to hurt people for the sake of technical progress,
| you get into some very dark and terrible places
|
| Hurt is a very subjective word in this context, how many
| people do you think the invention of the steam engine hurt?
| Or the electricity?
| joks wrote:
| I think dismantling creative fields like this is
| completely different from automating manual labor in a
| way that makes humanity more prosperous. I don't see what
| the upside is of this -- it's not making creative work
| better, it's devaluing creative work and disenfranchising
| creatives.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > I don't see what the upside is of this
|
| The upside is that creative works are completely
| democratized.
|
| Now, anyone, with very little effort is fully empowered
| to create creative works on their own and there is no
| barrier to entry.
|
| Yes, empowerment and democratization harms people who's
| livelyhood depends on disenfranchisement.
| paxys wrote:
| Is it? What is another example of a technological leap that
| made a certain class of workers redundant while also
| continually relying on the output of these same workers to be
| feasible in the first place?
|
| The current batch of LLMs is in the same class of
| technological revolutions as Napster and The Pirate Bay.
| Immensely impactful, sure, but mostly because of theft of
| value from elsewhere.
| hansonkd wrote:
| Isn't the Luddite movement an example?
|
| The factories that replaced the artisans were only made
| possible by the work of the artisans forging the way.
| lewhoo wrote:
| I don't think so. The main idea is that for AI to
| continue to develop new data is needed. Skills of the
| Luddites were no longer needed.
| timdiggerm wrote:
| Okay? That could just as easily mean this argument has been
| right all along.
| s__s wrote:
| The argument should be brought up every single time. Each
| major technological jump is a unique event completely
| different from the last.
|
| AI is nothing like anything we've seen, and is truly unique
| in the dangers it poses to the world.
| mring33621 wrote:
| "Can't be allowed"
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Things that can be easily reproduced already have little value,
| the people who produce those things have adapted to focus on
| brand, and that's just how it's going to be from now own.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Reminds me of an interview with a Korean pop music producer I
| watched 15 years ago.
|
| South Korea had a high % of broadband penetration earlier
| than many Western countries, and as a result physical CD
| sales crashed very hard, and very quickly. So he asked
| himself, what's the most analog good I could sell? It's
| people. And went the pop idol / personality marketing route
| with great and lasting success.
| chasing wrote:
| > Things that can be easily reproduced already have little
| value...
|
| Nonsense. Also, my point is that it shouldn't be up to tech
| companies to unilaterally decide what has value.
| nicksrose7224 wrote:
| I dont think they're saying its up to tech companies to
| decide what has value, more that the development of new
| technology itself ends up deciding for the rest of the
| world how things are valued.
|
| It's been this way for 10,000 years since the invention of
| the wheel. New inventions change how things are valued by
| making it easier for people do more work with less time.
| stale2002 wrote:
| It's not up to them.
|
| Instead it is up to the consumers.
|
| If consumers choose to give money to AI company, and not to
| artists, then in the eyes of the consumer those artists do
| not have value.
| Mockapapella wrote:
| The creators who create media can also use these tools to
| create more media faster, as can novices. It's not like OpenAI
| literally eats the media, never to be shared with the world
| again.
| jsheard wrote:
| Oh I see, they're not eating the media, just extorting the
| creators into paying OpenAI in perpetuity to use the tool
| derived from their own work, or face becoming uncompetitive
| with their peers who do use it. What if landlords, but for
| media creation, and they don't even have to pay for the land
| in the first place. That's fine then.
| Mockapapella wrote:
| > pay a subscription to OpenAI in perpetuity in order to
| remain competitive with their peers
|
| This is how technology works in general and should not be
| vilified. Someone comes up with a better way to do things
| (in this case bringing creative ideas to life) and charges
| a premium on top of that for their efforts. If the current
| wave of creators doesn't like it, then they should instead
| make something people want more than what their competition
| has to offer.
|
| Either way, this is why local open source models are
| critical, so that everyone can benefit without needing to
| pay any single party.
| jsheard wrote:
| If a company were founded tomorrow which allowed you to
| stream unlicensed TV shows and movies for a monthly
| subscription, undercutting Netflix and Amazons licensed
| streams, that wouldn't be described as "a better way to
| do things" just because their customers prefer it for
| being cheaper and easier because all the content is in
| one place. The difference between that and what OpenAI is
| doing is just degrees of abstraction, either way they're
| deriving value from others work without compensating
| them, and actively undermining the ongoing creation of
| the work they're appropriating, while simultaneously
| relying on the ongoing creation of that work to keep
| feeding their machine.
|
| IP law has yet to decide whether my interpretation of the
| situation is correct in the legal sense, but I find it
| impossible to see "ChatGPT absorbs the work of
| writers/journalists and sells a superficially reworded
| version without attribution or compensation" as anything
| but theft obfuscated behind lots of fancy math. It's only
| going to get worse if LLMs end up displacing traditional
| search engines, so one day you'll publish an article and
| get exactly one impression from GPTBot which then turns
| around and figuratively copies your homework.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| Forgive me for thinking that it may be difficult for
| independent artists to compete against the trillion-
| dollar groundbreaking plagiarism machine that is actively
| plagiarizing their work faster than they can produce
| original work, without consequence, and suffocating them
| under a deluge of generated works.
|
| This is an extremely different difference of scale, which
| does constitute a meaningful difference from prior
| technologies.
| Mtinie wrote:
| It's difficult for independent artists to live as
| independent artists today, even without the specter of a
| "trillion-dollar groundbreaking plagiarism machine"[0].
| So far, we've still been producing original work,
| primarily because it's what we do even when we're not
| making money from it. It's a blessing and a curse.
|
| This is not to dismiss the concern. I simply wanted to
| state that artists will find ways to keep moving the
| creative bar forward.
|
| [0] I really like this turn of phrase, thank you for
| sharing it.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| > extorting
|
| That's not what extortion is. Stop abusing language.
| overthehorizon wrote:
| I create media for a living, painstakingly creating stuff
| from scratch in 3D. This tool will not help me, it will help
| clients avoid ever having to contract me. The main
| beneficiaries of this are holders of capital
| notimpotent wrote:
| But doesn't this technology give you the same edge?
|
| You can deliver more content, faster, cheaper.
| MrNeon wrote:
| This issue here is thinking you, holding the knowledge to
| 3D model, are not also a holder of capital. Capital isn't
| just money.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| People on HN like to split hairs and make muddled
| juxtapositions about human rights and AI model capabilities.
| But this is something that people and governments around the
| world would have to reckon with very quickly, since the rate at
| which generative AI technology is advancing, there could be
| hundreds of millions of people who're unemployed and have no
| way to find work.
|
| The quickest way to address this would be an extremely high tax
| rate on any generative AI model, say 500%, while the government
| figures out what's the best way to sustain an economy (such as
| UBI) with a diminishing set of consumers as more people are
| pushed towards unemployment.
| pstorm wrote:
| 500%? So if the generative AI model created something worth
| $1m, you tax it $5m? How do you tax a technology anyways?
| cabalamat wrote:
| I suspect what was meant is something like 500% VAT, where
| if a generative AI charges a customer $6, then $5 goes to
| the taxman and $1 to the AI company.
| stale2002 wrote:
| I can run these models on my home PC.
|
| How are you going to stop me from doing that?
|
| Even the free and open source stuff will destroy industries
| and you can't confiscate everyone's consumer gamer PCs.
|
| Taxing the big guys doesn't save creative industries. It's a
| lost cause.
| ndjshe3838 wrote:
| Exactly, you can't put it back in the box
|
| The only thing I can imagine is like limiting people's
| compute power
|
| But even then they'd just go do it in another country or
| use an online service based in another country
| m_ke wrote:
| There will just be 1000x more content, with most of it hyper
| personalized and consumed by individual users instead of by
| masses of people.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| I think there is 100% chance it will be regulated to address
| some of the points you raised. Copyright being essentially
| neutered won't work.
| niam wrote:
| I see the validity of this concern in the short term, but long
| term I feel like this is a bit doomsday. I don't want anyone's
| livelihood to get shafted, but realistically I see this as
| lowering the barrier to creating videos / proofs of concept--
| which is a good thing (with a lot of caveats and asterisks).
| moralestapia wrote:
| >Yeah, you just can't let all media, all the cost and hard work
| of millions of photographers, animators, filmmakers, etc be
| completely consumed and devalued by one company just because
| it's a very cool technical trick.
|
| Oh man, how I miss it when ice was hauled from the Arctic in
| boats.
| chasing wrote:
| You recognize the difference, right? Modern freezers don't
| rely on people shipping ice from the Arctic. Generative AI
| does rely on people continuing to create media.
| moralestapia wrote:
| It doesn't anymore. It sucks, but that's what it is.
| fardinahsan146 wrote:
| Sorry no. If there was even the remotest possibility that
| everyone could be brought to the table, none of these would
| even exist.
|
| Training a massive model like this is a risk, and no one is
| going to take that risk without some reward. You can complain
| OpenAI is going to too much of the value, but its value that
| would have otherwise never existed. It's value.
| airstrike wrote:
| > Yeah, you just can't let
|
| Who's "you"?
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| The middle class.
|
| Automate away the lower classes all you want, just don't
| touch the white collar class, that's a heckin' nono.
| powera wrote:
| I am getting sick of these "people can't be allowed to make
| their own nice things easily, because of a pugnacious (and very
| online) interest group that wants to keep getting money" takes.
| mythz wrote:
| Typical argument against technological progress "We should ban
| technology to stop it doing what humans can do in a fraction of
| time and resources".
|
| Can see this create an explosion of new Content from aspiring
| Film, Story tellers and cut scenes from Game creators that
| previously never would have the budget or capabilities to be
| able to see their ideas through to creation.
| wnc3141 wrote:
| If we had a safety net where career progression and
| time/money invested in training was unnecessary to sustain
| life, then maybe. Until then it feels like a bit of allowing
| a few people to plunder and own the collective output of
| millions.
| visarga wrote:
| This moment seems like trade guilds revolting against free
| craftsmen. What AI is essentially doing is learning skills
| from people according to their works and then helping
| everyone according to their needs. It's more rad than open
| source.
|
| This is not plunder, it is empowerment. Blocking generative
| AI would be a huge power grab for copyright owners. They
| want to claim ideas and styles, and all their possible
| combinations.
|
| Gen AI need only ensure it never reproduces a copyrighted
| work verbatim. Culture doesn't work if we stop ideas from
| moving freely.
| karpour wrote:
| Artists should be able to choose whether their work gets
| used to train machine learning algorithms.
| ls612 wrote:
| "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made
| a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first
| place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad
| move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans."
| educaysean wrote:
| We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, I want
| artists and other creators to be compensated fairly for any
| work that they contribute into training datasets, but
| outside of that there is no moral responsibility AI
| creators should feel towards those whose potential careers
| would be impacted.
| chasing wrote:
| > ...there is no moral responsibility AI creators should
| feel...
|
| Yeah, this is why "AI creators" shouldn't be the ones
| unilaterally deciding how this all plays out.
| stale2002 wrote:
| They aren't. Every person is free to use AI or not.
|
| Go blame your fellow consumers if you don't like the fact
| that they prefer AI.
|
| These are choices that everyone makes. AI companies alone
| aren't forcing everyone to use their cool new tools.
| Instead, thats a decision that 10s of millions of people
| are making every day.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| They shouldn't get _exclusive_ rights to ignore IP law.
| Instead, we should _all_ get that right.
|
| Copyright should have ended decades ago. It has accomplished
| nothing but harm.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| This has been shared before, but:
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FadzEwVWAAYEyRW?format=jpg&name=...
| wnc3141 wrote:
| Research on creativity and competition points to this.
| Essentially, creativity occurs when there is some expectancy of
| increasing competitiveness. However when the expectancy of
| value capture from your effort becomes less clear, or
| diminished, creativity stops altogether.
|
| (as pointed out in the "Freakonomics" episode highlighting this
| reaserch)
|
| https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/3/583/96779...
|
| https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-a-i-take-a-joke/
| jsemrau wrote:
| Interestingly a lot of movies flopped in 2023 not because of
| bad visuals, but because their writing was bad. Hence, I
| believe the demise of the movie industry is overstated. I can
| see completely new forms of entertainment coming out of this.
| Probably Youtube will be the biggest winner as the social
| network with the highest monetization and reach.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| Does it not just shift where we (as people) perceive value? If
| the cost of content drops to effectively zero, it seems
| reasonable that we would not value it so highly. If so, it does
| not mean that people do not value anything, but it may mean we
| start associating value with new or different things. While
| this may disrupt industries, I do not think we have an ethical
| or legal duty to those industries to remain profitable.
| bbor wrote:
| GREAT response imo, I'll try to remember this concise
| phrasing. I think this highlights that people aren't worried
| so much about changes coming to them as consumers, and are
| much more worried about what "industries no longer remaining
| profitable" means for them as a laborer.
|
| Means for us :(
| visarga wrote:
| > just because it's a very cool technical trick
|
| That's one big trick, almost magical.
| malermeister wrote:
| The limitation is with capitalism, not with the technology.
| It's time we move on to post-scarcity communism, Star Trek
| style.
| bbor wrote:
| capture the value of every piece of media ever created
|
| In what way does "I have a computer that can make movies" mean
| "I have captured the value of every piece of media ever
| created?" What do you mean by "value"? In my biased view, this
| amazing new technology couldn't possibly be a better time to
| fix our insane notions of property, intellectual or otherwise
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| I don't disagree with your basic sentiment, but it's worth
| pointing out that, on some level, the * _entirety of artificial
| intelligence*_ is not much more than a "cool technical trick."
| strangescript wrote:
| Meanwhile, I am going to take my horse and buggy down to the
| local blacksmith to get some work done...
| seydor wrote:
| They could pay people to capture it. They could buy out one of
| the stock video companies. this is not important
| Krasnol wrote:
| Never ever will there be everyone at the table. This is not how
| the Internet works. It is not how the world and humanity work.
| If OpenAI doesn't do it, the next big player will. China will.
| Maybe it'll soon not even need China because it'll be so easy
| to deploy.
|
| There is no stop now. It's too late for that. Time to think
| about the full development and how we'll handle that. How we as
| people will be able to exist next to it. What our purpose in
| the world is supposed to be. What the purpose of "value" is.
| What the purpose of "economy" or "the market" is.
|
| Exiting times.
| wilg wrote:
| It doesn't really matter, because if this is possible then it
| will not be exclusive to OpenAI for long. It's simply just
| something that can exist. There will be open source versions of
| everything lagging 1-2 years behind or something.
| bsza wrote:
| Do you feel the same about the hard work of knocker-uppers
| having been devalued by the invention of the alarm clock? Or is
| it just the (relatively) highly paid intellectual workers that
| "cannot be allowed" to be replaced with machines?
| bottlepalm wrote:
| You can't regulate it because it will just be outsourced to
| another country.
|
| Nope, we are headed towards deflation. Families that need only
| a single worker to support everyone, and even support extended
| family, and less time working overall.
| resolutebat wrote:
| It's worth remembering that "intellectual property" is an
| entirely artificial and fairly recent construct. Humanity did
| fine for thousands of years without it, and I'm not going to
| shed too many years if OpenAI blows it up.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
| vunderba wrote:
| Are you against records? Because the technology to record songs
| and play them back at your leisure killed an entire industry of
| live performers / instrumentalists?
|
| The call for live music _drastically shrank_ when it became
| trivial for any business or residence to play music on command.
|
| Are you against automatic language translation? I can
| positively guarantee that the training data that they used to
| be able to create significantly better translation models was
| not authorized for that purpose.
|
| The entire translator industry has been steadily shrinking ever
| since the invention of automatic language translation.
|
| Etc etc etc.
|
| There's obviously two aspects of this complex social issue
| right now.
|
| 1. Whether or not the usage of publicly available media as
| training data is legal/ethical.
|
| 2. Whether or not the output of these types of generative
| systems ( _even if_ they 're trained on "ethical" training
| data) which may result in the displacement of many jobs is
| legal/ethical.
|
| I'm neither for nor against AI (LLM, diffusion, video, etc),
| but if you are going to take a stance, then you have to be
| consistent in your view.
|
| You don't get to cherry pick - I don't want to see you using
| chatGPT, copilot, stable diffusion, DALL-E, midjourney, sora,
| etc.
| chasing wrote:
| It's weird that a call for generative AI to be more equitable
| towards the people whose creative work powers it is being
| interpreted as somehow being against tech, against AI, or
| that I think technological advancement should never make jobs
| obsolete.
| dietmtnview wrote:
| oh man, we're going to be in The Running Man really quick.
| hansonkd wrote:
| Countdown to when studios licensing this for "unlimited" episodes
| of your favorite series.
|
| There was Seinfeld "Nothing, Forever" AI parody, but once the
| models improve enough and are cheap enough to deploy, studios
| will license their content for real and just have endless
| seasons.
|
| Or even custom episodes. Imagine if every episode of a TV show
| was unique to the viewer.
| htrp wrote:
| Speedrunning Black Mirror
| mbil wrote:
| I imagine it's not long before we see hyper-targeted
| commercials where the actors look like us, live in our city,
| etc.
| hansonkd wrote:
| Custom AI commercials would be very interesting. Instead of
| seeing strangers enjoying the benefits of the product, it
| shows you. A car commercial would show you driving, etc.
|
| Commercials and TV episodes could have a basic "story arc"
| and then completely customized to the viewer.
|
| Think about the simpson's or something. Imagine that the
| story of the episodes were kept, but you could swap in the
| characters and locations. So for instance if you lived in
| Nashville TN, all the simpson's episodes could be generated
| to show the settings as Nashville instead of Springfield.
|
| Then you could have the AI switch out the characters to be
| people you want. Maybe you want to replace Lisa with an AI
| Simpsons version of you. Mayor Quimby with Nashville's actual
| mayor, etc.
| internetter wrote:
| Oh lord no thank you
| tavavex wrote:
| > Custom AI commercials would be very interesting. Instead
| of seeing strangers enjoying the benefits of the product,
| it shows you. A car commercial would show you driving, etc.
|
| I think it'd kind of defeat the point - I can't imagine a
| person that'd want their likenesses to be used to market to
| them. It'd be a disaster. Setting swaps are more realistic,
| though at the point where things get good enough for that
| to be possible, we may just see completely on-demand newly
| generated media instead of modifying what already exists.
| altruios wrote:
| If I saw myself onscreen telling myself to buy a product
| I've never seen or used: I would not buy that product or
| use that service. It feels violating to have your image
| used against your best interests (of not being manipulated
| to be capitalism's bitch) like that.
|
| That is a hell-scape (to me).
|
| Inserting yourself into shows... that's feels different,
| but my gut tells me advertisers will corrupt that idea
| quickly. Product placement...
| doabell wrote:
| Wow, I would imagine this being very effective in election
| campaigns (for better or for worse, probably for worse).
| ex3ndr wrote:
| Nothing stopped doing so before AI - just slam a photo of
| your friends to the ad.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| There was some monitoring company that used to have creepy
| web ads that would show the actual company you worked at in
| the ads.
|
| If anything it was a turn off and I was confused how they
| knew where I worked.
| easton wrote:
| They were probably using the ASN for your IP, and your
| company had its own.
|
| I used to get ones that said "Comcast user you are
| insecure" and stuff.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| I wonder if there is anything in the recent Hollywood strikes
| that will prevent the studios from dong that?
| nielsbot wrote:
| I think that was one of the areas that SAG-AFTRA lost on.
|
| Majority Report spoke to one of the negotiators and national
| board member:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E62k1ZsY1IU
| minimaxir wrote:
| One understated aspect of AI Seinfeld is that it took many
| steps to differentiate it from the actual Seinfeld and create
| its own identity, such as the 144p visual filter and the random
| microwave. Those tweaks added to its charm.
|
| If someone tried to do AI Seinfeld again in 2024, many would
| criticze it for not being realistic enough now that the tools
| to do so are now available.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| I assume you would still be able to do that, just better?
| Like pixel art. Super Mario Bros. 3 look great despite being
| 36 years old. Contrast this with 3D games for the original
| PlayStation that have aged poorly.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| I'm not sure there would be much demand for purely
| custom/individualized episodes beyond the novelty and maybe for
| fun with a group of friends. Most of the reason people watch TV
| or movies is for the shared experience that you can discuss
| with others. It could definitely drive down production costs
| though, hopefully HBO uses it to eventually redo Game of
| Thrones post season 4
| hansonkd wrote:
| Well there is always your AI girlfriend and AI friend group
| with the AI generated podcast breaking down the episode. (jk,
| sort of)
|
| > Most of the reason people watch TV or movies is for the
| shared experience that you can discuss with others
|
| I wouldn't say that. Most of the reason people watch TV is to
| kill time.
|
| To be honest, I find my discussions with friends about TV
| shows on the decline just because of the fact that everyone
| is watching there own thing. So many shows and people watch
| them at their own pace. so most of the discussions go like
| this "Hey have you seen that new Netlix show X?" "No I
| haven't, maybe I'll check it out". Or "Oh yeah, i saw that a
| year ago, Its good but I don't remember the details".
|
| Before Streaming when you had a set schedule for TV, it was
| way easier to discuss things because people were forced to
| watch programs on a certain day and there was more limited
| content. This led to "water cooler" conversations about what
| the previous nights show.
|
| I bet if you graphed (discussions had about tv shows) /
| (hours watched of tv shows) that graph would trend down.
|
| Think about little kids. My niece watches cocomelon all day
| long. She doesn't need to discuss it with anybody. She just
| wants an unlimited stream.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > I wouldn't say that. Most of the reason people watch TV
| is to kill time.
|
| How annoying to see something amazing and then not be able
| to find anyone who also experienced it that you can ...
| what word mean's commiserate but in a positive way?
|
| I'm thinking now about the astronauts that walked on the
| Moon and had only the few others. I think one of the
| astronauts bemoaned having gone to this amazing place, like
| some kind of wild vacation, but not being able ever to
| return.
| awfulneutral wrote:
| You can just talk to your AI companion about it. If you
| involve another human there's always a chance somebody
| might be slightly bored or inconvenienced, so we want to
| avoid that.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Indeed. That is why in our family we watch broadcast or
| timeshifted tv and no netflix. Still it is hard to find
| other families like that so little tv stuff to talk about
| at work during lunch.
| jakub_g wrote:
| Same about music. In good ol' days, one would meet a friend
| to listen to cool new music together, share CDs with mp3s
| etc
|
| It's actually really weird. I wanted to buy my niece some
| CDs for Christmas to discover 90s music, but kids don't
| listen music from CDs anymore. They don't have devices
| even. Should I buy her a Spotify gift card and send her
| links to Spotify via Whatsapp? It's so strange.
| mempko wrote:
| That would not work because that's now how people work. People
| watch/play media to connect to others. How can you talk about
| anything to anyone or have any shared culture when other people
| will never see what you see?
|
| Movies, books, games, are a collective culture, not an
| individualist one. I don't know about you, but when I like an
| experience, I want to share it with others.
| kirill5pol wrote:
| If this sounds interesting I'd highly recommend this short
| story by Ken Liu
|
| https://future-sf.com/fiction/1700/
| jpeter wrote:
| I am thinking of Stargate SG-1 Season 11. And remaking Game of
| Thrones after Season 5
| slothtrop wrote:
| Actors had a strike in part over this recently.
| woah wrote:
| You could have ChatGPT create unlimited simulated forum threads
| about news articles, but here you are on Hacker News
| Janicc wrote:
| I honestly expected video generation to get stuck at barely
| consistent 5 second clips without much movement for the next few
| years. This is the type of stuff I expected to maybe be possible
| towards the end of the decade. Maybe we really are still at the
| bottom of the S curve which is scary to think about.
| EwanG wrote:
| I have a book I've written (first three parts available free at
| https://www.amazon.com/Summer-of-Wonders/dp/B0CV84D7GR). Is there
| some way to feed this to the tool and get an animated version
| out? Or this with some other tool(s)?
| pknerd wrote:
| So no APIs yet?
| ilaksh wrote:
| Holy %@$%! Abso%@#inglutely amazing! Also, now I see why we need
| $7 trillion worth of GPUs.
| uoaei wrote:
| Visual sharpness at the expense of wider-scale coherence (see:
| sliding/floating walking woman in Tokyo demo or tiny people next
| to giant people in Lagos demo) seems to be a local optimum
| consistently achieved by today's SOTA models in all domains.
|
| This is neat and all but mostly just a toy. Everything I've seen
| has me convinced either we are optimizing the wrong loss
| functions or the architectures we have today are fundamentally
| limited. This should be understood for what it is and not for
| what people want it to be.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >Visual sharpness at the expense of wider-scale coherence (see:
| sliding/floating walking woman in Tokyo demo or tiny people
| next to giant people in Lagos demo)
|
| Wider-Scale coherence is still much better than previous models
| and has consistently been improving. It's not "visual sharpness
| at the expense of coherence". At worst, the models are learning
| wider-scale coherence slower.
|
| Not everything is equally difficult to learn so it follows that
| some aspects will lag behind others. If coherence weren't
| improving you might have a point but it is so...
| uoaei wrote:
| Scaling laws operate in the limit but eventually practical
| considerations dominate. There's a lot we haven't yet fully
| appreciated about biological vision and cognition -- and
| indeed, common sense as regards sensible video generation and
| processing -- that have not made their way into this kind of
| model. NeRFs are interesting and I hope to see more from that
| side of things in the coming months and years.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Nature is great and all but looking to it as an example of
| a lack of scaling and brute force is a bit ridiculous.
|
| Your vision is hundreds of millions of years in the making.
| dsco wrote:
| Did you just recreate the infamous DropBox comment?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
| uoaei wrote:
| That seems like quite the reach, but we will see if it really
| is just "all you need is scale".
| epberry wrote:
| These looks fantastic. Very slight weirdness in some movement,
| hands, etc. But the main thing that strikes me is the cinematic
| tracking shots. I guess that's why they use "scenes". It doesn't
| seem like a movie could be generated with this involving actors
| talking.
| mring33621 wrote:
| I wanna see the rest of the knit hat spaceman movie!
| Imnimo wrote:
| https://openai.com/sora?video=big-sur
|
| In this video, there's extremely consistent geometry as the
| camera moves, but the texture of the trees/shrubs on the top of
| the cliff on the left seems to remain very flat, reminiscent of
| low-poly geometry in games.
|
| I wonder if this is an artifact of the way videos are generated.
| Is the model separating scene geometry from camera? Maybe some
| sort of video-NeRF or Gaussian Splatting under the hood?
| nuz wrote:
| I saw similar artifacts in dalle-1 a lot (as if the image was
| pasted onto geometry). Definitely wouldn't surprise me if they
| use synthetic rasterized data to in the training, which could
| totally create artifacts like this.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Curious about what current SotA is on physics-infusing
| generation. Anyone have paper links?
|
| OpenAi has a few details:
|
| >> _The current model has weaknesses. It may struggle with
| accurately simulating the physics of a complex scene, and may
| not understand specific instances of cause and effect. For
| example, a person might take a bite out of a cookie, but
| afterward, the cookie may not have a bite mark._
|
| >> _Similar to GPT models, Sora uses a transformer
| architecture, unlocking superior scaling performance._
|
| >> _We represent videos and images as collections of smaller
| units of data called patches, each of which is akin to a token
| in GPT. By unifying how we represent data, we can train
| diffusion transformers on a wider range of visual data than was
| possible before, spanning different durations, resolutions and
| aspect ratios._
|
| >> _Sora builds on past research in DALL*E and GPT models. It
| uses the recaptioning technique from DALL*E 3, which involves
| generating highly descriptive captions for the visual training
| data. As a result, the model is able to follow the user's text
| instructions in the generated video more faithfully._
|
| The implied facts that it understands physics of simple scenes
| and any instances of cause and effect are impressive!
|
| Although I assume that's been SotA-possible for awhile, and I
| just hadn't heard?
| msoad wrote:
| On the announcement page, it specifically says Sora does not
| understand physics
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The model is essentially doing nothing but dreaming.
|
| I suspect that anything that looks like familiar 3D-rendering
| limitations is probably a result of the training dataset simply
| containing a lot of actual 3D-rendered content.
|
| We can't tell a model to dream everything _except_ extra
| fingers, false perspective, and 3D-rendering compromises.
| burkaman wrote:
| Maybe it was trained on a bunch of 3d Google Earth videos.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| Doesn't look flat to me.
|
| Edit: Here[0] I highlighted a groove in the bushes moving with
| perfect perspective
|
| [0] https://ibb.co/Y7WFW39
| internetter wrote:
| Look in the top left corner, on the plane
| cush wrote:
| Wow, yeah I didn't notice it at first, but looking at the rocks
| in the background is actually nauseating
| cush wrote:
| The water is on par with Avatar. Looks perfect
| sidcool wrote:
| Even the videos with some physics anomalies are quite good and
| entertaining.
| bluechair wrote:
| The signs are non-sensical but this is probably expected.
| criddell wrote:
| Why is that so difficult for these things to get right?
| gzer0 wrote:
| Truly stunning. Waiting on the research paper, says will be
| published (soon). Can't wait to read on the technical details.
| Delumine wrote:
| This is insane. Even though there are open-source models, I think
| this is too dangerous to release to the public. If someone
| would've uploaded that Tokyo video to youtube, and told me it was
| a drone.. I would've believed them.
|
| All "proof" we have can be contested or fabricated.
| standardUser wrote:
| The key word there is "someone". The only way forward is to
| care a _lot_ more about our sources. Trust is about to become
| really valuable.
| Delumine wrote:
| We give too much credit to ordinary people. All these
| bleeding-edge advancements in AI, code, databases, and
| technology are things a user on HNews would be aware of.
| However, most peers in regular jobs, parents, children, et
| al., would be susceptible to being fooled on social media.
| They're not going to say... "hmm, let me fact-check and see
| if the sources are correct and that this wasn't created by
| AI."
|
| They'll simply see an inflammatory tweet from their leader on
| Twitter.
| standardUser wrote:
| They're not going to fact check, they're simply going to
| think "huh, could be AI" and that will change the way we
| absorb and process information. It already has. And when we
| really need to know something and can't afford to be wrong,
| we'll seek out high trust sources. Just like we do now, but
| more so.
|
| And of course some large cross section of people will
| continue to be duped idiots.
| Delumine wrote:
| Most people don't even know what AI is. I've had to
| educate my parents that the technology to not only clone
| my voice, but my face.. is in existence. Pair that with
| number spoofing, and you have a recipe for disaster to
| scam people.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| > All "proof" we have can be contested or fabricated.
|
| This has been the case for a while now already, it's better
| that we just rip off the bandaid and everyone should become a
| skeptic. Standards for evidence will need to rise.
| bogwog wrote:
| If you rip off the bandaid too soon, there will be blood.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| "Proof" for thousands of years was whatever was written down,
| and that was even easier to forge.
|
| There was a brief time (maybe 100 years at the most) where
| photos and videos were practically proof of something
| happening; that is coming to an end now, but that's just a
| regression to the mean, not new territory.
| ctoth wrote:
| Hmmm. Actually I think I finally figured out why I dislike
| this argument, so thank you.
|
| The important number here isn't the total years something has
| been true, when talking about something with sociocultural
| momentum, like the expectation that a recording/video is
| truthful.
|
| Instead, the important number seems to me to be the total
| number of lived human years where the thing has been true. In
| the case of reliable recordings, the last hundred years with
| billions of humans has a lot more cultural weight than the
| thousands of preceding years by virtue of there having been
| far more human years lived with than without the expectation.
| mzs wrote:
| I guess you can't read Japanese.
| volkk wrote:
| maybe for now, only a matter of time before stuff like this
| is fixed
| serf wrote:
| the world is getting increasingly surveilled as well, I
| guess the presumption is that eventually you'll just be
| able to cross reference a 'verified' recording of the scene
| against whatever media exists.
|
| "We ran the vid against the nationally-ran Japanese
| scanners, turns out that there are no streets that look
| like this, nor individuals."
|
| in other words I think that the sudden leap of usable AI
| into real life is going to cause another similar leap
| towards non-human verification of assets and media.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| This changes nothing about "proof" (i.e. "evidence", here).
| Authenticity is determined by trust in the source
| institution(s), independent verification, chains of evidence,
| etc. Belief is about _people_ , not _technology_. Always was,
| always will be. Fraud is older than Photoshop, than the first
| impersonation, than perhaps civilization. The sky is not
| falling here. Always remember: fidelity and belief aren 't
| synonyms.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Scale matters. This will allow unprecedented scale of
| producing fabricated video. You're right about evidence, but
| it doesn't need to hold up in court to do a lot of damage.
| skepticATX wrote:
| This is what lots of folks said about image generation. Which
| is now in many ways "solved". And society has easily adapted to
| it. The same will happen with video generation.
|
| The reality is that people are a lot more resourceful / smarter
| than a lot of us think. And the ones who aren't have been
| fooled long before this tech came around.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| In what ways has image generation been solved? Prompt
| blocking is about the only real effort I can think of, which
| will mean nothing once open source models reach the same
| fidelity.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| all the news you see has zero proof unless you see it, you just
| have to have a sense if it's real based on a concensus or trust
| worthness of a reporter/outlet.
|
| The UA war is real, most likley, but i havent' seen it with my
| own eyes, nor did most people, but maybe they have
| relatives/friends saying it, and they are not likely to lie.
| Stuff like that.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Weird hallucination artifacts are still giving it all away.
| Look closely at the train and viaduct rendering, and you can't
| unsee windows morphing into each other.
| losvedir wrote:
| That's interesting. It made me think of a potential feature for
| upcoming cameras that essentially cryptographically sign their
| videos. If this became a real issue in the future, I could see
| Apple introducing it in a new model. "Now you can show you
| really _did_ take that trip to Paris. When you send a message
| to a friend that contains a video that you shot on iPhone, they
| will see it in a gold bubble. "
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Apple Vision Pro VR + unlimited, addicting... I mean, engaging
| video feed into your eyes. The machines will keep you tube fed
| and your bowels emptied. Woe to the early 21st century techno-
| optimism. An alien intelligence rules the galaxy now. Welcome to
| the simulation.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| will be super depressing once you take off the helmet and feel
| the reality
| superconduct123 wrote:
| Imagine that but the loss function is measuring how "good" you
| feel via brain signals
|
| And the AI is optimizing the video feed purely for that
|
| What would it generate?
| jonplackett wrote:
| No mention of how much they had to cherry pick right?
|
| Interested to know what the success rate of such amazingmess
|
| Pika have really impressive videos on their homepage that are
| borderline impossible to make for myself.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Totally agree, they can pay a lot of monkeys at typewriters,
|
| but also? https://openai.com/sora?video=big-sur
|
| made me literally say, out loud, "doesnt-matter-had-sex"
| kredd wrote:
| There's an ongoing thread on Twitter where Sam takes
| suggestions from replies and shares the output. E.g.
| https://x.com/sama/status/1758200420344955288?s=46&t=VQo1eLU...
| slekker wrote:
| Is there any alternative to Nitter?
| burkaman wrote:
| I think Nitter may still work if you self-host it, but
| otherwise no, they have made it impossible to read without
| an account.
| usaar333 wrote:
| Just from a quick scan, those are a lot worse than the ones
| on the marketing page.
| burkaman wrote:
| Definitely a lot worse, but still an order of magnitude
| better than every other attempt at generative video.
|
| Even these may be cherry-picked though, he's only posted a
| few and I'm sure he's gotten thousands of requests already.
| jonplackett wrote:
| holy crap. these are still amazing though.
|
| I guess he might be generating 50 for each response and
| posting the best, but that would seem deliberately
| disingenuous which hasn't been openai's style.
|
| even the worst is still orders of magnitude better than
| anything else.
| Kiro wrote:
| I don't think they are a lot worse:
|
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1758218059716939853
|
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1758218820542763012
|
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1758219575882301608
|
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1758220311735181384
| nuz wrote:
| This is the second time OpenAI has released something _right_ at
| the same time as google did (Gemini 1.5 Pro with 10M token
| context length just now). Can 't just be a coincidence
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Not to mention, the Gemini 1.5 Pro announcement was almost all
| technical talk whereas Sora is light on text and heavy on
| demonstration.
|
| I'm actually worried about the future of Google at this point.
| They really seem to be struggling under their own weight.
| nopinsight wrote:
| What was released during the first time?
| nuz wrote:
| GPT-4 was released at the same time as Bard was announced I
| believe (same day, same hour basically).
| DylanBohlender wrote:
| They absolutely sat on this and waited until a competitor
| announced something, so they could suck the air out of the
| room.
| fardinahsan146 wrote:
| This is insane.
| sabzetro wrote:
| Can't wait until we can generate feature length films with a
| prompt.
| rambambram wrote:
| I like how the dalmatian puppy moves like a cat.
| sebnun wrote:
| This is amazing. My first thought was about the potential for
| abuse. Deepfakes will be more realistic than ever.
|
| Also, nicely timed to overshadow the Google Gemini 1.5
| announcement.
| aantix wrote:
| This the killer feature.
|
| " Sora can also create multiple shots within a single generated
| video that accurately persist characters and visual style."
|
| To create a movie I need character visual consistency across
| scenes.
|
| Getting that right is the hardest part of all the existing
| text->video tools out there.
| dom96 wrote:
| This is going to make the latest election really interesting (and
| scary). Is anyone working to ensure a faked video of Biden that
| looks plausible but is AI generated doesn't get significant
| traction at a critical moment of the election?
| airstrike wrote:
| They've released it but not made it GA
| duderific wrote:
| That just doesn't seem like a plausible scenario to me.
| Obviously, if such thing happened, Biden would have an alibi,
| since it's known where he is at all times.
|
| The people who already hate Biden, probably already think he's
| doing some weird shady stuff, and would point to some
| conspiracy. The people who like Biden, would accept the alibi.
|
| Ultimately it wouldn't move the needle.
|
| What is concerning, is the technology being used against a
| regular person, who may not have an alibi.
| drcwpl wrote:
| Wow - "All videos on this page were generated directly by Sora
| without modification."
|
| The prompts - incredible and such quality - amazing. "Prompt: An
| extreme close-up of an gray-haired man with a beard in his 60s,
| he is deep in thought pondering the history of the universe as he
| sits at a cafe in Paris, his eyes focus on people offscreen as
| they walk as he sits mostly motionless, he is dressed in a wool
| coat suit coat with a button-down shirt , he wears a brown beret
| and glasses and has a very professorial appearance, and the end
| he offers a subtle closed-mouth smile as if he found the answer
| to the mystery of life, the lighting is very cinematic with the
| golden light and the Parisian streets and city in the background,
| depth of field, cinematic 35mm film."
| bogwog wrote:
| My AI idea: Civil war as a service (CWaaS)
|
| Prompt: poll worker sneakily taking ballots labeled <INSERT
| POLITICAL PARTY HERE>, and throwing them in the trash.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Srsly.
|
| We were not able to handle applications of preexisting tools
| for steering public sentiment, limited to static text and
| puppet account generation etc.
|
| We are not handling the current generation of text and image
| generation, or, deepfake style transfer, or, voice cloning, etc
| ad nauseum.
|
| We will not be able to handle this.
|
| GOOD. TIMES. AHEAD.
|
| but oh that Spatial Video NeRF generated pr0n with biometric
| feedback autotuning and a million token memory for what. I.
| like.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You realize how easy it is to do that with actors, right?
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| It looks beautiful, however I thought openai's mission was
| creating AGI, not become a generative ai content supplier.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| OpenAI demonstrating the size of their moat. How many multi-
| million-dollar funded startups did this just absolutely obsolete?
| This is so, so, so much better than every other generative video
| AI we've seen. Most of those were basically a still image with a
| very slowly moving background. This is not that.
|
| Sam is probably going to get his $7T if he keeps this up, and
| when he does everybody else will be locked out forever.
|
| I already know people who have basically opted out of life.
| They're addicted to porn, addicted to podcasts where it's just
| dudes chatting as if they're all hanging out together, and
| addicted to instagram influencers.
|
| 100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out with
| Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars or
| podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad at
| them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser, etc.
|
| These videos are crazy. Highly suggest anybody who was playing
| with Dall-E a couple of years ago, and being mindblown by "an
| astronaut riding a horse in space" or whatever go back and look
| at the images they were creating then, and compare that to this.
| aantix wrote:
| That's an interesting take - podcasts have become a replacement
| for companionship and conversation.
| testfrequency wrote:
| It's also more fuel for brain rot and toxic personalities to
| spread.
|
| Most podcasters are narcissists
| zamfi wrote:
| Same with TV decades years ago, and radio before that. Just a
| different generation.
| ggregoire wrote:
| That's what Twitch has become too. The most popular Twitch
| streamers do nothing other than watching YouTube videos and
| providing a fake relationship to their 50,000 live viewers.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| I don't buy that. People form fan communities around these
| podcasts where they talk with real people about how much they
| love listening to minor internet celebrities talk about
| nothing. Why would they do that if the podcasts served that
| purpose already?
|
| I think rather than replace real human contact, the internet
| has created an increased demand for it. People need every
| moment of their lives to be filled with human speech or
| images.
|
| If I were to take off my "reasonable point" hat and put on my
| "grandiose bullshit" hat I'd say that in the same way drugs
| can artificially stimulate various "feel good" parts of your
| brain, we have found a way to artificially stimulate the
| "social animal" instinct until we're numb.
|
| I think the real risk of this kind of AI is not that people
| live in a world of fake videos of their favorite celebrities
| talking to them, but that entire fake social media ecosystems
| are created for each individual filled with the content they
| want to see and fake people commenting on it so they can
| argue with them about it.
|
| Everybody needs to read The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
| by Philip K Dick.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| I may be having a hypomanic episode, but I've been thinking
| about it more, and it seems like the entire Internet Age
| has been an attempt to more precisely synthesize the
| substance which sates human social needs artificially, and
| that when they perfect it, it's all over.
| awfulneutral wrote:
| I've been thinking along those lines too, but more from
| the angle that our goal is to eliminate any need to rely
| on other humans for anything. We consider the need for
| interacting with other humans as a burden and an
| inconvenience, and we're going to get rid of it, at the
| cost of all the indirect benefits we got from being
| forced to do it.
| nomel wrote:
| It looks like some people are just learning that introverts
| exist. Maybe there's something interesting about how more
| common it is, but none of this is _new_.
| zer0tonin wrote:
| $7T is more than the budget of the US federal government, a
| third of the NASDAQ, or 2,3x AAPL market cap. Sam getting his
| 7T is not actually possible.
| justrealist wrote:
| > or 2300x AAPL market cap
|
| It's only 2x the AAPL market cap.
| zer0tonin wrote:
| Oops, you're right on that one
| guywithabowtie wrote:
| It is a future projected value of a company. You can not
| realize it. If you start selling stocks, they will drop at
| a rapid pace. The entire stock market is in a way
| projection of all future money the stocks will potentially
| make for a long time. This is not liquid cash that can be
| injected for any other purpose.
| justrealist wrote:
| Cool.
|
| However, the OP was incorrect, it's 2x the AAPL market
| cap.
| synergy20 wrote:
| AAPL is 2.8T now, how is it 2300x AAPL equals to 7T.
|
| 7T is actually possible, but yes it's huge.
| timdiggerm wrote:
| In some places, usage of , and . within numbers is revered
| from what you use
| Ukv wrote:
| The comment they're replying to initially said "2300x",
| but was fixed after it was pointed out
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386997).
|
| IMO HN should have an edit indicator, at least after
| others have already replied.
| kilbuz wrote:
| I can respect that.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| You're comparing cash flow to a static pile of money spent
| over decades
| m3kw9 wrote:
| is 7T over a period of maybe 20 years. 1T is enough to buy
| out most engineers from TSMC, or maybe even buy out TSMC
| figassis wrote:
| Have you considered that he might not actually expect $7T,
| but this ask makes us think $1T is relatively reasonable and
| so he gets it?
| Xirgil wrote:
| It's called anchoring
| ed_balls wrote:
| yes, he is expanding his own personal Overton window.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| The current world economy is $85T/anno
|
| If (the best) AI adds 10% to that, $7T is not only possible
| but a bargain.
| schoen wrote:
| Per annum (the preposition per governs the accusation case
| rather than the ablative case).
| cabalamat wrote:
| $100T in 2022 according to the World Bank.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nom
| i...
| windexh8er wrote:
| AI is more akin to a zero sum game. It won't add 10% to the
| global economy (and if it did - it would be around "peak of
| inflated expectations" and, likely, have a corollary slide
| down into the "trough of disillusionment") because it will
| both distract budgets and/or redirect budgets. That
| hypothetical $7T is not coming out of thin air. I'd even go
| as far to argue that this hype cycle will ultimately
| detract from global economy over time as it's a significant
| draw on resources that could have been / would have been
| used on more productive efforts long term.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| This reads like it could be used to reason against the
| industrial revolution or the first computer revolution or
| any other significant advance in human history. Am I
| missing something?
| zer0tonin wrote:
| James Watt didn't ask for 10% of the global GDP
| educaysean wrote:
| I assume his objection was regarding the AI being a
| "zero-sum game", whatever that was supposed to convey
| ben_w wrote:
| If he had, it would've been a bargain for the impact of
| the industrial revolution.
|
| Watt couldn't have asked, his engines specifically
| weren't enough of a difference by themselves even though
| the revolution as a whole was, and I strongly suspect
| this is also going to be true for any single AI
| developer; _however_ a $7T investment in _many unrelated
| chip factories owned by different people and invested
| over a decade_ , is something I can believe happening.
| cabalamat wrote:
| Or to put it another way, one month's worth of world GDP.
| croes wrote:
| He never mentioned $7T.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| seems like a significant chunk of the population may opt in to
| the Matrix voluntarily.
|
| on another note I find it funny they released this right after
| Google announced their new model. Bad luck for Google or did
| OpenAI just decide to move up their announcement date to steal
| their thunder?
| throwup238 wrote:
| Only those that can afford it. The rest will be forced to
| live in the real world, like 20th century peasants.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| actually the opposite imo, this stuff is the ultimate bread
| and circus to distract poor people from worsening living
| conditions. Much cheaper to provide VR goggles with AI
| model access than housing and healthcare
| throwup238 wrote:
| As long as sex is the competition, I don't think that's
| likely. Simulating orgasms will require the Apple
| iPleasure Maxxx implant and expensive brain surgery &
| recovery.
| emmo wrote:
| I'm not sure sex _is_ always going to be the competition.
| More and more people are sexless (by choice or not).
|
| There are already sex toys that you.. insert yourself in,
| and then have scripts that sync up movements with VR
| videos you are watching.
|
| Crazy times coming in the next few decades.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| If there is a high fidelity nice simulation of a pleasant
| world, and the actual real world is a hellscape, what is the
| problem with that?
|
| If you were presented with the fact that whatever your life
| is is just an illusion, and you are actually a starving slave
| in North Korea, you would choose to "wake up"?
| tmaly wrote:
| This is like something out of Ready Player One
| tomp wrote:
| Why not just take cocaine to fake good feelings, instead of
| seeking real-life experiences that generate good feelings?
|
| (I mean, a lot of people do do that!)
| thepasswordis wrote:
| A lot more people would do that if cocaine was legal, I
| suspect.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Well, there are huge downsides to using cocaine, whether
| it is undesired health impacts, or addiction, or threat
| of arrest, or mere cost, or even just social stigma.
|
| I'm not sure there are downsides to living out your life
| in a simulation while robots take care of your physical
| form.
| swalsh wrote:
| "How many multi-million-dollar funded startups did this just
| absolutely obsolete?"
|
| The play with AI isn't to build the tools to help businesses
| make money, the play is to directly build the businesses that
| makes the money.
|
| In practice this means, don't focus your business model on
| building the AI to make text to video happen. Your business
| model should be an AI studio, if the tech you need doesn't
| exist, build it.... but if you get beat by someone with more
| GPU's and more data, cool use the better models. Your business
| model should focus on using the capability not building it.
| It's proving quite hard to beat someone with more GPU's, more
| data, more brain power.
| loceng wrote:
| Indeed, they're letting all of these businesses and
| professionals subscribe to the gold mining equipment - but
| retaining ownership of it, and they'll be able to undercut
| those services and cut people off as they please.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| But then you're stuck playing in the model owner's playground
| and if you're too successful they can yank the rug from under
| you and steal your business any time they want.
| dheera wrote:
| OpenAI's moat is (a) talent (b) access to compute (c) no fear
| of using whatever data they can get.
|
| On the other hand, I think these moats will be destroyed as
| soon as anyone finds a drastically more efficient (compute- and
| data-wise) way to train LLMs. Biology would suggest that it
| doesn't take $100 million worth of GPUs and exaflops of compute
| to achieve the intelligence of a human.
|
| (Of course it is possible that at that point, OpenAI may then
| be able to achieve something far superior to human
| intelligence, but there is a LOT of $$$ out there that only
| needs human levels of intelligence.)
| golol wrote:
| Biology literally took a planet sized genetic algorithm with
| nanomachines a couple Billion years to get to this point.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > Biology would suggest that it doesn't take $100 million
| worth of GPUs and exaflops of compute to achieve the
| intelligence of a human.
|
| Biology suggests that a self-replicating machine can exist by
| ingesting other machines, turning them into energy and then
| using that energy to power themselves. Biology suggests that
| these machines can be so small that we cannot even see them.
|
| How close are we to making one of those?
| PeterisP wrote:
| I believe that synthetic biology had succeeded already a
| few years ago in making artificial cells with a fully
| synthetic genome designed by us with what is sufficient for
| the cell to eat, grow and replicate, se we already can
| design and make such 'machines'.
| Alifatisk wrote:
| We say 7T$ as if it's nothing, am I the only one shocked by the
| sum we are talking about?
|
| This is close to what BlackRock is managing!
| ben_w wrote:
| I'm fairly sure $7T is a speculation bubble, and that's going
| to pop like all bubbles pop. It's the combined GDP of Japan
| and Canada. It's too big _for an investment_.
|
| It's _not_ necessarily too big for a valuation, as a
| sufficiently capable AI is an economic power in its own
| right: I previously guessed, and even despite its flaws would
| continue to guess within the domain of software development
| at least, that the initial ChatGPT model was about as
| economically valuable to each user as an industrial placement
| student, and when I was one of those I was earning about
| PS1.7k /month when adjusted for inflation, US$2.1k at current
| nominal exchange rates. 100 million users at that rate is
| $2.52e+12/year in economic productivity, and that's with the
| current chip supply and (my estimate of) the productivity of
| a year-old model -- and everyone knows that this sector is
| limited by the chips, and that $7T investment story is
| supposed to be about improving the supply of those chips.
| ericzawo wrote:
| I hate that this is true.
| cabalamat wrote:
| > 100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out
| with Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars
| or podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad
| at them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser,
| etc.
|
| I think immersive games will also be a big application. Games
| AI will also benefit from being more strategically intelligent
| and from being able to negotiate, in a human-like fashion, with
| human and other AI players. The latter will not only make games
| better, it will also improve the intelligence of AIs.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| Yep, since at least World of Warcraft millions of people have
| already "opted out of life" to live in game worlds.
|
| The thing that "The Matrix" style plots get wrong is that the
| machines don't need to coerce us into their virtual prisons,
| we will submit willingly.
| minimaxir wrote:
| > OpenAI demonstrating the size of their moat. How many multi-
| million-dollar funded startups did this just absolutely
| obsolete?
|
| For posterity since the term has been misused lately, having a
| very good product isn't a moat in the business sense. There's
| nothing stopping a competitor from creating a similar product
| (even if it's difficult), and there's nothing currently
| stopping OpenAI's users from switching from using Sora to a
| sufficient competitor if it exists.
|
| Sora is more akin to a company like Apple/Google a decade ago
| using their vast resources to do what a third-party does, but
| better (e.g. the Sherlocked incident:
| https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-
| co...).
| coffeemug wrote:
| Being (a) first and (b) good enough is a moat. Nothing
| stopped people from switching from google to bing all these
| years other than not having any reason to.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Google wasn't the first, as all those altavista investors
| will unhappily attest.
| ericd wrote:
| They were the first to "good enough", which is what the
| GP is talking about.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| OpenAIs moat is their massive access to capital and compute.
| That's what I mean.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Again, that's not a moat.
|
| The original "We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI"
| leaked memo from Google that memefied the term focuses
| explicitly on the increasing ease of competitors
| (especially open-source) entering the ecosystem:
| https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-
| ne...
| thepasswordis wrote:
| First of all, the term moat comes from Warren Buffet, and
| has to do with his investment strategy:
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-explains-
| moat-...
|
| Second: Massive capital expenditure, specifically in this
| case the huge cost of building or leasing enormous GPU
| clusters, is *exactly* what he means by this.
| rvnx wrote:
| Exactly, to create larger and better performing models,
| there is no lack of ideas or techniques. The real problem
| is to have the GPUs for that.
| declaredapple wrote:
| I disagree mainly because google, aws, apple, etc. All
| have similar, or even more access to GPU compute and
| funding for it, and in google's case also has been one of
| the main research contributers, yet they still struggle
| to touch GPT4's performance in practice.
|
| If it was as simple as dropping 10's millions on compute
| they could do that, yet google's bard/gemini have been a
| year behind GPT4's performance.
|
| That said I do agree that it's a moat for the startups
| like stability/mistral, etc. They also have access to
| $/compute, albiet a lot less. And you can see this in
| their research, as they've been focused on methods to
| lower the training/inference costs.
|
| *I'm measuring performance by the chatbot arena's elo
| system and r/locallama
| declaredapple wrote:
| > What we're trying to find is a business that, for one
| reason or another -- it can be because it's the low-cost
| producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural
| franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be
| because of its position in the consumers' mind, it can be
| because of a technological advantage, or any kind of
| reason at all, that it has this moat around it.
|
| He didn't seem to have specific definition at all really.
|
| I think most people attribute it to a "secret sauce
| technology" in the case of OpenAI, I'm not sure if
| "finances to lease a huge cluster of GPUs" makes sense
| here because the main competitors (Google, AWS, Apple,
| etc) also have access to insane compute as well yet have
| struggled to get close to GPT4's performance in practice.
|
| That said I do agree that it's a moat for the startups
| like stability/mistral, etc. They also have access to
| $/compute, albiet a lot less. And you can see this in
| their research, as they've been focused on methods to
| lower the training/inference costs.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I believe that Google actually has more AI compute at
| their disposal than OpenAI. They have been building out
| their TPU infrastructure for a while now. OpenAI is
| reliant on Azure obtaining nvidia GPUs.
|
| So at least in the battle between OpenAI and Google,
| their moat right now are their models.
| ericd wrote:
| Moats have never been uncrossable, they just make it
| harder to get to the walls.
| frabcus wrote:
| I agree it isn't a moat in the business sense - that
| would be some kind of lock in network effect.
|
| e.g. If ChatGPT being popular gives OpenAI enough extra
| training data, they're locked in forever having the best
| model, and it is impossible for anyone - even with
| unlimited money, and the same technology - to beat them.
| Because they don't have that critical data.
|
| Yes, Google had the best search product, and got a huge
| market share simply by being better. Their moat however
| is that their search rankings are based off the click
| data of which search results people use and cause them to
| stop their search because they've found a solution.
|
| They also have a moat to do with advertising pricing,
| based on volume of advertising customers.
|
| Bing spend a lot of capital, and had the tech ability,
| but those two moats blocked them gaining more than a tiny
| market share.
|
| In this case, maybe OpenAI will have a video business
| moat, maybe they don't...
| neosat wrote:
| "having a very good product isn't a moat"
|
| It definitely is. Having the best product and being able to
| maintain that best-in-class product status over time through
| a firm's 'internal capabilities' is very much _a_ moat and a
| strong one at that. A moat is the business strategy sense is
| anything that enables a firm to maintain competitive
| advantage. Having the best product in a category, and being
| able to maintain that over releases is a strong competitive
| advantage (especially when there is high willingness to pay
| or price is a strong competitive dimension compared to the
| value created).
| cma wrote:
| That's not a real moat except in one sense: if it is really
| expensive to get to the level to compete, and you know a
| competitive market would bring margins near zero, then no
| competitor may actually step up. We see this in off-patent
| drugs, where it may have 200X margins but no competitor
| will go through the FDA manufacturing reapproval process
| because they won't actually get those margins if they begin
| competing on price, and then the sunk cost of getting to
| the competitive level isn't worth anything for them.
|
| I think OpenAI's big moats are in userbase feedback and
| just proprietary trade knowledge after they stopped sharing
| model details. They may have made some exclusive data
| source deals with book/textbook and other publishers,
| though it isn't clear a license is actually needed for that
| until things work through the courts.
| ij09j901023123 wrote:
| Nah, this is gonna be the next big thing since the
| Iphone. You're gonna see Sam surpass Elon in the next
| decade
| tomp wrote:
| There is nothing stopping Wolkswagen from creating a product
| similar to Tesla.
|
| There is nothing stoping Microsoft from creating a search
| engine as good as Google's.
|
| There is nothing stopping Facebook from creating an iPhone
| alternative, after all it's just engineering!
|
| There is nothing stopping Google from beating GPT-4.
|
| Shall I go on?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| To what end?
|
| The point is that "moat" gets conflated with just being
| ahead in the game. I don't find it a super interesting
| point of contention, but there is a distinction alright.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Having a very good product can be a moat if it takes enormous
| resources and skill to create said product.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > There's nothing stopping a competitor from creating a
| similar product
|
| This is like saying there's nothing stopping a competitor
| from launching reusable rockets into space. Of course there
| isn't, but it's hard and won't happen for the foreseeable
| future.
|
| Similarly with a physical moat, it's not impossible to cross,
| but it's hard to do.
| superjared wrote:
| > 100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out
| with Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars
| or podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad
| at them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser,
| etc.
|
| This is the stuff of Brave New World. It's happening to us in
| real time.
| tmaly wrote:
| Even with 7 trillion, he is still going to need a national grid
| that can supply the power for the compute.
|
| There is a lot that has to planned and put in place now to get
| there.
|
| As for people that have opted out of life. We would have a
| better world if we started encouraging more dreamers/doers like
| out of the movie Tomorrowland.
| carbine wrote:
| I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not sure the
| dystopian conclusion is the main one I'd draw.
|
| Improving your ability to connect with and enjoy/learn from
| people all around the world is one of the main value props of
| the internet, and tech like this just deepens that potential.
| Will some people take this to an unhealthy degree that pulls
| them too far out of reality? Yes. But others will use it to
| level up their abilities, enrich their lives, create beautiful
| things, and reduce loneliness.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Looks like they have made large progress in hand generation.
| They still look like claws a bit but you didn't have to add a
| workaround for the query to render correctly and I had to zoom
| in to verify . When I was watching it the first time I didn't
| even notice hand issues.
| advael wrote:
| I think there are people for whom the fundamental assumption
| that someone will want "more" of stuff they already like does
| not hold, and that while those people are a minority, recent
| developments in the media landscape toward a constant stream of
| increasingly similarity-curated media has caused them to
| increasingly disengage from media consumption
|
| That said, those people are by definition less relevant to
| internet consumption metrics
| jijijijij wrote:
| I predict, this "AI" content generation will eat itself at
| last. It will outcompete the low-effort "content" industry as
| is. Then inevitably completely devalue this sort of "product".
| Because it will never get to 100% of the real thing, the "AI"
| content craze will ultimately implode.
|
| I bet we won't get AGI as a progression of this very
| technology. The impression of "usefulness" will end when "AI"
| is starting to drink its own Koolaid on a large scale (copilot
| lol), and when everyone starts using it as super inefficient
| business interface. Overfitted mediocre mediocrity, on
| steroids.
|
| Hopefully, this sobriety happens before the economy collapses,
| as a consequence of all dem bullshit jobs cleansed.
| visarga wrote:
| Funny you chose the day of a huge leap in generative video to
| proclaim generative model limitations.
| jijijijij wrote:
| I know, right? Incidentally, even in the same HN thread,
| too!
| neilk wrote:
| I think this analysis is flawed. New technologies are usually
| bad at substituting for things that already exist. It's 100%
| true this will not substitute for the existing genre of film
| and video.
|
| New technologies change the economics of how we satisfy our
| needs.
|
| When search engines became good, many pundits confidently
| predicted Google would never replace librarians or libraries.
| It didn't. It shifted our relationship to knowledge; instead
| of having to employ an expert in looking things up, we all
| had to become experts at sifting through a flood of info.
|
| When the cost of producing art-directed and realistic video
| goes to zero it's hard to predict what's going to happen.
| Obviously the era of video = veracity is now over. And you
| can get the equivalent of Martin Scorsese and a million
| dollar budget to do the video instructions for a hair dryer.
| Instead of hunting for a gif to express how you feel,
| captured from an existing TV show or something, you could
| create a scene on the fly and attach it to a text message. Or
| maybe you dispense with text messages altogether. Maybe text
| is only for talking to computers now.
|
| My personal prediction is that the value of a degree in art
| history is going to go way, way up, because they'll be the
| best prompt engineers. And just like desktop publishing
| spawned legions of amateur typesetters, it will create lots
| of lore among amateur video creators.
| jijijijij wrote:
| I didn't analyze anything.
|
| I haven't seen a lot of use cases outside of productions
| and businesses, which shouldn't exist in the first place
| (at least to this extent).
|
| Some of our "needs" are flawed, since "content" speaks to
| evolutionary relicts developed in times of scarcity and
| life in small groups. In the unbounded production of "AI",
| there is no way to keep up the sense of _newness_ of input
| indefinitely. I am already fatigued by "AI" """art""". It
| has no real relevancy. You can't trust any of it.
|
| Every medium where "AI" content becomes prevalent, will
| lose it's appeal. E.g. if I get the impression a
| significant proportion of comments here were "AI"
| generated, I will leave HN. Thing is, all these open
| platforms can't prevent "AI" spam. So they will die. Look
| at the frontpage of Reddit... it's _almost all_ reposts, by
| karma farming bots. Youtube "AI" spam already drowning
| real content. This is what's going to happen to everything.
| User content will die. "Content" will die. The web will
| die. You won't even try, because of "AI" generated fatigue.
|
| > My personal prediction is that the value of a degree in
| art history is going to go way, way up, because they'll be
| the best prompt engineers.
|
| Lol. Yeah, "best prompt engineer" in the infinitely
| abundant production economy...
|
| You people really need to iterate the world you are
| imagining a few times more and maybe think about some
| fundamentals a bit.
|
| _If_ I am wrong, life will be hell.
| zuminator wrote:
| Do people care about 100% of the real thing though? Phone
| photos are oversaturated and over-sharpened. TikTok and other
| social media videos are more often then not run through
| filters giving their creators impossibly smooth skin and slim
| waists along with other effects not intended to look in any
| way realistic. Almost every major motion picture has tons of
| visual effects that defy physical reality. Nature
| documentaries have for decades faked or sweetened their sound
| production, staged their encounters with wildlife, etc.
|
| People are more concerned about being stimulated than they
| are about verisimilitude.
| macrolime wrote:
| >100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out with
| Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars or
| podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad at
| them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser,
| etc.
|
| All of these things are against the terms of service and
| attempting them may result in a ban.
| resolutebat wrote:
| There are no terms of service for the open-source clone of
| this that we'll have in 6 months.
| raydev wrote:
| Is there an open-source GPT4 equivalent right now? Doesn't
| seem like anything has taken off and gotten rave reviews on
| the level of OpenAI's offering yet.
| resolutebat wrote:
| Equivalent, no. Close enough for many uses, sure, and
| it's getting better all the time.
| treprinum wrote:
| It's going to take a while to make this realtime as you
| suggest. The lower the latency, the more $$$ it costs
| (exponentially).
| karmasimida wrote:
| This is very impressive
|
| But VFX isn't that big of a market by itself: Global visual
| effects (VFX) market size was US$ 10.0 Billion in 2023
| ben_w wrote:
| > Sam is probably going to get his $7T if he keeps this up, and
| when he does everybody else will be locked out forever.
|
| I would be extremely surprised if he could get past the market
| cap of all current corporations as an investment. That doesn't
| mean "no, never"[0], but I would be extremely surprised.
|
| $7T in one go would be 6.7% of global GDP, and is approximately
| the combined GDP of Japan and Canada.
|
| > These videos are crazy. Highly suggest anybody who was
| playing with Dall-E a couple of years ago, and being mindblown
| by "an astronaut riding a horse in space" or whatever go back
| and look at the images they were creating then, and compare
| that to this.
|
| Indeed, though I will moderate that by analogy: it's been just
| over 30 years since DOOM was released, and that was followed by
| a large number of breathless announcements about how each game
| had "amazing photorealistic graphics that beat everything else"
| while forgetting that the same people had said the same things
| about all the other games released since DOOM.
|
| Don't get me wrong: these clips are amazing. They may not be
| perfect, but it took me a few loops to notice the errors.
|
| I'm sure there are people with better eyes for details than me,
| who will spot more errors, spot them sooner, and keep noticing
| them long after GenAI seems perfect to me.
|
| But I also expect that, just as 3D games' journalism spent a
| long time convinced the products were perfect when they
| weren't, so too will GenAI journalism spend a long time
| convinced the products are perfect before they actually are.
|
| [0] a sufficiently capable AI _is an economic power in its own
| right_. I previously guessed, and even with it 's flaws would
| continue to guess, that the initial ChatGPT model was about as
| economically valuable to each user as an industrial placement
| student, and when I was one of those I was earning PS1k/month
| (about PS1.7k/month when adjusted for inflation).
| gwern wrote:
| Yes, the 'special effects' effect will kick in. Within a year
| or so, you'll spot this easily, quite aside from the more
| obvious issues. (That Landrover captioned 'DANDOVER' - is
| this _still_ using BPEs?!)
|
| Aside from visual plausibility, there's also the issue of
| physics: one of the things you would like to use video models
| for is understanding real-world physics and cause-and-effect
| for planning or learning _in silico_. Something may _look_
| good but get key physics wrong and be useless for, say,
| robotics.
| patrickwalton wrote:
| This comment just hit the charts of the black mirror scoreboard
| IceHegel wrote:
| Those samples are incredibly impressive. It blows RunwayML out of
| the water.
|
| As a layman watching the space, I didn't expect this level of
| quality for two or three more years. Pretty blown away, the
| puppies in the snow were really impressive.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| i'm not surprised given what was there before, the stills from
| stability was really good, and it's "just" generating new
| frames.
| Xirgil wrote:
| Maintaining continuity of appearance, motion, etc does not
| seem like a "just" to me
| drcongo wrote:
| This is actually mind-blowing.
| smusamashah wrote:
| Did anyone else feel motion sickness or nausea watching some of
| these videos? In some of the videos with some panning or rotating
| motion, i felt some nausea like sickness effect. I guess its
| because some details were changing while in motion and I was
| unable to keep track or focus anything in particular.
|
| Effect was stronger in some videos.
| _bramses wrote:
| I do. My hypothesis is that there isn't really good bokeh yet
| in the videos, and our brains get motion sick trying to decide
| what to focus on. I.e. _too much_ movement and *too much
| detail* spread out throughout the frame. Add motion to that and
| you have a recipe for nausea (at least for now)
| throwanem wrote:
| You can shoot with high depth of field and not cause motion
| sickness. Aerial videography does that every day, and it's no
| more difficult in general to parse than looking out an
| airliner window or at a distant horizon would be.
|
| I suspect GP is closer to on the money here, in suspecting
| the issue lies with a semblance of movement that _isn 't_
| like what we see when we look at something a long way away.
|
| I didn't notice such an effect myself, but I also haven't yet
| inspected the videos in much detail, so I doubt I'd have
| noticed it in any case.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I think part of it might be the slow motion / high frame rate
| effect. I get this too sometimes with the Apple TV backgrounds.
| charlotte-fyi wrote:
| Yeah, these all made me feel incredibly nauseous. I was trying
| to figure out what aspect of the motion was triggering this
| (bad parallax?) but couldn't. The results are impressive but
| it's still amazing to me how little defects like this can
| trigger our sense of not just uncanniness but actual sickness.
| hbn wrote:
| I think I feel a bit of queasiness but more from the fact that
| I'm looking at what I recognize as actual humans, and I'm
| making judgements about what kinds of people they are as I do
| with any other human, but it's actually not a human. It's not a
| person that exists.
| timeon wrote:
| Perfect fit for VR.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Goodbye, Hollywood!
| idiliv wrote:
| People here seem mostly impressed by the high resolution of these
| examples.
|
| Based on my experience doing research on Stable Diffusion,
| scaling up the resolution is the conceptually easy part that only
| requires larger models and more high-resolution training data.
|
| The hard part is semantic alignment with the prompt. Attempts to
| scale Stable Diffusion, like SDXL, have resulted only in
| marginally better prompt understanding (likely due to the
| continued reliance on CLIP prompt embeddings).
|
| So, the key question here is how well Sora does prompt alignment.
| golol wrote:
| The real advancement is the consistency of character, scene,
| and movement!
| swayvil wrote:
| It really makes me wonder if something like this is running
| inside my head.
|
| The prompt tho. Probably not text. Probably a stream of vibes or
| something.
| ummonk wrote:
| Looked at the first clip and immediately noticed the woman's feet
| swap at ~15 seconds in. My eyes were drawn to the feet because of
| the extreme supination in her steps.
|
| Looks like a dramatic improvement in video generation but still a
| miss in terms of realism unless one can apply pose control to the
| generated videos.
| tzm wrote:
| "so far ahead" "leaps and bounds beyond anything out there" "This
| is insane"
|
| Let's temper the emotions for a second. Sora is great, but it's
| not ready for prime time. Many people are working on this problem
| that haven't shared their results yet. The speed of refinement is
| what's more interesting to me.
| kevingadd wrote:
| It's interesting how a lot of the higher frequency detail is
| obviously quantized. The motion of humans in the drone shots for
| example is very 'low frequency' or 'low framerate', and things
| like flowing ocean water also appears to be quantized. I assume
| this is because of the internal precision of these models not
| being very high?
| ugh123 wrote:
| Imagine a movie script, but with more detail of the scenes and
| actors, plugged into this.
|
| The killer app for this is being able to give a prompt of a
| detailed description of a scene, with actor movements and all
| detail of environment, structure, furniture, etc. Add to that
| camera views/angles/movement specified in the prompt along with
| text for actors.
| jk_tech wrote:
| This is bananas. This is ahead of anything else I've seen. The
| entire stock footage industry may be shut down over night because
| of something like this.
|
| And it is still not perfect. Looking at the example of the
| plastic chair being dug up in the desert[1] is frankly a bit...
| funky. But imagine in 5 or even 10 years.
|
| 1. https://openai.com/sora?video=chair-archaeology
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Impressive actually, i can actually see UI being real time
| generated one day now.
|
| You give it data like real time stock data, feed it into Sora,
| the prompt is "I need a chart based on the data, show me
| different time ranges"
|
| As you move the cursor, it feeds into sora again, generating the
| next frame in real time.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| How many of the video startups are shtting their pants right now?
| break_the_bank wrote:
| In less than a few hours Gemini 1.5 is old news. Sam is doing
| live demos on Twitter while Google just released a blog.
|
| Didn't think Google would be the first of the Facebook, Apple,
| Google and Microsoft to get disrupted.
| Alifatisk wrote:
| I disagree, Gemini 1.5 is still impressive (if true) with the
| 10 million context size!
| umeshunni wrote:
| It'll be impressive when I can use it.
| alooPotato wrote:
| you can't use sora either
| joshua11 wrote:
| At least you can see the demos. Google released a blog
| post and was like, keep waiting
| Alifatisk wrote:
| There's also videos showcasing Gemini Pro 1.5, but
| historically speaking, Google hasn't been fully truthful
| with their demos.
|
| Can't you access Gemini Pro 1.5 through Vertex Ai?
| htrp wrote:
| Whitelist only (talk to your GCP account rep)
| joshua11 wrote:
| Welp, I can't upvote. But this ^^^
| minimaxir wrote:
| There's not really too much to talk about Gemini 1.5 as it's an
| iteration and there's not much to test around the new context
| length.
|
| The Sora demos are more interesting.
| matsemann wrote:
| Did they have this ready to go to upstage whatever Google would
| release? Or just coincidental both things announced today?
| Palmik wrote:
| It's just as likely that Google knew OpenAI has their
| announcement planned for today and wanted to preempt it.
| Happens all the time.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| The fact that SamA just seems to go off the cuff on twitter
| pretty frequently is such a breath of fresh air.
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| Hes a real CEO, Sundar is just a political appointment
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| As someone who just skims Hacker News and little else and
| no skin in the game, I always get the impression that
| Pichai is the weakest of the big tech CEOs, compared to
| Satya, Cook, etc.
|
| Is my impression correct? Or it's just that the anti-Google
| sentiment is strong in HN?
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| No hes bad. Very good politician at Google, did some
| interesting moves with Chrome a long time back. Not a
| visionary, and they are afraid of ai overtaking google
| overstay8930 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure everyone saw Google as a directionless pile of
| money, there's a reason killedbygoogle exists.
| karmasimida wrote:
| I mean, why would this make google look bad?
|
| Gemini is catching up, so OpenAI needs a new venue to market
| itself to the investors. It is doing a soft pivoting if you ask
| me, now GPT4 is like not that special anymore.
| Oras wrote:
| That's the point I guess. They are just catching up, not
| really making leaps.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Fair
|
| On the other hand, Video to google is much less relevant
| than text. But if OpenAI figuring out something from it to
| AGI, that would be a different story.
| cma wrote:
| Youtube? Someone's going to make a tiktok like quick-
| feedback thing of purely generated stuff that learns what
| you like and tailors the generations to you, and, despite
| Google owning Youtube, OpenAI looks far closer to it than
| them.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Youtube is a video hosting platform, its advantage is in
| video delivery and ads. Why would a video generation
| software disrupts business?
|
| Creating _realistic_ video isn 't hard even today, you
| can just do it on your phone and creating hours, hours of
| cat/dog videos. The hard part is to find a story to make
| it interesting. It could be possible in the future, like
| automatic film making, from script to realization, but
| that doesn't make YouTube's business go away either.
| digging wrote:
| > Why would a video generation software disrupts
| business?
|
| If those videos aren't hosted on YouTube.
| rvz wrote:
| YouTube is just another moat for Google to catch up to
| Sora.
|
| But this time, Google is finally showing their war face
| instead of not trying hard to compete against Microsoft
| and OpenAI.
| VladimirGolovin wrote:
| I did not expect this level of quality in the beginning of 2024.
| Makes me think that we may see AGI by the end of this decade.
| tropdrop wrote:
| I see many possibilities for commercials, demos... not to mention
| kids' animations, of course.
|
| Actually, thinking of this from the perspective of a start-up, it
| could be cool to instantly demonstrate a use-case of a product
| (with just a little light editing of a phone screen in post). We
| spent a lot of money on our product demo videos and now this
| would basically be free.
| unleaded wrote:
| how will the AI know what your product looks like? You probably
| already have CAD models, couldn't you import those into blender
| and make something in an afternoon or two?
| tropdrop wrote:
| Sure, for a technical demo, that's no problem. I'm talking
| about those more general kind of commercials meant to make
| the product more approachable to a lay person - showing a
| woman using the app on site to fulfill task X (this is where
| the screen grab will be superimposed in post), showing a man
| smiling and sitting down at a coffee shop and continuing to
| work after task has been fulfilled, etc.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > how will the AI know what your product looks like?
|
| Training an embedding/LoRA on the product and using it with
| the base model, same as is done for image-generation models
| (video generation models usually often use very similar
| architecture to image generation models -- e.g., SVD is a
| Stable Diffusion 2.x family model with some tweaks.)
|
| Now, you may not be be able to do this with Sora when OpenAI
| releases it as a public product, just like you can't with
| DALL-E. But that's a limitation of OpenAI's decisions around
| what to expose, not the underlying technology.
| AbuAssar wrote:
| Sora means picture or image in Arabic language
| ilteris wrote:
| Where is the tool that we can try?
| OscarTheGrinch wrote:
| How is this done technically? So many moving parts and the
| tracking on each is exquisite.
|
| My initial observation is that the camera moves are very similar
| to a camera in a 3D modeling program: on an inhuman dolly flying
| through space on a impossibly smooth path / bezier curve. Makes
| me wonder if there is actually a something like 3D simulation at
| the root here, or maybe a 3D unsupervised training loop, and they
| are somehow mapping persistent AI textures onto it?
| peterisza wrote:
| holy ....
| doakes wrote:
| This is super cool. So many innovations come to mind. But it
| makes me wonder what will come from having the ability to
| virtually experience anything we want. It'll take a while, but
| I'm hoping we'll eventually want to go outside more instead of
| less.
| thomastraum wrote:
| I am a CG artist and Director and this made me so sad. I am
| watching in horror and amazement. I am not anti AI at all, but
| being on the wrong side of efficiency, for the individual this is
| heartbreaking. its so much fun to make CG and create shots and
| the reason its hard (just like anything) makes it rewarding.
| superconduct123 wrote:
| I'm conflicted though because on the flip side it could open up
| filmmaking to way more people who don't have the
| skills/money/time
|
| Like what if any artist could make a whole movie by themself
| without needing millions of dollars or hundreds of people
|
| Similar to how you used to need a huge studio full of equipment
| to record music and now someone in their bedroom with a DAW can
| do it
| Zelphyr wrote:
| I can't help but worry that this will make it too easy to
| create movies and the product will be of much lower quality.
| There is precedence here in the music industry. A recent
| report came out that said that about 70% of music sales was
| catalog music, implying that people are buying less new music
| than old. I personally feel that's because the new music just
| isn't very good and one of the reasons is, it's too easy to
| make and distribute music now.
| Solvency wrote:
| That is a ridiculous take. Look at the absolute SEA of
| bottom-barrel content flooding every single streaming
| platform. For people at the top of the studio system, they
| are already living out their AI power trips, just in the
| meatspace.
|
| The entire industry is already turning out terrible shit,
| but doing it by wasting hundreds of thousands of actors,
| production teams, and studio dollars in order to churn out
| that nonsense.
|
| Meanwhile, there are millions of latent storytellers, who,
| for whatever reason (but primarily: not born into extreme
| wealth and nepotistic connections) could never express
| their ideas in motion/cinema at such ambitious scales.
|
| By putting this power in the hands of actually talented
| writers and storytellers, you create a completely new
| market of potentially incredible works of art.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Sure. But you have to admit that you also create a new
| market of low effort garbage art. The question is which
| is bigger, and where the money will ultimately go.
| gcanko wrote:
| I think an important skill in the future would be just having
| good ideas. That's going to differentiate the winners from
| the losers
| manuka wrote:
| Why the terror? Your job will change a bit but won't be gone.
| You would guide the output and make prompts not with text but
| your own video CGI shorts to make things 100% to your liking
| and the AI will do the rest of the dirty work. You productivity
| will grow and quality of your work too. You would be able to
| make an AAA movie all by yourself on a laptop. Since everyone
| would be able to do the same, the fight for the imagination and
| inginuity in scripting and artists view would skyroket. :) IMHO
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| You are rather cavalier about other people's livelihoods.
| There will be budget for maybe 10% of the people currently
| employed, and yes, they will be making use of the new tools
| and they'll adapt. The other 90% are going to be doing
| doordash until they can figure out a new career.
| ihumanable wrote:
| The terror is because companies want to maximize profits and
| a great way to do that is to minimize costs.
|
| If you have a team of X people producing Y pieces, and now X
| people can produce 10Y pieces, everything is fine as long as
| the demand for pieces keeps up. But if your company really
| only needs Y pieces or really any amount less than 10Y then
| the easiest thing for a company to do is go, "We don't really
| need X people, let's fire some"
|
| Getting fired, in America at least, means loss of healthcare,
| income, and if it persists long enough housing. Most people
| are terrified of being homeless, broke, and without access to
| medicine.
| avisser wrote:
| > Your job will change a bit but won't be gone. > You[r]
| productivity will grow
|
| This aren't compatible at scale. If productivity grows, there
| will be less people doing the job.
| VMG wrote:
| Programmers are more productive than years ago and there
| are many more of them
| timeon wrote:
| Sometimes it looks like the peek is ending. Who knows.
| charlotte-fyi wrote:
| Many people consider what you refer to as "the dirty work" as
| precisely the point of creative practices.
| __loam wrote:
| I think it's okay to be a bit anti ai lol.
| Keyframe wrote:
| Ex colleague then! I'm kind of glad I went out of it all now
| that I see all of this, but on the other hand it's also an
| amazing opportunity unfolding, as long as it's directable. What
| a great toolset! For what you've had to have army of people,
| freezing ass on location, working with actors.. soon gone.
| Well, if you want it to. On the other hand, look at what
| happened to imagery, concept art in general. For the better
| part it cheapened it. Turned it into this mass produced, easily
| available thing that it's not special anymore. Skills are still
| needed to produce exactly what you want, but the special flair
| is kind of gone. It will need way more energy and creativity
| now to stand out.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I am genuinely impressed.
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is insane. But I'm impressed most of all by the quality of
| _motion_. I 've quite simply _never seen convincing computer-
| generated motion before_. Just look at the way the wooly mammoths
| connect with the ground, and their lumbering mass feels real.
|
| Motion-capture works fine because that's real motion, but every
| time people try to animate humans and animals, even in big-budget
| CGI movies, it's always ultimately obviously fake. There are so
| many subtle things that happen in terms of acceleration and
| deceleration of all of the different parts of an organism, that
| no animator ever gets it 100% right. No animation _algorithm_
| gets it to a point where it 's believable, just where it's "less
| bad".
|
| But these videos seem to be getting it entirely believable for
| both people and animals. Which is _wild_.
|
| And then of course, not to mention that these are entirely
| believable 3D spaces, with seemingly full object permanence. As
| opposed to other efforts I've seen which are basically briefly
| animating a 2D scene to make it seem vaguely 3D.
| swamp40 wrote:
| It's been trained on videos exclusively. Then GPT-4 interprets
| your prompt for it.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Motion-capture works fine because that's real motion
|
| Except in games where they mo-cap at a frame rate less than
| what it will be rendered at and just interpolate between mo-cap
| samples, which makes snappy movements turn into smooth
| movements and motions end up in the uncanny valley.
|
| It's especially noticeable when a character is talking and
| makes a "P" sound. In a "P", your lips basically "pop" open.
| But if the motion is smoothed out, it gives the lips the look
| of making an "mm" sound. The lips of someone saying "post"
| looks like "most".
|
| At 30 fps, it's unnoticeable. At 144 fps, it's jarring once you
| see it and can't unsee it.
| isthispermanent wrote:
| Pixar is computer generated motion, no?
| minimaxir wrote:
| With extreme amounts of man-hours to do so.
| viewtransform wrote:
| Main Pixar characters are all computer animated by humans.
| Physics effects like water, hair, clothing, smoke and
| background crowds use computer physics simulation but there
| are handles allowing an animator to direct the motion as per
| the directors wishes.
| gerash wrote:
| When others create text to video systems (eg. Lumiere from
| Google) they publish the research (eg.
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12945.pdf). Open AI is all about
| commercialization. I don't like their attitude
| y_gy wrote:
| Ironic, isn't it! OpenAI started out "open," publishing
| research, and now "ClosedAI" would be a much better name.
| ionwake wrote:
| TBH they should just rename to ClosedAI and run with it, I
| and others would appreciate the honesty plus it would be
| amusing.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| However if you are playing for the regulatory capture
| route (which Sam Altman seems to be angling for) it's
| much easier if your name is "OpenAI".
| tavavex wrote:
| If you go full regulatory capture, you might as well name
| it "AI", The AI Company.
| ionwake wrote:
| You never go "full" regulatory capture.
| efrank3 wrote:
| gottem
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Sick burn!
| mtillman wrote:
| OAI requires a real mobile phone number to signup and are
| therefore an adtech company.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Might be one of the most absurd things said on here.
| Requiring a phone number for sign up does not automatically
| mean you are selling ads.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| When the time for making money comes, if you don't think
| OpenAI will sell every drop of information they have on
| you, then you are incredibly naive. Why would they leave
| money on the table when everyone else has been doing it
| for forever without any adverse effects?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| If Google Workspace was selling my or any customers
| information, at all or "forever", it would not be called
| Google Workspace, it would be called Google We-died-in-
| the-most-expensive-lawsuit-of-all-time.
| Zacharias030 wrote:
| They are currently hiring people with Adtech experience.
|
| The most simple version would be an ad-supported ChatGPT
| experience. Anyone thinking that an internet consumer
| company with 100m weekly active users (I'm citing from
| their job ad) is not going to sell ads is lacking
| imagination.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Not to be overly cute, but if the cutting edge research you
| do is maybe changing the world fundamentally, forever,
| guarding that tech should be really, really, really far up
| your list of priorities and everyone else should be really
| happy about your priorities.
|
| And that should probably take precedence over the semantics
| of your moniker, every single time (even if hn continues to
| be super sour about it)
| cloogshicer wrote:
| I'd much rather this tech be open - better for everyone to
| have it than a select few.
|
| The more powerful, the more important it is that everyone
| has access.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Do you feel the same way about nuclear weapons tech?
|
| That "the more powerful, the more important it is that
| everyone has access"?
|
| Especially considering that the biggest killer app for AI
| could very well be smart weapons like we've never seen
| before.
| spdustin wrote:
| I feel this is a false equivalence.
|
| Nukes aren't even close to being commodities, cannot be
| targeted at a class of people (or a single person), and
| have a minutely small number of users. (Don't argue
| semantics with "class of people" when you know what I
| mean, btw)
|
| On the other hand, tech like this can easily become as
| common as photoshop, can cause harm to a class of people,
| and be deployed on a whim by an untrained army of
| malevolent individuals or groups.
| tavavex wrote:
| An AI video generator can't kill billions of people, for
| one. I'd prefer it if access wasn't limited to a single
| corporation that's accountable to no one and is
| incentivized to use it for their benefits only.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > accountable to no one
|
| What do you mean? Are you being dramatic or do you
| actually believe that the US government will/can not
| _absolutely_ shut OpenAI down, if they feel it was
| required to guarantee state order?
| tavavex wrote:
| For the US government to step in, they'd have to do
| something extremely dangerous (and refuse to share with
| the government). If we're talking about video generation,
| the benefits they have are financial, and the lack of
| accountability is in that they can do things no one else
| can. I'm not saying they'll be allowed to break the law,
| there's plenty of space between the two extremes. Though,
| given how things were going, I can also see OpenAI
| teaming up with the US government and receiving exclusive
| privileges to run certain technologies for the sake of
| "safety". It's what Altman has already been pushing for.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Oof, imagine if our safeguard for nuclear weapons was
| that a private company kept it safe.
| iwsk wrote:
| Should nukes be open source?
| spdustin wrote:
| I humbly refer you to this comment:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39389262
| jstummbillig wrote:
| As long as destroying things remains at least two
| magnitudes easier than building things and defending
| against attacks, this take (as a blanket statement) will
| continue to be indefensible and irresponsible.
| creatonez wrote:
| This is meaningless until you've defined "world changing".
| It's possible that open sourcing AIs will be world-changing
| in a good way and developing closed source AIs will be
| world-changing in a bad way.
|
| If I engineered the tech I would be much more fearful of
| the possibility of malice in the future leadership of the
| organization I'm under if they continue to keep it closed,
| than I would be fearful of the whole world getting the
| capability if they decide to open source.
|
| I feel that, like with Yellow Journalism of the 1920s, much
| of the misinformation problem with generative AI will only
| be mitigated during widespread proliferation, wherein
| people become immune to new tactics and gain a new
| skepticism of the media. I've always thought it strange
| when news outlets discuss new deepfakes but refuse to show
| it, even with a watermark indicating it is fake.
| Misinformation research shows that people become more
| skeptical once they learn about the technological measures
| (e.g. buying karma-farmed Reddit accounts, or in the 1920s,
| taking advantage of dramatically lower newspaper printing
| costs to print sensationalism) through which misinformation
| is manufactured.
| bamboozled wrote:
| What a load...image if everyone else guarded all their
| discoveries, there'd be no text to video would there?
| omega3 wrote:
| Out of all the examples, the wooly mammoths one actually feels
| like CGI the most to me, the other ones are much more
| believable than this one.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Possibly because there are no videos or even photos of live
| wooly mammoths, but loads and loads of CG recreations in
| various documentaries.
| mikeInAlaska wrote:
| I saw the cat in the bed grows an extra limb...
| krapp wrote:
| Cats are weird sometimes.
| patall wrote:
| I disagree, just look at the legs of the woman in the first
| video. First she seems to be limping, than the legs rotate. The
| mammoth are totally uncanny for me as its both running and
| walking at the same time.
|
| Don't get me wrong, it is impressive. But I think many people
| will be very uncomfortable with such motion very quickly. Same
| story as the fingers before.
| Hoasi wrote:
| > I disagree, just look at the legs of the woman in the first
| video.
|
| The people behind her all walk at the same pace and seem like
| floating. The moving reflections, on the other hand, are
| impressive make-believe.
| kyrra wrote:
| If you watch the background, you'll see one guy has hits
| pants change color. And also, some of the guys are absolute
| giants compared to people around them.
| lukan wrote:
| Yeah, it looks good at first glance. Also the fingers are
| still weird. And I suppose for every somewhat working vid,
| there were dozens of garbage. At least that was my experience
| with image generation.
|
| I don't believe, movie makers are out of buisness any time
| soon. They will have to incorporate it though. So far this
| can make convincing background scenery.
| Solvency wrote:
| I love these hot takes based on profoundly incredible tech
| that literally just launched. Acting like 2030 isn't around
| the corner.
| bamboozled wrote:
| We're glad you love them.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Agreed and these are the cherry picked examples of course.
| djmips wrote:
| I'm not sure I feel the same way about the mammoths - and the
| billowing snow makes no sense as someone who grew up in a snowy
| area. If the snow was powder maybe but that's not what's
| depicted on the ground.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I'm a bit thrown off by the fact the mammoths are steaming, is
| that normal for mammoths ?
| golol wrote:
| This does put a smile on my face
| beders wrote:
| Finally, a true Star Wars prequel is in reach. Everybody gets
| their own :)
| rafaelero wrote:
| holy shit
| kweingar wrote:
| Obviously incredibly cool, but it seems that people are
| _incredibly_ overstating the applications of this.
|
| Realistically, how do you fit this into a movie, a TV show, or a
| game? You write a text prompt, get a scene, and then everything
| is gone--the characters, props, rooms, buildings, environments,
| etc. won't carry over to the next prompt.
| fassssst wrote:
| It generates up to 1 minute videos which is like what all the
| kids are watching on TikTok and YouTube Shorts, right? And most
| ads are shorter than 1 minute.
| Janicc wrote:
| A few months ago ai generated videos of people getting
| arrested for wearing big boots went viral on TikTok. I think
| this sort of silly "interdimensional cable" stuff will be
| really big on these short form video type sites once this
| level of quality becomes available to everyone.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You write a text prompt, get a scene, and then everything is
| gone--the characters, props, rooms, buildings, environments,
| etc. won't carry over to the next prompt.
|
| Sure, you can't use the text-to-video frontend for that
| purpose. But if you've got a t2v model as good as Sora clearly
| is, you've got the infrastructure for a lot more, as the
| ecosystem around the open-source models in the space has shown.
| The same techniques that allow character, object, etc.,
| consistency in text-to-image models can be applied to text-to-
| video models.
| matsemann wrote:
| It also seems hard to control exactly what you get. Like you'd
| want a specific pan, focus etc. to realize your vision. The
| examples here look good, but they aren't very specific.
|
| But it was the same with Dall-E and others in the beginning,
| and there's now lots of ways to control image generators. Same
| will probably happen here. This was a huge leap just in how
| coherent the frames are.
| wilg wrote:
| You wait a year and they'll figure it out.
| superconduct123 wrote:
| It doesn't need to replace the whole movie
|
| You could use it for stuff like wide shots, close ups, random
| CG shots, rapid cut shots, stuff where you just cut to it once
| and don't need multiple angles
|
| To me it seem most useful for advertising where a lot of times
| they only show something once, like a montage
| Boss0565 wrote:
| I also see advertising (especially lower-budget productions,
| such as dropshipping or local TV commercials) being early
| adopters of this technology once businesses have access to
| this at an affordable price.
| planckscnst wrote:
| And it would be magic for storyboarding. This would be such a
| useful tool for a director to iterate on a shot and then
| communicate that to the team
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| You could use it to storyboard right now. Continuity of
| characters/wardrobe, etc. is not that important in
| storyboarding.
| seydor wrote:
| tiktok
| nprateem wrote:
| It's pretty obvious they just need to add the ability to prompt
| it with an image saying "continue in this style and make the
| character..."
| barbarr wrote:
| Explicit video clips? 4chan is gonna have a field day with
| this.
| sethammons wrote:
| What came to mind is what is right around the corner: you
| create segments and stitch them together.
|
| "ok, continue from the context on the last scene. Great. Ok,
| move the bookshelf. I want that cat to be more furry. Cool.
| Save this as scene 34."
|
| As clip sizes grow and context can be inferred from a previous
| scene, and a library of scenes can be made, boom, you can now
| create full feature length films, easy enough that elementary
| school kids will be able to craft up their imaginations.
| void-pointer wrote:
| This is the beginning of the end, folks
| SushiHippie wrote:
| I find the watermark at the bottom right really interesting at
| first it looks like random movement and then in the end it
| transforms into the OpenAI logo
| M4v3R wrote:
| > The model can also take an existing video and extend it or fill
| in missing frames
|
| I wonder if it could be used as a replacement for optical flow to
| create slow motion videos out of normal speed ones.
| mushufasa wrote:
| Do you think they announced this today to steal attention from
| Google/Gemini annuncement?
| crazygringo wrote:
| No, corporate announcements are very much planned in advance.
| There's a lot of coordination that has to happen. This is just
| coincidence, unless one of the companies had inside information
| about the other's announcement and timing. But that's pretty
| unlikely.
| sorokod wrote:
| Just in time for the election season. Also "A cat waking up its
| sleeping owner demanding breakfast" has too many paws - yes I do
| feel petty saying this.
| matsemann wrote:
| And the sleeper's shoulder gets converted to the duvet? And a
| strange extra hand somewhere. It was also the one that to me
| stood out as the worst. The quality was good, but it had the
| same artifacts as previous generations of ai videoes where
| thing morphs.
| birriel wrote:
| With the third and last videos (space men, and man reading in the
| clouds), this is the first time I have found the resolution
| indistinguishable from real life. Even with SOTA stills from
| Midjourney and Stable Diffusion I was not entirely convinced.
| This is incredible.
| corobo wrote:
| Oooh this is gonna usher in a new wave of GPT wrappers!
|
| If anyone's taking requests, could you do one that takes audio
| clips from podcasts and turns them into animations? Ideally via
| API rather than some PITA UI
|
| Being able to keep the animation style between generations would
| be the key feature for that kind of use-case I imagine.
| sys32768 wrote:
| Game of Thrones Season 8 will be great in a few years.
| gondo wrote:
| This might be amazing progress, but I would never know as the
| website is consistently crashing Safari on my iPhone 13.
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| To put it into perspective, the Will Smith eating spaghetti video
| came out not even a year ago --
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQr4Xklqzw8
| khazhoux wrote:
| The focus here is on video motion, but I'm very impressed by the
| photorealistic humans.
| kuprel wrote:
| Next they have to add audio, then VideoChatGPT is possible
| torginus wrote:
| I'm not sure about others, but I'm extremely unnerved about how
| OpenAI just throws these innovations out with zero foreshadowing
| - it's crazy how the world's potentially most life-changing
| company operates with the secrecy of a black military program.
|
| I really wonder what's going to come out of the company and on
| what timeline.
| superconduct123 wrote:
| That's what's mindblowing to me
|
| It doesn't feel like a slow incremental progress, the last AI
| videos I've seen were terrible
|
| Its like suddenly a huge jump in quality
| Jackson__ wrote:
| It is a sudden jump in quality. A mere _month_ ago, this is
| what googles SOTA was: https://lumiere-video.github.io/
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| What in the flying f just happened.
|
| I guess we've all just been replaced.
| partiallypro wrote:
| These are insanely good, but there are still some things that
| just give them away (which is good, imo.) Like the Tokyo video is
| amazing, the reflections, etc are all great, but the gaits of
| people in the background and how fast they are moving is clearly
| off. It sticks out once you notice it. These things will
| obviously improve as time marches on.
|
| The fear I have has less to do with these taking jobs, but in
| that eventually this is just going to be used by a foreign actor
| and no one is going to know what is real anymore. This already
| exists in new stories, now imagine that with actual AI videos
| that are near indistinguishable from reality. It could get really
| bad. Have an insane conspiracy theory? Well, now you can have
| your belief validated by a completely fictional AI generated
| video that even the most trained eyes have trouble debunking.
|
| The jobs thing is also a concern, because if you have a bunch of
| idle hands that suddenly aren't sure what to believe or just
| believe lies, it can quickly turn into mass political violence.
| Don't be naive to think this isn't already being thought of by
| various national security services and militaries. We're already
| on the precipice of it, this could eventually be a good shove
| down the hill.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Why aren't you more afraid of ASI? We're clearly just dancing
| around it at this point.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Real AGI is farther away than I think people think, and the
| tendency for mankind to destroy itself is much better
| demonstrated than machines doing that even when that time
| comes.
| kilbuz wrote:
| This is like seeing the first packets ever sent on the internet
| and noting that latency is high, lol.
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| I do hope that they have a documentary team embedded in this
| company, like DeepMind had. They're making historical
| advancements on multiple fronts.
| tehsauce wrote:
| It's fascinating that it can model so much of the subtle
| dynamics, structure, and appearance of the world in
| photorealistic detail, and still have a relatively poor model of
| things like object permanence:
|
| https://cdn.openai.com/sora/videos/puppy-cloning.mp4
|
| Perhaps there are particular aspects of our world that the human
| mind has evolved to hyperfocus on.
|
| Will we figure out an easy way make these models match humans in
| those areas? Let's hope it takes some time.
| ionwake wrote:
| How long until there is an open source model for.... text to
| video?
|
| Genuine question I have no idea
| jenny91 wrote:
| Absolutely insane. It's very odd where the glitches happen. Did
| anyone else notice in the "stylish woman ... Tokyo" clip how her
| legs skip-hop and then cross at 0:30 in a physically impossible
| way. Everything else about the clip seems so realistic, yet this
| is where it _trips up_?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| And the cat that wakes up the woman in bed, has three front
| paws! And that woman seems to be wearing the blanket as though
| they were pyjamas. Still, it's usually very hard to notice the
| inconsistencies -- just like the subtle inconsistencies we
| might see in our dreams.
| jenny91 wrote:
| Yes, there's some really weird hand-blanket morphing going on
| in that cat shot. Similarly in the guy reading a book on a
| cloud, the pages flip in a physically impossible way at one
| point.
|
| I just think it's perplexing how they got things so right,
| yet so wrong. How did they implement this?!
| psb217 wrote:
| She's also wearing a different jacket at the end of the video.
| Continuity is not maintained when the video zooms back out to a
| wider shot after the close-up on her face. See, e.g., no zipper
| on end jacket and obvious zipper on jacket earlier in the
| video, or placement of the silver "buttons" and general
| structure of the lapels.
|
| The background details are particularly "slippery" in these
| videos. E.g., in the initial video of walking along a snowy
| street in Japan, characters on the left just sort of merge
| into/out of existence. It's impressive locally, but the global
| structure and ability to paint in finer-grained details in a
| physically plausible way fails similarly to current image gen
| models, but more noticeably with the added temporal dimension.
| qiller wrote:
| The construction scene has people appearing out of thin air,
| changing jacket colors, and in general weird things happening
| synapsomorphy wrote:
| Holy cow, I've literally only looked at the first two videos so
| far, and it's clear that this absolutely blows every other
| generative video model out of the water, barely even worth
| comparing. We immediately jumped from interesting toy models
| where it was pretty easy to tell that the output was AI generated
| to.. this.
| nopinsight wrote:
| Many might miss the key paragraph at the end:
| "Sora serves as a foundation for models that can understand and
| simulate the real world, a capability we believe will be an
| important milestone for achieving AGI."
|
| This also helps explain why the model is so good since it is
| trained to simulate the real world, as opposed to imitate the
| pixels.
|
| More importantly, its capabilities suggest AGI and general
| robotics could be closer than many think (even though some key
| weaknesses remain and further improvements are necessary before
| the goal is reached.)
|
| EDIT: I just saw this relevant comment by an expert at Nvidia:
| "If you think OpenAI Sora is a creative toy like DALLE, ... think
| again. Sora is a data-driven physics engine. It is a simulation
| of many worlds, real or fantastical. The simulator learns
| intricate rendering, "intuitive" physics, long-horizon reasoning,
| and semantic grounding, all by some denoising and gradient maths.
| I won't be surprised if Sora is trained on lots of synthetic data
| using Unreal Engine 5. It has to be! Let's breakdown
| the following video. Prompt: "Photorealistic closeup video of two
| pirate ships battling each other as they sail inside a cup of
| coffee." ...."
|
| https://twitter.com/DrJimFan/status/1758210245799920123
| lucisferre wrote:
| > since it is trained to simulate the real world
|
| Is it though? Or is this just marketing?
| rdedev wrote:
| If it is its not there yet. The snow in the mammoth video
| kind of looks like smoke, the way it rises into the air
| wilg wrote:
| I think it's just inherent to the problem space. Obviously it
| understands something about the world to be able to generate
| convincing depictions of it.
| lucisferre wrote:
| It seems very dangerous to assume claims without evidence
| are obvious.
| wilg wrote:
| I didn't do that.
| nopinsight wrote:
| What other likely reasons might explain the leap ahead of
| other significant efforts?
|
| See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39387333
| lucisferre wrote:
| Just having a better or bigger model? Better training data,
| better feedback process, etc.
|
| Seems more likely then "it can simulate reality".
|
| Also I take anecdotal reviews like that with a grain of
| salt. I follow numerous AI groups on Reddit and elsewhere
| and many users seem to have strong opinions that their tool
| of choice is the best. These reviews are highly biased.
|
| Not to say I'm not impressed, but it's just been released.
| nopinsight wrote:
| Object persistence and consistency are not likely to
| arise simply from a bigger model. A different approach or
| architecture is needed.
|
| Also, I just added a link to an expert's tweet above.
| What do you think?
| lucisferre wrote:
| Others have provided explanations for things like object
| persistence, for example keeping a memory of the
| rendering outside of the frame.
|
| The comment from the expert is definitely interesting and
| compelling, but clearly still speculation based on the
| following comment.
|
| > I won't be surprised if Sora is trained on lots of
| synthetic data using Unreal Engine 5. It has to be!
|
| I like the speculation though, the comments provide some
| convincing explanations for how this might work. For
| example, the idea that it is trained using synthetic
| 3-dimensional data from something like UE5 seems like a
| brilliant idea. I love it.
|
| Also in his example video the physics look very wrong to
| me. The movement of the coffee waves are realistic-ish at
| best. The boat motion also looks wrong and doesn't match
| up with the liquid much of the time.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I was impressed with their video of a drone race on Mars
| during a sunset. In part of the video, the sun is in view,
| but then the camera turns so it's out of view. When the
| camera turns back, the sun is where it's supposed to be.
| djsavvy wrote:
| there's mention of memory in the post -- the model can
| remember where it put objects for a short while, so if it
| pans away and pans back it should keep that object
| "permanence".
| hbn wrote:
| Well the video in the weaknesses section with the
| archeologists makes me think it's not just predicting pixels.
| The fact that a second chair spawns out of nothing looks like
| a typical AI uncanny valley mistake you'd expect, but then it
| starts hovering which looks more like a video game physics
| glitch than an incorrect interpretation of pixels on screen.
| kevmo314 wrote:
| What is latent space if not a representation of the real world?
| nopinsight wrote:
| Pretty sure many latent spaces are not trained to represent
| 3D motions and some detailed physics of the real world. Those
| in pure text LLMs, for example.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| Movie making is going to become fine-tuning these foundational
| video models. For example, if you want Brad Pitt in your movie
| you'll need to use his data to fine-tune his character.
| mentalpiracy wrote:
| > "understand... the real world"
|
| doing a lot of heavy lifting in this statement
| xtracto wrote:
| What I want is an AI trained to simulate the human body,
| allowing scientists to perform artificial human trials on all
| kind of medicines. Cutting trial times from years to months.
| torginus wrote:
| I wonder why the input is always text - can't it be text, as well
| as a low quality blender scene with a camera rig flying through
| space, a moodboard, sketches of the characters etc.?
| thepasswordis wrote:
| My guess is because the models were all trained on text. You
| could do as you say, but I think it would go: blender video
| {gets described by an AI into text}-> text prompt -> video.
| cboswel1 wrote:
| Who owns a person's likeness? Now that we're approaching text to
| video of a quality that could fool an average person, won't this
| just open a whole new can of worms if the training models are
| replicating celebrities? The ambiguity around copyright when
| something on paper is in the style of seems to fall into an
| entirely separate category than making AI generated videos of
| actual people without their consent. Will people of note have to
| get a copyright of their likeness to fight its use in these
| models?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| $100 on the table that studios create new celebrities that they
| own the rights too.
| hyperion2010 wrote:
| No need to take the bet, reality is already there. Miku is
| the endgame for idols. Forever young. Will never have a
| boyfriend. Always follows the script, or not when the team
| managing her decides they need a little drama. etc. etc. etc.
| danjoredd wrote:
| Porn is about to get so much weirder
| ed_balls wrote:
| How to invest in OpenAI?
| bilsbie wrote:
| Could this same technology be used to make games? It seems like
| it has a built in physics engine.
| lairv wrote:
| The 3D consistency of those videos is insane compared to what has
| previously been done, they must have used some form of 3D
| regularization with depth or flow I think
| xyproto wrote:
| The big question is if it will be able to create a video of
| whisky without ice or a car without windows.
| lacoolj wrote:
| Total coincidence this comes out the day Google announces Gemini
| 1.5 I'm sure
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| https://openai.com/sora?video=cat-on-bed
|
| Even though many things are super impressive, there is a lot of
| uncanny valley happening here.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Yes, the cat has three hands...
| gwern wrote:
| Cats are like hands: they are hilariously hard for generative
| models and then after thinking about it, you realize that
| cats/hands _really are_ hard. I mean, look at photos of a black
| cat curled up where it might have its paws sticking out at any
| angle from anywhere from a solid black void. How the heck do
| you learn _that_?
| vilius wrote:
| The Lagos video (https://openai.com/sora?video=lagos) is very
| much how my dreams unfold. One moment, I'm with my friends in a
| bustling marketplace, then suddenly we are no longer at the
| marketplace, but rather overlooking a sunset and a highway. I
| wonder if there are some conceptual similarities how dreams and
| AI video models work.
| ladberg wrote:
| Yeah that one has more surreal elements every time you watch
| it: the people at the table are giants compared to everyone
| else, someone is headless, the kid's hand warps around like
| crazy.
| ericzawo wrote:
| Why can't AI take the non-fun jobs?
| dsign wrote:
| This is impressive and amazing. I can already see a press release
| not too far down the road: "Our new model HoSapiens can do
| everything humans can do, but better. It has been specifically
| designed to deprecate humanity. We are working with red teamers
| -- domain experts in areas like union busting, corporate law and
| counterinsurgency, plus our habitual bias, misinformation, and
| hateful content against AI orange team-- who will be
| adversarially testing the model.
| hooande wrote:
| This really seems like "DALL-E", but for videos. I can make
| cool/funny videos for my friends, but after a while the novelty
| wears off.
|
| All of the AI generated media has this quality where I can
| immediately tell that it's ai, and that becomes my dominant
| thought. I see these things on social media and think "oh,
| another ai pic" and keep scrolling. I've yet to be confused about
| whether something is ai generated or real for more than several
| seconds.
|
| Consistency and continuity still seem to be a major issues. It
| would be very difficult to tell a story using Sora because
| details and the overall style would change from scene to scene.
| This is also true of the newest image models.
|
| Many people think that Sora is the second coming, and I hope it
| turns out to have a major impact on all of our lives. But right
| now it's looking to have about the same impact that DALL-E has
| had so far.
| mbm wrote:
| Yeah, you really have to fast-forward 5 to 10 years. The first
| cars or airplanes didn't run particularly well either. Soon
| enough, we won't be able to tell.
| thorncorona wrote:
| These limitations are fine for short form content ala reels /
| tiktok. I think the younger generations will get used to how it
| looks.
| MrNeon wrote:
| > I've yet to be confused about whether something is ai
| generated or real for more than several seconds.
|
| How did you rule out survivorship bias?
| bilsbie wrote:
| I wish this was connected to chatgpt4 such that it could directly
| generate videos as part of its response.
|
| The bottleneck of creating a separate prompt is very limiting.
|
| Imagine asking for a recipe or car repair and it makes a video of
| the exact steps. Or if you could upload a video and ask it to
| make a new ending.
|
| That's what I imagine multi modal models would be.
| max_ wrote:
| This is amazing!
|
| 1. Why would Adrej Karpathy leave when he knows such an
| impressive breakthrough is in the pipeline?
|
| 2. Why hasn't Ilya Stuskever spoken about this?
| taejavu wrote:
| No idea for your first question, but wouldn't the answer to the
| second be "NDA's and or other legal concerns"?
| dwighttk wrote:
| What do y'all think caused the weird smoke/cloud in the mammoth
| video?
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| How many of you think YT is looking through their logs trying to
| find a high burn rate of videos that might possibly be from Open
| AI?
| d--b wrote:
| Jesus Christ.
|
| AGI can't be far off, that stuff clearly understand a bunch of
| high level concepts.
| rareitem wrote:
| I used to think a few years ago that virtual reality/ai projects
| such as the mataverse wouldn't amount to anything big. I even
| thought of them ridiculous. Even recently, I thought that GPT's
| and ai generated images would be the pinnacle of what this new ai
| wave would amount to. I just keep getting baffled.
| Jeve11326gr6ed wrote:
| How can I get started
| helix278 wrote:
| They're attaching metadata to the videos which can be easily
| removed. Aren't there techniques to hash metadata into the
| content itself? I.e. such that removing the data would alter the
| image.
| ericra wrote:
| It's been said a thousand times, but the "open" in openai becomes
| more comical every day. I can't imagine how much money they will
| generate from such a tool, and I'm sure they will do everything
| possible to keep a tight lid on all the implementation details.
|
| This product looks incredible...
| chrishare wrote:
| I am very uncomfortable with this being released commercially
| without the requisite defence against misuse being also
| accessible. If we didn't have a problem with deepfakes, spam,
| misleading media before, we surely are now. All leading AI
| organisations are lacking here, benefiting from the tech but not
| sufficiently attacking the external costs that society will pay.
| wilg wrote:
| What's "the requisite defence"?
| __loam wrote:
| Something like a watermark (doesn't necessarily have to be
| visible to people) and a tool to detect that watermark might
| be nice for example. Or alternatively we could stop
| developing this hell technology and try to automate something
| that isn't cultural expression.
| wilg wrote:
| Both of those are included and mentioned in the linked
| article.
| Palmik wrote:
| I'm very uncomfortable with this technology being accessible
| only to a small and arbitrary subset of the population.
| guybedo wrote:
| Looks like OpenAI managed to burry Gemini 1.5 news.
|
| I guess it was anticipated.
| taejavu wrote:
| Do we know anything yet about the maximum resolution of the
| output, or how long it takes to generate these kind of examples?
| karpour wrote:
| Not a single line saying anything about training data.
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| The amount of VC money in the text-to-video space that just got
| wiped out is impressive. Have we ever seen such fast market
| moves?
|
| Pika - $55M
|
| Synthesia - $156M
|
| Stability AI - $173M
| guwop wrote:
| Obviously they did not get "wiped" out. Where can i use Sora
| right now ?
| alex201 wrote:
| It's a revolutionary thing, but I'll reserve my judgment until I
| see if it can handle the real challenge: creating a video where
| my code works perfectly on the first try.
| cush wrote:
| Does OpenAI hang out with these kinds of features in their back
| pocket just waiting for a Gemeni announcement so they can wait an
| hour and absolutely dunk on Google?
| gigglesupstairs wrote:
| Looking at the scale of this announcement, it's likelier that
| Google just preempted their announcement with their own.
| cfr2023 wrote:
| I want to storyboard/pre-vis/mess around with this ASAP
| sebastiennight wrote:
| I think the implications go much further than just the
| image/video considerations.
|
| This model shows a very good (albeit not perfect) understanding
| of the physics of objects and relationships between them. The
| announcement mentions this several times.
|
| The OpenAI blog post lists "Archeologists discover a generic
| plastic chair in the desert, excavating and dusting it with great
| care." as one of the "failed" cases. But this (and "Reflections
| in the window of a train traveling through the Tokyo suburbs.")
| seem to me to be 2 of the most important examples.
|
| - In the Tokyo one, the model is smart enough to figure out that
| on a train, the reflection would be of a passenger, and the
| passenger has Asian traits since this is Tokyo. - In the chair
| one, OpenAI says the model failed to model the physics of the
| object (which hints that it did try to, which is not how the
| early diffusion models worked ; they just tried to generate
| "plausible" images). And we can see one of the archeologists
| basically chasing the chair down to grab it, which does correctly
| model the interaction with a floating object.
|
| I think we can't underestimate how crucial that is to the
| building of a general model that has a strong model of the world.
| Not just a "theory of mind", but a litteral understanding of
| "what will happen next", independently of "what would a human say
| would happen next" (which is what the usual text-based models
| seem to do).
|
| This is going to be much more important, IMO, than the video
| aspect.
| seydor wrote:
| Facebook released something in that direction today
| https://ai.meta.com/blog/v-jepa-yann-lecun-ai-model-video-jo...
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Wow this is a huge announcement too, I can't believe this
| hasn't made the front page yet.
| gspetr wrote:
| This seems to be completely in line with the previous "AI is
| good when it's not news" type of work:
|
| Non-news: Dog bites a man.
|
| News: Man bites a dog.
|
| Non-news: "People riding Tokyo train" - completely ordinary,
| tons of similar content.
|
| News: "Archaeologists dust off a plastic chair" - bizarre,
| (virtually) no similar content exists.
| RhysU wrote:
| > very good... understanding of the physics of objects and
| relationships between them
|
| I am always torn here. A real physics engine has a better
| "understanding" but I suspect that word applies to neither Sora
| nor a physics engine:
| https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
|
| An understanding of physics would entail asking this generative
| network to invert gravity, change the density or energy output
| of something, or atypically reduce a coefficient of friction
| partway through a video. Perhaps Sora can handle these, but I
| suspect it is mimicking the usual world rather than
| understanding physics in any strong sense.
|
| None of which is to say their accomplishment isn't impressive.
| Only that "understand" merits particularly careful use these
| days.
| superconduct123 wrote:
| So do we think this is the "breakthrough" that was mentioned back
| when the Sam Altman stuff was going on?
| internetter wrote:
| The watermark is interesting. Looks like it's unique for every
| video so they can trace it to the creator?
| countmora wrote:
| > We're also building tools to help detect misleading content
| such as a detection classifier that can tell when a video was
| generated by Sora.
|
| I am curious of how optimised their approach is and what hardware
| you would need to analyse videos at reasonable speed.
| neutralx wrote:
| Has anyone else noticed the leg swap in Tokyo video at 0:14. I
| guess we are past uncanny, but I do wonder if these small
| artifacts will always be present in generated content.
|
| Also begs the question, if more and more children are introduced
| to media from young age and they are fed more and more with
| generated content, will they be able to feel "uncanniness" or
| become completely blunt to it.
|
| There's definitely interesting period ahead of us, not yet sure
| how to feel about it...
| Kydlaw wrote:
| Yep, I noticed it immediately too. Yet it is subtle in reality.
| I'm not that good to spot imperfections on picture but on the
| video I immediately felt something was not quite right.
| SirMaster wrote:
| They swap multiple times lol. Not to mention it almost always
| looks like the feet are slightly sliding on the ground with
| every step.
|
| I mean there are some impressive things there, but it looks
| like there's a long ways to go yet.
|
| They shouldn't have played it into the close up of the face.
| The face is so dead and static looking.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| certainly not perfect... but "some impressive things" is an
| understatement, think of how long it took to get halfway
| decent CGI... this AI thing is already better than clips I've
| seen people spend _days_ building by hand
| hank808 wrote:
| Yep! Glad I wasn't the only one that saw that. I have a feeling
| THEY didn't see it or they wouldn't have showcased it.
| ryanisnan wrote:
| I don't think that's the case. I think they're aware of the
| limitations and problems. Several of the videos have obvious
| problems, if you're looking - e.g. people vanishing entirely,
| objects looking malformed in many frames, objects changing in
| size incongruent with perspective, etc.
|
| I think they just accept it as a limitation, because it's
| still very technically impressive. And they hope they can
| smooth out those limitations.
| jrockway wrote:
| I noticed at the beginning that cars are driving on the right
| side of the road, but in Japan they drive on the left. The AI
| misses little details like that.
|
| (I'm also not sure they've ever had a couple inches of snow on
| the ground while the cherry blossoms are in bloom in Tokyo, but
| I guess it's possible.)
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| This is all very impressive. I can't help to wonder though. How
| is text-to-video going to benefit humanity? That's what OpenAI is
| supposedly about, right?
|
| We'll get some groundbreaking film content out of this in the
| hands of a few talented creatives, and a vast ocean of mediocre
| content from the hands of talentless people who know how to type.
| What's the benefit to humanity, concretely?
| andai wrote:
| That's exactly what we have now with YouTube.
| dinobones wrote:
| If a model can generate it, it can understand it.
|
| They can probably reverse engineer this to build a multi-modal
| GPT that is fed video and understands what is going on. That's
| how you get "smart" robots. Active scene understanding via the
| video modality + conversational capabilities via the text/audio
| modality.
| internetter wrote:
| But we can already do this?
| chidiw wrote:
| > Sora serves as a foundation for models that can understand
| and simulate the real world, a capability we believe will be an
| important milestone for achieving AGI.
| nycdatasci wrote:
| For models to interact with real-world objects, they first need
| to understand those objects. These videos demonstrate just how
| advanced that awareness is. The goal is not to generate videos.
| Of course, they could and likely will build products on this
| capability, but the long-term goal is bigger.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Sure, if that's not just marketing. I haven't seen enough
| evidence to conclude this will go towards that kind of thing
| yet, but I'm open to the possibility.
| sayagain wrote:
| This vast amount of human talent and computational power could
| be channeled into fighting disease and death.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I'm not quite sure what you mean, so I'll ask for
| clarification. Are you saying this technology can be
| channeled into fighting disease and death, or that the man
| hours and computational freed up by this technology can be
| channeled?
| ij09j901023123 wrote:
| Biologists, chemists, and researchers can be all automated
| and trained on a very big LLM that OpenAI eventually
| creates. Then, more cures to diseases and technological
| advances can be invented. This technology can soon run
| entire countries and emulate humanity / society.
| sayagain wrote:
| I think that all this goodness was spent on entertainment
| at a time when every second a catastrophe occurs - a human
| dies.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Oh I see what you mean, thanks.
|
| Yeah, this is a very real issue with a lot of Silicon
| Valley tech, unfortunately. They're perfecting the art of
| pretending everything is fine, I feel like.
| Sxubas wrote:
| I wonder what this tech would do using a descriptive fragment
| from a book. I don't read many books at all but I would spend
| some time feeding in fantasy fragments and see how much they
| differ from what I imagined.
| dartos wrote:
| God the legs of the woman walking are horrifying.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| The film "The Congress" will end up being the most on point
| prediction of our future in ever. I can't believe it. Im in
| shock.
| bscphil wrote:
| Not that this isn't a leaps and bounds improvement over the state
| of the art, but it's interesting to look at the mistakes it makes
| - where do we still need improvements?
|
| This video is pretty instructive:
| https://cdn.openai.com/sora/videos/amalfi-coast.mp4
|
| It "eats" several people with the wall part of the way through
| the video, and the camera movements are odd. Strange camera
| movements, in response to most of the prompts, seems like the
| biggest problem. The model arbitrarily decides to change
| direction on a dime - even a drone wouldn't behave quite like
| that.
| cyrialize wrote:
| Does anyone know how to handle the depression/doom one feels with
| these updates?
|
| Yes, it's a great technical achievement, but I just worry for the
| future. We don't have good social safety nets, and we aren't
| close to UBI. It's difficult for me to see that happen unless
| something drastic changes.
|
| I'm also afraid of one company just having so much power. How
| does anyone compete?
| seydor wrote:
| some light alcohol, relaxing and remembering life is beautiful
| rpmisms wrote:
| Be a human, basically? Very important to be human often. We
| often forget in this sphere.
| cyrialize wrote:
| That is a good reminder.
|
| My fear is the alternative reality that these tools could
| provide. Given the power and output of the tooling, I could
| see a future where the "normal" of a society is strategically
| changed.
|
| For example, many younger generations aren't getting a
| license at 16. This is for a variety of reasons: you connect
| with friends online, malls cost money, less walkable spaces,
| less third places.
|
| If I'm a company that makes money based off of subscription
| services to my tools, wouldn't it be in my best interest to
| influence each coming generation?
|
| Making friends and interacting with people is hard, but with
| our tooling you can find or create the exact friend you want
| and need.
|
| We can remember now that life is beautiful - but what's to
| stop from making people think that the life made by AI is
| most beautiful?
|
| And yeah, I've heard this argument before with video games,
| escapism, etc. I'm talking more about how easy it is to
| escape now, and how easy it'd be to spread the idea that
| escapism is better than what is around you.
| benjiweber wrote:
| Few people getting driving licences sounds ideal.
|
| In Europe there's no need. Got a licence over two decades
| ago have never needed to drive. Shops in walking distance,
| public transport anywhere in the country, convenient
| deliveries, walkable and cyclable cities.
|
| Meanwhile other places have no freedom from cars, locked
| into expensive car financing, unable to access basic
| amenities without a car, and motorists have normalised
| killing millions of people a year.
| drusepth wrote:
| One thing to remember is that change never stops and we're
| certainly not in any perfect society right now where we'd
| want change to stop at. We've seen huge magnitudes of
| societal change over and over throughout history.
|
| For the most part, the _idea_ of change is rarely
| inherently bad (even though, IMO, it 's natural to
| inherently resist it) -- and humans adapt quickly to the
| parts that have negative impacts.
|
| Humans are one of, if not the most, resilient race on the
| planet. Younger generations not getting licenses, sticking
| to themselves more, escaping in different ways, etc are all
| "different" than what we're used to, but to that younger
| generation it's just a new normal for them.
|
| One day they'll be posting on HN2, wondering whether the
| crazy technological or societal changes about to come out
| will mean the downfall of _their_ children (or children 's
| children), and the answer will still be the same: no, but
| what's "normal" for humankind will continue to change.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _Humans are one of, if not the most, resilient race on
| the planet. Younger generations not getting licenses,
| sticking to themselves more, escaping in different ways,
| etc are all "different" than what we're used to..._
|
| As long as they keep having unprotected sex with each
| other.
|
| Otherwise, you know, humanity is kind of screwed.
| UberFly wrote:
| I agree. I see how misinformation is effecting my family
| members now. I can't imagine how this is all going to effect
| what's coming.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| this is so exciting! why do you feel depressed.
|
| Btw, a year or two from now you'll be able to run a more
| powerful _open_ model locally. So, not they aren 't having some
| outsized amount of power
| BadHumans wrote:
| Exciting if you don't think about how tons of people are
| going to be out of work with no safety nets or how easily
| millions of people are going to be scammed or how easily it
| is going to be to be impersonate someone and frame them or
| etc etc etc
| shric wrote:
| Let's say, for the sake of argument, AI could generate
| absolutely perfect invented videos of arbitrary people
| doing literally anything. The consequence will be that
| video will no longer be taken seriously as evidence for
| crimes. People will also quickly not trust video calls
| without an extreme level of verification (e.g. asking about
| recent irl interactions, etc.)
|
| Yes some people will be scammed as they always have been,
| such as the recent Hong Kong financial deepfake. But no,
| millions of people will not keep falling for this. Just
| like the classic 419 advanced free fraud, it will hit a
| very small percentage of people.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| OK, but I did like living in a universe where I could
| watch video news of something happening in another
| country and treat it as reasonably strong evidence of
| what is happening in the world. Now I basically have to
| rely on only my own eyes, which are limited to my
| immediate surroundings, and eyewitness accounts from
| people I trust who live in those places. In that sense, I
| feel like my ability to be informed about the world has
| regressed to pre-20th-century levels.
| wwilim wrote:
| Pray it doesn't regress any further
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Video alone has never been considered evidence of a crime
| in a court of law (At least in the United States). A
| person needs to authenticate the evidence.
| cyrialize wrote:
| Yeah. This is how I feel. Seeing new AI updates sometimes
| makes me regret ever working in technology, no matter how
| much I love it.
| tavavex wrote:
| The last two claims always felt wrong to me, because
| they're assuming a society where these kinds of tools are
| easy to use and accessible to _everyone_ , yet the society
| at large is completely oblivious to these tools and their
| capabilities. Arguably, you couldn't ever fully trust
| images before, people claimed something was photoshopped
| for decades now. Instead of something "looking realistic",
| trusting people and organizations will take its place -
| when, for example, the BBC posts a photograph, I'm inclined
| to trust it not because it looks real, but because it's the
| BBC.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Think what it was like before the invention of the camera,
| and then after, this is a similar level of innovation. I'm
| sure a lot of people who wrote books were terrified by the
| prospect of moving pictures, but everything worked out and
| books still exist.
|
| IMHO humanity will be fine, decades from now kids will be
| asking what it was like to live before "AI" like how we
| might ask an old person what it was like to live before
| television or electricity.
| Fricken wrote:
| Consensus reality is already cracking up due to the
| internet, smartphones and social media. The Media
| theorist Marshall McLuhan had a lot to say about this
| well in advance, but nobody listened.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| I'm excited that tons of people don't need to tend to
| horses or sew and plow everyday. Automation is a great
| thing.
| sterlind wrote:
| Assuming OpenAI's lobbyists don't convince Congress to ban
| open models because of {deepfakes, CP, disinfo, copyright
| infringement} or make it impossible to gather open datasets
| without spending billions on licensing.
|
| I'm not optimistic.
| simpaticoder wrote:
| I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of
| animators suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly
| silenced.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The writing has been on the wall for that for awhile
| though...
|
| Every large animation studio has continually been looking for
| ways to decrease the number of artists required to produce a
| film, since the beginning of the field.
| bendergarcia wrote:
| The only reason this is possible is because of the content
| those people created. This literally doesn't exist without
| them. Not sure what you're trying to say....
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Yea... thats the point he was making.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Stop pathologizing normal human feelings? If you're worried,
| learn how to use the tools to give yourself a competitive
| advantage. See steam trains, electricity, microchips, computers
| and the Web for historical examples of worried people adapting
| to game changing tech.
| cyrialize wrote:
| I am. I know we're in a situation now as programmers where
| there is more AI tooling and more programming jobs - but it's
| difficult for me to see that last.
|
| You could be the best at using the tools, but I think there
| could be a point where there is no need to hire because the
| tools are just that good.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Then wouldn't you just stop coding and use the tools to
| build products ?
| jprete wrote:
| Have you considered what an enormous jump in career that
| is? Or that all the people who already started building
| AI products are being obsoleted by OpenAI a year after
| they started?
| bamboozled wrote:
| What concerns me is that Google and OpenAI are racing us
| to a point where almost no product is valuable. If I can
| just have AI generate me a booking.com clone, then what's
| booking.com worth ?
|
| There is zero chance this tech is going to be locked up
| by a few companies, in a year or two open models will
| have similar capabilities, I have no idea what this world
| looks like but I think it's less of a concern for
| individuals and more of a concern for the global economy
| in the short term.
|
| Outside of all of this, yeah we're either going I have to
| adapt or die.
| eastbound wrote:
| Well, alone I was able to launch a software company in
| 2010. From accounting to nginx, everything was automated.
|
| Alone, maybe I will be able to launch a unicorn in 2030.
| It's just tools with more leverage. The limit is just the
| computing resources we have, so we'll have to use
| computing resources to calculate how much earth resources
| each of us can use per year, but that seems a usual
| growth problem.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| Just imagine how the cats are worried! If the internet doesn't
| need cats any more for cute cat videos....
| gigglesupstairs wrote:
| All those videos made me so scared of what's about to come in
| next few years. India is already a major market for
| perpetrators of misinformation and with major social media
| giants only paying lip service to our concerns, with western
| countries being their major focus, things portend to get even
| more darker for the poor, the disenfranchised in our side of
| the world.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I felt depressed after seeing this, so I had a long hug with my
| partner, and remembered the serenity prayer: "God grant me the
| serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to
| change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference."
|
| If AI dystopia is coming, at least it's not here quite yet, so
| I'll try to enjoy my life today.
| elwell wrote:
| This will just accelerate the realization in people that this
| earth can't give you true meaning. That comes from 'above'.
| rafaelero wrote:
| Mars?
| slothtrop wrote:
| As though we'd all collectively stop doing anything in a
| full-automation utopian scenario. Be serious.
| monsieurgaufre wrote:
| Yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| You know the whote collar worker future is bleak when you
| find _multiple_ comments in this thread about finding
| solace in some god.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I seem to be immune to it now. I've just accepted that I'm
| going to feel less and less useful as time goes by, and I
| should just enjoy whatever I can. Life will probably never be
| as good as it was for people 30 years older than me, but it's
| not something that looks likely to change.
|
| Nothing about the future looks particularly good, other than
| that medicine is improving. But what's the point of being alive
| in such a sanitised, 'perfect', instant-dopamine-hits-on-demand
| kind of world anyway?
|
| Just say to hell with it and bury yourself in an interesting
| textbook. Learn something that inspires you. It doesn't matter
| if 'AI' can (or soon will be able to) do it a billion times
| better than you.
|
| And be kind to those around you.
| cyrialize wrote:
| I feel this, thank you.
|
| I've started reading again, because reddit/instagram/etc. has
| become kind of boring for me? Like, I still go on them to get
| an instant dopamine hit from time to time, but like you said
| burying yourself in a textbook just feels so much more
| rewarding.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Maybe someone needs to start a small group of people who
| specifically want to do this -- seek refuge from the
| chaotic and increasingly worrying world (in particular the
| threat of replacement by extremely general automated
| systems) by immersing themselves in learning, and sharing
| the results with others.
|
| I'm sure such groups already exist, but maybe not
| specifically with this goal in mind.
|
| Learning for its own sake really is the answer to lasting
| happiness... for some of us, anyway.
| chpmrc wrote:
| I don't think it's too far fetched to hypothesize that
| the next major global conflict will be between
| accelerators (e/acc) and decelerators. I see a parallel
| with political/economic ideologies like capitalism and
| communism. One of them will eventually prevail (for most
| of the world) but it won't be clear which until it
| happens. Scary but also exciting times ahead!
| yyyk wrote:
| I can't imagine any coherent 'deceleratorionist'
| political program. It will be all different flavors of
| acc.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _seek refuge from the chaotic and increasingly worrying
| world (in particular the threat of replacement by
| extremely general automated systems) by immersing
| themselves in learning, and sharing the results with
| others._
|
| Since 529 CE!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedictines
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I skimmed the article and couldn't see which part was
| particularly relevant. Can you point out the similarity?
|
| If you're just talking about the idea of becoming a monk:
| yes, I very much like the idea of becoming a modern,
| digitally-enabled monk.
| Solvency wrote:
| Is this a joke? Go outside. Go hiking. Make a garden.
| Visit Yosemite. Take up bouldering. Learn to surf. Cycle.
| Go camping. There's a world of living and massive
| communities but around real life. Explore what your body
| and mind can do together. Find kinship because it's out
| there in spades for people not obsessed with the
| automation of machined content.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| What about it makes you think I'm joking?
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I've got about a million things I'd like to delve into if
| such a group existed(let's call it a realist monastery?)
|
| The key though is to avoid becoming a cult.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Cults presumably need leaders, and there wouldn't be one.
| It would be kind of like a church though. But we worship
| pure knowledge and learning.
| jprete wrote:
| I've abandoned all online content sources except HN,
| Substack, and YouTube. The latter two are aggressively
| filtered and still feel like they're getting less
| interesting over time. HN isn't the best habit, either, but
| it's good to have at least one source of news.
| mrb wrote:
| " _I've just accepted that I'm going to feel less and less
| useful as time goes by_ "
|
| It's probably the same feeling farmers had in the beginning
| of the 20th century when they started seeing industrialized
| farming technologies (tractors, etc). Sure, farming tech
| eliminated tons of farming jobs, but they have been replaced
| by other types of jobs in the cities.
|
| It's the same thing with AI. Some will lose their jobs, but
| only to find different types of jobs that AI can't do.
| ThisIsMyAltAcct wrote:
| I see this "just adapt" response a lot and it misses the
| point. The goal of research like this is to create a
| machine that can do _any_ job better than humans.
| someplaceguy wrote:
| And when that happens, humans will no longer need jobs.
|
| The problem is the transition into that new world.
| yyyk wrote:
| The other problem is that the powers that be won't need
| the masses for anything.
| rvnx wrote:
| World War 3 is planned to take care of that.
| chefandy wrote:
| That's been the prediction with many technological
| updates, but here we are. The small group of
| fantastically wealthy and powerful people that dictate
| society's requirements for the rest of us like this setup
| just fine.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Sorry, but comparing this to previous technology seems
| totally short-sighted to me (and it's not as though you're
| the first to do so). If ( _if_ ) we end up with truly
| general AI (and at the moment we seem to be close in some
| ways and still very far off in others), then that will be
| fundamentally different from any technology that has come
| before.
|
| > jobs that AI can't do.
|
| Sure, by definition, you've described the set of jobs that
| won't be replaced by AI. But naming a few would be a lot
| more useful of a comment. It's not impossible to imagine
| that that set might shrink to being pretty much empty
| within the next ten years.
| yyyk wrote:
| >It's probably the same feeling farmers had in the
| beginning of the 20th century
|
| Not remotely comparable. Farming is a backbreaking job,
| many were happy to see it going away. This is taking over
| the creative functions. Turns out what Humanity is best at,
| is menial labor?
| swells34 wrote:
| Well, replacing novel creative functions with derivative
| creative functions. That's the big change I see here;
| similar to the difference between digitally editing an
| image vs. applying a stock sepia filter to it. Yes, we
| can use a model to regurgitate a mish mash of the data it
| was trained on, and that regurgitation might be novel in
| that nothing like that has been regurgitated before, but
| it will still be a regurgitation of pre-existing art. To
| some degree humans do this too, but the constraints are
| infinitely different.
| WilTimSon wrote:
| > but they have been replaced by other types of jobs in the
| cities.
|
| But when one is 30+ years old, or even 40+ years old, it's
| hard to completely switch careers, especially when you're
| also dealing with the fact that it's not because you were
| bad at your job. Rather, a machine was made to replace you
| and you simply can't compete with a machine.
|
| It's evolution, of course, but it is a stressful process.
| akudha wrote:
| Even if one is able to switch careers in their 40s and
| 50s, it is sad that they're forced to do so, just to eat
| and have a roof over their head.
|
| Nearly all humans work for money (aka, just basic stuff)
| and not because they're passionate about their work. It
| is just a sad situation all around
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >medicine is improving.
|
| I doubt whether this is true. Lots of hype, but no tangible
| improvement to show for chronic conditions for common people.
| Brusco_RF wrote:
| GLP-1 isn't a tangible improvement for a chronic condition
| for common people?
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Medical understanding is not getting worse, unless I'm
| severely mistaken.
|
| The systems that _deliver_ the medical care might be,
| however (and indeed observably locally are, in many cases).
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| You're exactly right, but most people just believe the
| headlines about cancer cures and "individualized medicine"
| that pop up every week and don't realize that literally
| none of them produce anything that helps real life
| patients. Medicine is not getting better - it's getting
| more expensive and less efficient.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| > literally none of them produce anything that helps real
| life patients
|
| If you make claims that bold no one should even bother to
| read on.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I dunno, I can casually get an MRI to check the status of
| slime in my nose these days. It may not be strictly
| 'better' but the availability certainly goes up.
| swells34 wrote:
| A majority of what you wrote is objectively false FUD.
| The only thing that I found accurate is: > it's getting
| more expensive and less efficient There have been a
| ridiculous number of medical advances in the last few
| years, advances that are actively improving and saving
| lives as I write this. Remember that time we had a
| pandemic, and quickly designed and produced a massive
| number of vaccines? Saved millions of lives, kept
| hundreds of millions from being bed ridden for weeks? The
| medical technology to design those vaccines, and to
| produce them at that speed and scale didn't exist 20
| years ago. Cancer treatments, which you specifically
| mentioned, are entirely better than they were 10 years
| ago.
|
| The actual issue, which is the only worthwhile thing you
| wrote about, is cost and availability.
| mlsu wrote:
| I'll just say: I have Type 1 diabetes, and in my lifetime,
| we have invented
|
| - fast acting analog insulins that are metabolized in 2-3
| hours instead of 6-7
|
| - insulin pumps that automatically dose exactly the right
| proportion of insulin
|
| - continuous glucose monitoring system that lets you see
| your BG update in real time (before, it was finger sticks
| 4-5 times a day; before that, urine test strips where you
| pee on a stick to get a 6 hours delayed reading (!))
|
| - automated dosing algorithms that can automatically
| correct BG to bring it into range
|
| In aggregate, these amount to what is closer than not to a
| functional cure for type 1 diabetes. 100 years ago, this
| was a fatal condition.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| This is an exciting future:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg
| davedx wrote:
| Get outside, go hiking, climb a mountain! That's my big
| offline plan for this year and I'm excited to do it.
|
| The world is way bigger than technology and the Internet. It
| hasn't really gone anywhere
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Good idea. But for people like me, reading a book on a
| technical subject feels like climbing a mountain -- but
| even more thrilling and enriching!
|
| Fresh air and sunlight are important though.
| Aeolun wrote:
| You can read any book outside.
| xster wrote:
| That isn't the OP's point I believe. I think the point was
| if the more productive means of production is ultra-
| centralized to a few owners of AI, the question wouldn't be
| whether to go outside, but whether you can afford to not be
| permanently outside, if the superstructure of society
| assigns housing to capital and not humans.
| konschubert wrote:
| Since this is just knowledge, I don't think it can be
| guarded all that well.
| patientzero wrote:
| Anyone can make a cotton gin.. Industrialization of an
| industry basically centralizes its profits on a
| relatively small number of winners who have some
| advantage of lead time on some important factors as it
| becomes not worthwhile for the vast majority of
| participants from when it required more of the
| population.
| ohthatsnotright wrote:
| > Chips are made from sand.
|
| And that sand takes a very, very long time with lots of
| big brains to figure out how to manipulate at the
| nanometer level in order to give you a "beep boop"
|
| It's not like Intel could decide tomorrow to spin up a
| fab and immediately make NVIDIA and TSMC irrelevant.
| They're the next closest thing given they make chips,
| have GPU technology, and also foundry experience and it's
| still multiple years of effort if they chose that
| direction.
|
| Your statement is a lot like saying "poker has
| predictable odds" and yet there is still a vast ocean of
| poker players.
| konschubert wrote:
| Yea, I deleted that second sentence that you quoted,
| since it is opening up another discussion that was kind
| of orthogonal to my main point.
| lIIllIIllIIllII wrote:
| caveat - it kind of is going somewhere, the amount of
| wilderness has gone from like 65% to 35% in the last 50
| years
|
| on the flip side, we'll just generate VR wilderness in the
| near future and nobody will care what's real or not
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| You can read books outside.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Best place to. Especially with a cup of tea.
| suyash wrote:
| One can't really enjoy life much if you don't have
| financial means to survive. This technology promises to
| wipe of hundred's of thousands of jobs in media production
| - from videographers, actors, animators, designers, camera
| person working in TV, Movie production all are one click
| away from losing job.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Same, I feel nothing.
|
| Just another tool.
|
| Until full automated agent that is able to carry out a task
| from start to finish without human intervention, there is
| something for us to do I guess.
| zingelshuher wrote:
| > I've just accepted that I'm going to feel less and less
| useful as time goes by
|
| You are not alone : https://youtu.be/h3-va0umXTY?t=383
|
| PS: youtube.com at 6:23, "Leonardo DiCaprio,,Julia Butters in
| Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood --break"
| ericmcer wrote:
| I'm the complete opposite, I wish I was being born 20 years
| in future. I am kinda terrified of being 80 when they come
| out with some technique for heavily slowing down aging and
| our generation just has to sigh and accept we just missed the
| cutoff.
| imiric wrote:
| > Life will probably never be as good as it was for people 30
| years older than me
|
| > Nothing about the future looks particularly good, other
| than that medicine is improving.
|
| How do you reconcile your thoughts with what the CEOs of
| these AI companies keep telling us? I.e. "the present is the
| most amazing time to be alive", and "the future will be
| unimaginably better". I'm paraphrasing, but it's the gist of
| what Sam Altman recently said at the World Government
| Summit[1].
|
| Are these people visionaries of some idealistic future that
| these technologies will bring us, or are they blinded by
| their own greed and power and driving humanity towards a
| future they can control? Something else?
|
| FWIW I share your thoughts and feelings, but at the same time
| have a pinch of cautious optimism that things might indeed be
| better overall. Sure, bad actors that use technology for
| malicious purposes will continue to exist, but there is
| potential for this technology to open new advancements in all
| areas of science, which could improve all our lives in ways
| we can't imagine yet.
|
| I guess I'm more excited about the possibilities and seeing
| how all this unfolds than pessimistic, although that is still
| a strong feeling.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15UZCAr3shU
| lukan wrote:
| We are close to 1.5 degree global warming. And the world is
| rather busy with war, than actually make a unified effort to
| change things. That is depressing to me, not that AI can make
| somewhat convincing background scenery movies (as standalone
| videos I do not found them convincing, all in all impressive,
| sure, but too many errors).
| m2024 wrote:
| I also find that HN has a stunning lack of perspective in
| general. Life all across the planet is dying and we are
| poisoning ourselves.
|
| That said, outside of expending a lot of energy, I think that
| AI is awesome and can help solve some of our problems if it
| is open and free.
| schleck8 wrote:
| > We don't have good social safety nets, and we aren't close to
| UBI.
|
| In the US, let's keep that in mind.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| If you think EU funds are going to be there funding those
| social safety nets in the Brave New World where AGI decimates
| industry... They're not even sustainable as is.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Eu will find ways to keep ppl employed:)
| mv4 wrote:
| OpenAI is one major privacy/compliance scandal away from losing
| that power. I believe it's inevitable, and MS 'will' throw them
| under the bus when that happens.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Only for Microsoft to get the IP
| throwup238 wrote:
| Depression and gloom? Not here!
|
| I can see all of my plans for world domination coming together
| right in front of my eyes. A few years ago I was absolutely
| certain I'd die without achieving my dream of becoming God
| Emperor of a united Planet Earth.
| DalasNoin wrote:
| New alt, Sama?
| debarshri wrote:
| I think you can create an alternate reality with these tools in
| a way that we havent even thought can alter ones own self.
|
| We have seen this in small scale of social media that ones self
| esteem.
|
| We will see a new set of problems that would be much deeper.
| Videos and image that make you believe false reality, reliance
| of GPT will generate false knowledge.
|
| False reality problems have started popping up everywhere. It
| is going to be much deeper. I think we are in for a really
| crazy trip
| Aeolun wrote:
| Go back to insularized communities that only interactt
| offline. Guaranteed reality, as far as you can trust
| interactions with your neighbors anyway.
| Quothling wrote:
| The climate is burning. The Amazon is likely collapsing sooner
| than we expect. There are plenty of wars around the globe and a
| major multi country conflict brewing in Africa. Western
| politics are laughable, and still the best if you want to be
| free to say what you want and have rights. Inequality is
| incredibly high and rising. And so on.
|
| So there are a lot of things to be depressed about before you
| get depressed about a little increase in misinformation and
| idiocy on the interwebs. I mean... things like polio and the
| measles are literally back to fuck with us because people are
| so fucking stupid they think vaccines are a bad thing.
|
| It'll be fine.
| BadHumans wrote:
| A lot of the things you mention are happening because of
| rampant misinformation. Something these tools will help
| create more of as an unstoppable rate.
| jameslk wrote:
| UBI was tested during 2020 on a nearly global scale. In the US,
| the CARES Act which provided stimulus checks for every tax-
| paying US citizen as well as extensions to unemployment was
| essentially a giant UBI experiment. Not for AI, but for a giant
| shift in economic activity where many individuals became
| unemployed nonetheless.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act
|
| EDIT: For the downvoters, yes components of CARES was in fact
| inspired by UBI:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/13/andrew-yang-aoc-free-ubi-cas...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-aoc-demands-univ...
| advael wrote:
| This is a nonsensical argument
|
| UBI has three basic properties that the CARES act fulfills
| none of
|
| 1. Covers cost of living for some basic standard (debatable,
| but should include food, water, and shelter at minimum)
|
| 2. Is available to everyone without onerous requirements or
| means-testing (IE is "universal")
|
| 3. Carries a reasonable expectation of continuity such that
| people can plan around continuing to have it
|
| The CARES act was an emergency measure that absolutely zero
| people expected or intended to be permanent, it was laden
| with all the means-testing and bureaucratic hurdles that
| unemployment generally carries, and it very clearly did not
| provide adequate support for quite a lot of people
|
| It's meaningless to call something a "test" when it carries
| none of the properties that proponents of a policy claim
| would make it desirable. The only perspective from which the
| comparison even makes sense is from that of someone who's not
| considered it seriously and come up with a strawman to argue
| against it (IE something like "UBI is the government gives
| people some money")
|
| It also seems worth mentioning that I really don't buy the
| highly political claim that some people seem to view as self-
| evident: that people remained unemployed longer because they
| got extended unemployment benefits, rather than as a result
| of the massive economic shock that prompted that decision in
| the first place
| itishappy wrote:
| It may be modeled on UBI, but it's not. Universal basic
| income is perpetual and unconditional, while the CARES Act
| was a one-time payment in response to COVID. I'm sure there's
| still a lot we can learn from it, but I also expect many of
| the psychological effects will be someone muted.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots
| rglover wrote:
| Read the Bible. Specifically Revelation, 1/2 Thessalonians, and
| Daniel. If you haven't before, you'd be surprised how much of
| what's taking place now is prophesied.
|
| Many people, rightfully, (over-)react to the American
| caricature of Christianity (mega churches, Kenneth Copeland,
| etc.) as the definition of what it is (that's arguably the
| deception hinted at in the Bible), but reading/trusting the raw
| word--what's referred to as "sola scriptura"--is remarkably
| helpful in navigating what's taking place.
| egorfine wrote:
| Despite you being downvoted which is completely expected on
| HN, I still have to second this.
|
| > to the American caricature of Christianity
|
| This cannot be overestimated.
| joquarky wrote:
| Astrology helps people with navigating life in the same way
| as the Bible
|
| As does the I Ching
|
| These are all just Rorschach tests, why choose one of the
| most corruptible and corrupted approaches?
| slothtrop wrote:
| It takes a crisis to spur drastic policy changes such as UBI,
| or the sort of UBI that would maintain Western lifestyle.
|
| Just wait.
| bowsamic wrote:
| Listen to Bach and have a beer
| bluerooibos wrote:
| Well, Google just released Gemini 1.5 which looks insane so
| there's at least 2 companies in this race.
|
| These huge updates are interestingly timed though - same day?
| ETH_start wrote:
| AGI would give you access to millions of times more resources
| than you currently enjoy. So I would suggest that you have
| absolutely nothing to worry about on the income/employment
| front.
|
| One company having that much power is a different matter, and I
| address it by looking at how we can distribute GPT training
| through decentralized and open platforms.
| cryoshon wrote:
| Who will own the company that operates the AGI?
|
| It won't be me or you. Whoever it is, they will not share any
| of the economic upsides of AI with the public unless they are
| legally forced -- zero, zip, zilch, nada. Even then, they
| will keep the lion's share for themselves, and they will use
| their surplus to shape society to their advantage.
|
| So yes, many millions of us have a big problem to worry
| about, especially considering how much struggling there
| already is now.
| thuuuomas wrote:
| > AGI would give you access to millions of times more
| resources than you currently enjoy. So I would suggest that
| you have absolutely nothing to worry about on the
| income/employment front.
|
| Pure theology
| sureglymop wrote:
| What will you do with millions of times more resources than
| you currently enjoy?
|
| I for one, would be overwhelmed. In the meantime I will be
| passionate and joyful about the things I like regardless of
| whether AI can do them a million times better. I have fun
| doing it.. while the AI is.. just AI.
| __salt wrote:
| I know it's cliche, but you truly, unironically need to go
| touch grass.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| > we aren't close to UBI
|
| Right! I keep saying, that at least we have to kickoff the
| process. Not even the legislative process, but convincing the
| public that we'll need it eventually (alternatively a whole
| different system worldwide, but that will be even harder). Will
| take a long time anyway.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Beware of UBI, simply from the perspective there is no way
| our puritanical members of society will allow it, and if it
| does get enacted will have negative ramifications rendering
| it more of an economic one way trap than a safety net. We're
| simply to easy to other others, and when those budgeting the
| entire economy look at the UBI population, their funding will
| be cut just like they cut education and social services
| today. I'm afraid of UBI, because I don't trust it's
| enactment to be fair, honest or worth accepting.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Never thought about it this way. Your fears sound
| realistic.
| eastbound wrote:
| France has UBI ("RSA").
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Do you feel the doom related to yourself or related to the
| future of humanity? If it's the first - I can't think of
| something else than having a money safety net for 6-12 months
| and having a flexible mind. You can try to learn just in case
| some phisical skills like electrician if the doon feeling is
| that bad. If you feel doon for humanity's future, I don't want
| to be mean, but you shouldn't worry about things you can't
| control, try to spend more time with nature and with ppl that
| spend time close to nature Related to competition - the same
| thoughts people had when thinking about roman/any empire, how
| could it break, how could others compete. In the end everything
| ends, giants like IBM are just shadows of their past success,
| some are saying google is the next ibm and probably openai will
| be the next ibm-ed google...
| huhtenberg wrote:
| The feeling comes from not being able to understand how exactly
| this is done. Makes one feel like a prehistoric man looking at
| a smartphone.
| lawrencechen wrote:
| > Historically, letting technology eliminate their jobs has
| been a sacrifice people have made for their kids' sakes. Not
| intentionally, for the most part, but their kids ended up with
| the new jobs created as a result. No one weaves now, and that's
| fine.
|
| - paulg
|
| https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1757794178548048117
| tr3ntg wrote:
| Ah yes, Paul G, the historian
| chis wrote:
| Ah perfect, all we have to do is consider a vague analogy to
| a totally different event in the past and it's clear that
| there's no worries if AI takes the vast majority of human
| jobs in the next 50 years.
|
| As a side note I shudder to think how many nightmare fuel
| cursed videos the researchers must have had to work through
| to get this result. Gotta applaud them for that I guess.
| jprete wrote:
| I can't imagine Paul Graham actually thought through the
| scenario he's describing. The kids of the parents who lost
| their jobs, throwing their lives into disarray and
| desperation, are not going to be the primary recipients of
| the new shiny technologically advanced careers.
| akprasad wrote:
| Sentence 1 seems historically illiterate, and I think pg
| knows how ridiculous it sounds because he walks it back
| almost immediately. "Historically people made a sacrifice,
| but not intentionally, for the most part" is incoherent.
|
| > No one weaves now, and that's fine.
|
| Did horses find new jobs when we moved to steam power? Leave
| aside the odd horse show and fairground ride. By the numbers,
| what do you think happened?
| Aeolun wrote:
| > By the numbers, what do you think happened?
|
| They found alternate employment as pack horses in WW1. The
| problem was solved after that.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Saving money, honing personal skills that ai can't replicate.
| Staying offline and enjoying the world each day without looking
| at my phone.
|
| This stuff is going to change media and reality so much. Best
| to get involved in local groups.
| digging wrote:
| > honing personal skills that ai can't replicate
|
| Name one, and see if that holds up in 5 years...
| adastra22 wrote:
| Why do you feel depression, not joy when humanity moves the
| line of progress further?
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Progress to what ? Where are we progressing to?
|
| More climate change, war, microplastics in our body and now
| extreme joblessness ?
|
| If I woke up and I saw a headline that said OpenAI has
| developed and AI which told us how to sequester huge amounts
| of cO2 then I'd be excited and agree.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| We've been on an unsustainable trajectory for quite a while
| now. I take hope from things like this. Maybe this time it'll
| finally be the shock we need to rethink everything.
| harryquach wrote:
| There will be a business created specializing in authenticating
| digital information. I have no doubt this problem will be
| solved with technology.
| polytely wrote:
| Not worried, I trust in my taste. I still haven't seen anything
| made by AI that moved me. I'm buying physical books written
| before AI was a thing, backing up music and film. Visiting
| concerts and museums. The information and experience in my head
| will become more rare and valuable compared to the AI slop that
| will soon permiate everything. Oh your model is trained on the
| billion most read online texts in the english language? cute.
| I'm pulling inspiration from places that aren't captured by any
| model.
|
| Most of my programming job is tightly coupled with the business
| processes and logistics of the company I work for, AI will not
| replace me there.
|
| Also I'm not convinced this is sustainable, I'm thinking this
| will be like GCI where the first iron man film looked
| phenomenal but where huge demand + the drive to make it
| profitable will drive down the quality to just above barely
| acceptable levels like the CGI in current marvel blockbusters.
| elorant wrote:
| Why should we always take the pessimistic viewpoint? Think of
| all the beautiful things that can be built with something like
| that. All the tutorials that could be created for any given
| subject. All the memories that could be relived. Upload a photo
| with your grandparents, give it context, and see them laughing
| and playing with you as a toddler. Feed it your favorite book
| and let it make a movie out of it. I mean, fuck me, the
| possibilities are endless. I don't feel depressed. I feel
| blessed to be able to live in an era when all these marvelous
| things materialize. This is the stuff we read in science
| fiction decades ago.
| lemming wrote:
| Yes, I remember the Matrix discussing something very like the
| situation you describe.
| jjice wrote:
| For what it's worth, there have been a lot of situations like
| this in the past. Maybe not as fast as this, but tech has
| displaced jobs so many times like with the cotton gin and
| computers, but more jobs have come about from those (like
| probably your job). Now, you can say that this is different but
| do we really have any data to back that up aside from speed of
| development?
|
| As for social safety nets: if this affects people as heavily as
| you think (on an unprecedented, never before seen level), the
| US will almost certainly put _something_ into place and add
| some heavy taxes on something like this. If tens of millions of
| Americans are removed from the work force and can't find other
| work because of this, they'll form a really strong voting
| block.
|
| Also consider that things are never perfect. We've had wars
| around the world for a notable amount of time. Even the US has
| been in places we shouldn't be for a serious chunk of the last
| century, but things have worked out. We have a ton of news and
| access now so we're just more aware of these things.
|
| Hopefully that perspective helps a bit. HN and social media can
| have "doomer" tones quote a bit. Hopefully some perspective can
| help show that this may not be as large a change as we think.
|
| Or maybe I'm an idiot, as some child comments may point out
| shortly.
| OscarTheGrinch wrote:
| The more I play with AI the more I realise that The "I" part of
| AI is just clever marketing. People who are freaking out about
| AI should just play around with it, you will soon realise how
| fundamental dumb it is, and maybe relax about it.
|
| AI has no spark, no drive, no ambition, no initiative, no
| theory of mind, and it's not clear to me that it will ever have
| these things. Right now, it's just a hammer that can build 100
| houses a second, but who needs 100 slightly wonky houses?
| srinivgp wrote:
| Um. A hammer that can build 100 houses a second would be
| incredibly valuable, both solving and causing some very
| important problems. So good analogy from my perspective I
| suppose, but I don't think it supports your conclusion?
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| It's literally nothing. Generative images haven't really gotten
| better at the things people care about, like getting specific
| details right and matching exact descriptions, and avoiding
| uncanny animals and humans. There's no reason to think video
| will be any different. No reason to panic - just take it for
| what it is: something funny to amuse yourself with for a few
| hours.
| itissid wrote:
| And we have been told that with innovation and disruption, a
| new breed of jobs and skill sets are created. But we don't know
| (or are very bad at predicting) what those would be, especially
| now that the world has 100's millions of people linked to these
| economies (film, writing, gaming).
|
| Many people (including myself) have bought into the narrative
| that history will repeat here and things will be better
| eventually, but not how much has to break first, and it's used
| as a hammer by OpenAI and probably every innovator who
| disrupted.
|
| They advertised "Safety" but no "Economic Impact" analysis
| because the latter is less scary and requires difficult
| predictive work, the former is just narrow legalese defined by
| 80-year-old congressman they have to abide by to "release"
| v1.0. There is at-least a Congressional Budget office(CBO)
| where the 80-year-olds work, flawed as it maybe...
| aggie wrote:
| It's worth considering that throughout history there have been
| people who have felt this way. That suggests this perception is
| a natural tendency of humans and it does not have a good track
| record of turning out be be correct.
| konschubert wrote:
| 1. I would much rather live in a world of abundance and figure
| out UBI than in a world of scarcity.
|
| 2. I don't think what they have can be protected all that well.
| Others will catch up.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I hear this from a lot of people.
|
| What happens when there is no work left, the machines do it
| all, we don't have income to purchase the things we need, no
| UBI to support us, and all that's left is human suffering?
|
| But the intersection of the main currents of thoughts over the
| last few decades gives me a lot of hope:
|
| * Improvements in last mile manufacturing capabilities (DIY)
|
| * AI assistants and knowledge availability
|
| * P2P networking
|
| I don't see the market distortion of crony capitalists lasting
| much longer, and I expect a full collapse of crony capitalism
| within the next decade as true capitalist markets, equipped
| with AI/P2P/DIY, out-compete and out-meme the cronies.
|
| I see us returning to the momentum of the 60s where society
| seemed to be following a path towards communal-anarcho-
| capitalism. Where the question of how we will provide for
| ourselves is answered within our communities first, with global
| supply chains filling in the gaps.
|
| I want to see a future for my kiddos where most of what they
| need to survive in a modern civilization can walk out of the
| printers in their local FabLab. Where solutions to their
| community's problems are rapidly designed and brought to print
| with help from their AI assistants. Where schematics for point
| solutions that prove super useful can be shared globally and
| customized to meet needs locally.
|
| I don't look at AI as something that's going to bring about
| untold human suffering. I see it as a load bearing part of a
| system that brings a level of prosperity and abundance that
| society is ill equipped to handle.
| suyash wrote:
| There is no UBI coming, govt can barely fund current budgetary
| needs without bowing tons of money. We are on our own as I see
| it.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I don't worry. These are all ultimately just tools for humans,
| they don't do anything without us prompting them to do so.
| throw310822 wrote:
| The thing that fills me with dread watching these videos is not
| (much) the thought of how many jobs it might make useless. It's
| the thought that _every_ single pixel, _every_ movement is
| fake. There is literally not a speck of truth in these videos,
| there is nothing one can learn about the real world. Yes they
| 're often "right" but any detail can be wrong at any moment.
| Just like ChatGPT hallucinating but in a much deeper way- we
| know that language can be used to lie or just make up things,
| but a realistic video hits in a different way. For example the
| video of the crested pigeon- a bird I haven't seen before- is
| beautiful and yet it can be wrong in an infinity of details-
| damn, I don't even know if such a bird exists.
| up2isomorphism wrote:
| I just don't find much value of the things that they are
| generating so I don't feel that's a problem. If there is
| anything this things is positive, is that it reminds us how
| boring and predictable the daily life of normal people are.
| quadcore wrote:
| [delayed]
| itissid wrote:
| I've to go lie down...
| kashnote wrote:
| Absolutely unreal. Kinda funny how some people are complaining
| about minor glitches or motion sickness when this is the most
| impressive piece of technology I've seen. Way to go, OpenAI.
| seydor wrote:
| This inside VR goggles would make it amazing. probably it wouldnt
| even need to render 360, it would generate it on demand. I better
| go get some feeding tube
| bsimpson wrote:
| That's the difference between Donkey Kong Country and the N64
| (or perhaps between Pixar and Quake).
|
| The amount of power needed to generate this can't be feasible
| for real time VR today. There's a reason even the company that
| invented (massive and free) Gmail is charging for its top tier
| generative AI.
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| Is this real life? Or is just a generated fantasy?
| s-xyz wrote:
| This is seriously insane, in particular as someone mentioned the
| quality of it. I can't wait to play around with this. SICK!
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Finally new TNG episodes!
| lagrange77 wrote:
| They should generate a video of Steve Jobs introducing this in a
| keynote.
| stephenw310 wrote:
| The results are mindblowing, to say the least. But will they
| allow developers to fine-tune this eventually? OpenAI is still
| yet to give that ability to txt2img DALLE models, so I doubt that
| will be the case.
| mlsu wrote:
| They must be using techniques from NeRF in here, maybe in
| tokenization? The artifacts are unmistakeable.
| 0xcb0 wrote:
| Wow, feels unreal. Can't believe we have come so far, yet we
| cannot solve the worlds most basic problems and people still
| starve each day.
| ij09j901023123 wrote:
| We thought programmers, fast food workers, and drivers would be
| automated first. Turns out, it's movie / video, actors, editors
| and artists....
| Pmop wrote:
| We all are going to get automated out of the workforce together
| :)
| rglover wrote:
| I was super on board until I saw... _the paw_ :
| https://player.vimeo.com/video/913131059?h=afe5567f31&badge=...
|
| Exciting for the potential this creates, but scary for the social
| implications (e.g., this will make trial law nearly impossible).
| zuminator wrote:
| Wow. If I saw this clip a year ago I wouldn't think, "The image
| generator fucked up," I'd just think that a CG effects artist
| deliberately tweaked an existing real-world video.
| rglover wrote:
| Yeah, if that gets cleaned up (one would expect it to in
| time), this is going to change _a lot_.
| comicjk wrote:
| If I understand trial law correctly, the rules of evidence
| already prohibit introducing a video at trial without proving
| where it came from (for example, testimony from a security
| guard that a given video came from a given security camera).
|
| But social media has no rules of evidence. Already I see AI-
| generated images as illustrations on many conspiracy theory
| posts. People's resistance to believing images and videos from
| sketchy sources is going to have to increase very fast
| (especially for images and videos that they agree with).
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| It's always kinda crazy to me to see an emerging technology like
| this have it's next iteration in the development pipeline, and
| even after seeing the First Gen AI video models, even many of the
| HN people here _still_ say, "Meh, not that impressive."
|
| Brother, have you seen Runway Gen 2, or SVD 1.1? I'm not excited
| about Sora because I think it looks like Hollywood animations,
| I'm excited because an open-source 3rd-Gen Sora is going to be so
| much better, and this much progression in one step is really
| exciting!
| darkhorse13 wrote:
| Does anyone else feel a sense of doom from these advancements?
| I'm definitely not a Luddite, I've been working professionally as
| a programmer for quite some time now, but I just can't shake this
| feeling. And this is not in the "I might lose my job to this"
| kind of feeling, that's obviously there, but it's something
| deeper, more sinister. I don't think I can explain it properly.
|
| Anyway, videos look incredible. I genuinely can't believe my
| eyes.
| slothtrop wrote:
| It allows the technical possibility for a post-truth reality,
| where it's impossible to tell what's true and what isn't. Every
| piece of information fed through your machine and smartphone.
| That's the scariest part to me. We need to get ahead of that,
| because certain interests _will_ be fabricating things with it.
|
| As jobs go, well, we're a long ways from full automation but
| this represents some serious growing pains that will decimate
| certain jobs and replace them with few. Not sure what the
| reaction will be on the consumption side, revulsion or
| enthusiasm. The "handcrafted" market will still be there but
| then you wouldn't really know if any AI was used. In a long
| enough timeline we can hand-wave this away with UBI/negative
| tax.
|
| But ah, the most at-risk workers are the professional services,
| white-collar upper-middle class types, even engineers but to a
| lesser extent. So I wonder what kind of upheaval that would
| cause.
| hansoolo wrote:
| I think my thoughts went in a similarly sinister direction,
| when I saw it. I couldn't quiet grasp it.
|
| My mood wasn't euphoric, to say the least.
| kaimac wrote:
| meanwhile people are dying
| aubanel wrote:
| I love how they show the failure cases: compare that with Gemini
| 1.5 pro's technical paper that carefully avoids any test where it
| does not seem like a 100% perf! I think confronting your failures
| a condition for success, and Google seems much too self-indulgent
| here.
| ij09j901023123 wrote:
| People are not seeing the bigger picture. Right now, videos are
| the primary focus because it's easy to show off how good this
| technology is to investors through entertainment. Eventually, LLM
| models will expand to biological research, medicine development,
| cellular advancements, and more, effectively advancing humanity
| as a whole. Sam Altman will eventually become the richest man in
| history. OpenAI will dictate whether or not you live or die.
| ij09j901023123 wrote:
| Apple vision pro + OpenAI entertainment on the fly + living in a
| tight pod next to millions of other people, hooked onto life
| support. A wonderful matrix fantasy
| ein0p wrote:
| That actually looks borderline useful in practice. 3 years from
| now someone will make a decent full length movie with this.
| notpachet wrote:
| OpenAI: Prompt: The camera follows behind a white vintage SUV
| with a black roof rack as it speeds up a steep dirt road
| surrounded by pine trees on a steep mountain slope...
|
| Sora: _plays GTA V_
| itissid wrote:
| How does one cope with this?
|
| - Disruptions like this happen to every industry every now and
| then. Just not on the level of "Communicating with people with
| words, and pictures". Anduril and SpaceX disrupted defense
| contractors and United Launch Alliance; Someone working for a
| defense contractor/ULA here affected by that might attest to the
| feeling?
|
| - There will be plenty of opportunity to innovate. Industries are
| being created right now. People probably also felt the same way
| when they saw HTTP on their screens the first time. So don't
| think your career or life's worth of work is miniscule, its just
| a moving target, adapt & learn.
|
| - Devil is in the details. When a bunch of large SaaS behemoths
| created Enterprise software an army of contractors and
| consultants grew to support the _glue_ that was ETL. A lot of
| work remains to be done. It will just be a more imaginative glue.
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Mind blown of course.
|
| Two things are interesting:
|
| - No audio -- that must have been hard to add, or else it would
| have been there.
|
| - Spelling is still probably hard to do (the familiar DallE
| problem)... e.g. a video showing a car driving past a billboard
| with specified text.
| slothtrop wrote:
| My intuition is that training on audio will be trivial if they
| can accomplish this for video. Maybe I'm wrong.
| pradn wrote:
| It's impressive, but I think it's still in the same category as
| even the best LLMs: the demos look good and they can be quite
| useful, but you can never quite trust them. You really can't just
| have an LLM write a whole report for you - who knows what facts
| it'll make up, what it'll miss? You really can't use this to
| generate video for work, who knows where the little artifacts are
| (it's easier to tell with video).
|
| The future of these high-fidelity (but not perfect) generative AI
| systems is in realizing we're going to need "humans in the loop".
| This means designing to output human-manipulable data - perhaps
| models/skeletons/textures instead of whole output. Pixels are
| hard to manipulate directly!
|
| As for entertainment, already we see people sick of CGI - will
| people really want to pay for AI-generated video?
| speedgoose wrote:
| I subscribe to Disney+ and some of the content is a lot less
| perfect than the Sora videos presented there.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| > _The future of these high-fidelity (but not perfect)
| generative AI systems is in realizing we 're going to need
| "humans in the loop"_
|
| Last weekend my 7 year old decided he wanted to make and sell a
| shirt with an image of a space cat shooting a laser gun. It
| took him like 1 minute to use free Dalle3 to make and choose an
| image. Then I showed him a website to remove the background.
| Then I showed him a tool to AI-upscale the image. Then we
| uploaded it to Amazon Merch, it got approved after a few hours,
| and now it's for sale on Amazon. It took us maybe 10 minutes of
| effort end-to-end. Involved no artists.
|
| Funny enough, Amazon is full of AI-designed merch, there were
| like 7 pages of shirts with space cats with lasers.
| redm wrote:
| Why are all the example videos in slow motion?
| itissid wrote:
| So what happens to the film industry now?
|
| - Local/Bespoke high quality video content creation by ordinary
| Joes: Check. - Ordinary joes making fake porn videos for money:
| Check. - Reduce cost for real movies dramatically by editing in
| AI scenes: Check.
|
| A whole industry will get upturned.
| slothtrop wrote:
| RE worrying about the future: what concerns me most is post-truth
| reality. Being thrown into a world where it's impossible to tell
| fact from fiction is insane and dangerous. Just thinking about it
| evokes paranoia.
|
| We're nowhere near full-automation, these are growing pains, but
| maybe the canary in the goldmine for the job market. Expect more
| enthusiasm for UBI or negative tax and the like and policies to
| follow. Cheap energy is also coming eventually, just slower.
| foobar_______ wrote:
| Feels like another pivotal moment in AI. Feel like I'm watching
| history live. I think I need to go lay down.
| telesilla wrote:
| Watching these made me think, I'm going to want to go to the
| theatre a lot more in the future and see fellow humans in plays,
| lectures and concerts.
|
| Such achievements in technology must lead to cultural change.
| Look at how popular vinyl has become, why not theatre again.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Shall I get into the unemployment line now and beat the rush?
| impulser_ wrote:
| This is good, but far from being useful or production ready.
|
| It's still too easy to notice these are all AI rendered.
| gebt wrote:
| Thanks but we saw: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39380165
|
| https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97733259&docI...
| qwertox wrote:
| The one with the grandma is outright scary. All the lies...
| lorenzofalco wrote:
| Ahora si que si se jodio todo. Apaga todo o desco ecta
| elorant wrote:
| This could kill the porn industry.
| lxe wrote:
| Blown every expectation way away....
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Has anyone noticed the label on the surfing otter's lifejacket?
| :D
| accra4rx wrote:
| More layoffs
| lqcfcjx wrote:
| This is very impressive. I know in general people are iffy about
| research benchmark. How does it work to evaluate text-to-video
| types of use cases? I want to have some intuition on how much
| this is better than other systems like pika quantatively.
| hansoolo wrote:
| Is it really just coincidence that Andrej Karpathy just left
| yesterday?
| jgalt212 wrote:
| These looks like well done PS5 games. Which, of course, is a
| great achievement.
| jmfldn wrote:
| Technically breathtaking, but why do these examples of AI-
| generated content always have a cheap clipart vibe about them? So
| naff and uninspired given the, no doubt, endless potential this
| technology has.
|
| I also feel a sense of dread too. Imagine the tidal wave of
| rubbish coming our way. First text, then images and now video can
| be spewed out in industrial quantities. Will it lead to a better
| culture? In theory it could, in practice I just feel like we'll
| be deluged with exponentially more mediocre "content" .
| MobinaMaghami wrote:
| hi, my name is mobina and I am from Iran. I want to make a video
| from text and so yeah. thank you for watching.
| MobinaMaghami wrote:
| are you gays all hackers? I am not
| quadcore wrote:
| HN server runs smoothly and is having a walk in the park it seems
| - impressive compared to previous OpenAI annoucements. Has there
| been significant rollouts?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-15 23:00 UTC)