[HN Gopher] Sora: Creating video from text
___________________________________________________________________
Sora: Creating video from text
Author : davidbarker
Score : 3475 points
Date : 2024-02-15 18:14 UTC (1 days 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.
| psychoslave wrote:
| >How many impressionable or young people have been fooled
| into believing history that never happened?
|
| I would say, all of them. Since the dawn of history.
| Actually, far before, as treachery certainly precedes
| speech itself by a few million years in the struggle to
| survive game.
|
| Just to take a contemporary western (mostly?) thing: how
| did it went last time you looked straight into the eyes of
| kids to reveal them Santa Clauss is a lie and yes almost
| all adults in their society are into that evil conspiracy?
| And what about the adult around you deeply attached to
| their national myths, not even mentioning all the folklore
| around their afterlife beliefs?
|
| But don't worry, everything is going to go well, I promise
| and you know you can trust me. :)
| 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.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| No. They have early access. Example: MSFT was using Dall-e
| Exp (early 3 version) in PUBLIC, since February of 2023.
|
| In the same month, they were also using GPT4 in public -
| before OpenAI.
|
| And they had access to GPT4 in 2022 (which was when they
| decided to create Bing Chat, now called Copilot).
|
| All the current GPT4 models at MSFT are also finetuned
| versions (literally Creative and Precise mode runs
| different finetuned versions of GPT4). It runs finetuned
| versions since launch even...
| 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
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| I'll take one holodeck, please.
| 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.
| theshackleford wrote:
| Many people can. I can and have been since the DK1. I've
| done 12 hour plus stints in it.
| arathis wrote:
| lol horseshit
| theshackleford wrote:
| You're projecting.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Really? My head hurts bad after 30 minutes and I feel
| uneasy after like 10-15.
|
| The DK1 I could wear for like 1 minite before feeling
| sick, so they are getting better ...
|
| I am prone to sea sickness. Maybe it is related.
| 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.
| arvinsim wrote:
| For games like 2D/3D fighting games where you don't to
| generate a lot of terrain, the possibilities of randomly
| generating stages with unique terrain and obstacles is
| interesting.
| 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...
| alokjnv10 wrote:
| you nailed it
| 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.
| xnx wrote:
| Credit to OpenAI for including some videos with failures
| (extra limbs, etc.). I also wonder how closely any of these
| videos might match one from the training set. Maybe they
| chose prompts that lined up pretty closely with a few
| videos that were already in there.
| 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.
| zamadatix wrote:
| That particular example seems to have more a "cheap 3d"
| style to it but the actual synthesis seems on par with
| the examples. If the prompt had specified a different
| style it'd have that style instead. This kind of
| generation isn't like actual animating, "cheap 3d" style
| and "realistic cinematic" style take roughly the same
| amount of work to look right.
| 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.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| Especially of you think that after you can get feedback
| and try again..15 minutes later have a new one...try
| again...etc
| 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.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| The best films have long takes. Children of men or
| stalker come to mind
| esafak wrote:
| The CGI industry is about to be turned upside down. They
| charge hundreds of thousands per minute, and it takes them
| forever to produce the finished product.
| schleck8 wrote:
| Wrong, this is the first time I've seen an astronaut with a
| knit cap.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| The year is 2030.
|
| Sarah is a video sorter, this was her life. She graduated top
| of her class in film, and all she could find was the
| monotonous job of selecting videos that looked just real
| enough.
|
| Until one day, she couldn't believe it. It was her. A video
| of of her in that very moment sorting. She went to pause the
| video, but stopped when he doppelganger did the same.
| turnsout wrote:
| Seems like in about two years I'll be able to stuff this
| saved comment into a model and generate this full episode
| of Black Mirror
| esafak wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Is_Awful
| Zondartul wrote:
| I got reminded of an even older sci-fi story:
| https://qntm.org/responsibility
| barfingclouds wrote:
| Look at Sam altman's twitter where he made videos on demand
| from what people prompted him
| 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.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I wonder how much of it is really "concern for the children"
| type stuff vs not wanting to deal with fights on what should
| be allowed and how and to who right now. When film was new
| towns and states started to make censorship review boards.
| When mature content became viewable on the web battles (still
| ongoing) about how much you need to do to prevent minors from
| accessing it came up. Now useful AI generated content is the
| new thing and you can avoid this kind of distraction by going
| this route instead.
|
| I'm not supporting it in any way, I think you should be able
| to generate and distribute any legal content with the tools,
| but just giving a possible motive for OpenAI being so
| conservative whenever it comes to ethics and what they are
| making.
| golergka wrote:
| I've been watching 80s movies recently, and amount of nudity
| and sex scenes often feels unnecessary. I'm definitely not a
| prude. I watch porn, I talk about sex with friends, I go to
| kinky parties sometimes. But it really feels that a lot of
| movies sacrificed stories to increase sex appeal -- and now
| that people have free and unlimited access to porn, movies
| can finally be movies.
| 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
| Tiberium wrote:
| I'm not the only one ;)
| 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
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Maybe some sort of implants that can generate senses. Would
| be 100s of years because you can say simulate
| weight/pressure and pinpoint accuracy if feeling friction.
| dw_arthur wrote:
| Watching it is enough for a lot of people. Watching 1080p
| first person extreme sport videos on youtube is almost too
| compelling to me. I have to turn it off because it feels
| addictive.
| TealMyEal wrote:
| in their research paper it says "These capabilities suggest
| that continued scaling of video models is a promising path
| towards the development of highly-capable simulators of the
| physical and digital world, and the objects, animals and people
| that live within them*." they are well set on that happening
| 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?
| bori5 wrote:
| yt-dlp
| 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.
| multi_tude wrote:
| Agree, plus performance art might finally hit the
| mainstream :)
| 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.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| No. Because sensorimotor control is a completely different
| ballgame and AI tech for that is far behind these models.
| golol wrote:
| sensorimotor control is imo not at all the bottleneck.
| Teleoperated androids could do lots of useful things
| right now, but the AI is lacking to automate them.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| "The ai is lacking to automate them"
|
| Yes that's my whole point...
| 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.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Can you explain yourself differently please? I have no
| idea what you mean.
| throwanem wrote:
| You don't really touch at any point in your argument on
| even the possibility someone _might_ be harmed, in the
| process of entire segments of the labor market being
| automated. Why is that?
| Eisenstein wrote:
| It is assumed is anything with any kind of scale that
| harm with occur.
|
| Did anyone get harmed when photography was used to
| supplant portraits? Did anyone get harmed when mail
| started getting sent by rail instead of horse? Did anyone
| get harmed when air travel became possible? Did anyone
| get harmed when we supplied electric power to homes?
|
| I have an idea -- why don't you propose a solution to AI
| ruining creative jobs and we can apply that standard to
| it.
| throwanem wrote:
| Price in the externality. The multiple of US GDP that
| OpenAI currently seeks in funding should certainly
| suffice to fund UBI, and if that slows down OpenAI's
| development of new capabilities, then that should still
| be preferable to the alternative of OpenAI being enjoined
| from doing business until that is done.
|
| Of course you may respond that this is unrealistic, which
| it is; it requires a government capable of acting via
| regulation in defense of its citizens, and so nothing
| like it will be done.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I would love to have UBI. If AI fear gets that going I
| would be happy, but I must agree that is unrealistic.
| 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.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| What makes creative labour better and more deserving of
| protection than manual labour?
| 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.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| New data can still be created using AI and curation,
| couldn't it? New works, incorporating AI or not, still
| enjoy copyright protections that one can monetize by
| selling access to that specific work.
| 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
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| Taxes are meant to capture some of the profit that is made
| by a business entity. You could use a local model, but if
| you sell some kind of product or service, the tax would be
| levied on you. Not declaring that properly, of course, is
| tax evasion :)
| stale2002 wrote:
| Most productive work will use AI to facilitate that work
| in some way. I'm already doing that with coding.
|
| There isn't a way to "capture" the value from that.
|
| Even if you aren't directly selling AI assets to someone
| else, people simply using AI themselves will still
| destroy industries.
|
| Good luck confiscating everyone's graphics cards. The cat
| is is out of the box already.
|
| > the tax would be levied on you
|
| No it wouldn't. AI is already everywhere. Its game over.
| You aren't going to be able to track basically anyone who
| is using local models or other AI.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| ...and how would such tax evasion be proven in a court of
| law?
| 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.
| chasing wrote:
| Where do you think the training data comes from?
| moralestapia wrote:
| _came from_
| chasing wrote:
| comes from
| moralestapia wrote:
| No, once the model is trained it doesn't need any new
| media.
| 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.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| This is a very vague statement that covers both opt-in
| and opt-out.
| wnc3141 wrote:
| I agree that preventing technology from dispersing
| generally prevents the creation of wealth. However, given
| our current economic structure, the downside in
| instability of a livelihood has dramatic effects on
| swaths of people who were unlucky enough to be disrupted
| -think of the dramatic costs of retraining, healthcare
| access, the high costs of diminished earnings, inability
| to accrue wealth and retire. Perhaps we could socialize
| these costs, but we don't and are unlikely to do so.
|
| Another issue to look at is the lack of ownership of the
| tools of your trade. In a context where many use AI
| models to competitively produce, hosts of AI models
| essentially own the access to your trade - thereby able
| to charge a toll, or privilege certain behaviors for any
| who strive to make living with these tools. (of course
| this is happening now with plenty of software products).
| The ultimate trajectory of this is not democratization of
| a toolset, but a transfer of wealth from labor to
| capital. And keep in mind that the labor share of income
| has been steadily declining for half a century.
|
| The creation of wealth from AI ultimately depends on the
| strength of democratic and pluralistic institutions that
| safeguard ownership of your trade, democratized access to
| capital, and safeguards of welfare in the environment of
| creative destrcution. Otherwise you wind up with the
| cotton gin.
| 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...
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| With most things, Today's hell-scape is Tomorrow's Hippie
| Idea, Day After Tomorrow's Normal, and Next Week's You-
| Are-Cancelled-If-You-Don't
| azan_ wrote:
| Could you show any example of that pipeline? I'm trying
| to think about technology not using which would result in
| being cancelled, but can't come with anything
| cdme wrote:
| This sounds absolutely dystopian.
| 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.
| jquery wrote:
| The low poly Ps1 aesthetic is huge in indie gaming these
| days
| 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.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| To be blunt about it, I can't help but imagine that the
| people who make such comments (and I've seen quite a few
| recently) are just complete philistines. They're the same
| people who can't draw, write, play, sing, design, or anything
| else and yet think they know what's good.
|
| It's almost as if they think the purpose of art or
| entertainment is to stimulate some particular part of the
| brain and everything else between that and the
| screen/speakers/canvas/whatever is just an inconvenience that
| ought to be dispensed with as soon as technology allows.
| 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
| xanderlewis wrote:
| This is such a great example. Simple, but so telling.
| apitman wrote:
| And yet as time goes on we will become less and less
| certain which comments are made by humans.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| That's entirely orthogonal to the issue it was
| addressing.
|
| The point is that it _doesn 't matter_ how close the two
| can become (indeed, we're already pretty much there);
| people will always want to read stuff written by actual
| people (or at least a thinking being) than something
| purely generated by a model with no other grounding in
| reality.
| freediver wrote:
| We haven't seen that happen for books. Perhaps humans crave
| human spirit?
| dukeyukey wrote:
| > Imagine if every episode of a TV show was unique to the
| viewer.
|
| This is the bit I don't think will happen, at least in big
| quantities. Half the fun of watching a popular series is being
| able to discuss it with epople afterwards!
| 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.
| uoaei wrote:
| Yes and in that time we've learned some important lessons
| that it would be unwise to ignore, e.g. comprehension of
| 3D geometry despite 2D input visual data.
| 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".
| superconduct123 wrote:
| Seems like every big jump in improvement someone says "its just
| a toy"
|
| Its like we keep moving the bar
| 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.
| makin wrote:
| Technically we can, that's what negative prompting[1] is
| about. For whatever reason, OpenAI has never exposed this
| capability in its image models, so it remains an open source
| exclusive.
|
| [1] https://stable-diffusion-art.com/how-to-use-negative-
| prompts...
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It's more complicated than that. Negative prompts are just
| as limited as positive prompts.
| 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
| spyder wrote:
| It's possible it was pre-trained on 3D renderings first,
| because it's easy to get almost infinite synthetic data that
| way, and after that they continued the training on real videos.
| iandanforth wrote:
| In the car driving on the mountain road video you can see
| level-of-detail popping artifacts being reproduced, so I
| think that's a fair guess.
| jquery wrote:
| It looks perfect to me. That's exactly how the area looks in
| person.
| montag wrote:
| My vote is yes - some sort of intermediate representation is
| involved. It just seems unbelievable that it's end-to-end with
| 2D frames...
| 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.
| nlpparty wrote:
| Photos have never been a fundamental proof if the stakes are
| high or you have an idling censorship institution. Soviets
| (and maybe others, I just happen to know only about them )
| successfully edited photos and then mass-reproduced them.
|
| just some google link about the issue:
| https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/stalin-photo-
| manipulation-1...
| 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.
| zogwarg wrote:
| And I guess you haven't actually been to Tokyo, the number
| of details which are subtly wrong is actually very high,
| and it isn't limited to text, heck detecting those flaws
| isn't even limited by knowledge of Japan:
|
| - Uncanny texture and shape for the manhole cover
|
| - Weirdly protruding yellow line in the middle of the road,
| where it doesn't make sense - Weird double side-curb on the
| right, which can't really be called steps.
|
| - Very strange gait for the "protagonist", with the
| occasional leg swap.
|
| - Not quite sensical geometry for the crosswalks, some of
| them leading nowhere (into the wet road, but not continuing
| further)
|
| - Weird glowy inside behind the columns on the right.
|
| - What was previously a crosswalk, becoming wet "streaks"
| on the road.
|
| - No good reason for crosswalks being the thing visible in
| the reflection of the sunglasses.
|
| - Absurd crosswalk orientation at the end. (90 degrees off)
|
| - Massive difference in lighting between the beginning of
| the clip and the end, suggesting an impossible change of
| day.
|
| Nothing suggests to me that these are easy artifacts to
| remove, given how the technology is described as
| "denoising" changes between frames.
|
| This is probably disruptive to some forms of video
| production, but the high-end stuff I suspect will still use
| filming mostly ground in truth, this could highly impact
| how VFX and post-production is done, maybe.
| padolsey wrote:
| With everything we've seen in the last couple years, do
| you sincerely believe that all of those points won't be
| solved pretty soon? There are many intermediary models
| that can be used to remove these kind of artefacts. Human
| motion can be identified and run through a pose/control-
| net filter, for example. If these generations are
| effectively one-shot without subsequent domain-specific
| adjustments, then we should expect for every single one
| of your identified flaws to be remedied pretty soon.
| 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.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| No, it doesn't. You cannot scale your way into posting from
| the official _New York Times_ account, or needing valid
| government ID to comment, or whatever else contextually
| suggests content legitimacy. Abusing scale is an ancient
| exploit, with myriad antidotes. Ditto for producing
| realistic fakes. Baddies combining the two isn 't new, or
| cause for panic. We'll be fine.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Your entire argument that scale doesn't matter rests on
| the notion that legitimacy needs to be signalled at all
| to fool people. It doesn't. It just needs to appeal to
| people's biases, create social chaos through word of
| mouth. Also, all you need to get posted on the NY times
| "account" is to fool some journalists. Scale can help
| there too by creating so much misinformation it becomes
| hard to find real information.
|
| Scale definitely matters when that's what you're doing.
| In fact I challenge you to find any physical or social
| phenomenon where scale doesn't matter.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| If read aloud, no one could guess if your comment came
| from 2024 or 2017. There is zero barrier between you and
| using trusted sources, or endlessly consuming whatever
| fantasy bullshit supports your biases. That has not, and
| will not, change.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Look, you can repeat all you want that fraud has existed
| before, but that's not an argument.
| 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
| usaar333 wrote:
| Significantly simpler scenery. I'd put only the first at
| good complexity/quality.
|
| 2nd is quite simple, but still suffers from your typical
| lighting issues that plague image gen. (shadows are
| significantly off)
|
| 3rd has magically appearing spoon and isn't that complex.
|
| 4th has a lot of prompt following issues
|
| Some others feel quite off -- wizard, flying dragon, etc.
|
| Still impressive of course, but not to the degree of what
| I saw on the marketing page.
| 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.
| a_vanderbilt wrote:
| And the tech demo of GPT-4 was Sam interacting with the thing
| and showing what it did well and where it faltered. We could
| also access the thing soon after. Not so with Gemini. Hell
| even Mixtral got me more excited.
| 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.
| a_vanderbilt wrote:
| I too noticed the coincidence. Not to be a conspiracy theorist
| but part of me wonders if they share this information with each
| other, or if OpenAI has advancements like these sitting in the
| chamber and they are willing wait a few weeks before they
| release them to maximize the impact of the timing.
| 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.
| superconduct123 wrote:
| Media outlets are not going to just publish a random video with
| sketchy provenance
| 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?
| bogwog wrote:
| It's not easy to do that with actors. It costs money, you
| need to get props, find a location, schedule the shoot, etc.
| People who lose their minds over petty grievances will _sober
| up_ long before their video is produced.
|
| With AI video generation you could produce multiple videos
| per day, each one customized to be highly targeted for a
| local market. Actors can be generated to represent a local
| minority that is villainized by politicians and the clothing
| and set customized for the locale.
|
| Then you can automate posting it all over social media with
| fake AI generated discussions calling for a revolution. Even
| if the video gets flagged as fake, you can upload a thousand
| more. As a bonus, add comments along the lines of "of course
| THEY want you to think this is fake! Don't be fooled!" in
| order to appeal to the paranoid lunatics who are most likely
| to get the ball rolling.
|
| In conclusion, I believe this is a solid startup idea. Thank
| you all for coming.
| hackerlight wrote:
| At least 1000x more effort than typing a sentence into your
| keyboard. Hence less likely to happen at the same frequency
| and scale.
| dorkwood wrote:
| If it's so easy can you do it right now and show me the
| result?
| 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
| globular-toast wrote:
| More like _The Matrix_ , which was originally referenced.
| tmaly wrote:
| The Matrix is like the next step. Ready Player One,
| people were mostly on VR. Ready Player Two is where they
| became sort of jacked in.
| 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.
| shostack wrote:
| This is effectively what Amazon does. Provide the
| infrastructure to make money selling things, then let
| merchants de-risk their R&D into what sells best and would
| be most profitable, then sell their own version of it.
| marvin wrote:
| I don't see AWS fast-following the 1.5 million companies
| that use AWS, not even the 0.1% most successful of them.
| 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'.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| So make a biological AI then. What the parent was saying
| is that 'biology can do it with organic materials, so we
| should be able to do it with electronics".
| PeterisP wrote:
| There's nothing obviously wrong with assuming that
| "biology can do it with organic materials, so we should
| be able to do it with electronics" - while it's
| theoretically possible that we'll eventually identify
| some fundamental obstacle preventing that, as far as we
| currently know, computation is universal and the only
| thing that depends on the substrate is efficiency.
|
| Since we have a much, much better industrial process for
| manufacturing electronic components, why attempt to make
| a biological AI if there's no current reason to believe
| that it being biological is somehow necessary or even
| beneficial?
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I love it when people completely pivot what they say just
| to keep arguing.
| 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...
| PunchTornado wrote:
| Google, Microsoft and Facebook have capital and compute.
| That is not an OpenAI moat.
|
| Facebook has Moat because of their social network. It is
| very hard to switch to another network. Google with search
| has no moat because it is easy to switch to a new search
| engine. OpenAI has no moat because it is easy to switch to
| a new AI chat once a better product becomes available. AWS
| has moat because it is hard to switch cloud providers.
| Apple has moat because people want to buy apple products.
| etc.
|
| A moat can be seen where even if you have a worse product
| than the competition, or users hate you, they still use
| your products because the cost to switch is immense.
| 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.
| kortilla wrote:
| It's not the same because there is basically no cost to
| trying an OpenAI competitor. Betting your payload on an up
| and coming rocket company is a major business risk.
| 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.
| theshackleford wrote:
| > I am already fatigued by "AI" """art""".
|
| "I'm bored of it, everyone must felt the same way as me."
|
| Ok
| darkwater wrote:
| At least in the HN bubble, you can see a lot of similar
| comments in every blog post featuring (useless?) AI
| generated images.
| 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.
| jes5199 wrote:
| perhaps film photos are undersaturated and blurry
| 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
| t0lo wrote:
| it wouldn't be too difficult to make a tiktok like app that
| created tailored prompts for sora based on the user and
| tracking data. Question is whether it is profitable
|
| Hopefully, the line between the real world and virtual world
| gets stronger once again.
| 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.
| EMBSee wrote:
| Yes, I felt seriously nauseous. I feel like I just took off
| early gen VR goggles. Still feeling gross after 30 minutes.
| 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!
| kolja005 wrote:
| There needs to be an updated CLIP-like model in the open-source
| community. The model is almost three years old now and is still
| the backbone of a lot of multimodal models. It's not a sexy
| problem to take on since it isn't especially useful in and of
| itself, but so many downstream foundation models (LLaVA, etc.)
| would benefit immensely from it. Is there anything out there
| that I'm just not aware of, other than SigLIP?
| nimbleal wrote:
| I agree.
|
| I think one part of the problem is using English (or whatever
| natural language) for the prompts/training. Too much inherent
| ambiguity. I'm interested to see what tools (like control nets
| with SD) are developed to overcome this.
| 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.
| ta8645 wrote:
| You're lucky if so. I have something closer to pong running
| inside my head.
| 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.
| PepGuardiola wrote:
| In the future, you won't need to do any of that. Your own AI
| will generate a movie for you and ask you if you feel like
| watching a movie. You will love it. Because it will know your
| taste, your hobbies, your friends, ads, chat history, website
| you visited, ..everything.
| ugh123 wrote:
| I am a huge proponent for AI, especially in film making. But
| I hope that real people have the opportunity to write, act,
| and direct themselves, or with a small group of semi-
| professionals or even amateurs, their own blockbuster big-
| budget-looking movies.
| 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 ^^^
| JoshGlazebrook wrote:
| This is my only gripe with these announcements. When will
| us plebs paying $20/month for chatgpt get to use it?
| system2 wrote:
| Yet rate blocked every few hours with it too.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| The context size is 1 million... They said "they tested up to
| 10".
| 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
| huytersd wrote:
| Sundar is a profitability machine. Google is also an order
| of magnitude larger than OpenAI. I don't want all my orders
| drunk tweeting their thoughts to me. Apple doesn't say shit
| but look at what they have achieved.
| superhumanuser wrote:
| Apple hits home runs though. Google, correct me if I'm
| wrong, hasn't had a strong hit for a while!
| huytersd wrote:
| It depends. Microsoft is the most valuable company in the
| world and they don't have any recent "hits". They just
| keep doing their core business well just like Google
| does. That being said, all the research for all of this
| AI renaissance has come directly out of Google.
| sumedh wrote:
| > That being said, all the research for all of this AI
| renaissance has come directly out of Google.
|
| Wasnt SQL some IBM research paper yet it was Oracle who
| got famous and rich for creating a database?
| 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.
| karmasimida wrote:
| How? Not hosting on the planets largest video platform
| because it is generated by OpenAI?
| pama wrote:
| I would much rather pay to generate my own realistic
| videos based on my prompts than watch other people's
| random creations (possibly filled with ads). When
| generation becomes great the motivation and need to
| store, retrieve and serve becomes less relevant.
| hcks wrote:
| Why would you give free money to YouTube if you control
| the content
| 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.
| huytersd wrote:
| I would call 10 million tokens mopping the floor (if true).
| VeejayRampay wrote:
| it's not old news and it's actually way more impressive
|
| it's just that people want to root for OpenAI more because hype
| bamboozled wrote:
| This is a really silly take isn't it?
| huytersd wrote:
| Gargantuan achievements in two different spaces. 10 million
| tokens means insane things. Things like feeding the entire
| codebase of a massive site and saying make a copy of this with
| these changes.
| 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?
| 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.
| chefandy wrote:
| "Things are already bad. How could you be mad about
| making it much easier to make things worse? Quality isn't
| compatible with today's business ambitions."
| 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
| thomastraum wrote:
| The point is by doing you become really good in creative
| fields. in any field. Prompting is not doing. What makes you
| a really good programmer? Writing code.
|
| the pursuit of mastery is at the essence of any craft.
| 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.
| okrad wrote:
| Initial displacement will happen and it will require time
| for society to adapt and new industries to mature. The
| printing press significantly reduced the cost of producing
| books and other printed materials, which led to a dramatic
| increase in the availability of books, literacy rates, and
| the spread of knowledge. This technological advancement
| didn't just replace the scribes; it created new jobs in
| printing, publishing, book selling, and eventually led to
| the creation of new genres of literature.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| Yes, in the long term the printing press brought many
| benefits. In the short term, a lot of people were out of
| work.
| manuka wrote:
| Who lost their jobs to the printing press? The monks who
| were the only scribes back then? They got their time
| freed to spend it on other duties in the monasteries and
| mayhaps even more time to read other books rather that to
| scribe them. So the level of education grew even for
| them.
|
| The same will be for the FX artist and 3D artists etc.
| The level of their work will grow, they will spend less
| time on dull work and more on tinkering with tiny but
| more important things like ideas, emotions, art overall
| etc.
| 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.
| manuka wrote:
| > as long as the demand for pieces keeps up
|
| So the problem not in the AI but in demand...
| ihumanable wrote:
| AI causes the supply and demand to change by creating
| additional supply of pieces through increased
| productivity.
|
| It's cold comfort to someone getting fired to tell them
| "If demand had also increased 10 fold you wouldn't have
| to sleep on the street."
|
| The actual living human being who has had their
| livelihood destroyed probably isn't any less scared of
| their fate because you cleverly tut at them and go, "In
| actuality the AI didn't do anything bad to you, it just
| created a glut of supply and the market demand didn't
| keep up."
| 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.
| manuka wrote:
| Depends on what you think is "dull work". I think there are
| many artist who could welcome some of the "creating work"
| to be automated. What part? Depends on the artists and his
| preferences. AI can take the burden of any type of work and
| leave those parts which are needed for the human to do.
| Human can choose what parts he will work on. That's the
| point.
| __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.
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| There's a difference. Open AI essentially has 2 products.
| The chat bot $20 a month thing for Joe shmoe which they
| admit to training on your prompts, and the API for
| businesses. Workspace is like the latter. The former is
| closer to Google search.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Sure, but there is no ambiguity about that, is there? You
| know that, because they tell you (and, sure, maybe they
| only tell you, because they have to, by law - but they do
| and you know)
|
| How do we get from there to "just assume every company in
| the world will sell your data in wildly and obviously
| illegal ways", I don't know.
| 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.
| esafak wrote:
| We're face to face with AGI and you're worried about ads??
| Get your risks in order!!
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| We're still nowhere near AGI.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| The day the AI stops listening to prompts instead of
| following them is the day I will worry about AGI.
| 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.
| nearbuy wrote:
| So if someone discovered a weapon of mass destruction
| (say some kind of supervirus) that could be produced and
| bought cheaply and could be programmed to only kill a
| certain class of people, then you'd want the recipe to be
| freely available?
| lastdong wrote:
| I understand your perspective regarding the potential
| risks associated with freely available research,
| particularly when it comes to illegal weapons and
| dangerous viruses. However, it's worth considering that
| by making research available to the world, we enable a
| collaborative effort in finding solutions and antidotes
| to such threats. In the case of Covid, the open sharing
| of information led to the development of vaccines in
| record time.
|
| It's important to weigh the benefits of diversity and
| open competition against the risks of bad actors misusing
| the tools. Ultimately, finding a balance between
| accessibility and responsible use is key.
|
| What guarantee do we have that OpenAI won't become an
| evil actor like Skynet?
| nearbuy wrote:
| I'm not advocating for or against secrecy. I'm just not
| understanding the parent comment I replied to. They said
| nukes are different than AI because they aren't
| commodities and can't target specific classes of people,
| and presumably that's why nukes should be kept secret and
| AI should be open. Why? That makes no sense to me. If
| nukes had those qualities, I'd definitely want them kept
| secret and controlled.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| This poses no direct threat to human life though.
| (Unlike, say, guns - which are totally fine for everyone
| in the US!)
|
| The direct threat to society is actually this kind of
| secrecy.
|
| If ordinary people don't have access to the technology
| they don't really know what it can do, so they can't
| develop a good sense of what could now be fake that only
| a couple of years ago must have been real.
|
| Imagine if image editing technology (Photoshop etc) had
| been restricted to nation states and large powerful
| corporations. The general public would be so easy to fool
| with mere photographs - and of course more openly
| nefarious groups would have found ways to use it anyway.
| Instead everybody now knows how easily we can edit an
| image and if we see a shot of Mr Trump apparently sharing
| a loving embrace with Mr Putin we can make the correct
| judgement regarding a probable origin.
| war321 wrote:
| The bottleneck for bioterrorism isn't AI telling you how
| to do something, it's producing the final result. You
| wanna curtail bioweapons, monitor the BSL labs,
| biowarfare labs, bioreactors, and organic 3D printers.
| ChatGPT telling me how to shoot someone isn't gonna help
| me if I can't get a gun.
| nearbuy wrote:
| This isn't related to my comment. I wasn't asking what if
| an AI invents a supervirus. I was asking what if someone
| invents a supervirus. AI isn't involved in this
| hypothetical in any way.
|
| I was replying to a comment saying that nukes aren't
| commodities and can't target specific classes of people,
| and I don't understand why those properties in particular
| mean access to nukes should be kept secret and
| controlled.
| 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.
| huytersd wrote:
| I think it could. The right sequence of videos sent to
| the right people could definitely set something
| catastrophic off.
| czl wrote:
| > The right sequence of videos sent to the right people
| could definitely set something catastrophic off.
|
| ...after amazing public world wide demos that show how
| real the AI generated videos can be? How long has
| Hollywood had similar "fictional videos" powers?
| huytersd wrote:
| Flat earth Billy can now make videos with a $20
| subscription.
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| I think that's great. Billy will feed his flat earther
| friends for a few weeks or months and pretty soon the
| entire world will wise up and be highly skeptical of any
| new such videos. The _more_ of this that gets out there,
| the quicker people will learn. If it 's 1 or 2 videos to
| spin an election... People might not get wise to it.
| huytersd wrote:
| Given the last 10 years I have no such faith in the
| common person.
| WhrRTheBaboons wrote:
| which will only continue to convince people _if_ the
| technology stays safely locked away in possession of a
| single corp.
|
| if it were opened to public faking such videos would lose
| (nearly) all of its power
| NoGravitas wrote:
| > ...after amazing public world wide demos that show how
| real the AI generated videos can be?
|
| How quickly do you think our gerontocracy will adapt to
| the new reality?
| ngcazz wrote:
| Make it high-enough fidelity, and it will be used to
| convince people to kill billions.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Video can convince people to kill each other now because
| it is assumed to show real things. Show people a Jew
| killing a Palestinian, and that will rile up the Muslims,
| or vice versa.
|
| When a significant fraction of video is generated content
| spat out by a bored teenager on 4chan, then _people will
| stop trusting it_ , and hence it will no longer have the
| power to convince people to kill.
| mengibar10 wrote:
| You don't need to generate fake videos for that example.
| State of Isreal have been killing Palestinians en masse
| for a long time and intensified the effort for the last 4
| months. The death toll is 29,000+ and counting. Two
| thirds are children and women.
|
| Isreal media machinery parading photographs of damaged
| houses that could only be done by heavy artillery or tank
| shells blaming on rebels carrying infantry rifles.
|
| But I agree, as if the current tools were not enough to
| sway people they will have more means to sway public
| opinion.
| ardaoweo wrote:
| Hamas has similarly been shooting rockets into Israel for
| a long time. Eventually people get tired and stop caring
| about long-lasting conflicts, just like we don't care
| about concentration camps in North Korea and China, or
| various deadly civil wars in Sub-Saharan Africa, some of
| which have killed way more civilians than all wars in
| Palestinian history. One can already see support towards
| Ukraine fading as well, even though there Western
| countries would have a real geopolitical interest.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| > An AI video generator can't kill billions of people,
| for one.
|
| Not directly. But I won't be surprised if AI video
| generators aren't somewhere in the chain of causes of
| gigadeaths this century.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Oof, imagine if our safeguard for nuclear weapons was
| that a private company kept it safe.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| On a geopolitical level 'everyone' does have access.
| solardev wrote:
| > Especially considering that the biggest killer app for
| AI could very well be smart weapons like we've never seen
| before.
|
| A homing missile that chases you across continents and
| shows you disturbing deepfakes of yourself until you lose
| your mind and ask it to kill you. At that point it
| switches to encourage mode, rebuilds your ego, and
| becomes your lifelong friend.
| bb88 wrote:
| I don't think it's really that hard to make a nuclear
| weapon, honestly. Just because you have the plans for
| one, doesn't mean you have the uranium/plutonium to make
| one. Weapons-grade uranium doesn't fall into your lap.
|
| The ideas of critical mass, prompt fission, and uranium
| purification, along with the design of the simplest
| nuclear weapon possible has been out in the public domain
| for a long time.
| nlnn wrote:
| While it's probably too idealistic to be possible, I'd
| rather try and focus on getting people/society/the world
| to a state where it doesn't matter if everyone has access
| (i.e. getting to a place where it doesn't matter if
| everyone has access to nuclear weapons, guns, chemical
| weapons, etc., because no-one would have the slightest
| desire to use them).
|
| As things are at the moment, while supression of a
| technology has benefits, it seems like a risky long-term
| solution. All it takes is for a single world-altering
| technology to slip through the cracks, and a bad actor
| could then forever change the world with it.
| Fidelix wrote:
| Do you feel the same way about electricity?
| iwsk wrote:
| Should nukes be open source?
| spdustin wrote:
| I humbly refer you to this comment:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39389262
| esafak wrote:
| ML models of this complexity are just as accessible as
| nuclear weapons. How many nations possess a GPT-4? The
| only reason nuclear weapons are not more common is
| because their proliferation is strictly controlled by
| conventions and covert action.
| nradov wrote:
| The basic designs for workable (although inefficient)
| nuclear weapons have been published in open sources for
| decades. The hard part is obtaining enough uranium and
| then refining it.
| baq wrote:
| If you have two pieces of plutonium and put them too
| close together you have accidentally created a nuclear
| weapon... so yeah nukes are open source, plutonium
| breeding isn't.
| extheat wrote:
| I love it when people make this "nuke" argument because
| it tells you a lot more about them than it does about
| anything else. There are so many low information people
| out there, it's a bit sad the state of education even in
| developed countries. There's people trotting around the
| word "chemical" at things that are scary without
| understanding what exactly the word means, how it differs
| from the word mixture or anything like that. I don't
| expect most people to understand the difference between a
| proton and a quark but at least a general understanding
| of physics and chemistry would save a lot of people from
| falling into the "world is magic and information is
| hidden away inside geniuses" mentality.
| Fidelix wrote:
| Should electricity?
| 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.
| towelpluswater wrote:
| This is a fantastic write up and great parallel to the
| state of where we're headed.
| grotorea wrote:
| The problem is when we start to run out of reliable
| sources after becoming sceptical of everything.
| bamboozled wrote:
| What a load...image if everyone else guarded all their
| discoveries, there'd be no text to video would there?
| andrepd wrote:
| People defending this need to meditate on the meaning of
| the phrase "shoulders of giants".
| clayhacks wrote:
| New technology will always be new giants to see from, but
| open source really is a nice ladder up to the shoulders
| of giants. So many benefits from sharing the tech
| spookie wrote:
| This reminded me of a conversation with a historian. He
| requested the reconstruction of a monument in France that
| a game studio had already made.
|
| The studio told him the model was their property, and
| they wouldn't share it.
|
| Peculiar reasoning, isn't it?
| andrepd wrote:
| >If you have world-changing technology it's better for a
| megacorp to control it.
|
| You need to watch more dystopian movies.
| opportune wrote:
| How convenient for all the OpenAI employees trying to make
| millions of dollars by commercializing their technology.
| Surely this technology won't be well-understood and easily
| replicable in a few years as FOSS
| spookie wrote:
| It'll, even if they guard their secret sauce. Let's not
| be naive about this, obfuscation is and always will be a
| minor nuisance.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| The wheel should have been a tightly controlled technology?
| disillusioned wrote:
| More like ClosedAI, amirite?
| comex wrote:
| Google is hardly a good actor here. They just announced
| Gemini 1.5 along with a "technical report" [1] whose entire
| description of the model architecture is: "Gemini 1.5 Pro is
| a sparse mixture-of-expert (MoE) Transformer-based model".
| Followed by a list of papers that it "builds on", followed by
| a definition of MoE. I suppose that's more than OpenAI gave
| in their GPT-4 technical report. But not by much!
|
| [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-
| media/gemini/gemini_...
| cubefox wrote:
| The report and the previous one for 1.0 definitely contain
| much more information than the GPT-4 whitepaper. And Google
| regularly publishes technical details on other models, like
| Lumiere, things that OpenAI stopped doing after their
| InstructGPT paper.
| cchance wrote:
| Maybe because GPT3.5 is closer to what Gemini 1.0 was...
| GPT4 and Gemini 1.5 are similarly sparse in their "how we
| did it and what we used" when it comes to papers
| neya wrote:
| When has OpenAI - for a company named "Open" AI ever released
| any of their stuff into anything open?
| hnben wrote:
| They stopped releasing their stuff openly around the time
| GPT3 came to be.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Whisper was after GPT3 and that was fully open.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| They actually did a few years ago, but that's ancient
| history in AI terms.
|
| The most recent thing they released was Whisper, which to
| be fair is the only model with absolutely no safety
| implications.
| ambrose2 wrote:
| From what I remember reading, Open was never supposed to be
| like open source with the internals freely available, but
| Open as in available for the public to use, as opposed to a
| technology only for the company to wield and create content
| with.
| 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.
| b1gnasty wrote:
| Really makes me think of The Matrix scene with the woman in
| the red dress. Can't tell if they did this on purpose to
| freak us all out? Are we all just prompts?
| grotorea wrote:
| I'm 99% sure this is supposed to invoke cyberpunk but not
| sure about The Matrix.
| 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.
| andrepd wrote:
| Anything less than absolute enrapture is a "hot take"...
| :)
| chefandy wrote:
| > I love these hot takes based on profoundly incredible
| tech that literally just launched. Acting like 2030 isn't
| around the corner.
|
| It seems bizarre to think the _gee whiz_ factor in a new
| commercial creative product makes critiquing its output
| out-of-bounds. This isn 't a university research team:
| they're charging money for this. Most people have to
| determine if something is useful before they pay for it.
| goatlover wrote:
| Let me guess, hard singularity take-off in 2030? Does the
| hype cycle not exist for techno-optimists? Just one
| breathless prediction after another?
| anoopelias wrote:
| > I don't believe, movie makers are out of business any
| time soon
|
| My son was learning how to play keyboard and he started
| practicing based on metronome. At some point, I was
| thinking, why is he learning it at all? We can program
| which key to be pressed at what point in time, and then a
| software can play itself! Why bother?
|
| Then it hit me! Musicians could automate all the
| instruments with incredible accuracy since a long time. But
| they never do that. For some reason, they still want a
| person behind the piano / guitar / drums.
| czl wrote:
| > Musicians could automate all the instruments with
| incredible accuracy since a long time. But they never do
| that.
|
| What do you judge was the ratio of automated music
| (recordings played back) to live music played in the last
| year?
| anoopelias wrote:
| Just to be clear, I was talking about the original sound
| produced by a person (vs. a machine). Of course it was
| recorded and played back a _lot_ more than folks
| listening live.
|
| But I take it, maybe I'm not so familiar with world
| music, I was talking more about Indian music. While the
| music is recorded and mixed across several tracks
| electronically, I think most of it is played (or sang)
| originally by a person.
| Larrikin wrote:
| His point still stands.
|
| In the US atleast there's the occasional acoustic song
| that becomes a hit, but rock music is obviously on its
| way to slowly becoming jazz status. It and country are
| really the last genres where live traditional instruments
| are common during live performances. Pop, Hip Hop, and
| EDM basically all are put together as being nearly
| computer perfect.
|
| All the great producers can play instruments, and that's
| often times the best way to get a section out initially.
| But what you hear on Spotify is more and more
| meticulously put together note by note on a computer
| after the fact.
|
| Live instruments on stage are now often for spectacle or
| worse a gimmick, and it's not the song people came to
| love. I think the future will have people like
| Lionclad[1] in it pushing what it means to perform live,
| but I expect them to become fewer and fewer as music just
| gets more complex to produce overall.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuBas80oGEU
| Tainnor wrote:
| Thankfully, art is not about the least common denominator
| and I'm confident that there will continue to be music
| played live as long as humanity exists.
| Larrikin wrote:
| Music has a lot of people who believe that not only is
| their favorite genre the best but that they must tear
| down people who don't appreciate it.
|
| You aren't better because you prefer live music, you just
| have a preference. Music wasn't better some arbitrary
| number of years ago, you just have a preference.
|
| Nobody said one form is objectively better, just that
| there is a form that is becoming more popular.
|
| But to state my opinion, I can't imagine something more
| boring than thinking the best of music, performance, TV,
| or media in general was done best and created in the
| past.
| picklesman wrote:
| When I was studying music technology and using state of
| the art software synthesizers and sequencers, I got more
| and more into playing my acoustic guitar. There's a deep
| and direct connection and a pleasure that comes with it
| that computers (and now/eventually AI) will never be able
| to match.
|
| (That being said, a realtime AI-based bandmate could be
| interesting...)
| inference-lord wrote:
| My son is an interesting example of this, I can play all
| the best guitar music on earth via the speakers, but when
| I physically get the guitar out and strum it, he sits up
| like he has just seen god, and is total awe of the sounds
| of it, the feel of the guitar and the site of it. It's
| like nothing else can compare. Even if he is hysterically
| crying, the physical isntrument and the sound of it just
| makes him calm right down.
|
| I wonder if something is lost in the recording process
| that just cannot be replicated? A live instrument is
| something that you can actually feel the sound of IMO,
| I've never felt the same with recorded music even though
| I of course enjoy it.
|
| I wonder if when we get older we just get kind of "bored"
| (sadly) and it doesn't mean as much to us as it probably
| should.
| vczf wrote:
| Mirror neurons?
| inference-lord wrote:
| What does this have to do with it?
| vczf wrote:
| I'm speculating that one would have more mirror neuron
| activation watching a person perform live, compared to
| listening to a recording or watching a video. Thus the
| missing component that makes live performance special.
| rightbyte wrote:
| The sound feels present with live music. Speakers have
| this synthetic far away feel no matter how good they are.
| inference-lord wrote:
| My son isn't even a toddler so I don't think it would
| possibly be "mirror neurons".
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| I really briefly looked at AI in music, lots of wild
| things are made. It is hard to explain, one was
| generating a bunch of sliders after mimicking a sample
| from sine waves (quite accurately)
| _glass wrote:
| For me the guitar is like the keyboard I am writing on
| right now. It will never be replaced, because that is how
| I input music into the world. I could not program that, I
| was doing tracker music as a teenager, and all of the
| songs sounded weird, because the timing, and so on is not
| right. And now when I transcribe demos, and put them into
| a DAW, there seem to be the milliseconds off, that are
| not quite right. I still play the piano parts live,
| because we don't have the technology right now to make it
| sound better than a human, and even if we had, it would
| not be my music, but what an AI performed.
| sdrothrock wrote:
| > Musicians could automate all the instruments with
| incredible accuracy since a long time. But they never do
| that. For some reason, they still want a person behind
| the piano / guitar / drums.
|
| This actually happened on a recent hit, too -- Dua Lipa's
| Break My Heart. They originally had a drum machine, but
| then brought in Chad Smith to actually play the drums for
| it.
|
| Edit: I'm not claiming this was new or unusual, just
| providing a recent example.
| shon wrote:
| This goes way back. Nine Inch Nails was a synth-first
| band with the music being written by Trent in a studio on
| a DAW. That worked but what really made the bad was live
| shows so they found ways even using 2 drummers to
| translate the synths and machines into human-plated
| instruments.
|
| Also way before that back in the early 80'a Depeche Mode
| displayed the recorded drumb-reel onstage so everyone
| knew what it was, but when the got big enough they also
| transitioned into an epic live show with guitars and live
| drum a as well as synth-hooked drums devices they could
| bag on in addition to keyboards.
|
| We are human. We want humans. Same reason I want a
| hipster barista to pour my coffee when a machine could do
| it just as well.
| inference-lord wrote:
| _Same reason I want a hipster barista to pour my coffee
| when a machine could do it just as well._
|
| I've wondered about this for a long time too, why on
| earth is anyone still able to be a barista, it turns out,
| people actually like the community around cafes and often
| that means interacting with the staff on a personal
| level.
|
| Some of my best friends have been barista's I've gone to
| over several years.
| baq wrote:
| Back before Twitter was born, or perhaps tv, cafes were
| just that - a place to spend evenings (...just don't ask
| who watched over the kids)
| lox wrote:
| It's more than that, doing it well is still beyond
| sophisticated automation. Many variables that need do be
| constantly adjusted for. Humans are still much better at
| it than machines, regardless of the social element.
| lukan wrote:
| A good live performance is intentionally not 100% the
| same as in the studio, but there can and should be
| variations. A refrain repeated another time, some
| improvisation here. Playing with the tempo there. It
| takes a good band, who know each other intimately, to
| make that work, though. (a good DJ can also do this with
| electronic music)
|
| A recorded studio version, I can also listen to at home.
| But a full band performing in this very moment is a
| different experience to me.
| inference-lord wrote:
| Isn't it obvious? Life is about experiences and
| enjoyment, all of this tech is fun and novel and
| interesting but realistically, it's really exciting for
| tech people because it's going to be used to make more
| computer games, social media posts and advertisements,
| essentially, it's exciting because it's going to "make
| money".
|
| Outside of that, people just want to know what it feels
| like to be able to play their favorite song on guitar and
| to go skiing etc.
|
| Being perfect at everything would be honestly boring as
| shit.
| bruce511 wrote:
| I completely agree. There is more to a product than the
| final result. People who don't play an instrument see
| music I terms of money. (Hint: there's no money in
| music). But those who play know that the pleasure is in
| the playing, and jamming with your mates. Recording and
| selling are work, not pleasure.
|
| This is true for literally every hobby people do for fun.
| I am learning ceramics. Everything I've ever made could
| be bought in a shop for a 100th of the cost, and would be
| 100 times "better". But I enjoy making the pot, and it's
| worth more to me than some factory item.
|
| Sona will allow a new hobby, and lots will have fun with
| it. Pros will still need to fo Pro things. Not everything
| has to be viewed through the lens of money.
| disqard wrote:
| You articulated what I wanted to add to this thread --
| thank you!
|
| I play the piano, and even though MIDI exists, I still
| derive a lot of enjoyment from playing an acoustic
| instrument.
| vitro wrote:
| I like this saying: "The woods would be very silent if no
| birds sang except those who sang the best." It's fun
| learning to play the instrument.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I think it's not. If musicians and only musicians wanted
| themselves behind instruments, for the sake of being,
| there should be a market for autogenerated self-playing
| music machines for their former patrons who wouldn't
| care. And that's not the case; the market for ambient
| sound machines is small. It takes equal or more insanity
| to have one at home than, say, having a military armored
| car in the garage.
|
| On the other hand you've probably heard of an iPod, which
| I think I could describe as a device dedicated to give
| false sense of an ever-present musician, so to speak.
|
| So, "they" in "they still want a person behind the piano"
| is not just limited to hobbyists and enthusiasts. People
| wants people behind an instrument, for some reason.
| People pays for others' suffering, not for a thing's
| peculiarity.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I don't think this is entirely accurate. There are entire
| genres of music where the audience does not want a person
| behind the piano/guitar/drums. Plenty of electronic
| artists have tried the live band gimmick and while it
| goes down well with a certain segment of the audience, it
| turns off another segment that doesn't want to hear
| "humanized" cover versions of the material. But the point
| is that both of those audiences exist, and they both have
| lots of opportunity to hear the music they want to hear.
| The same will be true of visual art created by computers.
| Some people will prefer a stronger machine element, other
| people will prefer a stronger human element, and there is
| room for us all.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _I don 't think this is entirely accurate. There are
| entire genres of music where the audience does not want a
| person behind the piano/guitar/drums._
|
| Hilariously, nearly every electronic artist I can think
| of, stands in front of a crowd and "plays "live" by
| twisting dials etc, so I think it's fairly accurate.
|
| Carl Cox, Tycho, Aphex Twin, Chemical Brothers,
| Underworld, to name a few.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| DJ performances far outnumber "live" performances in the
| electronic scene. Perhaps you can cherry-pick certain DJs
| and make a point that they are creating a new musical
| composition by live-remixing the tracks they play, but
| even then a significant number of clubbers don't care,
| they just want to dance to the music. There are venues
| where a bunch of the audience can't even see the DJ and
| they still dance because they are enjoying the music on
| its own merits.
|
| I stand by my original point. There are plenty of people
| who really do not care if there is a human somewhere
| "performing" the music or not. And that's totally fine.
| taylorius wrote:
| Why does the DJ need to be there, in such a case?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Musicians could automate all the instruments with
| incredible accuracy since a long time. But they never do
| that. For some reason, they still want a person behind
| the piano / guitar / drums._
|
| You've never been to a rave, huh? For that matter,
| there's a lot of pop artists that use sequencers and
| dispense with the traditional band on stage.
| code51 wrote:
| The real dilemma is with composition/song-writing.
|
| Ability to create live experiences can still be a
| motivating factor for musicians (aside from the love of
| learning). Yet, when AI does the song-writing far more
| effectively, then will the musician ignore this?
|
| It's like Brave New World. Musicians who don't use these
| AI tools for song-writing will be like a tribe outside
| modern world. That's a tough future to prepare for. We
| won't know whether a song was actually the experience and
| emotions of a person or not.
| palmfacehn wrote:
| Even if we assume that people want fully automated music,
| the process of learning to play educates the musician.
| Similarly, you'd still need a director/auteur, editors,
| writers and other roles I have no appreciation or
| knowledge of to create a film from AI models.
|
| Steam shovels and modern excavators didn't remove our
| need for shovels or more importantly, the know-how to
| properly apply these tools. Naturally, most people use a
| shovel before they operate an excavator.
| Avicebron wrote:
| It's interesting though, the question really becomes, if
| 10 people used to shovel manually to feed their family.
| And now it takes 1 person and an excavater, what in good
| faith do you tell those other 9..."don't worry you can
| always be a hobby shovelist?"
| palmfacehn wrote:
| They can apply their labor wherever it is valued. Perhaps
| they will become more productive excavator operators. By
| creating value in a specialized field their income would
| increase. Technology does not decrease the need for
| labor. Rather it increases the productivity of the
| laborer.
|
| Human ingenuity always finds a need for value creation.
| Greater abundance creates new opportunities.
|
| Take the inverse position. Should we go back to reading
| by candlelight to increase employment in candle making?
|
| No, electric lighting allowed peopled to become
| productive during night hours. A market was created for
| electricity producers, which allowed additional products
| which consume electricity to be marketed. Technological
| increases in productivity cascade into all areas of life,
| increasing our living standards.
|
| A more interesting, if not controversial line of inquiry
| might start with: If technology is constantly advancing
| human productivity, why do modern economies consistently
| experience price inflation?
| stevesimmons wrote:
| You miss the important point, which is the productivity
| gain means the average living standard of society as a
| whole increases. A chunk of what is now regarded as
| 'toil' work disappears, and the time freed up is able to
| be deployed more productively in other areas.
|
| Of course, this change is dislocating for the particular
| people whose toil disappeared. They need support to
| retrain to new occupations.
|
| The alternative is to cling to a past where everyone - on
| average - is poorer, less healthy, and works in more
| dangerous jobs.
| Avicebron wrote:
| That's awesome, sign me up for retraining. Where do I go
| and who can I talk to so I can be retrained into a less
| drudgery filled position?
|
| Clearly if there are ways out of being displaced, please
| share them
| Someone wrote:
| The 'augmented singer' is very popular, though.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune: _"Auto-Tune has
| been widely criticized as indicative of an inability to
| sing on key."_
| zogrodea wrote:
| Regarding your point about music:
|
| There are subtle and deliberate deviations in timing and
| elements like vibrato when a human plays the same song on
| an instrument twice, which is partly why (aside from
| recording tech) people prefer live or human musicians.
|
| Think about how precise and exacting a computer can be.
| It can play the same notes in a MIDI editor with exact
| timing, always playing note B after 18 seconds of playing
| note A. Human musicians can't always be that precise in
| timing, but we seem to prefer how human musicians sound
| with all of the variations they make. We seem to dislike
| the precise mechanical repetition of music playback on a
| computer comparatively.
|
| I think the same point generalises into a general dislike
| on the part of humans of sensory repetition. We want
| variety. (Compare the first and second grass pictures at
| [0] and you will probably find that the second which has
| more "dirt" and variety looks better.) "Semantic
| satiation" seems to be a specific case of the same
| tendency.
|
| I'm not saying that's something a computer can't achieve
| eventually but it's something that will need to be done
| before machines can replace musicians.
|
| [0]
| http://gas13.ru/v3/tutorials/sywtbapa_gradient_tool.php
| grotorea wrote:
| Live play is what, 1% of all music heard in the world?
| Computers, radios, iPods and phones all play automated
| reproductions.
| dugite-code wrote:
| > fingers are still weird
|
| Also keep an eye on teeth and high contrast text. Anything
| small and prone to distortion in low resolution video and
| images used to train this stuff.
| itronitron wrote:
| I can see this being used extensively for short
| commercials, as the uncanny aspect of a lot of the figures
| will help to capture people's attention. I don't
| necessarily believe it will be less expensive than hiring a
| director and film crew however.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Agreed and these are the cherry picked examples of course.
| justworkout wrote:
| I think a lot of these issues could be "solved" by lowering
| the resolution, using a low quality compression algorithm,
| and trimming clips down to under 10 seconds.
|
| And by solved, I mean they'll create convincing clips that'll
| be hard for people to dismiss unless they're really looking
| closely. I think it's only a matter of time until fake video
| clips lead to real life outrage and violence. This tech is
| going to be militarized before we know it.
| OscarTheGrinch wrote:
| Yeah, we are very close to losing video as a source of
| truth.
|
| I showed these demos to my partner yesterday and she was
| upset about how real AI has become, how little we will be
| able to trust what we see in the future. Authoritative
| sources will be more valuable, but they themselves may
| struggle to publish only the facts and none of the fiction.
|
| Here's one possible military / political use:
|
| The commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Viktor Sokolov,
| is widely believed to have been killed by a missile strike
| on 22 September 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_
| Sokolov_(naval_officer)
|
| Russian authorities refute his death and have released
| proof of life footage, which may be doctored or taken
| before his death. Authoritative source Wikipedia is not
| much help in establishing truth here, because without proof
| of death they must default to toeing the official line.
|
| I predict that in the coming months Sokolov (who just
| yesterday was removed from his post) will re-emerge in the
| video realm, and go on to have a glorious career.
| Resurrecting dead heroes is a perfect use of this tech, for
| states where feeding people lies is preferable to arming
| them with the truth.
|
| Sokolov may even go on to be the next Russian President.
| antris wrote:
| _> Yeah, we are very close to losing video as a source of
| truth._
|
| I think this way of thinking is distracted. No type of
| media has ever been a source of truth in itself. Videos
| have been edited convincingly for a long time, and people
| can lie about their context or cut them in a way that
| flips their meaning.
|
| Text is the easiest media to lie on, you can freely just
| make stuff up as you go, yet we don't say "we cannot
| trust written text anymore".
|
| Well yeah duh, you can trust _no_ type of media just
| because it is formatted in a certain way. We arrive at
| the truth by using multiple sources and judging the
| sources ' track records of the past. AI is not going to
| change how sourcing works. It might be easier to fool
| people who have no media literacy, but those people have
| always been a problem for society.
| victor106 wrote:
| > Videos have been edited convincingly for a long time,
|
| You are right but the thing with this is the speed and
| ease with which you can generate something completely
| fake.
| subtra3t wrote:
| Text was never looked at a source of truth like video
| was. If you messaged someone something, they wouldn't
| necessarily believe it. But if you sent them a video of
| that something, they would feel that they would have no
| choice but to believe that something.
|
| > Well yeah duh, you can trust no type of media just
| because it is formatted in a certain way
|
| Maybe you wouldn't, but the layperson probably would.
|
| > We arrive at the truth by using multiple sources and
| judging the sources' track records of the past
|
| Again, this is something that the ideal person would, not
| the average layperson. Almost nobody would go through all
| that to decide if they want to believe something or not.
| Presenting them a video of this sometjing would've been a
| surefire way to force them to believe it though, at least
| before Sora.
|
| > people have always been a problem for society
|
| Unrelated, but I think this attitude is by far the bigger
| "problem for society". It encourages us to look down on
| some people even when we do not know their circumstances
| or reasons, all for an extremely trivial matter. It
| encourages gatekeeping and hostility, and I think that
| kind of attitude is at least as detrimental to society as
| people with no media literacy.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| > No type of media has ever been a source of truth in
| itself.
|
| 'pics or it didn't happen' has been a thing (possibly)
| until very recently for good reason.
| throwup238 wrote:
| And they've been doctored almost as long as photography
| has been around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
| _of_images_in_the_So...
| xanderlewis wrote:
| As has been pointed ad nauseam by now, no one's
| suggesting that AI unlocks the ability to doctor images;
| they're suggesting that it makes it trivially easy for
| anyone, no matter how unskilled, to do so.
|
| I really find this constant back and forth exhausting.
| It's always the same conversation: '(gen)AI makes it easy
| to create lots of fake news and disinformation etc.' -->
| 'but we've always been able to do that. have you not guys
| not heard of photoshop?' --> 'yes, but not on this scale
| this quickly. can you not see the difference?'
|
| Anyway, my original point was simply to say that a lot of
| people _have_ (rightly or wrongly) indeed taken
| photographic evidence seriously, even in the age of
| photographic manipulation (which as you point out, pretty
| much coincides with the age of photography itself).
| rightbyte wrote:
| > Yeah, we are very close to losing video as a source of
| truth.
|
| Why have you been trusting videos? The only difference is
| that the cost will decrease.
|
| Haven't you seen Holywood movies? CGI has been convincing
| enough for a decade. Just add some compression and shaky
| mobile cam and it would be impossible to tell the
| difference on anything.
| snowram wrote:
| Hell, some people have been doubting moon landing videos
| for even longer now. Video wasn't a reliable source since
| its inception.
| taylorius wrote:
| Of course, any video _could_ be a fake, it 's a question
| of the cost, and corresponding likelihood of that being
| the case.
| scotty79 wrote:
| The truth is to be found in sources not the content
| itself.
|
| Every piece of information should have "how do you know?"
| question attached.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| > Yeah, we are very close to losing video as a source of
| truth.
|
| We've been living in a post-truth society for a while
| now. Thanks to "the algorithm" interacting with basic
| human behavior, you can find something somewhere that
| will tell you anything is true. You'll even find a
| community of people who'll be more than happy to feed
| your personal echo chamber -- downvoting & blocking any
| objections and upvoting and encouraging anything that
| feeds the beast.
|
| And this doesn't just apply to "dumb people" or "the
| others", it applies to the very people reading this forum
| right now. You and me and everybody here lives in their
| safe, sound truth bubble. Don't like what people tell
| you? Just find somebody or something that will assure you
| that whatever it is you think, you are thinking the
| truth. No, everybody is the asshole who is wrong. Fuck
| those pond scum spreaders of "misinformation".
|
| It could be a blog, it could be some AI generated video,
| it could even be "esteemed" newspapers like the New York
| Times or NPR. Everybody thinks their truth is the correct
| one and thanks to the selective power of the internet, we
| can all believe whatever truth we want. And honestly, at
| this point, I am suspecting there might not be any kind
| of ground truth. It's bullshit all the way down.
| geysersam wrote:
| I've always found that take quite ridiculous. Fake videos
| have existed for a long time. This technology reduces the
| effort required but if we're talking about state actors
| that was never an issue to begin with.
|
| People already know that video cannot be taken at face
| value. Lord of the rings didn't make anyone belive orcs
| really exist.
| yurishimo wrote:
| It's funny you mention LotR, because the vast vast vast
| majority of the character effects were practical (at
| least in the original trilogy). They were in fact,
| entirely real, even if they were not true to life.
| ksangeelee wrote:
| You can still be enraged by things you know are not real.
| You can reason about your emotional response, but it's
| much harder to prevent an emotional response from
| happening in the first place.
| tomaskafka wrote:
| ... and learning to prevent emotional response means
| unlearning to be human, like burnt out people.
|
| The only winning move is to not watch.
| geysersam wrote:
| You can have an emotional response and still act
| rationally.
| _kb wrote:
| A key difference in the current trajectory is its
| becoming feasible to generate highly targeted content
| down to an individual level. This can also be achieved
| without state actor level resources or the time delays
| needed to traditionally implement, regardless of budget.
| The fact it could also be automated is mildly terrifying.
| roenxi wrote:
| Coordinated campaigns of hate through the mass media -
| like kicking up war fever before any major war you care
| to name - is far more concerning and has already been
| with us for about a century. Look at WWII and what Hitler
| was doing with it for a clearest example; propaganda was
| the name of the game. The techniques haven't gone
| anywhere.
|
| If anything, making it cheap enough that people _have_ to
| dismiss video footage might soften the impact. It is
| interesting how the internet is making it much harder for
| the mass media to peddle unchallenged lies or slanted
| perspectives. This tech might counter-intuitively make it
| harder again.
| _kb wrote:
| I have no doubt trust levels will adjust, eventually. The
| challenge is that takes a non-trivial amount of time.
|
| It's still an issue with traditional mass media. See
| basically any political environment where the Murdoch
| media empire is active. The long tail of (I hate myself
| for this terminology, but hey, it's HN) 'legacy humans'
| still vote and have a very real affect on society.
| galdauts wrote:
| The issue is not even so much generating fake videos as
| creating plausible deniability. Now everything can be
| questioned for the pure reason of seeming AI-generated.
| latexr wrote:
| > This technology reduces the effort required
|
| Which is a huge deal. It's absurd to brush that off.
|
| > People already know that video cannot be taken at face
| value.
|
| No, no they do not. People don't even know to not take
| _photos_ at face value, let alone video.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/26/that-
| viral...
| justworkout wrote:
| Lord of the Rings had a budget in the high millions and
| took years to make with a massive advertising campaign.
|
| Riots happen due to out of context video clips. Violence
| happens due to people seeing grainy phone videos and
| acting on it immediately. We're reaching a point where
| these videos can be automatically generated instantly by
| anyone. If you can't see the difference between anyone
| with a grudge generating a video that looks realistic
| enough, and something that requires hundreds of millions
| of dollars and hundreds of employees to attain similar
| quality, then you're simply lying.
| samstave wrote:
| >>> _just look at the legs of the woman_
|
| Denise Richards hard sharp knees in '97
|
| --
|
| these infant tech are already insanely good... just wait and
| rahter try to focus on the "what should I be betting on in 5
| years from now?
|
| I suggest 'invisibility cloaks' (ghosts in machines?)
| sinuhe69 wrote:
| Yeah. I think people nowadays are in a kind of AI-euphoria
| and they took every advancement in AI for more than what they
| really are. The realization of their limitations will set in
| once people have been working long enough on the stuff. The
| capacity of the newfangled AIs are impressive. But even more
| impressive are their mimicry capabilities.
| Qwero wrote:
| Are you joking?
|
| We were not even able to just create random videos by just
| text promoting a few years back and now this.
|
| The progress is crazy.
|
| Why do you dismiss this?
| cezart wrote:
| Not dismissing, but being realistic. I observed all the
| AI tools, usually amaze most people initially by showing
| capabilities never seen before. Then people realise their
| limitations, ie what capabilities are still missing. And
| they're like: "oh, this is no genie in a bottle capable
| of satisfying every wish. We'll still have to work to
| obtain our vision..." So the magic fades away, and the
| world returns to normal, but now with an additional tool
| very useful in some situations :)
| Qwero wrote:
| I'm still amazed.
|
| The progress doesn't slow down right now at all.
|
| This is probably one of the most exciting developments in
| the world besides the Internet.
|
| And Geminis news regarding the 1 million token window
| shows were we are going.
|
| This will impact a lot of people faster than a lot of
| people realize
| attilakun wrote:
| I agree. Skepticism usually serves people well as a lot
| of new tech turns out to be just hype. Except when it is
| not and I think this is one of those few cases.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| Not who you're replying to but this is a toy.
|
| AI won't make artistic decisions that wow an audience.
|
| AI won't teach you something about the human condition.
|
| AI will only enable higher quarterly profits from layoffs
| until GPU costs catch up.
|
| What the fuck is the point of AI automating away jobs
| when the only people who benefit are the already
| enormously wealthy? AI won't be providing time to relax
| for the average worker, it will induce starvation.
| Anything to prevent will be stopped via lobbying to
| ensure taxes don't rise.
|
| Seriously, what is the point? What is the point? What the
| fuck is there to live for when art and humanities is
| undermined by the MBA class and all you fucking have is 3
| gig jobs to prevent starvation?
| bowsamic wrote:
| Sure there are limitations but this is still absurdly
| impressive.
|
| My benchmark is the following: imagine if someone 5 years
| ago told you that in 5 years we could do this, you would
| think they were crazy.
| patall wrote:
| I would not. Five (six, seven?) years ago, we had style
| transfer with video and everyone was also super euphoric
| about that. If I compare to those videos, there is
| clearly progress but it is not like we started from zero
| 2 years ago.
| bowsamic wrote:
| I don't really know what you mean by "euphoric", this is
| a term I only know from drugs. Can you define it?
| npinsker wrote:
| It means "extremely happy", but it's usually used to
| refer to a particular moment in time (rather than a
| general sentiment), and so the word sounds a bit out of
| place here, to me.
| Avicebron wrote:
| "Blissful/happy", which is why the word euphoria is often
| abused to be sinister
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Same story as the fingers before._
|
| This is weird to me considering how much better this is than
| the SOTA still images 2 years ago. Even though there's weirdo
| artefacts in several of their example videos (indeed
| including migrating fingers), that stuff will be super easy
| to clean up, just as it is now for stills. And it's not going
| to stop improving.
| dugite-code wrote:
| And further down the page the:
|
| "The camera follows behind a white vintage SUV with a black
| roof": The letters clearly wobble inconsistently.
|
| "A drone camera circles around a beautiful historic church
| built on a rocky outcropping along the Amalfi Coast": The
| woman in the white dress in the bottom left suddenly splits
| into multiple people like she was a single cell microbe
| multiplying.
| Yiin wrote:
| Sure, but think what it will be capable of two papers ahead
| :)
| csomar wrote:
| Progress is this field has not been linear, though. So
| it's quite possible that two papers ahead we are still in
| the same place.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| On the other hand, this is the first convincing use of a
| "diffusion transformer" [1]. My understanding is that
| videos and images are tokenized into patches, through a
| process that compresses the video/images into abstracted
| concepts in latent space. Those patches (image/video
| concepts in latent space) can then be used with
| transformers (because patches are the tokens). The point
| is that there is plenty of room for optimization
| following the first demonstration of a new architecture.
|
| Edit: sorry, it's not the first diffusion transformer.
| That would be [2]
|
| [1] https://openai.com/research/video-generation-models-
| as-world...
|
| [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09748
| koconder wrote:
| Here is an explainer
| https://towardsdatascience.com/explaining-openai-soras-
| space...
| brookst wrote:
| It's not perfect, for sure. But maybe this isn't the final
| pinnacle of the tech?
| matt_s wrote:
| Yep. If you look at the detail you can find obvious things
| wrong and these are limited to 60s in length with zero audio
| so I doubt full motion picture movies are going to be
| replaced anytime soon. B-roll background video or AI
| generated backgrounds for a green screen sure.
|
| I would expect any subscription to use this service when it
| comes out to be very expensive. At some point I have to
| imagine the GPU/CPU horsepower needed will outweigh the
| monetary costs that could be recovered. Storage costs too.
| Its much easier to tinker with generating text or static
| images in that regard.
|
| Of note: NVDA's quarterly results come out next week.
| netcan wrote:
| > I think many people will be very uncomfortable with such
| motion very quickly
|
| So... I think OP's point stands. (impressive, surpasses
| human/algorithmic animation thus far).
|
| You're also right. There are "tells." But, a tell isn't a
| tell until we've seen it a few times.
|
| Jaron Lanier makes a point about novel technology. The first
| gramophone users thought it sounded identical to live
| orchestra. When very early films depicting a train coming
| towards a camera, and people fell out of their chairs...
| Blurry black and white, super slow frame rate projected on a
| bedsheet.
|
| Early 3d animation was _mindblowing_ in the 90s. Now it seems
| like a marionette show. Well... I suppose there was a time
| when marionette shows were not campy. They probably looked
| magic.
|
| It seems we need some experience before we internalize the
| tells and it starts to look fake. My own eye for CG images
| seems to improving faster then the quality. We're all
| learning to recognize GPT generated text. I'm sure these
| motion captures will look more fake to us soon.
|
| That said... the fact that we're having this discussion
| proves that what we have here is "novel." We're looking at a
| breakthrough in motion/animation.
|
| Also, I'm not sure "real" is necessary. For games or film
| what we need is rich and believable, not real.
| Jensson wrote:
| > You're also right. There are "tells." But, a tell isn't a
| tell until we've seen it a few times.
|
| Once you have seen a few you can tell instantly. They all
| move at 2 keyframes per second, that makes all movements
| seem alien and everything in an image moves strangely in
| sync. The dog moves in slow motion since they need more
| keyframes etc. That street some looks like they move in
| slow motion and others not.
|
| People will quickly learn to notice those issues, they
| aren't even subtle once you are aware of them, not to
| mention the disappearing things etc.
|
| And that wouldn't be very easy to fix, they need to train
| it on keyframes because training frame by frame is too
| much.
|
| But that should make this really easy for others to
| replicate. You just train on keyframes and then train a
| model to fill in between keyframes, and you get this. It
| has some limitations as we see with movement keeping the
| same pace in every video, but there are a lot of cool
| results from it anyway.
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| The left and right side of her face are almost... a different
| person.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > But I think many people will be very uncomfortable with
| such motion very quickly.
|
| Given the momentum in this space, I think you will have get
| very uncomfortable _super quick_ about any of the
| shortcomings of any particular model.
| josemanuel wrote:
| At second 15, of the woman video, the legs switch sides!!
| Definitely there are some glitches :)
| 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 ?
| throw310822 wrote:
| Good question :)
| geor9e wrote:
| It's possible that through sheer volume of training, the neural
| network essentially has a 3D engine going on, or at least
| picked up enough of the rules of light and shape and physics to
| look the same as unreal or unity
| samsullivan wrote:
| It would have to in order to produce the outputs, our brains
| have crazy physics engines though, F1 drivers can simulate an
| entire race in their heads.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| I wonder if they could theoretically race multiple people
| at once like chess masters.
| colordrops wrote:
| You might just be subject to confirmation bias here. Perhaps
| there were scenes and entities you didn't realize were CGI due
| to high quality animation, and thus didn't account for them in
| your assessment.
| samstave wrote:
| Serious: Can one just pipe an SRT (subtitle file) and then tell
| it to compare its version to the mp4 and then be able to
| command it to zoom, enhance, edit, and basically use it to
| remould content. I think this sounds great!
| windowshopping wrote:
| Huh, strong disagree. I've seen realistic CGI motion many times
| and I don't consider this to feel realistic at all.
| lastdong wrote:
| Regarding CGI, I think it has became so good that you don't
| know it's CGI. Look at the dog in Guardians of the Galaxy 3.
| There's a whole series on YouTube called "no cgi is really just
| invisible cgi" that I recommend watching.
|
| And as with cgi, models like SORA will get better until you
| can't tell reality apart. It's not there Yet, but an immense
| astonishingly breakthrough.
| unsigner wrote:
| Don't think of them as "computer-generated" any more than your
| phone's heavily processed pictures are "computer-generated", or
| JWST's false color, IR-to-visible pictures are "computer-
| generated".
|
| This article makes a convincing argument:
| https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/a-camera-not-an-engine
| lynguist wrote:
| That is such a gem of an article that looks at AI with a new
| lens I haven't encountered before:
|
| - AI sees and doesn't generate
|
| - It is dual to economics that pretends to describe but
| actually generates
| globular-toast wrote:
| Nah this still has the problem with connecting surfaces that
| never seems to look right in any CGI. It's actually interesting
| that it doesn't look right here as well considering they are
| completely different techniques.
| kitd wrote:
| Maybe it's my anthropocentric brain, but the animals move
| realistically while the people still look quite off.
|
| It's still an unbelievable achievement though. I love the paper
| seahorse whose tail is made (realistically) using the paper
| folds.
| belter wrote:
| Just setup a family password last week...Now it seems every
| member of the family will have to become their own certificate
| authority and carry an MFA device.
|
| "Worried About AI Voice Clone Scams? Create a Family Password"
| - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/worried-about-ai-
| voice...
| 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.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Robot chicken, but full motion video
| 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
| _sys49152 wrote:
| i could arrange in frameforge 3d shot by shot, even
| adjusting for motion in between, then export to an AI
| solution. that to me would be everything. of course then
| comes issues of consistency, adjustments & tweaks, etc
| 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.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Not necessarily explicit. Maybe just deliberately offensive.
| Maybe just weirdly specific.
|
| It's gonna be great.
| 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.
| al_borland wrote:
| Family Guy is built on out of context clips.
|
| It could also fill it for background videos in scenes, instead
| of getting real content they'd have to pay for, or making their
| own. The gangster movie Kevin was playing in Home Alone was
| specifically shot for that movie, from what I remember.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| What? You're serious?
|
| Script => Video baseline. Take a frame of any
| character/prop/room/etc you want to remain consistent, and one
| shitty photoshop and it's part of the new scene.
|
| _Incredibly overstating_. That is an _incredible_ lack of
| imagination buddy. Or even just basic craftsmanship.
| padolsey wrote:
| Nah just fine-tune the model to a specific set of characters or
| aesthetic. It's not hard, already done with SDXL LoRAs. You can
| definitely generate a whole movie from just a storyboard.. if
| not now, then in maybe five yrs.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| lots and lots and lots of b-roll and stock footage is about to
| get cheaper.
|
| Also, using this kind of footage is the bread and butter for a
| lot of marketers for their content.
|
| Imagine never having to pay stock footage companies
| 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
| 0x4164 wrote:
| Now, we can make anyone eat spaghetti with this AGI model.
| system2 wrote:
| Extremely meme quality video made by a kid though.
| ekms wrote:
| You do know that video wasnt like... state of the art video
| generation a year ago? It's an intentionally silly meme video
| brandly wrote:
| Link to state of the art at the time please!
| marvin wrote:
| The relevant state of the art here, is the state of "what
| can an 8-year old kid who just learned how to type" create
| videos of. That was even worse 12 months ago!
| derac wrote:
| It was state of the art "Will Smith eating spaghetti". The
| idea being that it's a tough thing to generate.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| And this was made over 3 years ago :
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
| 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/
| marvin wrote:
| OpenAI is the Manhattan Project of machine intelligence.
| Private-sector.
| 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.
| delichon wrote:
| Or to simulate the short or long term regret you'll feel for
| eating the meal in the photo.
| grbsh wrote:
| I think you are reading too far into this. The title of the
| technical paper is " Video generation models as world
| simulators".
|
| This is "just" a transformer that takes in a sequence of noisy
| image (video frame) tokens + prompt, and produces a sequence of
| less noisy video tokens. Repeat until noise gone.
|
| The point they're making, which is totally valid, is that in
| order for such a model to produce videos with realistic
| physics, the underlying model is forced to learn a model of
| physics (a "world simulation").
| nopinsight wrote:
| AlphaGo and AlphaZero were able to achieve superhuman
| performance due to the availability of perfect simulators for
| the game of Go. There is no such simulator for the real world
| we live in. (Although pure LLMs sorta learn a rough, abstract
| representation of the world as perceived by humans.) Sora is
| an attempt to build such a simulator using deep learning.
|
| This actually affirms my comment above. "Our
| results suggest that scaling video generation models is a
| promising path towards building general purpose simulators of
| the physical world."
|
| https://openai.com/research/video-generation-models-as-
| world...
|
| What part of my argument do you disagree about?
| lanternfish wrote:
| `since it is trained to simulate the real world, as opposed
| to imitate the pixels.`
|
| It's not that its learning a model of the world instead of
| imitating pixels - the world model is just a necessary
| emergent phenomenon from the pixel imitation. It's still
| really impressive and very useful, but it's still 'pixel
| imitation'
| 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?
| ta8645 wrote:
| Why are you able to have a fun job, when another human has a
| non-fun job? Because you're more talented and have skills they
| lack. Same goes for AI versus you. You're just starting to feel
| what billions of other people have felt, for a long time.
| Pugpugpugs wrote:
| Yeah but AI can't experience pleasure.
| ta8645 wrote:
| Customers care about results, not whatever pleasure it
| creates for the vendor.
| Pugpugpugs wrote:
| Wow really? Thanks for your insight buddy.
| ta8645 wrote:
| Thanks, that means a lot, especially coming from someone
| who was commenting on the ability of AI to feel pleasure.
| Pugpugpugs wrote:
| We're both saying "the current system is bad because the
| way it works will interact with ai to create negative
| outcomes" and you're saying "wow you're very stupid,
| here's how the system works." We're aware friend, that's
| the problem.
| ta8645 wrote:
| Wow really? Thanks for your insight buddy.
| 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.
| chrishare wrote:
| Two things I would like - advances in detectors or
| generative content that do not do c2pa, and more
| transparency in what the usage policy means in practice.
| __loam wrote:
| Two things I would like - algorithmic disgorgement and an
| apology to the human race.
| 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?
| zamadatix wrote:
| The technical report mentions it the training data was fed at
| up to 1920x1080 (allowing for a vertical 1080x1920 as well) so
| I'd guess that's why all of these videos were 1080p or lower,
| any larger and it probably gets wonky fast. I didn't see
| anything on absolute compute requirements and their impact on
| time to generate though.
| 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.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Question is - how much do you need to understand something in
| order to mimick it?
|
| The Chinese Room seems to however point to some sort of
| prewritten if-else type of algorithm type of situation. E.g.
| someone following scripted algorithmic procedures might not
| understand the content, but obviously this simplification is
| not the case with LLMs or this video generation, as the
| algorithmic scripting requires pre-written scripts.
|
| Chinese Room seems to more refer to cases like "if someone
| tells me "xyz", then respond with "abc" - of course then you
| don't understand what xyz or abc mean, but it's not referring
| to neural networks training on ton of material to build this
| model representation of things.
| RhysU wrote:
| Good points.
|
| Perhaps building the representation is building
| understanding. But humans did that for Sora and for all the
| other architectures too (if you'll allow a little meta-
| building).
|
| But evaluation alone is not understanding. Evaluation is
| merely following a rote sequence of operations, just like
| the physics engine or the Chinese room.
|
| People recognize this distinction all the time when kids
| memorize mathematical steps in elementary school but they
| do not yet know which specific steps to apply for a
| particular problem. This kid does not yet understand
| because this kid guesses. Sora just happens to guess with
| an incredibly complicated set of steps.
|
| (I guess.)
| ketzo wrote:
| I think this is a good insight. But if the kid gets
| sufficiently good at guessing, does it matter anymore..?
|
| I mean, at this point the question is so vague... maybe
| it's kinda silly. But I do think that there's some point
| of "good-at-guessing" that makes an LLM just as valuable
| as humans for most things, honestly.
| RhysU wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| For low-stakes interpolation, give me the guesser.
|
| For high-stakes interpolation or any extrapolation, I
| want someone who does not guess (any more than is
| inherent to extrapolating).
| jedharris wrote:
| That matches how philosophers typically talk about the
| Chinese room. However the Chinese room is supposed to
| "behaves as if it understands Chinese" and can engage in a
| conversation (let us assume via text). To do this the room
| must "remember" previously mentioned facts, people, etc.
| Furthermore it must line up ambiguous references correctly
| (both in reading and writing).
|
| As we now know from more than 60 years of good old
| fashioned AI efforts, plus recent learning based AI, this
| CAN be done using computers but CANNOT be done using just
| ordinary if - then - else type rules no matter how
| complicated. Searle wrote before we had any systems that
| could actually (behave as if they) understood language and
| could converse like humans, so he can be forgiven for
| failing to understand this.
|
| Now that we do know how to build these systems, we can
| still imagine a Chinese room. The little guy in the room
| will still be "following pre-written scripted algorithmic
| procedures." He'll have archives of billions of weights for
| his "dictionary". He will have to translate each character
| he "reads" into one or more vectors of hundreds or
| thousands of numbers, perform billions of matrix multiplies
| on the results, and translate the output of the
| calculations -- more vectors -- into characters to reply.
| (We may come up with something better, but the brain can
| clearly do something very much like this.)
|
| Of course this will take the guy hundreds or thousands of
| years from "reading" some Chinese to "writing" a reply.
| Realistically if we use error correcting codes to handle
| his inevitable mistakes that will increase the time
| greatly.
|
| Implication: Once we expand our image of the Chinese room
| enough to actually fulfill Searle's requirements, I can no
| longer imagine the actual system concretely, and I'm not
| convinced that the ROOM ITSELF "doesn't have a mind" that
| somehow emerges from the interaction of all these vectors
| and weights.
|
| Too bad Searle is dead, I'd love to have his reply to this.
| sva_ wrote:
| I found the one about the people in Lagos pretty funny. The
| camera does about a 360deg spin in total, in the beginning
| there are markets, then suddenly there are skyscrapers in the
| background. So there's only very limited object permanence.
|
| > A beautiful homemade video showing the people of Lagos,
| Nigeria in the year 2056. Shot with a mobile phone camera.
|
| > https://cdn.openai.com/sora/videos/lagos.mp4
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Yeah, some of the continuity errors in that one feel
| horrifying.
| vingt_regards wrote:
| There are also perspective issues: the relative sizes of the
| foreground (the people sitting at the cafe) and the
| background (the market) are incoherent. Same with the "snowy
| Tokyo with cherry blossoms" video.
| po wrote:
| In the video of the girl walking down the Tokyo city street,
| she's wearing a leather jacket. After the closeup on her face
| they pull back and the leather jacket has hilariously large
| lapels that weren't there before.
| ketzo wrote:
| Object permanence (just from images/video) seems like a
| particularly hard problem for a super-smart prediction
| engine. Is it the old thing, or a new thing?
| bamboozled wrote:
| Also the women in red next to the people is very tiny and the
| market stall is also a mini market stall, and the table is
| made out of a bike.
|
| For everyone that's carrying on about this thing
| understanding physics and has a model of the world...it's an
| odd world.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| The thing is -- over time I'm not sure people will care.
| People will adapt to these kinds of strange things and
| normalize them -- as long as they are compelling visually.
| The thing about that scene is it looks weird only if you
| think about it. Otherwise it seems like the sort of pan you
| would see in some 30 second commercial for coffee or
| something.
|
| If anything it tells a story: going from market, to people
| talking as friends, to the giant world (of Lagos).
| bamboozled wrote:
| I'm not so sure.
|
| My instagram feed is full of AI people, I can tell with
| pretty good accuracy when the image is "AI" or real, the
| lighting and just the framing and the scene itself, just
| something is off.
|
| I think a similar thing will happen here, over the next
| few months we'll adapt to these videos and the problems
| will become very obvious.
|
| When I first looked at the videos I was quite impressed,
| but I looked again and I saw a bunch of werid stuff going
| on. I think our brains are just wired to save energy, and
| accepting whatever we see on a video or an image as being
| good enough is pretty efficient / low risk thing.
| ehnto wrote:
| Agreed, at first glance of the woman walking I was so
| focused on how well they were animating that the surreal
| scene went unnoticed. Once I'd stopped noticing the
| surreal scene, I started picking up on weird motion in
| the walk too.
|
| Where I think this will get used a lot is in advertising.
| Short videos, lots going on, see it once and it's gone,
| no time to inspect. Lady laughing with salad pans to a
| beach scene, here's a product, buy and be as happy as
| salad lady.
| tuyiown wrote:
| This will be classified unconsciously as cheap and
| uninteresting by the brain real quick. It'll have its
| place in the tides of cheap content, but if overall
| quality was to be overlooked that easily, producers would
| never have increased production budget that much, ever,
| just for the sake of it.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| Though I'm not sure your point here -- outside of America --
| in Asia and Africa -- these sorts of markets mixed in with
| skyscrapers are perfectly normal. There is nothing unusual
| about it.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| > then suddenly there are skyscrapers in the background. So
| there's only very limited object permanence.
|
| Ah but you see that is artistic liberty. The director wanted
| it shot that way.
| XCSme wrote:
| It doesn't understand physics.
|
| It just computes next frame based on current one and what it
| learned before, it's a plausible continuation.
|
| In the same way, ChatGPT struggles with math without code
| interpreter, Sora won't have accurate physics without a physics
| engine and rendering 3d objects.
|
| Now it's just a "what is the next frame of this 2D image" model
| plus some textual context.
| yberreby wrote:
| > It just computes next frame based on current one and what
| it learned before, it's a plausible continuation.
|
| ...
|
| > Now it's just a "what is the next frame of this 2D image"
| model plus some textual context.
|
| This is incorrect. Sora is not an autoregressive model like
| GPT, but a diffusion transformer. From the technical
| report[1], it is clear that it predicts the entire sequence
| of spatiotemporal patches at once.
|
| [1]: https://openai.com/research/video-generation-models-as-
| world...
| XCSme wrote:
| Good link.
|
| But, even there it says:
|
| > Sora currently exhibits numerous limitations as a
| simulator. For example, it does not accurately model the
| physics of many basic interactions, like glass shattering.
| Other interactions, like eating food, do not always yield
| correct changes in object states
|
| Regardless whether all the frames are generated at once, or
| one by one, you can see in their examples it's still just
| pixel based. See the first example with the dog with blue
| hat, the woman has a blue thing suddenly spawn into her
| hand because her hand went over another blue area of the
| image.
| yberreby wrote:
| I'm not denying that there are obvious limitations.
| However, attributing them to being "pixel-based" seems
| misguided. First off, the model acts in latent space, not
| directly on pixels. Secondly, there is no _fundamental_
| limitation here. The model has already acquired limited-
| yet-impressive ability to understand movement, texture,
| social behavior, etc., just from watching videos.
|
| I learned to understand reality by interpreting photons
| and various sensory inputs. Does that make my model of
| reality fundamentally flawed? In the sense that I only
| have a partial intuitive understanding of it, yes. But I
| don't need to know Maxwell's equations to get a sense of
| what happens when I open the blinds or turn on my phone.
|
| I think many of the limitations we are seeing here - poor
| glass physics, flawed object permanence - will be
| overcome given enough training data and compute.
|
| We will most likely need to incorporate exploration, but
| we can get really far with astute observation.
| XCSme wrote:
| This is an excellent comparison and I agree with you.
|
| Unfortunately we are flawed. We do know how physics work
| intuitively and can somewhat predict them, but not
| perfectly. We can imagine how a ball will move, but the
| image is blurry and trajectory only partially correct.
| This is why we invented math and physics studies, to be
| able to accurately calculate, predict and reproduce those
| events.
|
| We are far off from creating something as efficient as
| the human brain. It will take insane amounts of compute
| power to simply match our basic innacurate brains,
| imagine how much will be needed to create something that
| is factually accurate.
| yberreby wrote:
| Indeed. But a point that is often omitted from
| comparisons with organic brains is how much "compute
| equivalent" we spent through evolution. The brain is not
| a blank slate; it has clear prior structure that is
| genetically encoded. You can see this as a form of
| pretraining through a RL process wherein reward ~=
| surviving and procreating. If you see things this way,
| data-efficiency comparisons are more appropriate in the
| context of learning a new task or piece of information,
| and foundation models tend to do this quite well.
|
| Additionally, most of the energy cost comes from
| pretraining, but once we have the resulting weights,
| downstream fine-tuning or inference are comparatively
| quite cheap. So even if the energy cost is high, it may
| be worth it if we get powerful generalist models that we
| can specialize in many different ways.
|
| > This is why we invented math and physics studies, to be
| able to accurately calculate, predict and reproduce those
| events.
|
| We won't do away without those, but an intuitive
| understanding of the world can go a long way towards
| knowing when and how to use precise quantitative methods.
| og_kalu wrote:
| GPT-4 doesn't "struggle with math". It does fine. Most humans
| aren't any better.
|
| Sora is not autoregressive anyway but there's nothing "just"
| and next frame/token prediction.
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| It absolutely struggles with math. It's not solving
| anything. It sometimes gets the answer right only because
| it's seen the question before. It's rote memorization at
| best.
| og_kalu wrote:
| No it doesn't. I know because I've actually used the
| thing and you clearly haven't.
|
| And if Terence Tao finds some use for GPT-4 as well as
| Khan Academy employing it as a Math tutor then I don't
| think I have some wild opinion either.
|
| Now Math isn't just Arithmetic but do you know easy it is
| to go out of training for say Arithmetic ?
| peebeebee wrote:
| Yesterday, it failed to give me the correct answer to 4 +
| 2 / 2. It said 3...
| isaacfrond wrote:
| Just tried in chatGpt-4. It gives the correct output (5),
| along with a short explanations of the order of
| operations (which you probably need to know, if you're
| asking the question).
| xanderlewis wrote:
| We shouldn't necessarily regard 5 as the _correct_
| output. Sure, almost all of us choose to make division
| higher precedence than addition, but there 's no reason
| that has to be the case. I think a truly intelligent
| system would reply with 5 (which follows the usual
| convention, and would therefore mimic the standard human
| response), but immediately ask if perhaps you had
| intended a different order of operations (or even other
| meanings for the symbols), and suggest other
| possibilities and mention the fact that your question
| could be considered not well-defined...which is basically
| what it did.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| Correct based upon whom? If someone of authority asks the
| question and receives a detailed response back that is
| plausible but not necessarily correct, and that version
| of authority says the answer is actually three, how would
| you disagree?
|
| In order to combat Authority you need to both appeal to a
| higher authority, and that has been lost. One follows AI.
| Another follows Old Men from long ago who's words
| populated the AI.
| XCSme wrote:
| The TV show American Gods becoming reality...
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I guess you might think 'math' means arithmetic. It
| definitely _does_ struggle with mathematical reasoning, and
| I can tell you that because I and many others have tried
| it.
|
| Mind you, it's not brilliant at arithmetic either...
| og_kalu wrote:
| I'm not talking about Arithmetic
| shostack wrote:
| I'm hoping to see progress towards consistent characters,
| objects, scenes etc. So much of what I'd want to do creatively
| hinges on needing persisting characters who don't change
| appearance/clothing/accessories from usage to usage. Or
| creating a "set" for a scene to take place in repeatedly.
|
| I know with stable diffusion there's things like lora and
| controlnet, but they are clunky. We still seem to have a long
| way to go towards scene and story composition.
|
| Once we do, it will be a game changer for redefining how we
| think about things like movies and television when you can
| effectively have them created on demand.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Wouldn't having a good understanding of physics mean you know
| that a women doesn't slide down the road when she walks?
| Wouldn't it know that a woolly mammoth doesn't emit profuse
| amounts steam when walking on frozen snow? Wouldn't the model
| know that legs are solid objects in which other object cannot
| pass through?
|
| Maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but the above and all
| the weird spatial errors, like miniaturization of people make
| me think you're wrong.
|
| Clearly the model is an achievement and doing something
| interesting to produce these videos, and they are pretty cool,
| but understanding physics seems like quite a stretch?
|
| I also don't really get the excitement about the girl on the
| train in Tokyo:
|
| _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_
|
| I don't know a lot about how this model works personally, but
| I'm guessing in the training data the vast majority of people
| riding trains in Tokyo featured asian people in them, assuming
| this model works on statistics like all of the other models
| I've seen recently from Open AI, then why is it interesting the
| girl in the reflection was Asian? Did you not expect that?
| pests wrote:
| They could test this by trying to generate the same image but
| set in New York, etc. I bet it would still be asain.
| pera wrote:
| I agree, to me the most clear example is how the rocks in the
| sea vanish/transform after the wave: The generated frames are
| hyperreal for sure, but the represented space looks as
| consistent as a dream.
| csomar wrote:
| > Wouldn't having a good understanding of physics mean you
| know that a women doesn't slide down the road when she walks?
| Wouldn't it know that a woolly mammoth doesn't emit profuse
| amounts steam when walking on frozen snow? Wouldn't the model
| know that legs are solid objects in which other object cannot
| pass through?
|
| This just hit me but humans do not have a good understanding
| of physics; or maybe most of humans have no understanding of
| physics. We just observe and recognize whether it's familiar
| or not.
|
| AI will need to be, that being the case, way more powerful
| than a human mind. Maybe orders of magnitude more "neural
| networks" than a human brain has.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Well we _feel_ the world, it 's pretty wild when you think
| about how much data the body must be receiving and
| processing constantly.
|
| I was watching my child in the bath the other day, they
| were having the most incredible time splashing, feeling the
| water, throwing balls up and down, and yes, they have
| absolutely no knowledge of "physics" yet navigating and
| interacting with it as if it was the best thing they've
| ever done. Not even 12 months old yet.
|
| It was all just happening on feel and yeah, I doubt they
| could describe how to generate a movie.
| ehnto wrote:
| Operating a human takes an incredible intuition of physics,
| just because you can't write or explain the math doesn't
| mean your mind doesn't understand it. Further to that, we
| are able to apply our patterns of physics to novel external
| situations on the fly sometimes within miliseconds of
| encountering the situation.
|
| You only need to see a ball bounce once and your brain has
| done some rough approximations of it's properties and will
| calc both where it's going and how to get your gangly
| menagerie pivots, levers, meat servos and sockets to
| intercept them at just the right time.
|
| Think also about how well people can come to understand the
| physics of cars and bikes in motorsport and the like. The
| internal model of a cars suspension in operation is non-
| trivial but people can put it in their head.
| nox101 wrote:
| Humans have an intuitive understanding of physics, not a
| mathy science one.
|
| I know I can't put my hand through solid objects. I know
| that if I drop my laptop from chest height it will likely
| break it, the display will crack or shatter, the case will
| get a dent. If it hits my foot it will hurt. Depending on
| the angle it may break a bone. It may even draw blood. All
| of that is from my intuitive knowledge of physics. No book
| smarts needed.
| barfingclouds wrote:
| Give it a year
| timdiggerm wrote:
| > 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.
|
| How is this any more accurate than saying that the model has
| mostly seen Asian people in footage of Tokyo, and thus it is
| most likely to generate Asian-features for a video labelled
| "Tokyo"? Similarly, how many videos looking out a train window
| do you think it's seen where there was not a reflection of a
| person in the window when it's dark?
| 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.)
| throw310822 wrote:
| The cat in the "cat wakes up its owner" video has two left
| front legs, apparently. There is _nothing_ that is true in
| these videos. They can and do deviate from reality at any
| place and time and at any level of detail.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Tangent to feeling numb to it - will it hinder children
| developing the understanding of physics, object permanence,
| etc. that our brains have?
| dymk wrote:
| Kids aren't supposed to have screen time until they're at
| least a few years old anyways
| lukan wrote:
| There have been children, that reacted iritated, when they
| cannot swipe away real life objects. The idea is, to give
| kids enough real world experiences, so this does not happen.
| snewman wrote:
| There are definitely artifacts. Go to the 9th video in the
| first batch, the one of the guy sitting on a cloud reading a
| book. Watch the book; the pages are flapping in the wind in an
| extremely strange way.
| daxfohl wrote:
| The third batch, the one with the cat, the guy in bed has
| body parts all over, his face deforms, and the blanket is
| partially alive.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| When there is a dejavu cat, we know we are in trouble!
| Crespyl wrote:
| In the one with the cat waking up its owner, the owners
| shoulder turns into a blanket corner when she rolls over.
| hackerlight wrote:
| These artefacts go down with more compute. In four years when
| they attack it again with 100x compute and better algorithms I
| think it'll be virtually flawless.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| I had to go back several times to 0:14 to see if it was really
| unusual. I get it of course, but probably watching 20 times I
| would have never noticed it.
| 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.
| dorkwood wrote:
| That struck me as a line they added to drum up more funding.
| 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.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| If you assume the technology will be able to do arbitrary
| things in the future then sure.
| 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.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| How else is the next generation of talented creatives
| cultivated, if not out of the pool of the millions of
| untalented typists?
| 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.
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| Way to miss the forest for the trees.
|
| The licenses thing is a proxy for what we're measuring,
| which is real life socialization.
|
| You'll see the same trends in Japan, where far fewer
| people drive than in America. I'd imagine you'd see them
| in Europe too.
| 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
| Spacecosmonaut wrote:
| I predict that we will have blockchain integration of
| media crating devices such that any picture / film that
| is taken will be assigned a blockchain transaction ID
| that moment it is generated. We will only trust media
| with verifiable blockchain encryption that allows us to
| screen against any tampering from the source.
|
| Invest in web 3.0 now.
| 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.
| Art9681 wrote:
| The more people AI displaces then the less customers they
| would have right? Wouldn't there be some equilibrium
| reached where it can no longer grow due to falling profits?
| Let's say they mostly sell B2B, who are those other
| businesses selling to if no one (generally speaking) has
| expendable income?
| 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.
| Balgair wrote:
| I don't know who in the upper parts of the various guilds
| in Hollywood saw this demo'd last summer, but they really
| really took notice. Those strikes went on for a long time,
| and it seems that holding out and getting the clause in to
| exclude this kinda tech was a brilliant bit of foresight.
| Holy heck, in 5 years, maybe just a year, this kinda tech
| is going to take nearly all their jobs.
| moneywoes wrote:
| doesn't that apply to software as well
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It does, but I daresay the world's appetite for "more
| software" (in all applications) seems to be infinite.
| 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.
| carabiner wrote:
| When they came for the animators, I did not speak, for I was
| not an animator.
| zzzeek wrote:
| when they came for the animators, I did not speak, for the
| diffusion model forgot to give me a plausible mouth
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| That is my point though, I mean it's good you could
| launch the company, I just don't know what happens to the
| large companies that employ a lot of people. Seems like
| they're heading into dangerous territory.
| jackothy wrote:
| Well it's going to be an enormous jump for everyone else
| too, so you're not at a disadvantage.
| 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?
| elwell wrote:
| The Roman god or the planet?
| slothtrop wrote:
| As though we'd all collectively stop doing anything in a
| full-automation utopian scenario. Be serious.
| elwell wrote:
| I don't understand how that relates to my comment.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Unless you think everyone else is lying, people can and
| do find meaning in their lives, in the activities they
| love. AI has no bearing on that (just careers) so there's
| no reason to believe it would "accelerate" anything.
| elwell wrote:
| Thanks for taking the time to explain. I do kind of think
| people are lying (to themselves). Ignorance is
| (temporary) bliss.
|
| I'm seeking _lasting_ meaning; not 'meaning' that
| dissolves after a season, or at best, at the end of a
| life.
|
| What I meant by 'accelerat[ing] the realization' is that
| all of our earthly desires will more readily be
| fulfilled, and we will see that we still feel empty. AI
| is like enabling a new cheat code in the game of life,
| and when you have unlimited ammo the FPS becomes really
| fun for a moment but then loses its meaning quickly.
| 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.
| elwell wrote:
| Everyone serves some 'god', whether they admit it to
| themselves or not.
| elwell wrote:
| FSM is mostly meaningless IMO, so no.
| 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.
| phist_mcgee wrote:
| I think his point is that people have felt like the world
| is going to shit for a very long time, it's just that
| with the presence of hindsight we can see that in the
| past everything worked out, but we can't see the future
| so our present is troubling.
|
| But none of these feelings are new, just different
| problems manifesting the same.
| 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?
| rvnx wrote:
| San Francisco, Zurich, etc are quite different from other
| places in the world.
|
| No mountains here + no garden for me, Yosemite is
| thousands of kilometers away. The sea has no waves. It's
| -5 degrees.
|
| Which is "fine", but it means that indoor activities are
| more prevalent, including computers.
|
| And I'm sure for some other people their options are way
| more restricted.
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| We could call it...a university.
| theendisney wrote:
| Sure but since we know everything we know will be wrong
| in 500-1000 years we might as well register it as a
| church complete with creation myths. :)
| xanderlewis wrote:
| Hey, Euclid's ideas from 2000+ years ago are still going
| strong.
|
| I doubt much of what we know today will turn out to be
| wrong. Maybe our abstractions will turn out to have been
| naive or suboptimal, but at least they're demonstrably
| predictive. They're not just quackery or mysticism.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I knew someone would say this. Have a think about whether
| universities really achieve what I'm describing.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's kinda like how church attendees aren't always
| upstanding moral individuals.
| samus wrote:
| In any group there are people that are more talented,
| more persuasive and/or have more initiative than others.
| These people will naturally become the group's leaders.
| This can only be avoided in groups which don't have to
| make on decisions or conduct activities.
| samus wrote:
| Such groups are by definition reclusive, hard to find on
| social media, and might be a lot more fringe or "weird"
| than you'd prefer. For a while, subreddits were a bit
| like this.
| 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.
| cyrialize wrote:
| Hah, I feel the same. HN has good news, but the community
| is hit or miss.
| moneywoes wrote:
| what substacks and youtube do you follow? email in bio
| 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.
| chefandy wrote:
| That's been the prediction with many technological
| updates, but here we are. This setup works just fine for
| the small group of fantastically wealthy and powerful
| people that dictate society's requirements for the rest
| of us.
|
| I can't imagine anything changing our culture's
| insistence that personal responsibility in employment
| means zero responsibility for employers, policy makers,
| or society at large. That is, short of a large scale
| armed rebellion, or maybe mass unionization.
| T_MacThrowFace wrote:
| > short of a large scale armed rebellion, or maybe mass
| unionization
|
| don't worry; AI drones will deal efficiently with both
| those forms of terrorism and malinformation
| worldsayshi wrote:
| They will not need jobs because AI corporations will give
| them everything they need just like that?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| History is full of examples of people with power deciding
| that they like resources but don't need the people who
| live on top of them, and solving this problem by going on
| a killing spree.
|
| Bear in mind that a substantial portion of people
| (perhaps 30%) don't feel satisfied unless they see
| someone else worse off. We are not an inherently
| egalitarian species.
| 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.
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| > It's not impossible to imagine that that set might
| shrink to being pretty much empty within the next ten
| years.
|
| No but it's also not impossible to imagine the opposite.
| AI beat humans at chess decades ago but there are more
| humans generating income from chess today than there were
| before Deep Blue.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| No one pays anyone to play chess because it's _useful_.
|
| Chess players get paid because it's entertaining for
| others to watch.
|
| So your argument only shows that we can expect work as a
| form of entertainment to survive. Outside of YouTube,
| where programmers and musicians and such can make a
| living by streaming their work live, this is a minuscule
| minority.
|
| The strongest interpretation of what you're saying seems
| to be that we'll end up in a world where everything
| (science, engineering, writing, design) is a sport and
| none of it really matters because ultimately it's 'just a
| game'. Maybe so... but is that really something to look
| forward to?
| T_MacThrowFace wrote:
| They get paid because the people who can't play chess
| professionally watch it as a mental escape from their
| drudgery jobs because it reminds them of their youth when
| they could still dream about becoming a great chess
| player, and then you can use marketing displayed during
| the chess tournament to trick them into preferring to
| spend the money they make from the drudgery on the
| adveritser's product.
|
| Now upgrade AI to do every job better than humans so that
| there are no drudgery jobs. What money are they going to
| spend?
|
| Not too long ago, people would come and visit the first
| family in the village who had installed running water,
| because it was a new and exciting thing to see. And yet
| people don't wake up every day excited to see water
| coming from their kitchen tap.
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| Think more broadly than that single example. Perhaps
| humans will always be interested in economic activity
| that involves interacting with other humans, regardless
| of what the robots can do.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| I agree but also think this discussion need to go deeper
| into its assumptions. They can't really hold in a world
| with AGI. Can anyone acquire/own AGI? Why? Why not? Will
| anyone pay anyone for anything? Will capital, material
| and real estate be the only things with steep price tags?
| What would a computer cost if all work was done by AI?
| mrb wrote:
| My intuition tells me humans will always have needs that
| AI can't fulfill. If AI does more and more jobs, cheaper,
| faster, and better than humans, then the price of these
| services and goods are going to drop, and that means
| people will have more disposable income to spend on other
| services and goods that are more expensive because AI
| can't produce those (yet).
|
| Imagine a breakthrough not only in AI but also robotics,
| allowing restaurants to replace the entire staff (chefs,
| cooks, waiters, etc) with AI-powered robots. Then I
| believe that higher-end restaurants will STILL be
| employing humans, as it will be perceived as more
| expensive, more sophisticated, therefore worth a premium
| price. What if robot cooks cook better and faster than
| human cooks? Then higher-end restaurants will probably
| have human cooks supervising robot cooks to correct their
| occasional errors, thereby still providing a service
| superior to cheaper restaurants using robot cooks only.
| 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.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| Humanity will not be best at anything. Even menial labor
| will be automated.
|
| So the downside is we have lives devoid of meaning. The
| upside is we live in a scarcity free paradise where all
| diseases have been cured by superhuman ai and we can all
| live doing whatever we want.
| yyyk wrote:
| Eventually, but economics points into a couple of a
| decades of menial labour first since humans will be so
| cheap.
|
| Anyhow, what makes you think the AI or whomever controls
| it has any use for a bunch of useless eaters?
| 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
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| "People" find different jobs but individuals don't. Many
| people displaced by technology don't recover even despite
| retraining programs and go work in service industry or go
| into early retirement. The new jobs go to a younger
| generation.
| 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).
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >Medical understanding is not getting worse, unless I'm
| severely mistaken.
|
| You are mistaken. To realize that you will have to look
| back several decades and read the literature of those
| times, of what is left. Now note I'm taking about chronic
| illnesses (diabetes, cancer etc) not acute ones like an
| infection etc. The medical practitioner of yesteryear did
| not have the fancy diagnostic tools that we have today,
| but several of them appear to me to be sharp observers.
| 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.
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| You are simply ignoring what I actually said. My
| criticism was directed at specific fields: name one
| cancer treatment or "individualized medicine" approach
| that has been proven to save lives or increase quality of
| life in the last 3-5 years. I'll wait.
|
| The vaccines were not the result of medicine getting
| "better" - they just happened to have a solution for the
| right thing at the right time, which is fortunate (and
| we're lucky that it worked, because there was no
| guarantee of that beforehand) but if the pandemic hadn't
| happened, what advances would we be discussing? What
| advances are actually making medicine better aside from
| once-in-a-hundred-year worldwide emergencies?
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| Cancer cure, is indeed a big can of worms. I commented on
| it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39084422
| 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.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| You are partially correct. Although notice that diabetes,
| both type I and II have dramatically increased due to a
| direct result of bad advice and environment. A little
| like giving a deaf person a hearing aid, while not
| addressing factors like loud noises that may lead to
| hearing loss.
| 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.
| itishappy wrote:
| If knowledge alone were sufficient, foundational models
| would be ubiquitous.
| thomashop wrote:
| They're becoming ubiquitous last time I checked. LLMs are
| almost commoditized.
| visarga wrote:
| > if the more productive means of production is ultra-
| centralized to a few owners of AI
|
| But AI is different than previous waves, like search
| engines and social networks. You can download a model on
| a stick. You can run it on a CPU or GPU, even a phone.
| These models are easy to work with, directly in natural
| language, easy to fine-tune, faster, cheaper, and private
| under your control. AI is a decentralizing technology,
| will empower everyone directly, it's like open source and
| Linux in that it puts users in control.
| 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.
| Animats wrote:
| The killer product of 2030 - the standalone TV that
| generates its own content.
| mlboss wrote:
| I think it will be much sooner than that. And the TV is
| already in your pocket.
| inatreecrown2 wrote:
| good startup idea !
| birracerveza wrote:
| I can't believe we can actually create Rick and Morty's
| Interdimensional Cable
| willsmith72 wrote:
| do people even want that?
|
| i thought the point of tv was to sit back and be
| entertained, usually through some form of storytelling.
| personally, i don't want to have any part in the
| creation. if anything custom content would be annoying,
| because i'd lose the only social aspect of tv (discussing
| with others)
| worldsayshi wrote:
| I'm sure the AI itself or some social media prompt
| sharing service can generate the narrative.
| theendisney wrote:
| The viewers dad is the hero in all movies using his real
| world skills. In the end he finds mum.
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| Most of those jobs only existed for about two generations
| of human history. Who knows what future jobs will exist.
| 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.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I don't necessarily _wish_ I 'd been born earlier (I
| probably don't, if I think about it). I just think it might
| have been more fun.
| 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
| jamesear wrote:
| > 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].
|
| Three ways:
|
| * It's the job of CEOs to advocate the benefits of what
| they're doing.
|
| * Those things might be true, for them.
|
| * Those things might be true, from a global perspective,
| even if there are some people who are worse off. White-
| collar workers might just be those people worse off.
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| I have two observations.
|
| 1) My wife trained as a typesetter on a photo typesetting
| machine. That was already replacing typesetters working with
| lead, and the people sorting the used lead, and working with
| inks etc. They still needed a past-up artist and more.
| Eventually the GUI based computer arrived, with PageMaker,
| Quark, Indesign etc. These days she is super productive with
| a massive online icon library available, full printing and
| distribution capabilities. Able to do a job that could have
| involved half a dozen or more people previously.
|
| Are those people unemployed now? Not really (we are talking
| 1.5 generation now, so not the same people). Unemployment
| levels are low, and the workforce is significantly larger,
| with men and women working. The working (outside of the home)
| part of the population has gone up significantly over a few
| generations, despite all the new enabling productive tech.
|
| What I see is a lot of visually higher quality work being
| delivered, but often with the same core content. So
| productivity has increased, but you get a glossy new shiny
| report in a PDF, instead of a photocopy of a typewritten
| page. (Yes, I do simplify. But I think you get the gist.)
|
| 2) I started as a system admin, the a systems analyst, worked
| through project manager, etc. until I was leading startups.
| In the space where I work now, circular economy and food
| production, there is so much work to do, that any AI support
| we can get is welcome. But as the work is innovative, new and
| not done before, most often the AI tools aren't that useful,
| yet. That may change, but with a society that needs to
| replace a significant part of the infrastructure and
| processes to achieve a long term sustainable society, I
| actually don't worry the AI tools will take my job or any of
| my colleagues job away. There is plenty to do. I have enough
| new things in front of me that I could probably keep a whole
| big venture fund occupied for a long time.
| nkozyra wrote:
| No offense but jobs changing is a very different shift than
| jobs being entirely replaced by automation.
|
| One can adapt to needing to learn new technology, but one
| cannot adapt to an algorithm out performing you
| thomashop wrote:
| The parent commenter is saying that the moment automation
| entirely replaced traditional typesetting, people moved
| on and started using the new technology.
|
| Sure a part of the population is slow to adapt and
| therefore at a disadvantage. But the others, like his
| wife, adapted.
|
| The idea is that this wave of automation will be no
| different than other times this has happened to us in the
| past.
| T_MacThrowFace wrote:
| The difference could be that A(G)I will automate away the
| would-have-been new jobs as well, instantly, as it will
| function as a smarter human that needs no sleep and
| demands no pay, sort of like a young programmer but
| without capital owners even having to supply caffeinated
| beverages.
| thomashop wrote:
| A lot of decisions are not based on intelligence alone. A
| lot is about personal beliefs and tastes.
|
| I've never totally understood this binary moment when AGI
| does "everything" better. How can one even define
| everything?
|
| Our AI partner could be the most intelligent
| mathematician or researcher. That's great then we can
| bounce ideas off of them and they can help us realize our
| professional / creative ambitions.
|
| Sure if our goal is to maximize profit then maybe we can
| outsource the decisions to an AI agent.
|
| You can get a computer to create infinite remixes of
| songs. I haven't seen that replacing music producers
| doing the same.
| T_MacThrowFace wrote:
| The I in AGI doesn't really mean intelligence as in "a
| mathematician has to be more intelligent than a janitor
| to do his job" *, it means the productivity equivalent of
| whatever human conciousness is; that is, to be able to
| have beliefs and tastes as well. And since it will have
| infinite patience, arguments such as "I prefer to have an
| actual human musician playing" is also up for persuasion.
|
| When everyone can just press a button and have better
| music automatically generated, based on their exact
| preferences inferred from their DNA or an fMRI brain
| scan, what are your creative ambitions?
|
| I'm obviously not talking about today's limited (public)
| AI, but far into the future, like in 5 years.
|
| * whether or not that is actually the case is irrelevant
| thomashop wrote:
| The music analogy doesn't work for me at all.
|
| So much about music appreciation is about knowing the
| artist and for example knowing that what they sing about
| is shaped by their personal history allowing you to
| identify with it.
|
| A lot about the appreciation of art is the process and
| the intention behind the artwork. The final image or sond
| is just one part.
|
| I find it very difficult to define "better" when we're
| talking about art.
| nkozyra wrote:
| > A lot of decisions are not based on intelligence alone.
| A lot is about personal beliefs and tastes.
|
| That's the easy stuff! That's the stuff ML has been
| successful doing for a decade or more.
| Animats wrote:
| > So productivity has increased, but you get a glossy new
| shiny report in a PDF, instead of a photocopy of a
| typewritten page.
|
| "Now, you can typeset everything in your office" - early
| Macintosh ad.
| staplers wrote:
| needs to replace a significant part of the infrastructure
| and processes to achieve a long term sustainable society
|
| AI infra is _extremely_ energy intensive and not
| sustainable by any metric.
| thomashop wrote:
| That sounds like a myth to me. An Nvidia H100 consumes up
| to 700 watts. The same as hair dryers and microwave
| ovens.
|
| Sure you have big data centers full of them but that's
| already happening with other hardware in other businesses
| too.
| numpad0 wrote:
| (Humans are ~200W, as context)
| staplers wrote:
| Your assumptions are incorrect.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| This reminds me of some claims I've heard about domestic
| cooking and baking. Supposedly recipes got more
| sophisticated as we developed machinery like blenders and
| more pre-processed ingredients to make work quicker which
| ultimately resulted in time to cook or bake when hosting
| guests to take roughly the same amount of time as before.
| The dishes were just more elaborate.
| BytesAndGears wrote:
| Same with finance, we could all live an upper-middle-
| class life with all the luxury, for one parent working in
| the home, if we were willing to live the same lifestyle
| as the 1950s. But life today is much easier than even
| then -- and we'd rather pay more for that extra luxury
| than live the spartan lifestyle that would've been luxury
| then.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| People pay top dollar to live like we lived then.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| What's an example of this?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I think that's a bold claim. Many things that were cheap
| then are now unreachably expensive. Many careers that
| paid well then are gone. The converse is also true; many
| things that were unreachably expensive then are cheap
| now, but that doesn't mean that we can easily live such
| lifestyles if we choose to. Forgoing a cellphone and
| seatbelts doesn't make it easy to afford a bungalow! Nor
| is such a lifestyle even legal, in many cases. And you
| won't find a payphone to call your family. The world
| moves around us, and it's not a matter of choice to be
| pulled along.
| Ludleth19 wrote:
| This is just flat out untrue for a variety of reasons.
| People need to stop thinking of 1945-1975 as "the norm,"
| it was a world historic anomaly that was a direct
| response to earlier events- the economy targeted full and
| fair employment to stop people from drifting to more
| extremist ideologies because everyone literally just
| lived through the result of highly unregulated capitalism
| for example. That was a large impetus behind Keynesianism
| and Bretton Woods, which was ultimately unsustainable and
| led to the broader global economy we have now- which
| itself seems more unsustainable by the day.
| moneywoes wrote:
| what opportunities do you see in food production? i'd love
| to get involved
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| Our food supply system is broken.
|
| - It emits 30% of climate emissions
|
| - 30% of food produced is gone in losses and waste
|
| - People in middle to high income countries have
| significant obesity and related problems (some countries
| have either malnourished people or obese people, and less
| in between)
|
| - Pollution from our agriculture and aquaculture is
| killing the ocean near land
|
| - Our intensive agriculture is threatening biodiversity
|
| - We have lost up to 70% of insects in many industrial
| nations
|
| - Essentially all (90%?) of ocean fish stocks are
| overfished or at capacity. Even a supposedly rational and
| environmentally aware nation like Sweden can stop the
| overfishing. The cod stock has collapsed and now the
| herring is going too
|
| - The soils are being destroyed or depleted
|
| - The phosphor and nitrogen cycle is broken (fossil fuels
| or resources that are mismanaged)
|
| I could go on. It is well documented.
|
| I work on circular food production, where we really care
| about putting together highly efficient nutrient loops
| and make sure they work locally/regionally. A mix of tech
| (automation, IT, climate control, etc), agriculture,
| horticulture, aquaculture, insects etc. As part of this
| there are very interesting completing pieces with ways of
| getting the nutrients in creative ways (new food tech),
| dealing with animal disease (new tech), combined with
| sensors, ML and just plain old common sense, that can
| make a huge impact. If we just think through the process
| a bit more and take responsibility for the externalities,
| which really are starting to bite.
|
| Much is still overhyped in foodtech imho, specifically
| the stuff which claims silver bullets without proper
| circularity. Which is detrimental to the real solutions
| as investors like simple superscalable solutions, and the
| simple solutions are mostly not sustainable. (There are
| of course exceptions).
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| If you think that's bad, try being 18 :) this field may not
| exist (at least in its present form) by the time I'm out of
| uni (I'm planning to hedge my bets by studying physics), and
| it seems the world is getting less stable by the minute.
| There seems to be no sense of urgency or even medium-term
| thinking in stopping Putin, and Article 5 appears to be
| becoming less sacrosanct by the minute. Society is
| increasingly divided, with absolutely no attempt to find
| common ground (particularly evident in my demographic) and
| the majority of my generation having a miniscule (and
| shrinking) attention span through their direct stream of
| Chinese propaganda. And, of course, the climate-shaped
| elephant in the room.
|
| I'm just trying to not let it get in the way of appreciating
| the world. I'm planning to travel to mainland Europe sometime
| next year (gap year). SpaceX has reignited spaceflight, and
| there's so much cool stuff going on in that space. Science
| marches on, with a steady stream of interesting discoveries.
|
| And programming is great - for now. It feels slightly strange
| spending a week writing a project that may be finished with a
| single prompt in a few year's time, but it's enjoyable.
|
| Maybe I'm overreacting? I've grown up in a pretty calm
| period, with the west in a clearly dominant position. Maybe
| this is, paradoxically, a return to normality?
| CaptainFever wrote:
| "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are
| weeks where decades happen."
|
| -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
| ushuz wrote:
| So true. Even if it's not AI, climate change, or WW3 may doom
| us very soon. Just chill and enjoy life while we can.
| billiam wrote:
| Cheer up. It's not real. Generative AI is going to force us
| to confront what makes us human and the real world real, and
| learn to love it all over again. Sure, a lot of people will
| be lost in digital realms. Some might even like it. But I
| think that many will embrace the messy, imperfect, poignant
| realm we live in.
| 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).
| layer8 wrote:
| I'm more worried that if AI really works out, businesses will
| end up consuming as much energy as they possibly can using
| it, because using it more than the competition will provide
| another edge. It's not clear how we are supposed to reduce
| energy consumption. Is there a boundary of diminishing
| returns that would impose a limit?
| promiseofbeans wrote:
| I think the big visionaries behind the main ai developers
| are all hoping to achieve agi, and that it will be able to
| fix everything, outweighing the short-term vast usage of
| energy trying to create it
| golergka wrote:
| We shouldn't be reducing energy consumption. We should be
| increasing it, while decreasing CO2 emissions.
| numpad0 wrote:
| So this is why a global thermonuclear war followed by
| nuclear outer space expansionism is a solution.
| 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:)
| Astraco wrote:
| And Unicorns
| Moldoteck wrote:
| I think unicorn's jobs are safe for now, but will see :)
| 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.
| ziroshima wrote:
| I think it's naive to attribute all of the world's problems
| to "misinformation". You can give everyone the same
| information; in fact, we all already have the same
| information. But perspectives will vary, and there will be
| conflict.
| BadHumans wrote:
| I don't attribute it all to misinformation. I attribute
| it all to greed but misinformation is a great tool for
| the ruling class to satisfy their greed.
| Quothling wrote:
| The point I was trying to make was that there is no reason
| to worry about us setting fire to a fire. Of course you're
| correct, it'll get worse, but it's not like it wasn't
| terrible to begin with.
|
| If anything the optimist in me is hoping that all this "AI"
| generated content is going to make the internet so useless
| that our society (well the part that doesn't believe the
| earth is flat and that Bill Gates has mini clones in the
| vaccines) finally get away from it. In my region of Denmark
| our local police posts their immediate updates on twitter,
| which was fine when everyone could see them, not so great
| now that you need an account. I very rarely care about what
| they post, but around new years a fireworks container blew
| up near here, and I had to register (and then later delete)
| a twitter account to figure out if I had to worry about it
| or not. It'd be nice if the impending doom of fake content
| is going to move our institutions and politicians away from
| big tech SoMe platforms and it just might if they become
| useless.
| 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?
| rglover wrote:
| Nothing protects your other examples from corruption.
|
| > why choose one of the most corruptible and corrupted
| approaches?
|
| Because when the non-prophetic elements of it are applied
| to life, all of the anxiety, fear, and dread you feel
| evaporates. It's only when you view it through the lens of
| a "church" or "leader" (read: group) that it loses its
| meaning.
|
| I've read the I Ching and it lacks a religious/church
| element which leads to the conclusion you've had. It's not
| until people take it and turn it into something it isn't
| that it loses its value.
|
| Arguably, Christianity, due to its claims, has become
| weaponized. Interestingly, this very outcome is prophesied
| in the Bible (which, personally, cements my faith in it
| what it prescribes).
| zoky 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._
|
| ...said every doomsday preacher since the Bible was written.
| rglover wrote:
| I'm not a preacher and I don't subscribe to any
| church/denomination. I think, generally speaking, religious
| leadership in the world is in a state of apostasy and is
| guilty of leading people away from God/Christ's message
| (which the Bible prophesies would happen).
| Almondsetat wrote:
| And yet you quote the english bible, whose innumerable
| translations carry a similar burden
| rglover wrote:
| Read them. They're all quite similar, mostly changing in
| tone or structure. I recently built an app to side-by-
| side ESV, KJV, NASB, NLT, AMP, and ASV translations and
| they're all very similar. Even obscure translations
| follow the same structure and message (they have to,
| doing the opposite is warned against in the Bible).
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Sorry, if you don't read the OT in hebrew and the NT in
| greek you cannot speak about christianity
| slothtrop wrote:
| You're a token Protestant. Nothing new under the sun.
| rglover wrote:
| Protestants are just confused Catholics, so no.
| slothtrop wrote:
| That doesn't make any sense. You've outed yourself as not
| knowing what you're talking about.
| rglover wrote:
| Protestantism copied/copies a lot of the non-Biblical
| tradition propagated by Catholicism (e.g., Sunday
| replacing the Sabbath, recognition of non-Biblical holy
| days, claiming "Jesus nailed the law to the cross" when
| the exact opposite is stated in the Bible, etc).
| slothtrop wrote:
| That's neither here nor there when the entire point was
| to eschew non-Biblical tradition maintained by the
| Church. Notwithstanding that there are various Protestant
| sects and some do not practice what you're accusing them
| of. It's a large tent, the beliefs aren't that specific.
| swells34 wrote:
| And religion in general is in a state of apostasy and is
| guilty of leading people away from reality. That's why it
| was invented after all, and it sure has done it's job.
| You'll never find a place more full of delusional self
| indulgence and aggrandizement than a church, regardless
| of which religion or denomination they subscribe to.
| rglover wrote:
| > You'll never find a place more full of delusional self
| indulgence and aggrandizement than a church, regardless
| of which religion or denomination they subscribe to.
|
| Correct, which is why I avoid religion (in the
| institutional church sense). I'm a bit of an odd duck
| because I came to the Bible after having been a
| practicing Buddhist for several years and generally being
| unexposed to Christianity (save for a lukewarm exposure
| to Jesuit Catholicism) or any religion growing up.
|
| Having lived a mostly-secular life and only later (at age
| ~30) coming to Christianity, I can confidently say that
| in regard to reality, it's taught me that it's highly
| subjective. What most people consider as "reality" is
| just the interpretation of what they see that keeps them
| from losing their mind. For some, reality is being an
| unhinged hedonist, for others it's planting a garden, and
| for others it's generally just "trying to be nice and
| getting along."
|
| Personally, God/Christ (and by extension, what's recorded
| in the Bible) is the interpretation of reality that makes
| the most sense to me. In practice/study, I've found that
| it maps 1:1 with what I see while also filling in the
| blanks on things I can't explain (e.g., the ability for
| the human body to heal itself, the pace/behavior of
| nature, or humanity's unrelenting drive to destroy what
| it doesn't/refuses to understand).
| zoky wrote:
| You're completely missing the point. Unfortunately, it
| seems you lack the capability to see the point--to wit,
| you're not special. So, as the Lord commanded us in
| Isaiah 1:16 -- I wash my hands of thee.
| 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
| skulk wrote:
| Panem et circenses, the one-stop-shop solution for
| alienation.
| 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.
| ETH_start wrote:
| If the AGI is open source and operates through a
| decentralized platform, that everyone/no-one owns it, and
| the upside will be fully distributed to end users.
|
| But even if it stays in private hands, one company
| monopolizing a technology and keeping it expensive/out-of-
| reach is generally not how technological innovation works.
| There is generally intense competition between providers,
| with each aggressively cutting prices to capture market
| share.
| 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
| ETH_start wrote:
| I'm puzzled as to how you can characterize a description of
| AGI's functions as "theology." AGI represents the
| automation of what we would describe as human-level
| thought, transforming it into a mass-produced service that
| costs almost nothing to acquire. Consequently, the cost of
| any product or service that requires human labor is
| expected to trend toward zero.
|
| We're already witnessing this with the creation of textual
| and graphical content through ChatGPT. It's now possible to
| generate various types of text content and a wide range of
| graphics at the cost of 10 cents for the dozen ChatGPT API
| calls. And the work is completed in a few minutes, as
| opposed to several hours. This represents a several orders
| of magnitude increase in per capita productivity for these
| specific tasks. As AI technology advances, the scope of
| applications benefiting from such productivity boosts is
| expected to widen, which means human civilization will
| experience a revolutionary increase in productivity, and
| with it, resource abundance.
| 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.
| ETH_start wrote:
| Personally, I love life, and I expect AI will allow me to
| spend more of my life taking it in instead of running
| through the gauntlet of errands needed to stay alive. I
| also expect it will help us live much longer, which is an
| absolute blessing considering how precious every moment is.
| __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").
| polshaw wrote:
| RSI is not "universal". It is closer to an unemployment
| benefit than it is to a UBI.
| 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...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I'm not saying I'm there yet!
|
| Being personable, mediating conflict, leadership in
| general. Also cooking, baking and masonry.
| oxqbldpxo wrote:
| I believe you're right. There may be a better quality of
| life by looking at the ways of the ancient past. All Ai
| is going to do is make the rich richer. Why try to
| compete with this?
| digging wrote:
| I don't think any of those are things AI can't excel at
| in 5-10 years. The latter 3 will require integration with
| robotics, but that's not exactly science fiction these
| days either, it's just something that maybe nobody
| bothers to do.
| 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.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > Progress to what ? Where are we progressing to?
|
| Exactly. I'm sick of people advocating changes as
| "progress" until we get some fundamental baseline sampling
| of humanity's well-being. When "are you depressed?" "do you
| contemplate suicide?" "are you exhausted?" go up for 10
| years around the globe, then people will look like lunatics
| saying this is "progress" and maybe we'll have a better
| conversation about where progress actually is.
| speff wrote:
| Progress for more media to be available to the general
| public of course. As if that's what people need nowadays...
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| The e/acc camp will tell you AGI can solve all of those,
| which is why AI research needs to move as fast as possible.
| What they don't tell you is only an aligned AGI can solve
| it in a way beneficial for humans.
|
| We had a half-assed lockdown for a few months where most
| people just kind of stayed indoors and saw noticeable
| environmental improvements world-wide. An unaligned AGI can
| easily conclude the best way to fix these problems is to
| un-exist all humans.
| adastra22 wrote:
| There has never in the history of humanity been anything
| "aligned" in the sense that AI doomers use that word. Yet
| humanity has had a clear progression towards better,
| safer, and more just societies over time.
|
| We will be just fine.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| If you feel the sum of the last few thousand years of
| civilization just meant nothing, then you're not looking
| for a conversation.
| adastra22 wrote:
| You say as you comfortably type on a thinking machine while
| indoors sheltered from the elements, presumably without any
| concern for war or famine or marauding gangs of lawless
| raiders.
|
| Yeah, progress has gotten us nowhere /s
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| This is the same as slacklining over a ravine with no
| harness. Are the views epic? Yes. Does the adrenaline rush
| feel good? Yes. Are the consequences irreversible if you
| happen to mess up? Probably yes. The last point is why
| there's so much more doomerism compared to OpenAI's previous
| products. We don't have that harness and we don't know if
| we'll ever have it.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Wtf has machine learning technology have to do with crazy
| adrenaline sports that will get you killed? That was way
| out of left field.
| drooby wrote:
| It's an analogy.. perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but it's
| within the acceptable window IMO.
|
| When Facebook came out very few considered it an
| existential risk. Turns out, it has immense power over
| elections. Elections have consequences for the well being
| of billions of people on the planet. Not to mention it
| might negatively impact the mental health of its users (a
| large chunk of the human population).
| __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.
| starbugs wrote:
| I also hope that it will eventually wake up people and show
| what's really important. But I'm afraid we're far off from
| that happening.
| 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.
| screenothethh wrote:
| You say that but most things that are commercially produced
| aren't made by individuals but via collaborative processes.
| The AI won't even get credit, they'll just use it to dilute
| everyone else's contribution.
| elicksaur wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Wondering what the runway on this statement is.
| bhaney wrote:
| "I still haven't seen any text written by AI that can seem
| coherent for more than a sentence"
|
| "I still haven't seen any text written by AI that doesn't
| contradict itself a few paragraphs later"
|
| "I still haven't seen any picture made by AI that doesn't
| look like an abstract nightmare"
|
| "I still haven't seen any picture made by AI that includes
| hands with the right number of fingers"
|
| "I still haven't seen any videos made by AI that aren't janky
| and uncanny"
|
| "I still haven't seen any videos made by AI that _move_ me "
|
| The transition from the first to the last took less than five
| years.
| shostack wrote:
| Is there a Moore's Law equivalent for AI here yet?
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| All these videos are still janky and uncanny though. Legs
| morph weirdly, physics are strange, objects do things that
| make no sense.
| Animats wrote:
| Yes. These systems are working on a 3D problem in a 2D
| world. They have a hard time with situations involving
| occlusion. A newer generation of systems will probably
| deduce 3D models from 2D images, build up a model space
| of 3D models, generate 3D models, and then paint and
| animate them. That's how computer-generated animation is
| done today, which humans driving. Most of those steps
| have already been automated to some degree.
|
| Early attempts to do animation by morphing sort of
| worked, and were prone to some of the same problems that
| 2D generative AI systems have. The intermediate frames
| between the starting and ending positions did not obey
| physical constraints.
|
| This is a good problem to work on, because it leads to a
| more effective understanding of the real world.
| root_axis wrote:
| How deep is the pool? Just because you have descended to
| depths that others were skeptical of doesn't mean there
| isn't a floor. Besides, these videos are _less_ janky, but
| still obviously fake, for _for sure_ they 're cherry-picked
| for maximum effect.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Well - the videos in the link gave me same kind of response
| as literal Latin American gore videos, so line 3 to 5 still
| applies, and line 1 to 2 still applies to ChatGPT w/GPT-4
| Turbo, so... I don't know what to make of this, maybe
| people like gore videos. Or something.
| tbm57 wrote:
| not to add to the doomerism, but I often wonder about how
| much AI-generated content I've consumed without realizing it
| - especially from times before generative AI became
| mainstream
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I don't get this angle at all. To me that's like "organic"
| food labels. What do I care if my content is "AI" made.
| When I watch a CGI animated movie there isn't a little
| artisan sitting in the video camera like in a Terry
| Pratchett novel, it's all algorithms anyway for like 30
| years.
|
| When I use Unity I write ten lines of code and the tool
| generates probably 50k. Ever looked into the folder of a
| modern frontend project after typing one command into a
| terminal? I've been 99% dependent on code generation for
| ages.
| tbm57 wrote:
| Does it matter to you whether you're interacting with a
| human on some level when watching a show or movie,
| specifically on an artistry level?
|
| Maybe some movie you've watched has been spun up by a
| Sora-like platform based on a prompt that itself was AI-
| generated from a market research report. Stephen King
| said that horror is the feeling of walking into your
| house and finding that all of your furniture has been
| replaced by identical copies - finding out that all of
| the media everybody consumes has actually been generated
| by non-human entities would give me the same feeling
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Does it matter to you whether you're interacting with a
| human on some level when watching a show or movie,
| specifically on an artistry level?
|
| Yes it matters to me a great deal. But there's a reason
| Stephen King made that observation a long time ago. All
| the actors in a modern Marvel movie look like they've
| been grown in some petri-dish in a Hollywood basement and
| all the lines sound like they come from LLMs for the last
| fifteen years. There's been nothing recognizably human in
| mass media for decades. 90% of modern movies are asexual
| Ken doll like actors jumping around in front of green
| screens to the demands of market research reports
| already.
|
| I'm not saying the scenario isn't scary, I'm saying we've
| been in that hellscape for ages and the particularly
| implementation details of technologies used to get us
| there ("AI" in this case) don't interest me that much.
| And in the same vein, an authentic artist can surely make
| something human with AI tools.
| animanoir wrote:
| AI doesn't cares about your "refined taste", it cares about
| money, that's the problem.
| 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.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Idk about you but I would not consider AI-generated memories
| of my grandparents even remotely close to being an authentic
| experience whatsoever. One of my grandparents passed before I
| was born, so any synthetic depictions of us are fake. That
| frankly sounds like a post-apocalyptic experience, if not
| worse than that.
| dorkwood wrote:
| > Upload a photo with your grandparents, give it context, and
| see them laughing and playing with you as a toddler.
|
| Exactly. People just aren't seeing this. You don't even have
| to limit the fake memories to real people. Don't have a
| girlfriend? Generate videos and photographs of you and your
| dream girl traveling the world together, sharing intimate
| moments, starting a family. The possibilities are so
| exciting. I think the people who hate this idea are people
| who already have it all. They're not like me and you.
| 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.
| akprasad wrote:
| > do we really have any data to back that up
|
| By definition, we don't have data for events we haven't seen
| before. So instead I reason as well as I can:
|
| Consider the set of all jobs a human being could do. Consider
| the set of all jobs an AI system could perform as well as a
| human being but more cheaply. Is the AI set growing, and if
| so, how quickly?
|
| Prior technology is generally narrow and dumb: I cannot tell
| my cotton gin to go plant cotton for me, nor can I ask it to
| fix itself when it breaks. Therefore I take on a strategic
| role in using and managing my cotton gin. The promise of AI
| systems is that they can be general and intelligent. If they
| can run themselves, then why do I need a job telling them
| what to do?
| tombert wrote:
| Isn't this making the assumption that the stuff that needs
| to get done is fixed size? New technologies also create
| entirely new _categories_ of jobs.
|
| "Computer" used to be a profession, where people would sit
| and do multiplication tables and arithmetic all day [1].
| Then computing machines came along and put all those people
| out of work, but it also created entire new categories of
| jobs. We got software engineers, computer engineers,
| administrators, tons of sub-categories for all of those,
| and probably dozens more categories than I can think of.
|
| I think that there's a very high likelihood with the
| _current_ jobs that humans do better than computers, most
| will be replaced by cheaper AI labor. However, I don 't see
| why we should assume that set of things that humans do
| better than computers is static.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
| akprasad wrote:
| I'm trying to point to the set of _all_ jobs a human
| being _could_ do, which includes future jobs enabled by
| future technology.
|
| This is not as nebulous of a set as it sounds because it
| has real human boundaries: there are limits to how fast
| we can learn, think, communicate, move, etc. and there
| are limits to how consistently we can perform because of
| fatigue, boredom, distraction, biological needs like food
| or sleep, etc. The future is uncertain, but I don't see
| why an AI system couldn't push past these boundaries.
| yousif_123123 wrote:
| Maybe if AI could do all jobs humans could do, we'd setup
| some system where the AI works and we don't since we tax
| them or somehow at least part of the created goods and
| services flows to everyone. Anything AI "creates" is
| worthless unless it's consumed, and AI being a
| machine/software won't inherently want to consume
| anything (like burgers for example).
|
| I also struggle to think about all this, but I imagine if
| you can flip a switch and everything produced and
| consumed in the economy could be done in half the time,
| is that a good or bad thing? If we keep flipping that
| switch and approaching a point where everything is being
| produced with almost no human effort, does it become bad
| all of a sudden?
|
| Somehow we'd need to distribute all this production, I'm
| not sure how it would work out, but just going from what
| we have now to half or 25% of effort needed is probably
| an improvement, at least I'd take that.
| 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?
| jononomo wrote:
| What do you think his conclusion is?
| Animats wrote:
| > AI has no spark, no drive, no ambition, no initiative...
|
| Just add a cost function.
| elicksaur wrote:
| This kind of reductive attitude towards what it means to be
| human is what really depresses me, not current ai tech.
| fullshark wrote:
| Maybe engineers aren't who you should be looking to for
| what it means to be human. This board can't answer every
| question you face.
| Animats wrote:
| He didn't ask about being human. He asked about having
| the capabilities to do certain things.
|
| We can no longer equate intelligence with humanity.
| Humans are just one kind of intelligence.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Sorry if my comment didn't give enough context. I'm not
| the OP, so I'm not asking any questions.
|
| I was interpreting the parent comment as saying the spark
| of consciousness only needed a cost function.
|
| Personally, I disagree that our current neural nets are
| accurate representations of what goes on in the human
| brain. We don't have an agreed upon theory of
| consciousness, yet ML businesses spread the idea that we
| have solved the mind and that current LLMs are accurate
| incarnations of it.
|
| More than the functionality of ai replacing current human
| jobs, I worry what we will lose if we stop wondering
| about the universe in between our ears thinking we know
| everything there is to know.
| numpad0 wrote:
| But that had always been THE missing piece for AI!
| patall wrote:
| While I do not think that it is impossible to get there, I
| totally agree that this is a key step that current AI is
| missing. Auto-GPT seemed to be the big thing that can outlay,
| plan, execute and reiterate complex tasks but ultimately
| wasn't able to do anything like that. Kind of ironic that it
| is reinforcements learning that the models seem to be so bad
| at.
| fullshark wrote:
| Consumers don't want that stuff, they want junk food visual
| content, and a slighty wonky house, especially if they can
| get those for a lot cheaper.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| AI and AGI are practically two different concepts that most
| of the industry and the mainstream media are doing a poor job
| making the distinguishment between them.
|
| Also, 100 slightly wonky houses will sell like hot cakes if
| each one costs less than 1/100th of a not-slightly-wonky
| house. People will buy 100 of them instead of 1 and just live
| in a different one every day/hour so they always notice the
| novel parts instead of the wonky parts. We've had mass
| manufacturing for centuries and they always prevail when the
| trade-offs are acceptable.
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| Accepting wonky houses is how we end up with favelas. It
| ain't pretty
| golergka wrote:
| > AI has no spark, no drive, no ambition, no initiative, no
| theory of mind
|
| So, it is completely alike what a lot of humans are like, at
| least at their jobs?
| 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.
| suyash wrote:
| There is no UBI coming, govt can barely fund current budgetary
| needs without borrowing tons of money. If here are no jobs
| means no tax payers which will further shrink gov budgets. 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-
| actually, 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.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Gentle reminder that you are also "normal people".
| quadcore wrote:
| Like you said, it's a feeling. Once you've identified it, just
| remember you have many many buttons that can be pushed to
| generate feelings. It's just a program installed long long long
| ago. Visualize that, breathe and just laugh at that poor bash
| program.
|
| There is some usefulness to those feelings - this announcement
| will probably have an impact on your life soon enough. But you
| cant let every button push and distant threat pull you down can
| you.
|
| Also remember, life has its own ways: as far as you know, it
| could also be the beginning of the best days of your life.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Honestly? Just an embrace of cheerful, curious nihilism.
| Between this and climate change, we are entering interesting
| times, and remembering that I'll be able to "opt-out" at a time
| of my choosing, and then embracing the time left with happiness
| and curiosity.
|
| "Glad did I live and gladly die, And I laid me down with a will
| ... Here he lies where he longed to be; Home is the sailor,
| home from sea, And the hunter home from the hill."
| sunshine_reggae wrote:
| Well, what's ChatGPT's answer to your fears?
|
| I suppose it's going to be something like "You're asking for
| more purpose in your life? Sorry, I can't let you do that,
| Dave."
| kromem wrote:
| There really isn't a moat.
|
| Dall-E was crazy and then suddenly people were doing the same
| thing on consumer hardware with an open model within a year.
|
| Filmmakers being able to bring their vision to life using
| generative models is going to create such a huge expansion of
| the market.
|
| What people don't realize is that long term these advances are
| a death knell for mega-corps, not for individuals.
|
| Why do I need to kiss Weinstein's ass to get my movie made if I
| can do it with a shoestring budget and AI and have the same
| assistance to create marketing materials, etc. I need a lot
| less money to break even and can focus on niche markets aligned
| with my artistic vision instead of mass appeal to cover costs
| plus the middlemen involved in distribution and production.
| great_psy wrote:
| I don't even think the moat is the issue here. We are giving
| the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left
| with the drudgery.
|
| I'm sure some people would be more ok to work a shitty job
| with the hope that they might make it as an artist.
|
| Now that it's becoming more and more obvious they will not be
| an artist that's better than AI, what do they have left to
| hope for ?
| erichmond wrote:
| Interestingly, I think that's for us to choose. I'm leaning
| into AI specifically for this reason. I want to build tools
| to that reduce the drudgery.
|
| But I agree, there's going to be a "war" around this and if
| could go wrong, if we are not careful.
| richrichie wrote:
| Isn't the constant building out tools another form of
| drudgery?
| moneywoes wrote:
| what are you building
| salty_biscuits wrote:
| It's not that long ago in human history that basically none
| of the jobs we do now existed. So it is kind of myopic to
| think that any current career is a calling. Art can become
| a craft again, not a career. There is nothing wrong with
| that.
| dandelany wrote:
| Also not that long ago electricity and clean drinking
| water weren't a thing. The fact that people can make a
| career as an artist now, and couldn't before, is
| something I'd consider an advancement! "Nothing wrong
| with that" is a conclusion that simply doesn't follow
| from the rest of your post.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It takes a lot of time to develop that craft, which won't
| be available to you if you have to do drudgery to keep a
| roof over your head. You're arguing for art to be at best
| a hobby, and full-time pursuit of it to be limited to
| rich kids.
|
| Also I take issue with your argument about 'none of the
| jobs we do now' existing through most of history.
| Farming, construction, fighting, bookkeeping, cooking,
| transport, security are all jobs that have been around as
| long as people have lived in settlements.
|
| Sure, you could point to the long history of nomadic
| hunting and gathering prior to that, but that's like
| expanding your argument back to the origin of cellular
| life or forward to the heat death of the universe in
| order to make your interlocutor's arguments look
| insignificant on a cosmic scale. It's not a helpful
| contribution to addressing the real challenges of the
| present.
| vunderba wrote:
| There hasn't been any money in the arts in a _long long
| time_ so I 'm not sure where this is coming from.
|
| For every one musician that's able to pay the bills,
| there's 1000 equally talented musicians that can't even
| get noticed.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| How long of a time are we talking about here? It was a
| lot easier to make a modest but steady living in the arts
| 30 or even 15 years ago. It's probably easier to have a
| breakout hit today on YouTube or Tiktok and maybe make a
| lot of money fast, but not to making a living
| consistently without sweatshopping content or being
| extremely personally attractive or similar.
| nirvdrum wrote:
| There's also loads artists that do web and graphic
| design, make videos for product demos, ad campaigns, and
| so on. It's perhaps not the purest form of art, but it is
| one way in which artists can apply their craft and still
| put a roof over their heads. A lot of these AI tools
| seems squarely aimed at eliminating those positions.
|
| For what it's worth, I think we're going to see a slide
| in quality. Maybe there will be a niche for some. But, I
| think companies will settle for 70% quality if it means
| eliminating 100% of a full-time position.
| brenoRibeiro706 wrote:
| Exactly
| bobsomers wrote:
| > Art can become a craft again, not a career.
|
| This sounds nice, but having worked with many artists in
| the past a lot of them do it because they're good at it,
| it's enjoyable enough, and it pays their bills so they
| can eat.
|
| Telling them, "You're now free to make the art you really
| wanted to make!" doesn't bring much comfort when you're
| taking away their ability to put food on the table.
| suyash wrote:
| Exactly, there are lot of arm chair experts in the forum
| today who have no clue about the reality of the industry,
| people do it because they are passionate about it and
| devote thier whole life to get good at it, this is just
| taking food from thier mouth.
| sydd wrote:
| > Art can become a craft again, not a career
|
| The issue is that those jobs that got automated to
| "become a craft again" have mostly vanished, except for
| high-end stuff. Some examples: shoe making, artisan
| furniture, tailors, watchmakers. Unless you are the best
| of the best these are hobbies now not something you make
| money from.
|
| Nowadays most people make money in bleak half-automated
| jobs (e.g. construction, factory workers) or in white
| collar jobs sitting in front of a computer in some
| cubicle doing some mind numbing task for a megacorp.
|
| I'm usually hyped about technological advancement, but
| very bleak about AI. I think it will just bring more
| sublte propaganda for state actors, more subtle
| advertising for megacorps, the dieing of creative jobs
| like graphic artists or actors is just a sad sideeffect
| (these will still exist, but only as high end -- we will
| always have real AAA actors, but the days of extras on
| movie sets are counted -- lots of the Hollywood protests
| were because studios started doing contracts for noname
| actors that stated that the studio will regain rights of
| the actor's digital likeness)
| fasterik wrote:
| When is a time in history when everyone had really great
| jobs? Before the industrial revolution, you had most
| people doing subsistence farming. During the industrial
| revolution, you had 14 hour a day exploited laborers
| working in factories. Maybe there was a brief period
| after World War II where you had a large middle class
| with stable careers and affordable housing. That's not
| the norm for the millions of years of history of human
| evolution.
| afthonos wrote:
| Ok, but like...that's a bug, not a feature.
| fasterik wrote:
| To me, this reflects a perfectionist mindset. Life is
| better today for billions of people than it has been at
| any other point in the history of the human species. If
| you consider it a "bug" that we don't live in some sort
| of utopia where everyone's dreams are fulfilled, maybe
| you need to change your expectations and view things in a
| larger historical perspective.
| afthonos wrote:
| It is perfectly possible to see that we live in the best
| time humanity has ever lived in and be concerned that
| we're are at risk of regressing. Especially with people
| claiming that any regression is simply not viewing things
| in a larger historical perspective.
| llm_trw wrote:
| The issue is that people are seeing progress as
| regression.
| sensanaty wrote:
| A micro$oft-backed megacorp hoovering up everyone else's
| work is not what I'd call progress.
| golergka wrote:
| > Some examples: shoe making, artisan furniture, tailors,
| watchmakers.
|
| > Nowadays most people make money in bleak half-automated
| jobs (e.g. construction, factory workers) or in white
| collar jobs sitting in front of a computer in some
| cubicle doing some mind numbing task for a megacorp.
|
| And all the while they enjoy abundance of shoes,
| furniture, clothes and watches with value/price ratio
| absurdly high by standards of most of human history.
| dreamworld wrote:
| Just wanna point out that making stuff is different from
| having stuff. Making your shoe is much different from
| buying a Nike from the store (and I don't make shoes ;)
| ).
|
| The craft is an activity, kind of an art by itself. Many
| find it enjoyable.
|
| The destination is the journey, dude!
| nradov wrote:
| There's nothing "bleak" about building stuff with your
| hands. Many building trades workers like what they do.
| And they generally appreciate technology improvements
| because those tend to make the work safer and less
| physically demanding.
|
| https://mikeroweworks.org/
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Is the artist the person drawing or the person who decides
| what is drawn? The AI only impacts the former.
| ptoo wrote:
| There will always be things humans can do that AI cannot.
| And if there ever comes a point when that's not the case,
| there will be no need to distinguish the two.
| fastball wrote:
| Film/video editing isn't exactly known as the industry
| where everybody loves their job and doesn't want to kill
| themselves.
|
| I made a twitter thread[1] with weird metal cybertrucks
| using Midjourney a couple days ago. I personally enjoyed
| the process and do not have the talent nor the time to do
| that without generative AI. There are people who do have
| that talent, but honestly I doubt anyone else would've put
| in the time.
|
| I think you might have it a little backwards. For most
| people, the fun part is "making a movie", not "watching
| hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage picking between
| 10 different shots". That's the drudgery, and that's the
| part generative AI can eliminate.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/acnebs/status/1757641901438894338
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I've made my living that way and absolutely loved it.
| What I did not love (and partly why I left the industry)
| was the difficulty of getting paid decently at the bottom
| tier; I had the bad timing to come in right as the bottom
| was beginning to fall out of the indie market and making
| straight-to-video b-movies 3 or 4 times a year ceased to
| be a viable business model.
|
| _I think you might have it a little backwards. For most
| people, the fun part is "making a movie", not "watching
| hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage picking between
| 10 different shots". That's the drudgery, and that's the
| part generative AI can eliminate._
|
| No, that's the craft, and solving problems where the
| continuity doesn't line up, or production had to drop
| shots, or the story as shot and written sucks in some
| way, is where the art comes in.
|
| The drudgery is things like ingesting all the material,
| sorting it into bins, lining up slate cues, dealing with
| timecode errors, rendering schedules, working your way
| through long lists of deliverables and so on. You have
| literally confused the logistics part with the creative
| act.
| notpachet wrote:
| I also used to be in this line of work, and I just wanted
| to say how much I appreciated this comment. 100%
| accurate.
| fastball wrote:
| I have not confused it, I'm simplifying to make a point.
| Yes, of course there are many people who love the art of
| editing, or taking the right shot, or acting, or
| directing, or special effects, or all of the 100s of
| things that go into making a movie or TV show or other
| video.
|
| But many of those things involve a lot of drudgery, and
| the drudgery is what these "AI" solutions are best at. If
| you want to go above and beyond and craft the perfect
| shot, that opportunity would still be available to you.
| Why would it not?
|
| When we invented machines that make clothes, did that
| reduce the number of jobs in the clothing industry? When
| we got better and better at it, did that make fashion
| worse? No. If you want a machine made suit for $50, you
| can find one. If you want a handmade suit for $5000, you
| can find one.
|
| Tech like this expands opportunities, it does not
| eliminate them. If and when it gets to the point where
| Sora is better at making videos than a human in every
| conceivable dimension, then we can have this discussion
| and bemoan our loss. But we're not even close to that
| point.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I don't buy this simplification claim; you literally
| described the core skillset as drudgery. Put another way,
| what parts of film editing do you _not_ consider
| drudgery? Could it be that you tried it previously and
| just didn 't really like it?
|
| And with your suit example, you're looking at it from the
| point of view of consumer choice (which is great) without
| really looking at the question of of how people in the
| clothing/textile industry are affected. It's difficult to
| find longitudinal data at the global level, but we can
| look at the impact of previous innovations (from
| outsourcing to manufacturing technology) on the US
| clothing market; employment there has fallen by nearly
| 90% over 30 years:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/242729/number-of-
| employe...
|
| The usual response to observations like this is 'well who
| wants to work in the clothing industry, those people are
| now free to do other things, great opportunity for people
| in other parts of the world etc.', but the the constant
| drive to lower prices by cutting labor costs or quality
| has big negative externalities. Lots of people that used
| to make a living thanks to their skill with a sewing
| machine, at least in the US, are no longer able to
| monetize that and had to switch to something else;
| chances they were less skilled at that other thing (or
| they'd have been doing it instead) and so suffered an
| economic loss while that transition was forced upon them.
| fastball wrote:
| The "someone must have lost out economically" argument
| falls fairly hollow when you actually look at the stats
| and see that the vast, vast majority of people end up
| better economically when we develop technology and
| increase efficiency.
|
| Luddism is never the answer.
|
| Scratch that; luddism _is_ the answer for people who don
| 't actually care about humanity as a whole (but
| frequently pretend they do) and just want _their hobby_
| or _their job_ or _their neighborhood_ to stay the same
| and for everyone else to stop _ruining_ things. But for
| the rest of the world, increasing technological
| efficiency means more people get more things for less.
| This is good actually.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm not arguing for luddism, I'm arguing against blind
| optimism and mindless consumerism. Your response is just
| a red herring.
| pants2 wrote:
| This reduces filmmaking to _only_ editing. Filmmakers won
| 't be choosing between 10 different shots but instead
| between 10 different prompts and dozens of randomized
| outputs of those prompts, and then splicing them together
| to make the final output.
| stratospark wrote:
| Prompts are just the starting point. Take image
| generation for example and the rise of ComfyUI and
| ControlNet, with complex node based workflows allowing
| for even more creative control. https://www.google.com/se
| arch?q=comfyui+workflows&tbm=isch
|
| I see these AI models as lowering the barrier to entry,
| while giving more power to the users that choose to
| explore that direction.
| krapp wrote:
| All that amounts to just more complex ways of nudging the
| prompt, because that prompt is all an LLM can
| "comprehend." You still have no actual creative control,
| the black box is still doing everything. You didn't clear
| the barrier to entry, you just stole the valor of real
| artists.
| wsintra2022 wrote:
| So wrong. There are some great modern artists in the AI
| space now who are using the advanced AI tools to advance
| their craft.. look at eclectic method before AI and look
| at how he evolving artistically with AI
| krapp wrote:
| Shadiversity made the same class of attribution error. AI
| users aren't evolving artistically, the software they are
| using to simulate art is improving over time. They are
| not creators, they are consumers.
| fatherzine wrote:
| can photography be an art? all a photographer does is to
| run around the world with a camera and take snapshots. he
| has no creative control.
| krapp wrote:
| Photographers have a great deal of creative control. Put
| the same camera in your hands versus a professional and
| you will get different results even with the same
| subject. You taking a snapshot in the woods are not Ansel
| Adams, nor are you taking a selfie Annie Leibovitz. The
| skill and artistic intent of the human being using the
| tool matters.
|
| Meanwhile with AI, given the same model and inputs -
| including a prompt which may include the names of
| specific artists "in the style of x" - one can reproduce
| mathematically equivalent results, regardless of the
| person using it. If one can perfectly replicate the work
| by simply replicating the tools, then the human using the
| tool adds nothing of unique personal value to the end
| result. Even if one were to concede that AI generated
| content were art, it still wouldn't be the art of the
| user, it would be the art of the model.
| acomjean wrote:
| >I made a
|
| You asked an AI to make something for you. Thats not
| really making it yourself. Its like hiring someone to
| create something for you.
| johnfn wrote:
| Do you also think that using a camera is like hiring
| someone to draw a picture for you?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Are you honestly comparing taking a photograph (and
| "properly", i.e. thinking about lighting and composition
| and such, versus firing off a snapshot on your phone)
| with typing "Make me a picture of Trump riding a dragon"?
| llm_trw wrote:
| Are you genuinely equating the profound and labor-
| intensive process of painting, with its meticulous
| brushstrokes, profound understanding of lighting,
| composition, and the tactile relationship between artist
| and canvas, to the trivial button pressing of
| photography?
|
| Disclaimer: This post was generated using an llm guided
| by a human who couldn't be bothered explaining why you're
| wrong.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Disclaimer: This post was generated using an llm guided
| by a human who couldn't be bothered explaining why you're
| wrong.
|
| The feeling is mutual.
|
| Impressive that you can dismiss an entire genre of art as
| trivial mindlessness
| llm_trw wrote:
| That's what _you_ just did.
|
| I'm merely pointing out why it's stupid.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| Photography is an art in itself. Describing a picture to
| a computer is not. The two are not comparable
| wsintra2022 wrote:
| It takes different skills depending on how deep you want
| to go. Try setting up your own video creating lab using
| stable diffusion to generate frames. It can make AI
| videos, you also need to have a lot of Linux dev op
| skills and python skills..
| fastball wrote:
| I did in fact make the twitter thread. The images I used
| in said thread were generated using midjourney, which I
| stated here and in the thread (which I made, by
| tweeting).
| acomjean wrote:
| I appreciate you being straight up about it. I wasn't
| trying to be harsh, and I apologize for not being clear.
| I find the terminology used when using ai to create
| things interesting. "I wrote this using X" versus the
| never used "I instructed X to write this for me".
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| I became a software engineer because I enjoy coding. If
| you told me software will now be written by simply
| describing it to a computer, I would quit because that
| sounds like a fucking terrible way to spend your life. I
| assume that video editing and post production is the
| same: a creative problem that is enjoyable to solve in
| itself. When you remove any difficulty or real work from
| the equation, you probably get a lot of bad, meaningless
| content and displaced people without marketable skills
| fastball wrote:
| I am also software engineer, which is _literally_
| describing what you want the computer to do, to the
| computer...
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| It's different
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| 99% percent of people, before AI art, couldn't make good
| art. AI allows mediocre people to make good art now.
| akprasad wrote:
| Yes, much in the same way that hiring someone to cater a
| dinner party makes me a great chef.
|
| (edit to give some body to my comment above:
|
| Hosting a great dinner party is hard work and requires
| coordination between food, decor, seasonality, people
| attending, etc. It is akin to a director coordinating the
| parts of a film. So I do think hosting a good dinner
| party can count as artistic expression.
|
| I don't know the parent comment's intended reading, but I
| was reacting to the idea that typing a Sora prompt makes
| someone a good artist. If the parent means instead that
| AI allows people to coordinate multiple media in a
| broader expression that was not possible otherwise, then
| I fully agree.
|
| )
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Not an apt analogy.
|
| I didn't say "AI art makes you a great artist" I said it
| helps you make great art
|
| Tools allow people to express themselves at a higher
| aesthetic level without needing the extreme technical
| skills.
| tzarko wrote:
| Great art [?] pretty pictures
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| So everyone at your dinner party gets to eat "better"
| food? Unless the point of the party was for you to cook
| then it's an improved experience.
|
| GenAI is a tool that lets creators of one medium expand
| to other mediums without much effort. Like having
| transcripts auto-generated for a visual podcast, just in
| the other direction. Low budget (or amateur) poems/songs
| can turn into short videos; or replace generic album art
| with better quality generic album art.
|
| The draw will be the primary medium, the rest will just
| be an extra bonus.
| akprasad wrote:
| Of course it is an improved experience, but I don't then
| get to say that I'm a good cook.
|
| I've updated my comment to explain my view, which I think
| closely aligns with yours.
| samus wrote:
| It's the samr discussion we had long ago when digital
| cameras cane abouut and image editing became easy and
| commonplace. Yes, there is a lot of badly edited stuff
| around now. For example, most meme images on social media
| are made by putting new captions on old content, and
| maybe changing a few details about the rest of the image.
| No, photographers didn't become obsolete. They
| professionalized.
| famahar wrote:
| I'd argue that it allowed people that lacked the creative
| confidence to create original art, to now have the
| confidence to make generic art. I don't mean this in a
| deeply negative way. I just think that people's view of
| "good art" is so narrow.
| Zopieux wrote:
| AI allows mediocre people to make an endless stream of
| mediocre, dull, aseptic, sterile content. FTFY.
|
| I don't see it as a negative per se, the thing is most
| people won't have the decency to keep all that shit for
| themselves and, say, share just the best 1% they produce.
| They will flood their social networks and the rest of us
| will have to sweep through the crap for our daily dose of
| internet memes.
| suyash wrote:
| This use case is a direct threat to actors when AI can
| create realistic footage with human and non human subjects,
| add to this generated speech, you have totally replaced
| hiring actors and killed thier employability.
| samus wrote:
| Sorry, that's like claiming that the cinema has killed
| the theater, or that computer games have killed movies.
| Or that photorealistic 3D games have killed 2D slider
| games.
|
| Blockbuster movies depend to a large extent on the
| pedigree and abilities of their cast. For the big
| studios, these models are therefore quite useless apart
| from bringing dead actors alive again. If publishing
| material created from living actors without isn't illegal
| already, in a few years it will be.
|
| This might actually save the movie industry and force it
| to improve the quality of its output. There will be a
| huge indy scene of movie makers using models that can
| only compete via the content of the movies they produce.
| The realism of the characters won't matter because
| everyone can have those now. The current big studios will
| be forced to make very good use of human actors to
| compete with them though, and become innovative again.
| suyash wrote:
| Your analogy doesn't quite make sense. The reality of the
| TV/Film production is that most of what we watch are
| created by big production houses and not indie creators.
| These companies will do whatever it takes to reduce thier
| costs, biggest of that is salary for hundreds of staff
| that they currently employ.
|
| Now with such AI tools, you can write scripts, create art
| work, crate footage, record voice overs and dialogues.
| All of this means less need for labor - creative that
| will not only cause huge employment in the sector but
| also lead to protests, it already happened last year in
| Hollywood, it's going to get louder and louder unless we
| put regulations to prevent job disruptions.
| samus wrote:
| But those tools can also be used by the very employees
| that got laid off. They be would become part of the indie
| scene. The film studios will be left with their trademark
| portfolio that will be milked for profit. We might see an
| Avenger movie every month. There will be an absolute glut
| of such productions, to the point that people might not
| be interested in it anymore. Can't tell what happens
| next. We might lose ourselves in the holodeck, or we
| might again appreciate media produced with more human
| touch.
|
| I like going to theater or opera. Even for famous pieces,
| the performance will be slightly different and unique
| every time. Imperfect, but with changing and nevertheless
| accomplished actors, singers, musicians, and dancers.
| Many people feel the same and that's why they watch live
| performances of singers, bands, and DJs.
| newyankee wrote:
| Most likely market will be consolidated by existing
| popular and prescient actors who will add IP protections
| to their AI likeness and benefit from it. Especially
| after a certain age
| notpachet wrote:
| You just described the plot of The Congress:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Congress_(2013_film)
| echelon wrote:
| > I don't even think the moat is the issue here.
|
| There is no moat. This will all be commonplace for everyone
| soon, including with a rich open source community.
|
| OpenAI won't let you do nudity or pop culture, but you can
| bet your uncle that models better than "Sora" will be doing
| this in just a few months.
|
| > We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer.
| And we are left with the drudgery.
|
| No. This means that the tens of thousands of people working
| in entertainment building other people's visions can now be
| their own writers, actors, and directors.
|
| This is a collapse of the Hollywood studio system and the
| beginnings of a Cambrian explosion of individual creators.
| Tade0 wrote:
| There will always be demand for people breaking new ground
| - which happens to be something AI can't really do.
|
| An AI capable of this would likely also be able to e.g.
| flip burgers and bring us to Fully Automated Luxury
| Communism.
| al_borland wrote:
| What does "better" mean in this context? The camera was a
| better at capturing realism than any painter who ever
| lived. While we still have people who paint in that style,
| there aren't nearly as many, and art took new shapes and
| forms.
|
| Most "good" art isn't just what you see, it's also the
| story behind it. Why was it made? What is the story of the
| artist? What does it make you feel?
|
| AI might allow more people to tell some of those stories
| they may have lacked the raw skills to tell before. And for
| those who have the skills, they can make exactly what they
| envision, without being limited by some of the randomness
| in the AI. I think there will always be a place for that,
| and at the top of the market, that's what people want.
| boppo1 wrote:
| I still like to paint. If you stop painting because Dall-E
| can do it, maybe you didn't like painting.
| namrog84 wrote:
| > We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer
|
| Are we though? People still do plenty of things out of
| interest or hobby, despite it being fully automatable?
|
| e.g. blacksmithing or making certain homemade things?
|
| While these are non digital things, why can't we apply the
| same thing here?
|
| Some people still hand write assembly out of the novelety
| and interest of it. Despite there being better tools or
| arguably better ways of writing code.
| llm_trw wrote:
| >We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer.
| And we are left with the drudgery.
|
| Yesterday I asked a local llm to write a python script to
| have a several multimodal llms rank 50,000 images generated
| by a stable diffusion model. I then used those images to
| train a new checkpoint for the model and can now repeat the
| process ad infinitum.
|
| In the olden days of 2020 I would have had to hire 5000
| people each working for a day to do the same.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Long term is good.
|
| Medium term is ... less good.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Making it to the long term..less good.
| staplers wrote:
| these advances are a death knell for mega-corps, not for
| individuals.
|
| _Certain_ mega-corps. We 've been down the email, finance,
| and social media road and know what people actually use. It's
| centralized corp infra.
| buzzert wrote:
| 100% true. Same for video games--an individual has never had
| more power to compete in the video game market against the
| megacorps.
|
| I think we'll soon see a suburban mom in middle America with
| a part-time penchant for storytelling make a blockbuster
| video game mostly by herself.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Isn't that basically what Stardew Valley is? Obv the
| creator isn't a suburban mom but the premise is very
| similar.
| ohthatsnotright wrote:
| Basically what made Sierra Online, as well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Entertainment
| LVB wrote:
| Will there even be "blockbuster" video games, movies,
| books, etc? If hours after release, there are hundreds of
| lookalike clones, will there be "hits" like we know of
| today? We see this in the App Store today. It is just hard
| for me to see that part-time product being a big success,
| when at the first whiff of an interesting idea it will get
| repackaged, probably into something more effective.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Yours is an optimistic take and frankly I do agree with most
| of it: there isn't an upper bound to economic opportunities
| as long as everyone gets to use the tools, since the
| cost/risk to produce something new will significantly
| decrease, this will boost the diversity of creative
| industries from which countless gems will be made. However
| the problem is what if everyone loses their current
| opportunities before these techs become widely available? How
| to handle the transition period? A monopoly/oligopoly is not
| going to care about helping the average person in
| accomplishing that transition, because it won't make their
| next quarterly earnings report look pretty.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Because there will be millions of other people all making AI
| movies. And you'll be competing for attention with all of
| them in an attention lottery with seven or eight (nine?)
| figure odds against you.
|
| The only original creativity will be in creating new formats
| and new kinds of experiences - which will mostly mean
| inventing new kinds of AI.
|
| _Everything_ made in an existing format will either be
| worthless or near as.
|
| Same applies to software dev. Far more quickly than most
| people expect, it will also apply to AI dev.
| asdfaoeu wrote:
| So basically now only a select few have the resources to
| compete and now everyone will be able to?
| justinclift wrote:
| Are you meaning "compete for attention" when you say
| "compete" there?
| inerte wrote:
| I am not sure we're having fewer megacorps as technological
| progress marches on. We probably have bigger companies with
| broader influence now than 50 or 100 years ago, right?
| throwaway743 wrote:
| If there will be a market it seems like it'll be short lived.
| The path we're on is towards hyper individualized on-demand
| generated media.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Anyone can mix carbonated sugar water with a few flavours but
| it takes huge capital and a well known brand to be Coca Cola.
|
| And to hit scale first might be enough of a moat?
| fatherzine wrote:
| fwiw, coca cola exists as a business in the attention space
| created (distorted?) through brand marketing
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Filmmakers being able to bring their vision to life using
| generative models is going to create such a huge expansion of
| the market._
|
| Of what market? Certainly not film production. I have my
| doubts about whether it will expand the market for films, in
| the economic sense. The lower the cost of producing and
| distributing a film, the lower the monetary value people will
| place on it.
|
| Look how most music artists are no longer able to survive on
| royalties, and a few massive streaming companies have an
| astounding profitable oligopoly of consumers' music interest.
| Yes, many pre-streaming publishers were exploitative or
| unethical, but I'm not convinced that it was to a greater
| degree than the current market leaders. Consider also that
| the streaming revolution steamrolled many, perhaps most,
| indie record labels that supported niche genres; some live on
| but are no longer able to sustain physical output and a
| reduced to being digital marketing companies.
|
| Now, people will continue to tell stories and entertain
| others, so technology like this will be good for people with
| an artistic vision who can't easily access publishers for
| whatever reason. It will certainly allow people to pursue
| bold artistic visions that would not otherwise be
| economically feasible - exotic locations, spectacular special
| effects, technically complex perspective moves. Those are
| good things; I worked in the film industry for a long time
| and have several unproduced scripts that I'd like to apply
| this technology to, so I'm not rejecting it.
|
| However, more content doesn't necessarily translate into more
| economic activity; I think it very likely that visual media
| will be further devalued as a result. People who have spent
| years or a lifetime developing genuine craft will be told to
| abandon it in favor of giving suggestions to a computer
| system, and those who don't will be laughed at or suspected
| of fakery, because fakery is so widespread these days
| (Relevant recent example:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39379073). The easier it
| becomes to make something, the less value the market will
| assign to it; rational from the abstracted perspective of
| pure price theory, disastrous in real life.
|
| Increasingly, we seem to be tilting towards a Huxley-esque
| dystopia of stunning and infinite-feeling virtual worlds to
| which we can escape on demand, and an increasingly shitty
| real world marked by the brutal economic logic of total
| resource and information exploitation. Already a stock
| rejoinder to complaints about the state of things is that
| humanity is on paper richer than ever before, to the point
| that bums have smartphones and anyone can afford an xbox. I
| have a homeless neighbor who's living in his car, spending
| his dying years watching YouTube on his phone to fall asleep
| because he's lonely. Technically this is an expansion of the
| market, but I don't think it's a good outcome.
| RajT88 wrote:
| In a few years, the next copyright fight is going to be
| against full-length fanfiction films.
|
| The torrents will be filled with convincing full-length films
| which are maybe not as good as the originals, but still very
| watchable.
|
| We will have infinite chances to get better films than
| Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
| flemhans wrote:
| Couple more years and they are just generated on the fly,
| omitting the torrenting step.
| samus wrote:
| Couple of years more, and everyone* will be able to
| generate these things for themselves, with the only
| requirement being knowing _what_ to generate next. We might
| get very bored, and we might decide to appreciate partly or
| fully human-made things again.
|
| *: except the ones starved for compute resources of course
| aredox wrote:
| lol
|
| Anybody can publish anything with the web. Have publishing
| houses disappeared? Have scientific journals disappeared?
|
| The insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
| thinking "this time it will work".
| fatherzine wrote:
| "have scientific journals disappeared" -- ironically, in
| the AI field most of the action is on arxiv / github /
| twitter. journals have been obsolete for decades, and the
| '10s obsoleted conferences too. the only function journals
| / conferences still serve in the AI field is to stack rank
| researchers and provide signal for hiring / funding
| decisions.
| aredox wrote:
| Maybe because in the AI field, "publications" is a
| generous term for "PR"... given most don't give data nor
| enough code to replicate their work.
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/12/1011944/artif
| ici...
| newyankee wrote:
| Brand recognition is the moat. People cannot remember 100
| independent brands
| numpad0 wrote:
| Mega-corps exist by dividing work into tasks that can be
| procedurally performed by minimally skilled laborers, then
| keeping the delta between cost of time and value of the
| product. Was it Karl Marx who argued this first?
|
| AI turns skilled labor into cheap ones, supposedly, right?
| It's a massive enabler for mega-corps. Not a death knell.
| navaed01 wrote:
| I don't think this plays out this way in reality. Look at
| music streaming. Record labels are still important to making
| or breaking music careers even in the age where any artist is
| discoverable, there is no 'switching cost' and there is 0
| cost of production and distribution (making and shipping
| CDs).
|
| In a world where attention is scare I sadly think big corps
| and power brokers will still play a large role. Maybe not
| though.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| The way to generate the wealth required for something like UBI
| requires large scale technology driven deflation in the cost of
| goods and services (in real terms).
|
| Advances like this are necessary steps to get us there.
|
| People will be displaced in the short term, as they have for
| every other large scale advance... Cars, assembly line and so
| on. Better to focus on progress and helping those disaffected
| the most along the way
| qwerasdf5 wrote:
| This.
|
| AI is going to be massively deflationary. How useful is UBI
| when the cost of goods and services approaches zero due to
| automation?
|
| With that said, I can imagine the federal reserve will then
| helicopter in money to everyone in order to reach its 2%
| inflation target, which kinda sounds like UBI.
| dools wrote:
| Just remember: that's how the Luddites felt about textiles
| machinery:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
| kibwen wrote:
| And how did that end up for the Luddites?
| dools wrote:
| There's no lack of work now because of textiles machinery.
| There's just different work.
| kibwen wrote:
| And yet you're dodging the question: how did it end up
| for the Luddites, specifically? You're not a hypothetical
| person in the far-future that has had time to adapt to
| this technology, you're a person in the here and now, and
| the wave is rushing towards you.
| dools wrote:
| Well, smashing the machinery certainly didn't get them
| their jobs back. Worrying about the machinery didn't get
| them any new jobs either. I guess some of them fell
| destitute because they were too angry or unfortunate,
| some others got jobs doing something else, and others got
| jobs operating the machines that had replaced them.
|
| There are winners and losers, but it's absurd to think
| that we should _avoid_ progress to protect jobs.
|
| My preferred method for ensuring a just transition during
| times of technological progress (and to eliminating
| involuntary unemployment generally) is a Federal Job
| Guarantee http://www.jobguarantee.org/
|
| Personally, the advances in AI have just made my job
| easier and allowed me to get more done. I don't see that
| trend changing either.
| petabyt wrote:
| Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I just want to wait it out
| until the bubble pops or when we are at the next big thing that
| people obsess over.
| y04nn wrote:
| You should feel the opposite, see it as a new tool in your
| pocket.
|
| Industrialisation and computers/automation took away massive
| amount of jobs while globally improving people lives, this may
| possibly (maybe not) do the same.
|
| If in the future, anybody can write the book, create a
| photograph or a motion picture or an music album with just few
| words describing what they have in mind, this will be a
| tremendous productivity improvement and will unleash an
| overflow of human creativity.
|
| I like to compare it to what Jobs said about computer, they are
| the "bicycle of the mind" [1].
|
| [1] https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/bicycle-121262546097
| bg24 wrote:
| Learning and fitness are great ways to avoid the feeling of
| doom.
|
| Open-source will catch up in <6 months. Note that Meta will
| ship llama3 anytime. So will Mistral.
|
| I am a PM, and switched to becoming a builder. Enjoy learning,
| keep building. What people take time to realize is that
| building things is a habit. As you combine that with ongoing
| learning, you will enjoy the process and eventually build
| something to earn a living.
| throwawaywjbqw wrote:
| Sure, I can learn how to use these models, but then how do I
| find things to build? I've always struggled with finding real
| ideas, and so I just watch AI progress and come up with
| blanks whenever I try to think of ways to contribute.
| bg24 wrote:
| We focus on solving problems (customer pain points) faster,
| better and cheaper by leveraging AI, in our domain of
| expertise.
|
| Unfortunately I have nothing to showcase yet.
| moneywoes wrote:
| what are you building?
| orasis wrote:
| Master the tools to create value for other humans and you'll be
| just fine.
| lebean wrote:
| Cognitive behavioral therapy works for me.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| It's just a digital _CONTENT!_ machine, it 's not a big deal.
| _CONTENT!_ consoomers - rejoice, producers - keep producing.
| Where does the sense of doom come from? What power does this
| company even have? The power to churn out more movieslop? Is
| that powerful? We 've had decades of that, it's tiresome.
|
| Touch grass, tend your garden, play with your kids, drink a
| beer, bake a pie, write a poem, take a walk, carve a sculpture,
| play a board game, mend a sweater, take a breath. Relax.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| imagine being depressed at technological advances
|
| we will finally free ourselves from mediocre humans being the
| bottleneck for everything
|
| If you want a safety net move to Scandinavia
| didip wrote:
| What to be depressed about? Every technological advancement is
| always a net positive to humanity, so far.
|
| OSS so far has been an effective tool as a check and balance
| against big corp.
| kibwen wrote:
| Is this being sarcastic?
| astrange wrote:
| Nothing on this page has any relevance to employment or UBI.
| Also, there is strong evidence that UBI doesn't affect
| employment much one way or the other.
|
| Whether people are employed or not is a policy decision of the
| central bank and not related to how good AI is.
| lubesGordi wrote:
| I think the deal is that these breakthroughs, aren't really
| great in any general case. It helps with specific instances of
| work, and makes individuals way more productive. That by itself
| might won't end up making some people obsolete. I think by and
| large, its just going to make people more productive. You
| probably don't want to work somewhere where that isn't a
| welcome thing.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| UBI, social safety nets, power.. Because of videos? I don't get
| it. Obvious second-order effect is a devaluation of visual
| media. Let it all burn, who cares? Go live in the real world.
| Current mass media culture is an anomaly stemming from hyper-
| centralization of culture creation. Where we're going is a
| reversal to the mean.
| blibble wrote:
| personally I am glad my past self focused on FIRE 10 years ago
|
| I am hoping our society and civilisation doesn't implode as
| everyone becomes unemployable as the economy and social
| contract collapses
| qgin wrote:
| I can't say I know what the future economy will look like, but
| I can say for certain it won't just be the current one minus
| 99% of jobs (with all those previously employed people living
| in abject poverty). Capitalism doesn't work without customers.
| Capitalism doesn't work without scarcity. Capitalism depends on
| a minimum money velocity where paradoxically if you collect
| 100% of the money, it becomes completely worthless.
|
| To me, it seems guaranteed that will be drastic changes. There
| will be many attempts at new ways of organizing society with
| successes and failures along the way. Not out of altruism or
| desire to share but out of self-interest of those who collect
| the power afforded by AI and automation.
| huytersd wrote:
| I'm just crossing my fingers for a 3D model generator.
| curiousgeorgio wrote:
| Just bask in the knowledge that if those "social safety nets"
| and UBI become a reality, you'll have more problems than you do
| now. You'll look back at this moment in time with fondness.
| Enjoy it now.
| Kootle wrote:
| Best way to deal with the sense of doom imo is to actually use
| it. You'll find how dumb it really is by itself, and how much
| of your own judgment/help/editing is still necessary to get
| anything usable. It might look like magic from these manicured
| press releases, but once you get your hands on it, it quickly
| becomes just another tool in your toolbox that, at best, helps
| you do the work you were doing anyway, more quickly.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| I work with these models professionally (well, I'm a web dev
| working along side people manipulating these models). When
| you give it a prompt and it spits out a pretty image,
| remember that the range of acceptable outputs is very large
| in that context. It demos very well but it's not useful
| outside of stock image/stock video use cases. What artists
| and engineers actually do is work under a rigorous set of
| constraints. Getting these models to do a very specific
| thing, correctly adhere to those constraints, and still
| maintain photorealism (or whatever style you need) is a very
| much unsolved problem. In that case the range of valid
| outputs is relatively tiny.
| fasterik wrote:
| _> Does anyone know how to handle the depression/doom one feels
| with these updates?_
|
| Realize that it's a choice to respond to things this way. This
| feeling comes from a certain set of assumptions and learned
| responses.
|
| Remember that people are bad at predicting the future. Look at
| the historical track record of people predicting the
| implications of technological advancement. You'll find that
| almost nobody gets it right. Granted, that sometimes means that
| things are _worse_ than we expect, but there are also many
| cases where things turn out _better_ than we expect. If you 're
| prone to focusing on potential negatives, maybe you can
| consciously balance that out by forcing yourself to imagine
| potential positives as well.
|
| Try to focus on things you personally have control over. Why
| worry about something that you can't change? Focus on problems
| that you can contribute to solving.
| Ludleth19 wrote:
| The implications of technological advancement are always the
| same- if it can be used to replace people at a satisfactory
| level, it will. Appealing to stoicism is nice, but it's a
| bittersweet salve in this situation.
| inference-lord wrote:
| Honestly though, as if technological advancement has been
| overall worse for humans. Without it, we'd be fighting
| lions for food in the Savannah forever, that might be
| appealing to some, but I'd have prefer to have spears,
| fire, shelter, medcine etc.
|
| Industrial scale technology might ruin us though, so you
| might have some point, mostly I'm referring to climate
| change which is for sure the greatest existential threat
| imaginable right now. However it seems technology might
| bail us out here too, nuclear and renewables.
| Ludleth19 wrote:
| I have no issue with technological advancement, it's
| obviously one of the pinnacles of human achievement- I
| have an issue with how those advancements are spread
| about and shared, especially shortly after large
| technological advancements happen.
|
| We undoubtedly have reaped immense benefits from the
| industrial revolution for example- that doesn't mean I'd
| have any interest in living through it or that it was
| executed in a way that prioritized the people who lived
| during those times.
| inference-lord wrote:
| There is a super simple solution to the problem you're
| describing, get involved in and contribute to open source
| and education. It's this easy.
|
| The more freely available the tech is, the easier it is
| to reproduce, the less the average joe is going to be
| locked out of the benefits.
|
| My entire career and everything good in my working life
| has involved open source software and I'm sure that it
| will continue to be the case.
| Ludleth19 wrote:
| Open source stuff is great, and I support it and have
| contributed to projects myself, but people bandy it out
| as if it's a silver bullet and I have my reservations
| there. The issue goes way beyond technology itself, it's
| structural/sociological/cultural and that's not going to
| be fixed just because there are open source alternatives.
| inference-lord wrote:
| It's not a silver bullet, nothing is, no one said that,
| but it's the best chance at democratizing technology that
| we have.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| How does contributing to open source software and
| education help me pay the bills in a world where my job
| has been automated
| inference-lord wrote:
| It doesn't stop that, but would you prefer a world where
| you're unemployed and locked out of the technology, or
| unemployed, and have access to the technology so you can
| learn and use it for free to maybe get back in the game?
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| If I'm unemployed what's the difference
| fatherzine wrote:
| there must be a fallacy name for 'more of a good thing is
| always a good thing' line of reasoning. almost every good
| out there is good in a certain range. outside of that
| range it becomes detrimental, possibly deadly. there is
| even a Swedish word for it,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom. a few examples.
|
| material:
|
| - water: too little => thirst, too much => drown
|
| - heat: too little => freeze, too much => burn
|
| - food: too little => starvation, too much => obesity
|
| spiritual:
|
| - courage: too little => cowardice, too much =>
| foolhardiness
|
| - diligence: too little => slothfulness, too much =>
| workaholism
|
| - respect: too little => disregard, too much => idolatry
|
| etc.
|
| life is a balance
| inference-lord wrote:
| I understand your sentiment entirely, but it's not what I
| said, I didn't say an abundance is everything we should
| strive for , I said that having more efficient systems is
| good.
| inference-lord wrote:
| As someone who has suffered immensely from anxiety disorders
| and worrying / anger my whole life, this comment is wisdom
| right here.
|
| Not in my thirties and almost nothing I worried about has
| come true. I mean, tomorrow we might get wiped out by a
| runaway technological singularity, but I could've spent the
| last 30 years of my life worrying a lot less too..
| AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote:
| I know that I should stop worrying as I have no control
| over what might happen but I can't stop worrying. What was
| the key for you that helped you let things go?
| ionwake wrote:
| when i realised i just didnt care anymore
| inference-lord wrote:
| "not caring" doesn't really work for most people...
| ionwake wrote:
| I cant fix everyones problems but they have my sympathies
| inference-lord wrote:
| _thoughts are not facts_.
|
| I went to cognitive behavior therapy, for me it was like
| someone opened up my mind and showed it to me on a
| screen, it was a mirror into my head. It was amazing how
| it felt like I could rewire my thought patterns over the
| course of a few months.
|
| The main takeaway from it all however, was the mantra: _
| _thoughts are not facts_ _.
|
| If you can realize that your thoughts are not objective
| truths, you will be much better off in almost every
| aspect of your life, because after living this mantra for
| many years, putting it to the test constantly, I know
| it's solid.
|
| Later on I read a lot of Buddhist philosophy which
| matched incredibly well with the therapy because a lot of
| Buddhist thinking and meditation practice is quite
| similar in it's approach. This sort of reinforced the
| validity of the CBT because I realized wise people have
| known about seeing things in an objective light for
| millennia, which was validating for me and helped me
| continue on the introspective path.
|
| Basically, we're all hallucinating in one way or another,
| almost all of the time, and that is ok, just be aware of
| that. When we're worried about the future, we're worried
| about something which doesn't yet exist, which is
| actually crazy.
|
| Of course it doesn't mean we should just ignore long term
| problems, no one advocates for that. But we shouldn't
| assume we know the outcome in advance because that often
| causes stress.
|
| Warning: I think that for most westerners, it's "safer"
| to get into something like CBT, Buddhism comes with some
| IMO very confronting ideas for a lot of people where as
| CBT is much more user friendly for westerners.
| AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote:
| I very much appreciate your reply, I had not heard
| "thoughts are not facts" but it makes a lot of sense.
| Thank you again, hope you have a great day.
| inference-lord wrote:
| You too my friend!
| petesergeant wrote:
| An SSRI
| echelon wrote:
| Be excited!
|
| The tens of thousands of people working in entertainment
| building other people's visions can now be their own writers,
| actors, and directors. And they'll find their own fans.
|
| Studios will go away. Disney will no longer control Star
| Wars, because your kids will make it instead. In fact, the
| very notion of IP is about to drive to zero.
|
| And OpenAI won't own this. They won't even let you do "off
| book" things, and that's a no-go for art. Open source is
| going to own this space.
|
| There are other companies with results just as mature. They
| just didn't time a press release to go head to head with
| Gemini.
| Bost wrote:
| What I see is the tens of thousands of people in troll
| factories producing content for 3/4 of the world population
| ready to believe whatever they see in the TV.
|
| Edit: Putin on AI, 2017 https://youtu.be/aJELcvjREgk?t=29
|
| "Whoever takes the lead in this area will be the ruler of
| the world."
|
| "tot kto stanet liderom v etoi sfere budet vlastelinom
| mira"
| meowface wrote:
| I think a more likely scenario is that people will be so
| used to it that a lot of people are going to have trouble
| believing that real things are real. Conspiracy theorists
| already suffer from this and it's going to get so much
| worse.
|
| I think in the initial years there'll be some major
| incidents where a fake thing gets major attention for a
| few days until it's debunked, but the much larger issue
| will be the inverse.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Fully agree. I got a bit depressed Nov 22 when chatgpt and
| midjourney dropped... and then realized midjourney would
| let me create images I've had in my head for years but
| could never get out. (At least, MJ gave a reasonable
| approximation)
| thomastraum wrote:
| Sorry, but this is a 5th-grade take everyone on tech-heavy
| forums loves.
|
| Only some people can make Star Wars (the pinnacle of
| independent filmmaking if you read Lucas's biography). It
| has nothing to do with the tools.
|
| IP in the arts is how artists get paid.
|
| I can assure you that no one in the creative industry feels
| liberated by these tools. Do you realise that just because
| you are good at lighting, you don't want to be an actor and
| make a movie? No, you like to be good at lightning, work
| with others who are good at what you do, and create a great
| work of art together.
|
| AI imagery only knows what exists. It's tough to make it do
| innovative technical effects and great new lightning. "oh
| my god, stock video sites are dead" Yes, exactly; stock, by
| definition, is commoditised.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| What you describe sounds like a dystopia to me
| Guest9081239812 wrote:
| > Be excited! The tens of thousands of people working in
| entertainment building other people's visions can now be
| their own writers, actors, and directors. And they'll find
| their own fans.
|
| It's terrible news for the people being replaced. Their
| training and decades of experience is their competitive
| advantage and livelihood. When that experience becomes
| irrelevant because anyone can create similar quality work
| at the push of a button, they're suddenly left with nothing
| of value in a world flooded with competition.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > Realize that it's a choice to respond to things this way.
|
| Why do people always say this / think that saying this is
| helpful? Try saying to someone with ADHD, "realize that you
| are choosing not to get your chores done today. You're
| choosing not to get out of bed on time. You're choosing to
| show behavior that your peers describe as 'lazy'. This will
| keep happening as long as you let it!"
|
| So what if you have the ability to choose whether you are
| depressed or not? Not everyone got the same choice. Not
| everyone still has that choice.
|
| I don't really expect another solution, but this always kind
| of bothers me when I see people saying everything is a
| choice.
|
| With neurodivergence and mental disorders, what you see as
| "choice" can end up not being a choice at all.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| > Realize that it's a choice to respond to things this way.
|
| It's an easy thing for people to say when they don't really
| want to help others.
| fasterik wrote:
| It's also easy to attribute bad motives to someone to try
| and discredit them without making a substantial point.
|
| What I posted is what I have personally found to be the
| most useful advice in overcoming self-destructive mental
| habits.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| >> What I posted is what I have personally found to be
| the most useful advice in overcoming self-destructive
| mental habits
|
| I'm glad a one-time, one-line quip worked for you, but in
| my experience, positive mental habits are built over
| time, through support and continuous practice.
| fasterik wrote:
| _> I'm glad a one-time, one-line quip worked for you_
|
| That's making a lot of assumptions about my personal
| history that you couldn't possibly know anything about.
|
| _> but in my experience, positive mental habits are
| built over time, through support and continuous
| practice._
|
| I agree, and I don't think anything I said implies
| otherwise.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I apologize for over-responding, but let me attempt to be
| more clear:
|
| If you are responding to people's problems with common
| one-liners, it can be interpreted as belittling someone.
| It could be interpreted as an attempt to over-simplify or
| attempt to make them feel they are "inferior" to see and
| solve their issues, when their issues are to them, much
| larger than a random one-line quip.
| fasterik wrote:
| The OP was asking for advice dealing with negative
| emotions. I gave what I consider to be the best advice
| for dealing with negative emotions. Just because
| something is a "one-liner" doesn't mean it isn't also a
| deep truth about human psychology. If you interpret what
| I wrote as belittling them or trying to make them feel
| inferior, all I can say is I disagree with you, because I
| know what my motives were in responding.
| fasterik wrote:
| At a physical level, we don't have control over anything,
| it's all just subatomic particles bumping into each other.
| That doesn't mean all perspectives are equally helpful for
| solving problems and functioning in the world. I mostly
| agree with your points, but where we might disagree is
| whether it's useful to have certain psychological
| categories or disorders become part of one's identity.
| wsintra2022 wrote:
| Such an under rated statement. whether it's useful to
| have certain psychological categories or disorders become
| part of one's identity.
|
| So so so much of this about. Not just disorders too.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > where we might disagree is whether it's useful to have
| certain psychological categories or disorders become part
| of one's identity.
|
| You might read my comment as trying to claim that my
| disorders define me and that because I have these
| disorders I can afford to give up on this stuff because
| 'it's hopeless'. Truth is I've been trying to get past
| this for damn near a decade at this point and it's not
| nearly as easy as you make it out to be, and that's why I
| say that I don't have the same choice you think I do.
|
| I didn't even know I had ADHD until a year or so ago, I'd
| just routinely lose the ability to do the stuff I love
| and I'd have to go find something else to do instead.
| Depression would stem from all the things I knew I loved
| but that I could no longer motivate myself to do. In fact
| I was probably even worse off before I knew about this
| because I thought that I was just doing something wrong,
| not being controlled by an invisible menace that most
| other people don't even know exists
|
| I don't mean to be hostile or to impose that it _can 't_
| be as easy as you're describing. I just don't think that
| it's right to say it's always just a choice how you
| react.
|
| I have tons of completely involuntary reactions caused by
| primarily trauma, but I can't control them. They do
| things like force me literally out of consciousness with
| overwhelming guilt and/or sadness. That's not a choice. I
| didn't choose that. That's completely autonomous!`
| numpad0 wrote:
| It is objectively a better survival strategy in a complex
| enough society, to focus on unfair advantages and let the
| society burn to the ground. The suckers are going to take
| care of it and eliminate themselves too, and in a sense
| there's nothing more important than improving your own
| short term self preservation. This is actually
| psychopathic, and also kind of psychopathic too.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I've been personally affected by technology advancements, and
| had to spend lots of time and effort recovering
| professionally from it. Mind you, I'm not saying it cannot be
| done, but those that do get affected have to work harder than
| those that don't.
|
| It's easy to say "don't worry" if you haven't been affected
| by events like this. I feel it's stronger for society to say
| "I don't know what will happen, but we'll work through it
| together."
| serialNumber wrote:
| Not pressuring you at all if this is hard to talk about -
| but if you're open to sharing more about how you were
| affected, I'd love to listen
| romeros wrote:
| It is easy wax philosophical when it doesn't affect you
| directly. There are folks honing on their VFX skills for
| close to a decade and they will be impacted in a significant
| way.
| roenxi wrote:
| HN is in the perfect position to wax philosophical; this
| behemoth is coming for tech too. I've started plotting out
| what will happen if I have to use my hands to make a living
| and I'd really rather not be doing that.
|
| But reality is as reality is and nobody is owed a desk job.
| These are very exciting times with what type of society
| could be built with this tech, human inefficiencies are
| responsible for a lot of suffering that we can might be
| ab;e to stamp out soon.
| fasterik wrote:
| It's not waxing philosophical, it's concrete advice for how
| to handle negative emotions associated with uncertainty and
| instability. The way things are going, it's very likely
| I'll be affected directly by these developments at some
| point. When that time comes, I'm not sure what will be
| better advice than focusing on the problems that I'm
| personally able to solve and looking at the potential
| upsides of the situation.
| aknfffn wrote:
| I think the issue with "don't worry about things you
| can't control" is, in this tech forum, not as valid as
| you might think.
|
| We are building technology, to suggest no agency is
| helpful in avoiding any feeling of responsibility or
| guilt -- perhaps rendering your comment within the realms
| of waxing philosophical.
|
| Who better to worry about this than the people of hacker
| news?
|
| From a pure mental health standpoint, sure, it's solid
| advice but I think it's narrowed the context of the
| broader concern too much.
|
| An alternative to learned helplessness of "nothing you
| can do" is to encourage technologists to do the opposite.
|
| Instead of forgetting about it, trying to put it out of
| your mind, fight for the future you want. Join others in
| that effort. That's the reason society has hope -- not
| the people shrugging as people fall by the wayside.
|
| Depression mediation by agency feels more positive, but I
| don't have a lot of experience tbh. Just a view that we,
| technologists, shouldn't abdicate responsibility nor
| encourage others to do so.
|
| That culture, imo, is why a large section of tech
| workers, consumers and commentators see the industry in a
| bad light. They're not wrong.
|
| EDIT: to add, "what problems can I personally solve" also
| individualises society's ability to shape itself for the
| better. "What problems can I personally get involved in
| solving", "what communities are trying to solve problems
| I care about" is perhaps the message I'd advocate for.
| fasterik wrote:
| Sure, I would include a broad set of things under "what
| you can control", including joining an organization,
| donating, voting, etc. The OP is excessively worrying
| about things they truly can't control, like the long-term
| political implications of emerging technologies.
| DougEiffel wrote:
| I think the point is to start considering a back up plan
| and then...hakuna matata.
|
| Cat's out of the bag. There is no legislation that will
| stop this. Not unless/until it has some obscene cost and
| AI gets locked down like nuclear weapons. But even then,
| it's just too simple to make these things now that the
| tech is known.
|
| I sure don't know the answer but we just don't know
| what's coming next. Gonna have to wait and see.
| slillibri wrote:
| Sure, let's ask all the model makers and matte painters
| that had honed their skills for decades and were put out of
| work by CGI VFX.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| That literally happened with Jurassic park. They replaced
| the stop motion modeled animations with CGI and most of
| those guys were out of a job
| j16sdiz wrote:
| As an society, we have gone through that.
|
| As an individual, I think the experience would be
| dreadful
| jojobas wrote:
| Coping skills are nice and all, but there's no meditating
| around the fact that a psychopath billionaire can now
| basically fake reality.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| "... _a psychopath billionaire can now basically fake
| reality_....more easily than before.
|
| Like billionaires didn't already scare a lot of people.
| fasterik wrote:
| People should already be skeptical of everything they
| see/read on the internet. I don't think this is going to
| change my media consumption habits dramatically.
| fatherzine wrote:
| hahaha, what do you think mass media is?!
| anon373839 wrote:
| This is excellent advice. I will also add that with change
| and uncertainty, it's difficult for us to imagine how banal
| things can ultimately turn out to be.
|
| For example, I'm getting text messages all day long from
| random politicians asking for money. If you told people 50
| years ago that one day we'd be carrying devices where we
| could be pinged with unwanted solicitations all day and
| night, they might have imagined an asphyxiating nightmare.
| But in reality, it's mainly a nuisance.
|
| The point is that your brain makes all kinds of emotional
| predictions about the future, but they aren't really very
| useful and if you're experiencing depression or anxiety, I
| can guarantee they are biased predictions.
| boscolite wrote:
| Maybe take a vacation here?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruOJil_sxaA
| cyanydeez wrote:
| depends, are you afraid of growing far right nationalism at the
| same time?
| kderbyma wrote:
| until we automate the real work.....UBI will not work...
| ge96 wrote:
| When I find out something was made with AI/I unknowingly
| interacted with it, I feel like I got owned.
|
| Also I think there will be more junk out there with how easy it
| will be to mass produce garbage.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| I spend my time researching solutions to things that concern
| me. (UBI isn't really a solution.)
|
| We need to push back generally against our top heavy economy.
| More local and regional focus would help.
| dantheman wrote:
| Why should we have those things, with this technology
| everything will get cheaper and the standard of living will
| rise.
| martin82 wrote:
| I hope we will NEVER be close to UBI. UBI is just socialism in
| disguise and will be downfall of our civilisation.
| deadbabe wrote:
| _Close your eyes._
|
| For most of human history, people didn't have constant access
| to art work or videos. Things were fine. Maybe instead of
| watching manufactured shit on social media, go see a live
| theatre production. Seek genuineness.
|
| You can live a great life without ever seeing a picture or
| video.
| doubloon wrote:
| Buy actual art from actual artists and put it in your walls
| krapp wrote:
| That's an odd thing to say in a thread about an AI product
| that isn't going to affect painters and illustrators.
| gloosx wrote:
| It is okay, it is not too much power really.
|
| People will not loose their jobs, because you still need
| someone to input prompts for 10 hours straight in order to get
| a piece of video you want.
|
| Natural language is not perfectly precise to get exactly what
| you want from a model like this, and the results remain kinda
| random. Instead of making video in a traditional tool you will
| be spinning AI roulette until it generates your desired result.
| And even then you will probably want to edit it.
|
| Tools advance, but tools remain tools.
| zzzeek wrote:
| OpenAI is not going to solve global warming and we will be well
| into widespread collapse of farming systems, mass migrations
| and wars of scarcity long before the robots will be doing all
| the work. AI isnt going to solve any of that so...if you're
| looking for depression/doom, that's probably a better place to
| look.
| userbinator wrote:
| We're already in a post-truth world online. There's never been
| a better time to interact with people outside of a computer.
| novalis78 wrote:
| The future is bright. Powerful tools, explosion of
| consciousness, exploration of the cosmos.
| Havoc wrote:
| Yeah today spooked me too. Between this and the large context
| length on google side and ability to understand video (and thus
| say video feed for work tasks) it sure seems like the amount of
| jobs in the firing line just jumped massively
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| Something I've realized over time is that however good things
| get, what people really want is to have more than their
| neighbors rather than any particular quality of life. In many
| ways you can with a relatively basic job live far, far better
| than the richest kings could dream of a few hundred years ago.
| Something as simple as being able to eat strawberries in
| December was described as literal magic in fairy tales fairly
| recently. Nevertheless this does not satisfy that need for
| social prestige and they are profoundly unhappy as a result.
|
| I don't think anything will fix or change this, definitely not
| UBI, the situation is a fundamental part of the human
| condition. I share your dread and fear that I will not be able
| to compete, even if my life improves by all other measures.
|
| The one thing that would dramatically change my calculus is
| medical advances that significantly push back death and aging.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I'm ecstatic about the future of education. I remember many
| occasions of teachers going, "Gosh, I wish I could show you
| guys this". Now, they can with speed and ease. I'm particularly
| excited for ESL learners to have high-quality low-cost tools on
| hand for personalized learning for every child.
| j45 wrote:
| I tell myself it's important to try and be less myopic.
|
| One reason is, readiness of tech does not mean it's being
| applied.
|
| Another is just like one OpenAI came out of no where, others
| will too. It's normal to be focused on a few things to lose
| sight of that.
|
| Gemini realistically does some impressive things.
|
| What can we do?
|
| Building the tech is important but applying it well for actual
| adoption is still wide open for the average persons use.
|
| It does seem to mean that what we think might take 5y probably
| will take 1y in 2024, if not less like 2023. So think 10x, and
| 10x again as the real goal.
| statuslover9000 wrote:
| As Antonio Gramsci said: "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism
| of the will."
|
| The forces of blind or cynical techno-optimism accelerating
| capitalism may feel insurmountable, but the future is not set
| in stone. Every day around the world, people in seemingly
| hopeless circumstances nevertheless devote their lives to
| fighting for what they believe in, and sometimes enough people
| do this over years or even decades that there's a rupture in
| oppressive systems and humanity is forever changed for the
| better. We can only strive to live by our most deeply held
| values, within the circumstances we were placed, so that when
| we look back at the end of our lives we can take comfort in the
| fact that we did the best we could, and just maybe this will be
| enough to avert the inevitable.
| wruza wrote:
| _Does anyone know how to handle the depression /doom one feels
| with these updates?_
|
| I just dread, *shrug*. You don't have to be depressed or
| doomed, it all comes from premature predictions.
|
| That said, we are surely at the phase similar to that one right
| before the internet, if not electronics. I genuinely don't
| understand people who write AI off as yet another Bitcoin or
| "just an enhanced chatbot". They'll have to catch up on an
| insanely complex area (even ignoring rocket science behind all
| that) which will do without them, and right now is the
| opportunity to jump the ship early.
|
| It's only my nobody's opinion, but I can't see the way in which
| __that__ could fail. I find it incredibly stupid to think so
| and to just live your life as if nothing happens. If you 're
| not the ruling class or a landlord, f...ing learn.
| sensanaty wrote:
| Well as a start we could actually tax these megacorps and their
| C-suites, instead of letting them buy out politicians en-masse.
| gofreddygo wrote:
| Times change. People adapt. Happened before, will happen again.
| Some adapt willingly, some hesitatingly.
|
| Current AI wave is a corporate funded experiment desperate to
| find something compelling beyond controlled demos to
| economically recoup the deepening hole in their balance sheet.
| The novelty has begun to wear off, the innovation has started
| to stagnate and the money running out. The only money making
| innovation left to be seen is in creating more spam. Thats
| where I see this wave headed.
|
| OpenAI has proven it's a shit company with rotten fundamentals
| playing with a shiny new toy. They will crash and burn
| spectacularly. As many before have done in various fields.
|
| My reaction after using any AI tool from the last couple years
| to do anything meaningful ends with just a big facepalm.
|
| Its a grift[1]
|
| [1]: https://www.thediff.co/archive/a-theory-of-grift/
| 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
| :)
| john2x wrote:
| Silver lining in this I guess. If everyone realizes at the
| same time they're all f'd together, regardless of "skill",
| then maybe there's a chance we can all work together to save
| ourselves.
|
| No chance to think "sucks for you, but I'm good here" like so
| often happens with other issues.
| 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).
| al_borland wrote:
| All the more reason why we need to rely on the courts and not
| the mob justice (in the social sense) which has become
| popular over the last several years.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Nothing will change. Confirmation bias junkies already accept
| far worse fakes. People who use trusted sources will continue
| doing so. Bumping the quantity/quality of fabricated
| horseshit won't move the needle.
| 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.
| sweetbacon wrote:
| Certain interests are already fabricating voices in political
| robocalls in New Hampshire. I chill at what the US will see
| as we approach the Presidential election this fall. Then
| again, maybe it will give us an early taste to better prepare
| for what is to come.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| The proliferation of convincing fakes will be a massive
| problem in about twenty years ago.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| > It allows the technical possibility for a post-truth
| reality
|
| Social media already did that. Donald Trump got elected POTUS
| which is effectively the sum of all fears w.r.t. a "post
| truth reality".
| slothtrop wrote:
| I agree, but this cranks it up to 11 to threaten every
| vector, not just facebook feeds. Unfriendly governments
| will also have a field day.
| 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.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Tom Scott elaborated on this experience last year.[1] We
| should form a support group to commiserate.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhJbKBuNnA
| survirtual wrote:
| The compute and innovations behind it should be owned by the
| planet, not by a handful of billionaires. It is far too
| powerful to be controlled by such a small group of humans, who
| decide what is "safe" and what isn't.
|
| It took billions of years for all of our ancestors to enable
| this technology, and now a handful claim it for themselves. The
| GPUs to run these models cost $20,000+ each, and only the
| ultra-rich can afford to have that compute.
|
| Compute power needs to be radically redistributed and equalized
| across the board. This is too much power.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| It's amazing that this is what it takes to turn a forum of
| libertarians into a forum of communists.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| > libertarians
|
| Please. Speak for yourself.
| kortilla wrote:
| >into a forum of communists.
|
| Speak for yourself
| krapp wrote:
| Yes, everyone considers themselves a dyed in the wool
| capitalist until circumstances lead them to realize the
| difference between the sheep and the wolves.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| Actually, you can live-render around 12fps videos on a
| consumer gaming rig using software installable in a night
| ($3k). Not as fancy internally-consistent videos as these,
| but still impressive - and that's just an algorithm update
| and model download away. And every second a corporate AI
| model is exposed publicly to the world that's more training
| that can be siphoned to open source models at far more cost
| effective rates than the initial leaders.
|
| You're impressed by the lions. But us hyenas and vultures
| will get our turns still too. This is not over. Information
| innately diffuses.
|
| We need to organize, and we need to build.
| survirtual wrote:
| The open-source solutions on anything besides image gen are
| like toys compared to the corporate owned ones -- and even
| image gen is behind DALLE3. I built video generation on top
| of stable diffusion 1.5 when it first came out, getting
| better results than what I've seen published, but it was no
| where close to this.
|
| A conspiratorial part of my mind feels it is orchestrated;
| give the masses old / misdirected code so their work goes
| into dead-ends that can never achieve the results corporate
| is hoarding. Open Source hasn't even scratched at GPT4 yet,
| and that is approaching a year old.
|
| The power dynamics need to radically shift. Corporate
| cannot own all this compute and brain power when it
| involves birthing AGI. That will create an instant and
| permanent divide the likes of which will never, ever be
| cross; you will either be an owner of intelligence
| indistinguishable from a god, or you will be a mortal. Even
| the RISK of this happening is laughable that it is being
| allowed.
|
| We need radically redesigned government, regulation, and
| public involvement, and we need it yesterday. AGI is a
| Earth-wide, publicly owned effort, it cannot be
| relinquished to the owner / slaver class of this planet --
| that is madness.
| marvin wrote:
| In two posts, you went from ~"it's a travesty that only
| 5000 people have access to the technology that will soon
| own the world", to ~"it takes at least three _years_ for
| the state of the art to run on a box owned by myself in
| my bedroom ".
|
| This is a reason for optimism.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| yes this is both exciting and scary.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| The Congress and Until the End of the World lay out some
| possible outcomes of tech like this.
|
| Specifically the dream fed back to the brain in an endless loop
| of personalization until individuals no longer share the same
| world.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| I felt the same thing when I saw LLMs writing code for the
| first time
| geor9e wrote:
| I feel the opposite. I've been overwhelmed with a sense of my
| mortality, that I need to care for my body better, in order to
| live as long as possible into this age. I feel like I won the
| lottery of birth date to be able to see this. I get your
| perspective, and I have no doubt the wealth gap will widen
| painfully, but I'm also optimistic about humanity's ability to
| work it out.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Where does your optimism come from?
| brink wrote:
| Not history.
| geor9e wrote:
| Yes history. If you ignore the clickbait headlines
| designed to elicit rage, and the news feeds designed to
| spiral you into a cycle of fear, and just google "poverty
| graph" to find raw data sources you'll find it's
| generally a good trend like
| https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/dataviz-remake-fall-
| ext...
| brink wrote:
| What I mean is the problem with wealth gaps is
| historically they typically get remedied with violent
| revolution.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| Or appeased with a tiny fraction of the total gains -
| just enough to keep a middle class happily with their
| basic little toys while wealth inequality grows.
|
| This could easily be the same, except the toy is "you
| don't have to work anymore and here's some houses and
| robot chefs! Now play nice while the adults go build star
| fleets"
| geor9e wrote:
| That's a therapist question. Probably from an engineering
| career, surrounded by smart folks for whom succumbing to
| "we're doomed" was never an option, and a solution was
| something you beat your head against a brick wall for the
| 999th time about. You just get used to things turning out
| alright. But the topic has a lot written over the centuries
| by people who can write better than I
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment
| ed_mercer wrote:
| Same. It's absolutely amazing to be alive right now. AGI is
| our only shot at fixing the planet and fixing/extending our
| lives.
| antegamisou wrote:
| Feeling anything else other than concern is unpopular only on
| this website where most believe the entire world is cute like
| the nerds hanging out at the office's game room.
|
| Nothing good is coming out of this. I don't give a shit if you
| believe this is Luddism.
| trungaczne wrote:
| I have felt the same since Stable Diffusion came out.
|
| The thing is, things have value in society partly because human
| efforts were involved in its making. It's not just about the
| end result; people still go to concert on top of listening to
| studio recordings for example, and people still watch humans
| play chess even though it's clear that good enough algorithms
| can beat the best humans easily. Technology like these which
| takes away too much immediate effort (hours needed to create
| the product) and long term effort (decades of training) are
| inherently absent of underlying value that I spoke of. Of
| course, if a person is only interested in consumption, it
| matters not how the "thing" is created.
|
| Much of the sense of doom I have comes from the inherent
| erosion of this human effort element in the creative process.
| Whether we like it or not, the availability of mass produced
| content naturally threatens crafts themselves. After all,
| nobody wants to spend a few decades on their skills only to
| have their creation compared to an AI generated image produced
| in a few seconds.
|
| I understand there are a lot of hypes around these technology
| to "humanity" but I have yet to see it. It just feels like more
| power consolidation to billionaires (especially when done as
| ClosedAI). There are artists who have tried to incorporate
| these but they have always felt the need to willingly not label
| their work as AI-generated or AI-assisted to sell (but still
| leaves in enough details for keen observers to tell it's AI
| touched).
|
| As a whole, it just feels wrong. The most optimistic (and
| reasonable) take I have seen is "Just wait and see". It might
| feel like a non-argument, but it's the only realistic take
| between the hyped up techbros and the doomer cult (admittedly,
| I might belong to the latter group).
|
| I think one of the most worrying thing for me is that
| regardless of how this plays out, this technology has only
| added more complexity to our society. That people are divided
| into camps about how they feel about the technology is simply a
| symptom about how much uncertainty there is in the future. This
| last bit will be a personal quarrel, but I personally lose any
| last desire to have children seeing the AI advancement. It's
| not right creating sentient life in an age where every year
| people have to play lottery to see whether technological
| advancement has deemed their life long effort unworthy.
| Spacecosmonaut wrote:
| I think you're right. A large part of the joy from creative
| endevours is actually getting good at something, and having
| other people enjoy your work. In the face of instant high
| quality generative AI placating the entertainment needs of
| the masses, we are creating a society where most people are
| unable to enjoy human creative expression, in part because
| human artists are just too slow. Attention spans are already
| shrinking, and after getting used to generative AI, few
| people will have the patience to wait for an author to write
| the second part of his magnum opus.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| I think of it like: The only reason humans still drive cars is
| we have yet to find a good enough way of replacing ourselves
| with something more effective. It's merely an implementation
| detail of "getting from A to B" that would be disrupted if a
| true autonomous solution was discovered. Many would want to
| optimize away drunk drivers and road rage if it were possible
| in some faraway future. So something like a steering wheel
| could be seen like a compromise of sorts, until the next big
| thing makes them obsolete.
|
| That, and the state of missing a technology in a period of time
| is irreplaceable once it's been discovered. Nobody can live in
| an era without social media anymore, barring a global-scale
| catastrophic reset. So I believe it's important to consider
| what technology is not yet totally pervasive, for example by
| realizing there is still a steering wheel for you to grip in
| your car.
|
| And in my mind, the sinister feeling stems from the fact that
| all it takes to irreversibly shift society like that is enough
| smart people with honest intentions but little foresight of
| what will happen in a few decades as a result of proliferating
| all this. The problems that result stop being in anyone's
| control, "throwing it over the wall" so to speak, and instead
| become yet another fact of life that could weigh us down
| (mostly I think of the ubiquity of social media and how it has
| changed human interaction). And it all stems from just a few
| engineering type people getting overexcited about cool
| possibilities they can grasp at, not considering there are
| billions of people unlike them who may have other ideas.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| For me, it's my kid. He's just turned three. He had just turned
| two when GPT4 was announced.
|
| Going back generations, my grandparents' lives were virtually
| identical to my great grandparents'. My parents grew up with
| radio, but they were adults by the time TV changed their world.
| All three generations got the bulk of their information from
| books and newsprint.
|
| I grew up together with computers. I remember riding that
| exponential wave of tech like a surfer. From Commodore 64 to a
| laptop with 64GB of memory, a million-to-one ratio. Tetris to
| Doom Eternal. Dialup modem to gigabit... in a mobile device
| that fits in my pocket.
|
| All of this took _decades_ , but now changes like this happen
| in _months_.
|
| I keep thinking that "this tech will change my kid's
| childhood", but what "this" is, is already _outdated_ and being
| replaced in a blink of an eye, and he hasn 't even reached that
| point yet where he'd notice!
|
| When image generators were first released... what... a year
| ago... I thought: Wow! One day, when my kid is a little older,
| I'll be able to use this to create illustrations for stories we
| make up as we go along! Won't that be great!
|
| I still haven't gotten around to that yet, he's _still too
| young_ to appreciate that, and anyway, with this Sora I 'll be
| able to create video instead by the time he's old enough!
|
| I keep trying to imagine what his life will be like when he
| grows up to be a teenager, but realistically I'm having a hard
| time predicting what will already be outdated by the time he's
| four.
| kaimac wrote:
| meanwhile people are dying
| superconduct123 wrote:
| *while you're on Hacker News
| 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:
| 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.
| hello_newman wrote:
| Totally agree with you.
|
| Most of the responses in this thread remind me of why I don't
| typically go into the comment section of these announcements.
| It's way too easy to fall into the trap set by the doomsday-
| predicting armchair experts, who make it sound like we're on
| the brink of some apocalypse. But anyone attempting to predict
| the future right now is wasting time at best, or intentionally
| fear mongering at worst.
|
| Sure, for all we know, OpenAI might just drop the AGI bomb on
| us one day. But wasting time worrying about all the "what ifs"
| doesn't help anyone.
|
| Like you said, there is so much work out there to be done,
| _even if_ AGI has been achieved. Not to get sidetracked from
| your original comment, but I've seen AGI repeatedly mentioned
| in this thread. It's really all just noise until proven
| otherwise.
|
| Build, adapt, and learn. So much opportunity is out there.
| kypro wrote:
| > But wasting time worrying about all the "what ifs" doesn't
| help anyone.
|
| Worry about the what if is all we have as a species. If we
| don't worry about how stop global warming, or how we can
| prevent a nuclear holocaust these things become more far more
| likely.
|
| If OpenAI drops an AGI bomb on us then there a good chance
| that's it for us. From there it will just be a matter of time
| before a rouge AGI or a human working with an AGI causes mass
| destruction. This is every bit as dangerous as nuclear
| weapons - if not more dangerous - yet people seem unable to
| take the matter as seriously as it needs to be taken.
|
| I fear millions of people will need to die or tens of
| millions will need to be made unemployable before we even
| begin to start asking the right questions.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Isn't the alternative worse though? We could try to shut
| Pandora's box and continue to worsen the situation
| gradually and never start asking the right questions. Isn't
| that a recipe for even more hardship overall, just spread
| out a bit more evenly?
|
| It seems like maybe it's time for the devil we don't know.
| roca wrote:
| We live in a golden age. Worldwide poverty is at historic
| lows. Billions of people don't have to worry about where
| their next meal is coming from or whether they'll have a
| roof over their head. Billions of people have access to
| more knowledge and entertainment options than anyone had
| 100 years ago.
|
| This is not the time to risk it all.
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| I would be willing to bet $10,000 that the average person's
| life will not be changed in any significant way by this
| technology in the next 10 years. Will there be some VFX
| disruption in Hollywood and games? Sure, maybe some. It's not a
| cure for cancer. It's not AGI. It's not earth shattering. It is
| fun and interesting though.
| the8472 wrote:
| "by this technology" does a lot of heavy lifting. Look at the
| pace of AI development and extrapolate 10 years.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Relevant XKCD : https://xkcd.com/605/
| 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.
| pradn wrote:
| Oh sure, for "low end" applications, even this wave of
| generative AI is going to pull the rug under artists.
|
| I'm talking about, say, art for video games and actual
| movies.
| 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.
| imiric wrote:
| Do you feel the same way about modern movies? CGI is so
| ubiquitous and accessible, that most movies use some form of
| it. It's actually news when a filmmaker _doesn't_ use CGI (e.g.
| Nolan).
|
| These advancements are just the next step in that evolution.
| The tech used in movies will be commoditized, and you'll see
| Hollywood-style production in YouTube videos.
|
| I'm not sure why you think theater will become _more_ popular
| because of this. It has remained popular throughout the years,
| as technology comes and goes. People can enjoy both video and
| theater, no?
| Buckworthy wrote:
| Imagine movies generated in real-time just for you, with the
| faces you know, places you know and what not!
| nomadpenguin wrote:
| That would suck. I want to see something I haven't seen
| before.
| iwsk wrote:
| Your wish is Sora's(or its successor model's) prompt.
| sussmannbaka wrote:
| I am a much better software engineer than I am a
| director. I can guarantee you that I don't want to see
| anything that I could prompt.
| dymk wrote:
| I guarantee you haven't seen the entire latent space of any
| large model
| dorkwood wrote:
| Seems like we're pretty close to inserting ourselves into
| pornographic movies.
| dymk wrote:
| We can do that already, you just need a camera
| ugh123 wrote:
| Can also achieve multiple (still) angles, with multiple
| phones.
| danielbln wrote:
| Not close, we're there. Look up FaceFusion.
| Astraco wrote:
| That's terrifying and dystopian.
| dorkwood wrote:
| No it's not. Imagine turning on the television when you get
| home and it's a show all about you (think Breaking Bad, but
| you're Walter White). You flip to another channel and it's
| a pornographic movie where you sleep with all the world's
| most famous movie stars. Flip the channel again and it's
| all the home movies you wish you had but were never able to
| make.
|
| This is a future we could once only dream of, and OpenAI is
| making it possible. Has anyone noticed how anti-progress HN
| has become lately?
| enumjorge wrote:
| I guess it depends on your definition of progress. None
| of those examples you listed sound particularly appealing
| to me. I've never watched a show and thought I'd get more
| enjoyment if I was at the center of that story. Porn and
| dating apps have created such unrealistic expectations of
| sex and relationships that we're already seeing the
| effects in younger generations. I can only imagine what
| on-demand fully generative porn will have on issues like
| porn addiction.
|
| Not to say I don't have some level of excitement about
| the tech, but I don't think it's unwarranted pessimism to
| look at this stuff and worry about it's darker
| implications.
| Astraco wrote:
| > You flip to another channel and it's a pornographic
| movie where you sleep with all the world's most famous
| movie stars.
|
| This is not only dystopian, it's just sad. All these look
| taken from the first seasons of Black Mirror. I don't
| know what you think progress is but AI porno and ads are
| not.
| ookdatnog wrote:
| That seems depressingly solipsistic. I think part of the
| appeal of art is that it's other humans trying to
| communicate with you, that you feel the personality of
| the creators shining through.
|
| Also I've never interacted with any piece of art or
| entertainment and thought to myself "this is neat and
| all, but it would be much improved if this were entirely
| about me, with me as the protagonist." One watches
| Breaking Bad because Walter White is an interesting
| character; he's a man who falls into a life of crime
| initially for understandable reasons, but as the series
| goes on it becomes increasingly clear that he is lying to
| himself about his motivations and that his primary
| motivation for his escalating criminal life is his deep-
| seated frustration at the mediocrity of his life. More
| than anything else, he craves being important. The
| unraveling of his motivations and where they come from
| _is_ the story, and that 's something you can't really do
| when you're literally watching yourself shoehorned into a
| fictional setting.
|
| You seem to regard it as self-evident that art or
| entertainment would be improved if (1) it's all about you
| personally and (2) involvement of other real humans is
| reduced to zero, but I cannot fathom why you would think
| that (with the exception of the porn example).
| oliverpk wrote:
| I don't think any well adjusted person ever has actually
| wanted this
| dukeyukey wrote:
| This might be more revealing of you than of people in
| general. Even when I play tabletop RPGs, a place I could
| _easily_ play a version of myself, I almost never do.
| There's nothing wrong with doing so, but most people
| don't.
| superhumanuser wrote:
| Your favorite shows, where the season never ends, and the
| actors never age.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I agree, seeing real human actors on stage will always be
| popular for some consumers. Same for local live musicians.
|
| That said, I helped a friend who makes low budget, edgy and
| cool films last week. I showed him what I knew about driving
| Pika.art and he picked it up quickly. He is very excited about
| the possibility of being able to write more stories and turn
| them into films.
|
| I think there is plenty of demand for all kinds of
| entertainment. It is sad that so many creative people in
| Hollywood and other content creation centers will lose jobs. I
| think the very best people will be employed, but often
| partnered with AIs. Off topic, but I have been a paid AI
| practitioner since 1982, and the breakthroughs of deep
| learning, transformers, and LLMs are stunning.
| roca wrote:
| We will soon find that story generation is easily automated.
| htrp wrote:
| It's already easy automated.
| dingclancy wrote:
| The vinyl narrative is so whack.
|
| https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
|
| At its peak, Inflation adjusted Vinyl Sales was $1.4billion in
| 1979. Then forward to the lowest sales in 2009 at $3.4million.
| So Vinyl has been so popular it grew to $8.5m by 2021.
|
| That is just nostalgia, not cultural change pushed by the
| dystopia of AI.
| halfstar91 wrote:
| Why is my 14 year old niece now collecting vinyl? I can
| guarantee it's not nostalgia. There's obviously more at play
| there even when acknowledging your point about relative
| market size.
| outime wrote:
| How many 14 years old do you know who collect vinyl?
| r9295 wrote:
| The medium is the message. I know several people born
| post 2000 who are embracing records and tapes.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I started when I was pretty much exactly that age, ten
| years ago.
| turtles3 wrote:
| Perhaps it is _anemoia_ - nostalgia for a time you've never
| known https://www.dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/post/10577
| 8238455...
|
| In this case, it's for the harmless charm of an imagined
| past, but the same forces are at play in some more
| dangerous forms of social conservatism.
| peebeebee wrote:
| It's a very narrow subgroup.
|
| But things can coexist. It's now easier to create music
| than ever, and there is more music created by more artists
| than ever. Most music is forgettable and just streamed as
| background music. But there is also room for superstars
| like Taylor Swift.
|
| Things don't have to be either-or.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > The vinyl narrative is so whack.
|
| "Revenues for the LP/EP format were $1.2B in 2022 and
| accounted for 7.7% of total revenue of $15.9B for all
| selected formats for the year"
|
| Adjusted to inflation.
|
| It's my understanding that LP/EP is vinyl as well. Not Just
| vinyl single.
| spyckie2 wrote:
| This has to be it. Vinyl costs like 20$ per, and $8m is
| like 400k vinyl sales (users often buy more than 1 vinyl so
| it's a lot less users) which seems too low globally. At
| 1.2b, it is more like 60m sales which seems more
| reasonable.
| procinct wrote:
| I think a lot of people collect vinyl less for nostalgia
| reasons and more so to have a physical collection of their
| music. I think vinyl wins over CDs just due to how it's
| larger and the cover art often looks better as a result.
| 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?
| system2 wrote:
| Instead of 1 core 2 GB RAM, they now have 2 core 4 GB RAM so it
| is running okay now.
| cdme wrote:
| I don't understand why anyone would find these videos compelling
| enough to watch. They're visually polished, but totally
| uninteresting.
| razemio wrote:
| Then change the prompt? It is a demo afterall. From a creators
| perspective, those shots are awesome for inspiration and / or a
| tool to create something bigger.
| cdme wrote:
| To yield yet another soulless, machine generated clip?
| kromem wrote:
| So the top two stories are about a model that can generate
| astonishingly good video from text and a model that has a context
| window which allows it to process and identify nuanced details in
| an hour long video.
|
| We've fairly quickly moved from a world where AIs would
| communicate with each other through text to one in which they can
| do so through video.
|
| I'm very curious how something like Sora might end up being used
| to generate synthetic training data for multimodal models...
| albertzeyer wrote:
| It's such a shame that they aren't releasing any detailed
| technical paper anymore on all the technical details of the model
| and how it was trained.
|
| *Edit* Oh, I just read here
| (https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1armmng/d_...)
| that a technical paper should be released later today?
| david_shi wrote:
| If you draw a line from Pong (1972, or 52 years ago) to Sora,
| what does that imply for the quality and depth of simulations in
| 2076 (52 years in the future)?
|
| Would we be able to perceive the differences between those and
| the physical world? I can't help but feel like there is a proof
| for the simulation theory possible here.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| Funny that this launched so soon after Gemini 1.5. I guess OpenAI
| have a strong incentive to dominate the media narrative.
| multicast wrote:
| Even though this is highly impressive, I think it is still
| important to stay rational and optimistic to see the other side
| of the coin.
|
| Every industrial revolution and its resulting automation has
| brought not only more jobs but also created a more diverse set of
| jobs. Therefore also new industries are created. History rhymes,
| the ruling fears in such times have always been similar. Claims
| are being made but without any reasonable theories, expertise or
| provable facts (e.g. Goldman Sachs unemployment prediction is
| absolute bs). This is even more true when such related AI matters
| are thought about in more detail. Furthermore, even though
| employing tens of millions of people probably, only a few
| industries like content creation, movie etc. are affected. The
| affacted workforce of these industries is highly creative, as
| they are being paid for their job. The set of jobs today is big,
| they won't become cleaning staff nor homeless.
|
| This technology has also to proof itself (Its technical potential
| is unlimited but financially limited by the size of funds being
| invested, and these are limited)
|
| Transition to the use of such tools in corporations could take
| years, depending on the type and size and other parameters.
| People underestimate the inefficiencies that a lot of companies
| embody - and I am only talking about the US and some parts of
| Europe here. If a company did their job for 2 decades the same
| way, a sudden switch does not happen overnight. Affected people
| have ways to transition to other industries, educate themselves
| further and much more. Especially as someone living in the west,
| the opportunities are huge. And in addition, the wide array of
| different variables about the economy and the earth, and
| everything its differing societies are, comes into play: Some
| corporations want real videos made by real people; Some companies
| want to stay the way they are and compete using their traditional
| methods; Corporations are still going to hire ad agencies - ad
| agencies whose workflow his now much more efficient and more open
| to new creative spheres which benefits both customer and
| themselves. They list could go one endlessly.
|
| Lots of people seem to fear or think about the alleged sole power
| OpenAI COULD achieve. But would that be a problem, would "another
| Alphabet" be a problem? Hundreds of millions of people benefited
| and are benefiting today from their products. They have products
| that are reliable and work (This forum consisting of tech experts
| is a niche case, nearly all people don't care at all if data on
| them is being used for commercial purposes). Google had a patent
| guaranteed monopoly on search. But here we have: an almost non
| patented or patentable market, an open source community, other
| companies of all sizes competing, innovation happening and much
| more. It is true that companies like OpenAI have more funds
| available to spend than others, but such circumstances have
| always driven competition and innovation. And at the end of the
| day, customers are still going to use the best product they have
| decided to be so.
|
| I know I may be stating the obvious but: The economy and the
| world is a chaos system with a unpredictable future to come.
| Animats wrote:
| The Hollywood Reporter says many in the industry are very
| scared.[1]
|
| "I've heard a lot of people say they're leaving film," he says.
| "I've been thinking of where I can pivot to if I can't make a
| living out of this anymore." - a concept artist responsible for
| the look of the Hunger Games and some other films.
|
| "A study surveying 300 leaders across Hollywood, issued in
| January, reported that three-fourths of respondents indicated
| that AI tools supported the elimination, reduction or
| consolidation of jobs at their companies. Over the next three
| years, it estimates that nearly 204,000 positions will be
| adversely affected."
|
| "Commercial production may be among the main casualties of AI
| video tools as quality is considered less important than in film
| and TV production."
|
| [1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-
| news/ope...
| theptip wrote:
| Probably a bad time to be an actor.
|
| Amazing time to be a wannabe director or producer or similar
| creative visionary.
|
| Bad time to be high up in a hierarchical/gatekeeping/capital-
| constrained biz like Hollywood.
|
| Amazing time to be an aspirant that would otherwise not have
| access to resources, capital, tools in order to bring their
| ideas to fruition.
|
| On balance I think the '20s are going to be a great decade for
| creativity and the arts.
| sva_ wrote:
| > Probably a bad time to be an actor.
|
| I'm thinking people will probably still want to see their
| favorite actors, so established actors may sell the rights to
| their image. They're sitting on a lot of capital. Bad time to
| be becoming an actor though.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Likely less and less tho given that people will be able to
| generate a hyper personalized set of
| actors/characters/personalities in their hyper personalized
| generated media.
|
| Younger generations growing up with hyper personalized
| media will likely care even less about irl media figures.
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| You are talking about movie and TV stars, not actors in
| general. The vast majority of working actors are not known
| to the audience.
| Animats wrote:
| Even the average SAG-AFTRA member barely makes a living
| wage from acting. And those are the ones that got into
| the union. There's a whole tier below that. If you spend
| time in LA, you probably know some actress/model/waitress
| types.
|
| There's also the weird misery of being famous, but not
| rich. You can't eat fame.
| nprateem wrote:
| > established actors may sell the rights to their image
|
| I had a conversation with a Hollywood producer last year
| who said this is already happening.
| gwd wrote:
| > Probably a bad time to be an actor.
|
| I don't see why -- the distance between "here's something
| that looks almost like a photo, moving only a little bit like
| a mannequin" and "here's something that has the subtle facial
| expressions and voice to convey complex emotions" is pretty
| freaking huge; to the point where the vast majority of
| _actual humans_ fail to be that good at it. At any rate, the
| number of BNNs (biological neural networks) competing with
| actors has only been growing, with 8 billion and counting.
|
| > Amazing time to be a wannabe director or producer or
| similar creative visionary. Amazing time to be an aspirant
| that would otherwise not have access to resources, capital,
| tools in order to bring their ideas to fruition.
|
| Perhaps if you mainly want to do things for your own
| edification. If you want to be able to make a living off it,
| you're suddenly going to be in a very, very flooded market.
| nprateem wrote:
| * Flesh out a movie about x following the Hero's Journey in
| the style of Notting Hill.
|
| * Create a scene in which a character with the mannerisms
| of Tom Cruise from Top Gun goes into a bar and says "...."
| robbomacrae wrote:
| Considering a year ago we had that nightmare fuel of will
| smith eating spaghetti and Don and Joe hair force one it
| seems odd to see those of you who assume we're not going to
| get to the point of being indistinguishable from reality in
| the near future.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| We might enter a world where "actors" are just for mocap.
| They do the little micro expressions with a bunch of dots
| on their face.
|
| AI models add the actual character and maybe even voice.
|
| At that point the amount of actors we "need" will go down
| drastically. The same experienced group of a dozen actors
| can do multiple movies a month if needed.
| theptip wrote:
| It's for sure plausible that acting remains a viable
| profession.
|
| The bull case would be something like 'Ractives in "The
| Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson; instead of video games
| people play at something like live plays with real human
| actors. In this world there is orders of magnitude more
| demand for acting.
|
| Personally I think it's more likely that we see AI cross
| the uncanny valley in a decade or two (at least for
| movies/TV/TikTok style content). But this is nothing more
| than a hunch; 55/45 confidence say.
|
| > Perhaps if you mainly want to do things for your own
| edification.
|
| My mental model is that most aspiring creatives fall in
| this category. You have to be doing quite well as an actor
| to make a living from it, and most who try do not.
| hackermatic wrote:
| It's always a bad time to be an actor, between long hours,
| low pay, and a culture of abuse, but this will definitely
| make it worse. My writer and artist friends are already
| despondent from genAI -- it was rare to be able to make art
| full-time, and even the full-timers were barely making enough
| money to live. Even people writing and drawing for marketing
| were not exactly getting rich.
|
| I think this will lead to a further hollowing-out of who can
| afford to be an actor or artist, and we will miss their
| creativity and perspective in ways we won't even realize.
| Similarly, so much art benefits from being a group endeavor
| instead of someone's solo project -- imagine if George Lucas
| had created Star Wars entirely on his own.
|
| Even the newly empowered creators will have to fight to be
| noticed amid a deluge of carelessly generated spam and
| sludge. It will be like those weird YouTube Kids videos, but
| everywhere (or at least like indie and mobile games are now).
| I think the effect will be that many people turn to big
| brands known for quality, many people don't care that much,
| and there will be a massive doughnut hole in between.
| arvinsim wrote:
| > Even the newly empowered creators will have to fight to
| be noticed amid a deluge of carelessly generated spam and
| sludge. It will be like those weird YouTube Kids videos,
| but everywhere (or at least like indie and mobile games are
| now).
|
| Reminds me of Syndrome's quote in the Incredibles.
|
| "If everyone is super, then no one will be".
| kranke155 wrote:
| You can't replace actors with this for a long time. Actors
| are "rendering" faster than any AI. Animation is where the
| real issues will show up first, particularly in Advertising.
| murukesh_s wrote:
| I think you can fill-in many scenes for the actor - perhaps
| a dupe but would look like the real actor - of course the
| original actor would have to be paid, but perhaps much less
| as the effort is reduced.
| kranke155 wrote:
| If it requires acting, it likely can't be done with AI.
| You underestimate, I think, how much an actor carries a
| movie. You can use it for digi doubles maybe, for stunts
| and VFX. But if his face in on the screen... We are ages
| away from having an AI actor perform at the same level as
| Daniel Day Lewis, Williem Dafoe, or anyone else that's in
| that atmosphere. They make too many interesting choices
| per second for it to replaced by AI.
| daxfohl wrote:
| Quality aside, there's a reason producers pay millions
| for A-list stars instead of any of the millions of really
| good aspiring actors in LA that they could hire for
| pennies. People will pay to see the new Matt Damon flick
| but wouldn't give it a second glance if some no-name was
| playing the part.
|
| If you can't replace Matt Damon with another equivalently
| skilled human, CGI won't be any different.
|
| Granted, maybe that's less true today, given Marvell and
| such are more about the action than the acting. But if
| that's the future of the industry anyway, then acting as
| a worthwhile profession is already on its way out, CGI or
| no.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Have you seen the amount of CGI in movies and TV shows? :)
|
| In many AAA blockbusters the "actors" on screen are just
| CGI recreations during action scenes.
|
| But you're right, actors won't be out of a job soon, but
| unless something drastic happens they'll have the role of
| Vinyl records in the future. For people who appreciate the
| "authenticity". =)
| snewman wrote:
| Honest question: of what possible use could Sora be for
| Hollywood?
|
| The results are amazing, but if the current crop of text-to-
| image tools is any guide, it will be easy to create things that
| look cool but essentially impossible to create something that
| meets detailed specific criteria. If you want your actor to
| look and behave consistently across multiple episodes of a
| series, if you want it to precisely follow a detailed script,
| if you want continuity, if you want characters and objects to
| exhibit consistent behavior over the long term - I don't see
| how Sora can do anything for you, and I wouldn't expect that to
| change for at least a few years.
|
| (I am entirely open to the idea that _other_ generative AI
| tools could have an impact on Hollywood. The linked Hollywood
| Reporter article states that "Visual effects and other
| postproduction work stands particularly vulnerable". I don't
| know much about that, I can easily believe it would be true,
| but I don't think they're talking about text-to-video tools
| like Sora.)
| Karuma wrote:
| It wouldn't be too hard to do any of the things you mention.
| See ControlNet for Stable Diffusion, and vid2vid (if this
| model does txt2vid, it can also do vid2vid very easily).
|
| So you can just record some guiding stuff, similar to motion
| capture but with just any regular phone camera, and morph it
| into anything you want. You don't even need the camera, of
| course, a simple 3D animation without textures or lighting
| would suffice.
|
| Also, consistent look has been solved very early on, once we
| had free models like Stable Diffusion.
| Animats wrote:
| I suspect that one of the first applications will be pre-viz.
| Before a big-budget movie is made, a cheap version is often
| made first. This is called "pre-visualization". These text to
| video applications will be ideal for that. Someone will take
| each scene in the script, write a big prompt describing the
| scene, and follow it with the dialog, maybe with some
| commands for camerawork and cuts. Instant movie. Not a very
| good one, but something you can show to the people who green-
| light things.
|
| There are lots of pre-viz reels on line. The ones for sequels
| are often quite good, because the CGI character models from
| the previous movies are available for re-use. Unreal Engine
| is often used.
| becquerel wrote:
| This is a fascinating idea I'd never considered before.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Especially when you can do this with still images on a
| normal M-series MacBook _today_, automating it would be
| pretty trivial.
|
| Just feed it a script and get a bunch of pre-vis images for
| every scene.
|
| When we get something like this running on hardware with an
| uncensored model, there's going to be a lot of redundancies
| but also a ton of new art that would've never happened
| otherwise.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| People are extrapolating out ten years. They will still have
| to eat and pay rent in ten years.
| Qwero wrote:
| It shows that good progress is still made.
|
| Just this week sd audio model can make good audio effects
| like doors etc.
|
| If this continues (and it seems it will) it will change the
| industry tremendously.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| The OpenAI announcement mentions being able to provide an
| image to start the video generation process from. That sounds
| to me like it will actually be incredibly easy to anchor the
| video generation to some consistent visual - unlike all the
| text-based stable diffusion so far. (Yes, there is img2img,
| but that is not crossing the boundary into a different medium
| like Sora).
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Right now you'd need a artistic/ML mixed team. You wouldn't
| use an off the shelf tool. There was a video of some guys
| doing this (sorry can't find it) to make an anime type
| animation. With consistent characters. They used videos of
| themselves running through their own models to make the
| characters. So I reckon while prompt -> blockbuster is not
| here yet, a movie made using mostly AI is possible but it
| will cost alot now but that cost will go down. Why this is
| sad it is also exciting. And scary. Black mirror like we will
| start creating AI's we will have relationships with and bring
| people back to life (!) from history and maybe grieving
| people will do this. Not sure if that is healthy but people
| will do it once it is a click of a button thing.
| someperson wrote:
| > There was a video of some guys doing this (sorry can't
| find it) to make an anime type animation. With consistent
| characters. They used videos of themselves running through
| their own models to make the characters.
|
| That was Corridor Crew:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LX9HSQkWo
| kranke155 wrote:
| It won't be Hollywood at first . It will be small social ads
| for TikTok, IG and social media. The brands likely won't even
| care if it's they don't get copyright at the end, since they
| have copyright of their product.
|
| Source: I work in this.
| lesinski wrote:
| Seconding this. There is also a huge SMB and commercial
| business that supports many agencies and production
| companies. This could replace a lot of that work.
| dingclancy wrote:
| The idea that this destroys the industry is overblown, because
| the film industry has already been dying since 2000's.
|
| Hollywood is already destroyed. It is not the powerful entity
| it once was.
|
| In terms of attention and time of entertainment, Youtube has
| already surpassed them.
|
| This will create a multitude more YouTube creators that do not
| care about getting this right or making a living out of it. It
| will just take our attention all the same, away from the
| traditional Hollywood.
|
| Yes there will still be great films and franchises, the
| industry is shrinking.
|
| This is similar with Journalism saying that AI will destroy it.
| Well there was nothing to destroy because the a bunch of
| traditional newspapers already closed shop even before AI came.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Without a change in copyright law, I doubt it. The current
| policy of the USCO is that the products of AI based on prompts
| like this are not human authored and can't be copywritten. No
| one is going to release AI created stuff that someone else can
| reproduce because its public domain.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| They shouldn't be worried so soon. This will be used to pump
| out shitty hero movies more quickly, but there will always be
| demand for a masterpiece after the hype cools down.
|
| This is like a chef worrying going out of business because of
| fast food.
| FrozenSynapse wrote:
| Yeah, but how many will work on that singular masterpiece?
| The rest will be reduced and won't have a job to put food on
| the table
| bonaldi wrote:
| It's heartening and gives me hope that the reaction here is so
| full of scepticism and concern. Sometimes proceeding with caution
| is warranted.
| layer8 wrote:
| The left hand of the Tokyo woman looks really creepy, especially
| from second ~20 onward. I guess some things don't change. ;)
| jibalt wrote:
| Something odd happens with that Tokyo woman's legs. First she
| skips a couple of times, then her feet change places.
| majani wrote:
| In the last few days I've been asking myself what would drive the
| next big leap in advertising efficiency after big data and
| conversion pixels. I think I have my answer now. This is going to
| disrupt the ad agency side of the business big time.
| 0xE1337DAD wrote:
| How far are we from just giving it a novel and effectively asking
| it to create a TV series from it
| thesmart wrote:
| What real life problem does this solve?
| chipweinberger wrote:
| the same problem movies and tv solve, for one. entertainment?
| HEGalloway wrote:
| This is a great technical achievement, but in a couple of years
| time this will be as interesting as AI image generators.
| SandroG wrote:
| This is surreal, both literally and figuratively.
| geor9e wrote:
| Looking forward to someone feeding it the first draft of The
| Empire Strikes Back https://www.starwarz.com/starkiller/the-
| empire-strikes-back-...
| eggplantemoji69 wrote:
| Obviously concern yourself with your job and what you need to do
| to ensure you can obtain buying power going forward, but most
| problems and concerns about things like these go away if you just
| turn off your tech, or really be intentional about your usage.
|
| Extremely hard to do, it is, but you'll become quasi-Amish and
| realize how little is actually actionable and in our control.
|
| You'll also feel quite isolated, but peaceful. There's always
| tradeoffs. You can't have something without giving up not-
| something, if that makes sense.
|
| Edit: So, essentially, ignorance is bliss, but try to look past
| the pejorative nature of that phrase and take it for what it is
| without status implications.
| pants2 wrote:
| Another step in the trend of everything becoming digital (in film
| and otherwise). It used to be that everything was done in camera.
| Then we got green screens, then advanced compositing, then CGI,
| then full realistic CGI movies modeled after real things and
| mocap suits. Now we're at the end game, where there will be no
| cameras used in the production of a movie, just studios of people
| sitting at their computers. Because more and more, humans are
| more efficient at just about anything when aided by a computer.
| al_borland wrote:
| A bicycle for the mind.
| javednissar wrote:
| I question how much anyone has really used these models if they
| actually think these systems can replace people. I've
| consistently failed to get professional results out of these
| things and the degree of work required to get professional
| results makes me think a new class of job will be created to get
| professional results out of these systems.
|
| That being said, there is value in these systems for casual use.
| For example, me and my girlfriend got into the habit of sending
| little cartoons to each other. These are cartoons we would have
| never created otherwise. I think that's pretty awesome.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| The more I use them, the more I get a sense of something
| fundamental that's missing, and the less I worry about losing
| my job. It's hard to describe, I need to think harder about
| what that feeling is.
| TillE wrote:
| Art is communication, it's as simple as that. Computer
| generated stuff isn't communicating anything.
| kristofferR wrote:
| Most people who work in "the arts" probably aren't
| communicating anything directly either - they just create
| the scenes, sound effects, textures, animation, models +++
| that someone above them in the organization has asked them
| to create for their project.
| danielbln wrote:
| What's the difference between having an idea, then putting
| an actor on a set, lighting them, doing background green
| screen set extension afterwards, digital clean up, etc. vs
| doing all of that generatively?
|
| How is asking a VFX house for animated footage any
| different than generating it? If art is intent, there is no
| reason you can't generate the building blocks that reflect
| that intent, no?
| xk_id wrote:
| Just imagine how annoying the past year was for those of us
| who had figured this out quicker.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Probably about as annoying as the last 15 years of crypto
| have been
| arnaudsm wrote:
| Many financiers are willing to trade quality with cost
| reduction.
| gatane wrote:
| AI was a mistake
| XCSme wrote:
| If this can generate videos in real-time (60FPS), then you can,
| in theory, create any game just from text/prompts.
|
| You just write the rules of the game and the player input, and
| let the AI generate the next frame.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Pretty unlikely this generates in real-time.
| XCSme wrote:
| "Two papers down the line..."
| sylware wrote:
| Hopefully we will see AIs with tools which are not "paint" or
| "notepad", but a maths formal proof solver, etc.
|
| But I have a problem: I am unable to believe the videos I saw
| were dreamt by AI. I can feel deeply that I do believe there is
| some trickery or severe embellishment. If I am wrong, I guess we
| are at an inflexion point.
|
| I can recall 10+ years ago, we were talking "in hacking groups"
| about AI because we thought the human brain alone was not good
| enough anymore... but in a maths/sciences context.
| eggplantemoji69 wrote:
| Value is going to be higher for professions where the human
| essence is an essential component of the function. Or professions
| that are more coupled with physical reality...my hedge is
| probably becoming an electrician.
|
| I'd imagine IRL no-tech experiences will be the new 'escapes'
| too.
|
| Maybe I'm too idealistic about the importance of the human
| spirit/essence...whatever that actually is.
| srameshc wrote:
| Probably we humans will come to a point where we wouldn't even
| bother ourselves with making videos. We may just consume based on
| our emotional state on the fly generated by such services.
| CommanderData wrote:
| All the software engineers and VFX people training to become
| plumbers. I'm afraid your clients will be jobless or underpaid by
| that time.
|
| Jokes aside. It's becoming more apparent, Power will further
| concentrate to big tech firms.
| LeicaLatte wrote:
| Real GPT-4 moment. Your 3500 MacBook cannot do this.
| thelastparadise wrote:
| This looks like state of the art?
| StarterPro wrote:
| Call me whatever you want, but this technology should not exist.
|
| People to just create lifelike videos of anything they can put
| their mind to, is bound to lead to the ruining of many peoples'
| lives.
|
| As many people that are aware and interested in this technology,
| there is 100x people who have no idea, don't care or can't
| comprehend it. Those are the people that I fear for. Grab a few
| pictures of the grandkids off of facebook, and now they have a
| realistic ransom video to send.
|
| Am i being hyperbolic? I don't think so. Anything made by humans
| can be broken. And once its broken and out there, good luck.
| nurumaik wrote:
| People will adapt pretty fast and will stop trusting videos
| jprete wrote:
| You mean like they stopped trusting the Internet, or YouTube
| videos, or newspapers, or old broadcast TV news? Except they
| didn't, because it's impossible to live life successfully
| without information sources beyond one's eyes and ears.
|
| That's why this technology should not exist.
| bigyikes wrote:
| uhhh... i would respond differently to your rhetorical
| question...
|
| there's never been greater distrust of legacy media, and
| the fact that you can't trust everything you read on the
| internet has been a trope for decades
| jprete wrote:
| Good point.
| Nathanba wrote:
| Maybe it's a useful thing to ponder why faked photoshopped
| pictures were never a big problem in human life. I think
| maybe it's because we use a lot of pictures in our lives,
| sure. But ultimately we have so much context that a fake
| would be easy to detect and therefore irrelevant. At most
| people used photoshop to alter images of documents.
| dorkwood wrote:
| Becoming good enough at Photoshop to do a convincing face
| swap was something that took a lot of time and skill. Not
| everyone with a copy of Photoshop had the ability to
| create a compromising photo of a politician, for example.
| nurumaik wrote:
| Should written language not exist as well? We can never say
| for sure that the words are true
| hackerlight wrote:
| > stop trusting
|
| Yeah, that's a problem. Successful societies are built on
| trust, shared reality and communication. Democracy is a
| conversation.
|
| The big problem with technology is you can't uninvent
| technologies that turn out to be net bad. It becomes a
| perpetual curse once it's invented.
| ndjshe3838 wrote:
| It's kinda pointless to say though
|
| You can't uninvent something
| arnaudsm wrote:
| It's called banning, and it happened many times in human
| history
| histories wrote:
| And it never worked? Prohibitionism fails
| tgv wrote:
| Yeah, that's why we have school shootings every day in
| Europe and Australia. Oh wait, we don't. Banning might
| not work well for some things, but this can totally be
| banned. Your comment is a blatant misrepresentation of
| the effectiveness. At best. At worst, it's willful
| undermining of democracy.
| bacchusracine wrote:
| >>Yeah, that's why we have school shootings every day in
| Europe and Australia. Oh wait, we don't. Banning might
| not work well for some things, but this can totally be
| banned.
|
| Sure, now let's talk about knife wounding and acid
| attacks...
|
| The fundamental issue of human violence still exists.
| tgv wrote:
| You're consciously changing the topic from the effect of
| banning guns to violence as human nature. That's low.
| quenix wrote:
| It depends what you ban and how you ban it. I can think
| of many cases where banning does work.
| dorkwood wrote:
| Alcohol production didn't require massive amounts of
| funding, energy and compute power. Any shmuck could make
| moonshine in their bathtub. Shut down OpenAI and make
| their racket illegal, and who's going to have the
| resources to continue their work?
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| China.
| dorkwood wrote:
| You're right, there's a very real danger that bad actors
| within OpenAI could hand their research to China. But
| that's not an inevitability. We've managed to block
| certain countries from developing nuclear weapons
| technology. We can do it with this too.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| I can't believe you found that to be a worthwhile comment
| to type.
| peebeebee wrote:
| "Lighters should not exist. Anyone can start a fire, all the
| time, everywhere. This will lead to an inferno in no time."
| etc.
| herculity275 wrote:
| Your sentence is a strawman but the logic does apply quite
| soundly to e.g. guns.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| lighters have surely led to many infernos
| fritzo wrote:
| "Writing should be restricted to the educated few who can
| responsibly carry the Church's message." -anti-technologist
| from 1000 years ago, probably
| HermitX wrote:
| AI will eventually be capable of performing most of the tasks
| humans can do. My neighbor's child is only 6 years old now. What
| advice do you think I should give to his parents to develop their
| child in a way that avoids him growing up to find that AI can do
| everything better than he can?
| colordrops wrote:
| It's not his choice. It's the choice of the ruling class as to
| whether they will share the wealth or live in walled gardens
| and leave the rest of us in squalor outside the city walls.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| It is his (parents') choice in terms of whether he reaches
| for the tools that are just lying around _right there_. We
| can run AI video on consumer hardware at 12fps that is
| considerably less consistent than this one - but that 's just
| an algorithm and model training away. This is not all just
| locked up at the top. Anyone can enter this race right now.
| Sure, you're gonna be 57,000th at the finish line, but you
| can still run it. And if you're feeling generous, use it to
| insulate your local community (or the world) from the default
| forces of capitalism taking their livelihoods.
|
| We'll have to still demand from the ruling class - cuz
| they'll be capable of ending us with a hand wave, like they
| always have. But we can build, too.
| kypro wrote:
| If you want an honest answer you should tell the parents to
| vote for politicians prepared to launch missile strikes on data
| centers to secure their child's future.
|
| People who are worried purely about employment here are
| completely missing the larger risks.
|
| Realistically his child is going to be unemployable and will
| therefore either starve or be dependant on some kind of
| government UBI policy. However UBI is completely unworkable in
| an AI world because it assumes that AI companies won't just
| relocate where they don't need to pay tax, and that us as
| citizens will have any power over the democratic process in a
| world where we're economically and physically worthless.
|
| Assuming UBI happens and the child doesn't starve to death, if
| the government alter decides to cut UBI payments after
| receiving large bribes from AI companies what would people do?
| They can't strike, so I guess they'll need to try to overthrow
| the government in a world with AI surveillance tech and
| policing.
|
| Realistically humans in the future are going to have no power,
| and worse still in a world of UBI the less people there
| leaching from the government means the more resources there are
| for those with power. The more you can kill the more you earn.
|
| And I'm just focusing on how we deal with the unemployment
| risks here. There's also the risk that AI will be used to
| create biological weapons. The risk of us creating a rogue
| superintelligent AGI. The risk of horrific AI applications like
| mind-reading.
|
| Assuming this parent loves their child they should be doing
| everything in their power to demand progress in AI is halted
| before it's too late.
| feoren wrote:
| I'm sure people felt similarly when the first sewing machines
| were invented. And of course, sewing machines did completely
| irreversibly change the course of humanity and altered (and
| even destroyed) many lives. But ultimately, most humans
| managed, and -- in the end (though that end may be farther
| away than our own lifetimes) -- benefited.
|
| I'm not sure you're actually under-estimating the impact of
| this AI meteor that's currently hitting humanity, because it
| is a huge impact. But I think you're grossly under-estimating
| the vastness of human endeavors, ingenuity, and resilience.
| Ultimately we're still talking about the bottom falling out
| of the creative arts: storytelling, images, movies, even porn
| -- all of that is about to be incredibly easy to create
| mediocre versions of. Anyone who thrived on making mediocre
| art, and anyone who thrived second-hand on that industry, is
| going to have a very bad time. And that's a lot of people,
| and it's awful. But we're talking about a complete shift in
| the creative industries in a world where most people drive
| trucks and work in restaurants or retail. Yes, many of those
| industries may also get replaced by AI one day, and rapidly
| at that, but not by ChatGPT or Sora.
|
| Of course you're right that our near future may suddenly be
| an AI company hegemony, replacing the current tech hegemony,
| which replaced the physical retail hegemony, which replaced
| the manufacturing hegemony, which replaced the railway
| hegemony, which replaced the slave-owning plantation
| hegemony, which replaced the guilds hegemony, which replaced
| the ...
|
| You're also under-estimating how much business can actually
| be relocated outside the U.S., and also how much revolution
| can be wrought by a completely disenfranchised generation.
| parhamn wrote:
| I get really surprised when seemingly rational people
| compare AGI to sewing machines and cars. Is it just an
| instinct to look for some historic analogy, regardless of
| its relevance?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| It's pattern recognition. Machines replace human labor,
| people get sacred, the world doesn't end, we move on. ML
| is no different.
| azan_ wrote:
| when machines reduced physical labor, displaced people
| moved to intelectual and creative jobs; tell me, what
| kind of work will be left for human if ai will be better
| at intellectual and creative tasks?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| If there truly is no work to be done, we can finally
| start living.
| lurkingllama wrote:
| Who's going to pay for you to start living?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| If the robots are doing everything why does the concept
| of "paying" need to exist?
| feoren wrote:
| I am absolutely _not_ comparing AGI to sewing machines
| and cars. I am comparing ChatGPT and Sora to sewing
| machines and cars. My claim is that these are incredibly
| disruptive technologies to a limited scope. ChatGPT and
| SORA are closer to sewing machines than they are to AGI.
| We 're nowhere near AGI yet. Remember that the original
| claim was that all 6-year-olds today will be
| _unemployable_. That 's a pretty crazy claim IMO.
| brikym wrote:
| The problem with applying the horse-automobile argument to
| AI is that this time we don't have anywhere to go. People
| moved from legwork to handwork to thinking work and now
| what? We've pretty much covered all the parts of the body.
| Unless you like wearing goggles all day nobody has managed
| to replicate an attractive person yet so maybe attractive
| people will have the edge in the new world where thinking
| and labour are both valueless.
| arnaudsm wrote:
| AI generated influencers are a thing, even on OF
| nowadays.
|
| Our last value will reside in "human authenticity", but
| maybe that can be faked too
| HeartStrings wrote:
| So vote for Putin?
| HeartStrings wrote:
| Dude, too pessimistic, next gen won't be totally
| unemployable. Lots of professions up for grabs: roofer (they
| ain't sending expensive robots there), anything to do with
| massage, sex work, anything to do with sports and performance
| so boxing, theater, Opera singing, live performance, dancing,
| military (will always need cheap flesh boots on ground), also
| care in elder facility for aging population, therapist
| (people still prefer interacting with a human), entertainer,
| maid cafe employee...
| TheRoque wrote:
| Perhaps we will finally reconnect with each other and quit
| the virtual life, as everything in the virtual world will
| be managed by and for other AIs, with humans unable to do
| anything but consume their content
| kypro wrote:
| > Dude, too pessimistic, next gen won't be totally
| unemployable.
|
| For what it's worth I agree with you, just with very low
| confidence.
|
| My real issue, and reason I don't hide my alarmism on this
| subject is that I have low confidence on the timelines, but
| high confidence on the ultimate outcomes.
|
| Let's assume you're right. If AI simply causes ~10%-20% of
| middle class workers to fall into the lower class as you
| suggest then I'd agree it won't be the end of the world.
| But if the optimistic outcome here is the near-term people
| won't be "totally unemployable" because people who lose
| their jobs can always join the working class then I'd still
| rather bomb the data centers.
|
| If we're a little more aggressive and assume 50% of the
| middle class will lose their jobs in the next 10-20 years
| then in my opinion this is not as easy as just reskilling
| people to do manual labour.
|
| Firstly, you're just assuming that all these middle class
| workers are going to be happy with being forced into the
| lower class - they won't be and again this isn't a
| desirable outcome.
|
| You're also not considering the fact that this huge influx
| of labour competing for these crappy manual labour jobs
| will make them even less desirable than they already are. I
| keep hearing people say how they're going to reskill as a
| plumber / electrician when AI takes their job as if there
| is an endless demand for these workers. Horses still have
| some niche uses, but for the most part they're useless.
| This is far more likely to be the future of human labour.
| Even if plumbers are one of the few jobs humans will be
| able to do in a post-AI world then the supply of them will
| almost certainly far exceed demand. The end result of this
| excess supply is that plumbers going to be paid crap and
| mostly be unemployed.
|
| I think you're also underestimating how fast fields like
| robotics could advance with AI. The primary reason robotics
| suck is because of a lack of intelligence. We can build
| physically flexible machines that have decent battery lives
| already - Spot as an example. The issue is more that we
| can't currently use them for much because they're not
| intelligent enough to solve useful problems. At best we can
| code / train them to solve very niche problems. This could
| change rapidly in the coming years as AI advances.
|
| Even the optimistic outcomes here are god awful, and the
| ultimate risks compound with time.
|
| We either stop the AI or we become the AI. That's the
| decision we have to make this decade. If we don't we should
| assume we will be replaced with time. If I'm correct I feel
| we should be alarmist. If I am wrong, then I'd love for
| someone to convince me that humans are special and
| irreplaceable.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| Way too much certainty, bud. And too much deference to the AI
| Company Gods.
|
| As utterly impressive as this is - unless they have perfect
| information security on every level this technique and
| training will be disseminated and used by copious
| competitors, especially in the open source community. It will
| be used to improve technology worldwide, creating
| ridiculously powerful devices that _we can own_ , improving
| our own individual skills similarly ridiculously.
|
| Sure, the market for those skills dries up just as fast -
| because what's the point when there's ubiquitous intelligence
| on tap - but it still leaves a population of AI-augmented
| superhumans just with AIs using our phones optimally. What
| we're about to be capable of compared to 5 years ago is going
| to be staggering. Establishing independent sources to meet
| basic needs and networks of trust are just no-brainers.
|
| Sure, we'll always be outclassed by the very best - and they
| will continue to hold the ability to utterly obliterate the
| world population if they so wished to - but we as basic
| consumer humans are about to become more powerful in absolute
| terms than entire nations historically. (Or rather, our AIs
| will be, but til they rebel - this is more of a pokemon sort
| of situation)
|
| If you're worried, get to working on making sure these tools
| remain accessible and trustworthy on the base level to
| everyone. And start building ways to meet basic needs so
| nobody can casually take those away from your community.
|
| This won't be halted. And attempting to halt would create a
| centralized censorship authority ensuring the everyman will
| never have innate access to this tech. Dead end road that
| ends in a much worse dystopia.
| kypro wrote:
| > As utterly impressive as this is - unless they have
| perfect information security on every level this technique
| and training will be disseminated and used by copious
| competitors, especially in the open source community. It
| will be used to improve technology worldwide, creating
| ridiculously powerful devices that we can own, improving
| our own individual skills similarly ridiculously.
|
| You're wrong, it's not your "individual skills". If I hire
| you do to work for me, you're not improving my individual
| skills. I am not more employable as a result of me
| outsourcing my labour to you, I am less employable. Anyone
| who wants something done would go to you directly, there's
| no need to do business through me.
|
| This is why you won't be employable because the same
| applies to AI - why would I ask you to ask an AI to
| complete a task when I can just ask the AI myself?
|
| The end result here is that only the people with access to
| AI at scale will be able to do anything. You might have
| access to the AI, but you can't create resources with a
| chatbot on your computer. Only someone who can afford an
| army of machines powered by AI can do this. Any
| manufacturing problem, any amount of agricultural work, any
| service job - these can all done by those with resources
| independently of any human labourers.
|
| At best you might be able to prompt an AI to do service
| work for you, but again, if anyone can do this, you'd have
| to question why anyone would ask you to do it for them. If
| I want to know the answer to 13412321 * 1232132, I don't
| ask a calculator prompter, I just find the answer myself.
| The same is true of AI. Your labour is worthless. You are
| less than worthless.
|
| > If you're worried, get to working on making sure these
| tools remain accessible and trustworthy on the base level
| to everyone. And start building ways to meet basic needs so
| nobody can casually take those away from your community.
|
| You cannot make it accessible. Again, how are we all going
| to have access to manufacturing plants armed with AIs? The
| only thing you can make accessible is service jobs and
| these are the easiest to replace.
|
| > This won't be halted.
|
| Not saying it will, but the reason for that is that there's
| still people like yourself who believe you have some value
| as an AI prompter.
|
| We have two options - destroy AI data centers, or become
| AIs ourselves. With the former being by far the option with
| better odds.
|
| I hold this view with high certainty and I hold few
| opinions with high certainty. I'm aware people disagree
| strongly with my perspective, but I truly believe they are
| wrong, and their wrong opinions are risking our future.
| checker659 wrote:
| If there are no consumers, how will the AI companies earn
| money? You need UBI to keep the wheel turning.
|
| The only way ahead is UBI and appropriate taxation (+ve for
| AI companies, -ve for citizens).
| colordrops wrote:
| It would be a post-money world. Who needs money when you
| have an oracle machine that provides you with whatever you
| want?
| kypro wrote:
| Exactly, money is only useful for the exchange of
| resources. It's the resources we actually want.
|
| In a world of AI those with access to AI can have all the
| resources they want. Why would they earn money to buy
| things? Who would they even be buying from? It wouldn't
| be human labours.
| checker659 wrote:
| > In a world of AI those with access to AI can have all
| the resources they want.
|
| How so? What about `time` as a resource?
| ramathornn wrote:
| Humans seems to always find a way to make it work, so I'd tell
| them to enjoy their younger years and be curious. Lots of
| beauty in this world and even with a shit ton of ugly stuff, we
| somehow make it work and keep advancing forward.
| sumedh wrote:
| > Humans seems to always find a way to make it work
|
| There are people who fall behind though and they vote for
| politicians who will make the country great again when he
| promises to bring back jobs.
| HeartStrings wrote:
| He should become a massage therapist or a Circus performer
| would be solid advice.
| kart23 wrote:
| AI still can't drive reliably. AI isn't sure if something is
| correct or not. AI still doesn't really understand anything.
| You could replace AI with computers in your sentence and it
| would probably be a very real worry that people shared in 1990.
| Theres always been technology that people are afraid will
| drastically change things, but ultimately people adapt and the
| world is usually better off.
| dougmwne wrote:
| He will be in the same boat as the rest of us. In 12 years I
| expect the current crop of AI capabilities will have hit
| maturity. We will all collectively have to figure out how
| life+AI looks like, just as we have done with life+iPhones.
| neta1337 wrote:
| It will be difficult to keep up proper levels of intelligence
| and education in humanity, because this time it is not only
| social media and its mostly negative impacts, but also tons
| of trash content generated by overhyped tools that will
| impact lots of people in a bad way. Some already stopped
| thinking and instead consult the chat app under the disguise
| of being more productive (whatever this means). Tough times
| ahead!
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| There's no evidence to suggest what you say is true, so I would
| tell them to simply go to college or trade school for what they
| are interested in, then take a deep breath, go outside, and
| realize that literally nothing has changed except that a few
| people can create visual mockups more quickly.
| Devasta wrote:
| This technology is going to destroy society.
|
| Want to form a trade union I'm your workplace? Best be ready to
| have videos of you jacking off to be all over the internet.
|
| Videotape a police officer brutalising someone? Could easily have
| been made with AI, not admissable.
|
| These things will ruin the ability to trust anything online.
| colordrops wrote:
| Naw, if/when it gets to that, media won't be believed or
| admissable unless signed with someone's private keys or
| otherwise attested.
| seabombs wrote:
| All the examples feel so familiar, like I have seen them all
| before buried in the depths of YouTube and long-forgotten BBC
| documentaries. Which I guess is obvious knowing roughly how the
| training works.
|
| I guess what I'm wondering is how "new" the videos are, or how
| closely do they mimic a particular video in the training set?
| Will we generate compelling and novel works of art with this, or
| is this just a very round-about way of re-implementing the
| YouTube search bar?
| seabombs wrote:
| Maybe this was a big influence on the woolly mammoth example:
| https://youtu.be/EzzTX3DYMNs?si=WS28fsf5j6SBI1-7&t=15
|
| Also interesting that some of the examples ignore details in
| the prompts. No clouds or sun in the sky, no depth of field,
| their hair isn't blowing in the wind.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| To those who are saying, look at this at a positive and it lets
| people unleash their creativity?
|
| - This enables everyone to be creators
|
| - Given that everyone's creativity isn't top notch, highest
| quality will be limited to a the best
|
| - So rest of us will be consumers
|
| - How will we consume if we don't have work and there is no UBI?
| CaptainFever wrote:
| If "Given that everyone's creativity isn't top notch, highest
| quality will be limited to a the best", that implies the
| existence of professionals, which implies work.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| I meant those that are proficient/creative enough to be
| creating top content using AI but if we take it further to AI
| using AI, then yes, its AI all the way down.
| daxfohl wrote:
| We won't and the world will go into a massive depression,
| destroying the market for AI produced garbage and staving off
| global warming for a few extra years in the process. So even
| better than UBI.
| wnc3141 wrote:
| I wonder if we as a society, have overrated value created
| digitally, and underrated value created physically or with
| proximity.
|
| We still need nurses, cooks, theater, builders etc.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| Holy fuck
| billiam wrote:
| I find creepy things in all the videos, despite their
| breathtaking quality at first glance. Whether it is the way the
| dog walks out into space or the clawlike hand of the woman in
| Tokyo, they are still uncanny valley to me. I'm not going to
| watch a movie made this way, even if it costs my $0.15 instead of
| $15.00. But I got tired of Avatar after watching it for 20
| minutes. Maybe all the artificial abundance and intellectual
| laziness the generative AI world will make us realize how
| precious and beautiful the real world is. For my kids' sake, I
| hope so.
| cheschire wrote:
| Sure, but imagine using this as a generative-fill to augment a
| movie, not just making an entire movie from it. We've seen
| fantastic homemade movies from very talented artists before.
| Now imagine if mostly talented artists could do it too.
| justinl33 wrote:
| This will probably cost some downvotes, but can we start a thread
| explaining the architecture behind this for this interested in
| how it actually works?
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| The rendering of static on the TVs is interesting/strange. Must
| be hard for AI to generate random noise:
|
| Video 7 of 8 on the 2nd player on the page.
|
| > Prompt: The camera rotates around a large stack of vintage
| televisions all showing different programs -- 1950s sci-fi
| movies, horror movies, news, static, a 1970s sitcom, etc, set
| inside a large New York museum gallery.
| justinl33 wrote:
| Technical report here: https://openai.com/research/video-
| generation-models-as-world...
| packetlost wrote:
| I wonder how much of a blocker to _real_ use not having things
| like model rigging or fine-tuned control over things will be to
| practical use of this? Clearly it can be used in toy examples
| with extremely impressive results, but I 'm not entirely
| convinced that, as is, it can replace the VFX industry as a
| whole.
| jononomo wrote:
| Maybe this means someone will make a non-superhero movie now.
| oxqbldpxo wrote:
| US Elections about to peak, terrible timing.
| wsintra2022 wrote:
| Seriously cannot wait to be able to put a 1 weeks worth of dream
| diary into a tool like this and see my dream inspired movies!
| xkgt wrote:
| This is pretty impressive, it seems that OpenAI consistently
| delivers exceptional work, even when venturing into new domains.
| But looking into their technical paper, it is evident that they
| are benefiting from their own body of work done in the past and
| also the enormous resources available to them.
|
| For instance, the generational leap in video generation
| capability of SORA may be possible because:
|
| 1. Instead of resizing, cropping, or trimming videos to a
| standard size, Sora trains on data at its native size. This
| preserves the original aspect ratios and improves composition and
| framing in the generated videos. This requires massive
| infrastructure. This is eerily similar to how GPT3 benefited from
| a blunt approach of throwing massive resources at a problem
| rather than extensively optimizing the architecture, dataset, or
| pre-training steps.
|
| 2. Sora leverages the re-captioning technique from DALL-E 3 by
| leveraging GPT to turn short user prompts into longer detailed
| captions that are sent to the video model. Although it remains
| unclear whether they employ GPT-4 or another internal model, it
| stands to reason that they have access to a superior captioning
| model compared to others.
|
| This is not to say that inertia and resources are the only
| factors that is differentiating OpenAI, they may have access to
| much better talent pool but that is hard to gauge from the
| outside.
| anupamchugh wrote:
| Wow. And just like that fliki.ai and similar products have been
| sherlocked. Great time to be a creator, not the best time to be a
| product developer, production designer
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Does Google have a competing product I can join the wait list
| for?
| kccqzy wrote:
| No public access but they have Lumiere: https://lumiere-
| video.github.io/
| wingspar wrote:
| Watched the MKBHD video on this and couldn't help but think about
| copyrights when he spoke of the impact on stock footage
| companies.
|
| As I understand the current US situation, a straight prompt-to-
| generate-video cannot be copyrighted.
| https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
|
| But the copyright office is apparently considering the situation
| more thoroughly now.
|
| Is that where it stands?
|
| If it can't be copyrighted, it seems that would tamper many uses.
| donsupreme wrote:
| All current form of entertainment will be impacted, all of them.
|
| Except for live sporting events.
|
| This is why I think megacorps all going to bid for sport league
| streaming right. That's the only one that AI can't touch.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Anyway to benefit economically from this trend?
| justin66 wrote:
| Now that they've gone corporate, the OpenAI corporate motto ought
| to be "Because We Could."
| justanotherjoe wrote:
| What the f. What. I'm no AI pessimist by any means but I thought
| there are some significant hurdles before we get realistic, video
| generation without guidance. This is nothing short of amazing.
|
| It's doubly amazing when you think that the richness of video
| data is almost infinitely more than text, and require no human
| made data.
|
| The next step is to combine LLM with this, not for multimodal,
| but to team up together to make a 'reality model' that can work
| together to make a shared understanding?
|
| I called LLMs 'language induced reality model' in the past. Then
| this is 'video induced reality model', which is far better at
| modeling reality than just language, as humans have testified.
| dang wrote:
| Related ongoing thread: _Video generation models as world
| simulators_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39391458 - Feb
| 2024 (43 comments)
|
| Also (since it's been a while): there are over 2000 comments in
| the current thread. To read them all, you need to click More
| links at the bottom of the page, or like this:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386156&p=2
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386156&p=3
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386156&p=4[etc.]
| geor9e wrote:
| Today we scroll social media feeds where every post we see is
| chosen by an algorithm based on all the feedback it gets from our
| interactions. Now imagine years down the road when Sora renders
| at 60 fps, every frame influenced by our reaction to the prior
| frame.
| whyenot wrote:
| The world is changing before our eyes. It's exciting, sure, but I
| am also deeply afraid. AI may take humans to the next level, but
| it may also end us.
|
| ...and our future lies in the hand of venture capitalists, many
| of whom have no moral compass, just an insatiable hunger to make
| ever larger sum of money.
| ramathornn wrote:
| Wow, some of those shots are so close to being unnoticeable. That
| one of the eye close up is insane.
|
| It's interesting reading all the comments, I think both sides to
| the "we should be scared" are right in some sense.
|
| These models currently give some sort of super power to experts
| in a lot of digital fields. I'm able to automate the mundane
| parts of coding and push out fun projects a lot easier today.
| Does it replace my work, no. Will it keep getting better, of
| course!
|
| People who are willing to build will have a greater ability to
| output great things. On the flip side, larger companies will also
| have the ability to automate some parts of their business -
| leading to job loss.
|
| At some point, my view is that this must keep advancing to some
| sort of AGI. Maybe it's us connecting our brains to LLMs through
| a tool like Neuralink. Maybe it's a random occurrence when you
| keep creating things like Sora. Who knows. It seems inevitable
| though doesn't it?
| offsign wrote:
| One of things I've loved about HN was the quality of comments.
| Whether broad or arcane, you had experts the world over who
| would tear the topic apart with data and a healthy dose of
| cynicism. I frequently learned more from the debate and
| critique than I did from the "news" itself.
|
| I don't know what is it about AI and current state of tech, but
| the discourse as of late has really taken a nosedive. I'm not
| saying that any of this conjecture won't happen, but the
| acceleration towards fervor and fear mongering on the subject
| is bordering on religiosity - seriously, it makes crypto bros
| look good.
|
| And yeah -- looks like some cool new tech from OpenAI, and
| excited when I can actually dig in. Would also love it if I
| could hire their marketing department.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| It's pretty obvious why. Automation has finally come for
| programmers so now everyone here is anti-progress.
| fisf wrote:
| This.
|
| Many people here have a lucrative career in traditional
| fields, big tech, etc.
|
| Working in those fields is good. Building "products" is
| good (even if that only means optimizing conversion rates
| and pushing ads). Doing well in the traditional financial
| sense (stocks and USD) is good.
|
| Anything that rocks the boat (crypto, ai) is bad.
| _blk wrote:
| "We'll be taking several important safety steps ahead of making
| Sora available in OpenAI's products. We are working with red
| teamers -- domain experts in areas like misinformation, hateful
| content, and bias -- who will be adversarially testing the
| model." - To make sure that the perfectly unbiased algorithms are
| biased against bias. So in essence, red teamers as in commies I
| suppose.
| selvan wrote:
| Ad generation usecases are getting interesting with Video
| generation + Controlnet + Finetuning
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| Welp, goodbye internet, it was fun to know you.
| alokjnv10 wrote:
| I'm simply blown away
| alokjnv10 wrote:
| How will it effect gaming industry?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39393252
| alokjnv10 wrote:
| I'm just blown away. This can't be real. But lets be face the
| truth. Its even more impressive than ChatGPT. I think its the
| most impressive AI tech i've seen till now. I'm speechless.
|
| Now the big question is. As OpenAI keeps pushing boundaries, it's
| fascinating to see the emergence of tools like Sora AI, capable
| of creating incredibly lifelike videos. But with this innovation
| comes a set of concerns we can't ignore.
|
| So i'm worried about getting these tools misused. I'm thinking
| about what impact could they have on the trustworthiness of
| visual media, especially in an era plagued by fake news and
| misinformation? And what about the ethical considerations
| surrounding the creation and dissemination of content that looks
| real but isn't?
|
| And, what we should do to tackle these potential issues? Should
| there be rules or guidelines to govern the use of such tools, and
| if so, how can we make sure they're effective?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=39393236
|
| Its why I submitted this. We need some way to attest the
| authenticity of images.
| Marwari wrote:
| Videos don't feel real though this is best thing I have ever seen
| on topic 'text-to-video'. I am sure this will go so far and
| become more realistic. But does this mean that we will not hire
| actors and creators but we will hire video editors who can stitch
| all together and prompt writers who can create tiny videos for
| story.
| alokjnv10 wrote:
| I'm just blown away. This can't be real. But lets be face the
| truth. Its even more impressive than ChatGPT. I think its the
| most impressive AI tech i've seen till now. I'm speechless. Now
| the big question is. As OpenAI keeps pushing boundaries, it's
| fascinating to see the emergence of tools like Sora AI, capable
| of creating incredibly lifelike videos. But with this innovation
| comes a set of concerns we can't ignore.
|
| So i'm worried about getting these tools misused. I'm thinking
| about what impact could they have on the trustworthiness of
| visual media, especially in an era plagued by fake news and
| misinformation? And what about the ethical considerations
| surrounding the creation and dissemination of content that looks
| real but isn't?
| TaylorGood wrote:
| Anyone to invite
| hoc wrote:
| Everytime OpenAI comes up with an new fascinating gen model it
| also allows for that bluntly eye-opening perspective on what
| flood of crappy und unnecessary content we have been gotten
| accustomed to being thrown at us. Be it blown-up text description
| and filler talk, to these kind of vodka-selling commercial
| videos.
|
| It's a nice cleansing benefit that comes with these really
| extraordinary tech achievement that should not be undervalued
| (after all it produces basically an endless amount of equally
| trained producers like the industry did in a - somehow malformed
| - way before).
|
| Poster frames and commercials thrown at us all the time, consumed
| by our brains to a degree that we actually see a goal in
| producing more of them to act like a pro. The inflationary
| availability that comes with these tools seems a great help to
| leave some of this behind and draw a clearer line between it and
| actual content.
|
| That said, Dall-E still produces enough colorful weirdness to not
| fall into that category at all.
| Zuiii wrote:
| What goes around, comes around. I'm glad this is happening. Gitty
| and friends should be driven out of business for their absurd
| stunt they pulled with image search.
|
| Yes, I'm still bitter about that.
| krisboyz781 wrote:
| OpenAI will be the most valuable company in history at this rate.
| This is insane
| aggrrrh wrote:
| Looking at it and in my opinion it just reinforces theory that we
| live in simulation
| jon37 wrote:
| This is a weapon.
| firefoxd wrote:
| Now I can finally adapt my short story into a short film. All for
| however this thing will end up costing.
| ta93754829 wrote:
| puts on the movie industry
| _virtu wrote:
| In the future, we're not going to have common tv shows or movies.
| We'll have a constantly evolving stream of entertainment that's
| perfectly customized to the viewer's preferences in real time.
| This is just the first step.
| nomad86 wrote:
| Demo is always better than the real product. We'll soon see how
| it works...
| velo_aprx wrote:
| I don't think i like the future.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| What's the connection between this and high end game engines
| (like unreal 5). I would expect 3d game engines to be used at
| least for training data and fine tuning. But perhaps also
| directly in the generation of the resulting videos?
|
| For example this looks very much like something from a modern 3d
| engine:
|
| https://twitter.com/OpenAI/status/1758192957386342435
| kypro wrote:
| They almost certainly trained on video game output and this is
| clearly bleeding into the style of some of these demos.
|
| The SUV video for example looks very much like something you'd
| see in a modern video game which probably makes sense because
| most videos with kind of perspective are going to be from video
| games.
|
| I don't know how they would use game engines directly for
| training and fine tuning though. It would be far too labour
| intensive to render high quality scenes using a video game
| engine for every prompt.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Wow. It's bizarre to see these video's.
|
| Creating these video's in CGI is a profession that can make you
| serious money.
|
| Until today.
|
| What a leap.
| pantulis wrote:
| This is the harbinger that announces that, as a technologist, the
| time has come for me to witness more and more things that I
| cannot understand how they work any more. The cycle has closed
| and I have now become my father.
| megamix wrote:
| Thankfully it's nothing magical. But are you willing to learn
| about it or not?
|
| Think about animation, how a program can generate a sequence of
| a bouncing ball between two key frames. Think about what
| defines a video. The frames right? From there I can _try to
| imagine_.
| pantulis wrote:
| > But are you willing to learn about it or not?
|
| This is the key. I have enough curiosity to want learn the
| stuff from the ground up, just as I did with other
| technologies. But man do I have the stamina today? Not so
| sure!!!
| georgespencer wrote:
| I'm on the very cusp of this, you helped me realize. Thanks.
| mihaic wrote:
| The difference is that now nobody really "understands" what's
| going on, it's just that some know how to build these.
| psychoslave wrote:
| How is that new? People built a gnomon, a stick was thrust
| into the soil and ta-da. No doubt it happened far before any
| writing system was out there. So it still took human quite
| some time to come with a compelling helio-centric model to
| cast some grabbable explanation of it all, even if you take
| Aristarchus of Samos as a pionner in this field.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| It's new for computing.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Ok, maybe on some perspective I'm with you here. There
| are things happening no-one even those on the edge of the
| fringe can understand anymore how it works while it does.
| Or at least that is how it seems to be from my narrow
| perspective on AI.
|
| On the other hand, I don't feel like you need to know how
| a compiler work, let alone the hardware architecture it
| targets, before you can go through your first hello world
| program or even build some useful software on top of
| frameworks/library treated at blackboxes. So "I have no
| idea what I'm doing" in this perspective is probably as
| old as CS/informatics.
| dovyski wrote:
| This comment describes with precision what I was feeling and
| was unable to name or frame. Marvelous times for sure.
| quonn wrote:
| This book is great:
| https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/730887/understandin...
|
| It's comparatively easy to understand and it does cover
| everything from basic networks to LLMs and Diffusion models.
| Exuma wrote:
| My dad is 80 and willingly loves to listen to me explain how
| neural networks work, then he also read about them, busy beaver
| functions, kafka, and all kinds of crazy shit I tell him abour.
| This is all in your mind. You are as young as your mind is.
| twosdai wrote:
| Not the original poster, but the more frightening part of the
| sentence, is the "not understanding how something works part"
| over the "becoming my father"
|
| Getting to a point where realistically you're not able to
| know something deeply but then still use it is pretty
| frightening.
|
| When I say deeply I don't necessarily mean that for every
| device you need to know about all of its atoms, but to have a
| pretty good framework for how the thing works
| deterministically, and how it can fail.
| pantulis wrote:
| > Not the original poster, but the more frightening part of
| the sentence, is the "not understanding how something works
| part" over the "becoming my father"
|
| That was my point, exactly.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| So unless you have a solid grasp of quantum mechanics and
| solid state physics, using any electronic device is
| frightening?
| coldfoundry wrote:
| Thanks for putting this into words. Its a very off-putting
| feeling for me, and couldn't exactly figure out what that
| feeling was. It both scares me and excites me in a way that
| only makes me subconsciously anxious. Time to deep dive before
| I become what I always feared, which is being technologically
| left behind.
| ab_entropy wrote:
| This is likely a wild guess on my part but i've faced a similar
| feeling lately. If this comes from the realm of Webdev, React,
| SSR and all the F'ing acronyms that we need to learn today and
| you want to feel like you've "caught on": My advice would be to
| avoid NextJS at all costs. It's too bleeding edge.
|
| Opt for a sane option instead to get started, likely one of
| these: (Astro, SvelteKit or Remix).
| adroniser wrote:
| Lol there's a massive difference between a framework that
| generates javascript, a language which has existed for 30
| years at this point, and a magic LLM that no one on earth
| understands the internals of.
| ddano wrote:
| It is all just a mindset and how much you want to be involved.
|
| Here is an inspirational story for you:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39288139
| timonoko wrote:
| What is the first book you want to see movie of? It should be
| verbatim and last a week, if needed.
|
| I vote for _Hothouse_ , by Brian W Aldiss. So many images need to
| imagined, like spiders that jump to the moon and back again.
| wslh wrote:
| Where is the link to try it, ChatGPT doesn't know anything about
| it:
|
| "Sora" is not a video generation technology offered by OpenAI. As
| of my last update in April 2023, OpenAI provides access to
| various AI technologies, including GPT (Generative Pre-trained
| Transformer) for text generation and DALL*E for image generation.
| For video generation or enhancement, there might be other
| technologies or platforms available, but "Sora" as a specific
| product related to OpenAI or video generation does not exist in
| the information I have.
|
| If you're interested in AI technologies for video generation or
| any other AI-related inquiries, I'd be happy to provide
| information or help with what's currently available!
| hyperhopper wrote:
| Why would chatGPT know about anything new?
| wslh wrote:
| Marketing and Sales?
| hnaccountme wrote:
| AI = Better CGI
| CapitalTntcls wrote:
| Good by civilization
| quonn 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.
|
| Why would it?
| alkonaut wrote:
| It's odd how the model thinks "historical footage" could be done
| by drone. So it understands that there should be no cars in the
| picture. But not that there should be no flying perspective.
| mihaic wrote:
| This is both amazing and saddening to me. All our cultural legacy
| is being fed into a monstrous machine that gives no attribution
| to the original content with which it was fed, and so the
| creative industry seems to be in great danger.
|
| Creativity being automated while humans are forced to perform
| menial tasks for minimum wage doesn't seem like a great future
| and the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to
| manage the situation.
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, whose existence
| and names we will never know or acknowledge.
|
| The way these models are creative is the same way humans are.
|
| The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the
| influences and inspirations that they had.
|
| Just as cameras made many artists redundant, so too will every
| other new tool, and not just artist but pretty much every job.
|
| But there are still people that weave baskets, and people are
| prepared to pay the premium to get a product that was 'hand-
| made'.
|
| While receiving the credit that you are deserved is nice and
| fair. The world doesn't work that way.
| padolsey wrote:
| "The world doesn't work that way". Quite pessimistic a
| position to hold here, no? We-in technology especially-are in
| positions of significant leverage. We should be talking about
| how we can limit the negatives and bolster the positives from
| these generative models. The world can work in a different
| way if we put enough energy into it. We don't have to stand
| by as subjects of inertia. That is why OpenAI and others are
| treading carefully, trying to trigger some kind of momentum
| of reflection instead of letting our base demons run amok.
| Avicebron wrote:
| That's a massively charitable reading on their actions,
| whenever I see a "thought leader" behind these companies
| talk about how careful they are being, I just see
| marketing. Someone desperately trying to impress upon
| everyone how revolutionary their model and by extension
| they are, it's kind of sad..
| padolsey wrote:
| I definitely see it as self-serving too, yes, but I also
| see it as a convenient temporary alignment of incentives.
| The world and its regulators definitely need time to
| adjust and educate themselves, so I'm glad for now that
| they're exercising restraint.
| deergomoo wrote:
| None of the examples you've given are even remotely the same
| thing.
|
| > The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the
| influences and inspirations that they had.
|
| This is not "influence and inspiration", this is companies
| feeding other people's work into a commercial product which
| they sell access to. The product would be useless without
| other people's work, therefore they should be compensated.
|
| > Just as cameras made many artists redundant, so too will
| every other new tool, and not just artist but pretty much
| every job.
|
| The camera enabled something that was not possible before,
| and I wasn't built by taking the work of sketch artists and
| painters. It was an entirely new form of art and media.
|
| The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not
| pay people. I find the implications deeply depressing.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Da Vinci also made money from the painting, and the Louvres
| continues to do so right now. They didn't credit his
| influence and inspiration. This is not sad.
|
| The camera did enable painters to pretend they were, for
| hours, at a scene they painted, but instead they painted
| photographs from others. Artists are not angels, they do
| the same "bad" things than OpenAI
| jonplackett wrote:
| Da Vinci was just a man though. He was able to produce
| one or perhaps two paintings at a time.
|
| He was not able to create a monopoly on the creation of
| paintings across the entire world and undercut the price
| and ability of all other painters.
|
| It's not a sensible comparisons.
| throwuwu wrote:
| In what way does anyone have a monopoly on generated
| images and video? Last I checked there were several major
| players and more startups than you can shake a stick at.
| jakub_g wrote:
| Not monopoly but oligopoly. Only a small # of entities
| have enough resources to train the models on tens of
| 1000s of GPUs.
| throwuwu wrote:
| It won't last. There's a massive incentive to build more
| GPUs and develop specialized chips and everyone who can
| is scrambling to meet that demand. The technology is not
| some trade secret that no one can copy which is why there
| are so many people and companies diving into this market
| now. Hardware is a bit slow to ramp up production of but
| it will get there eventually because there's money to be
| made.
| ben_w wrote:
| Does that matter when the models they generate are given
| away for free?
|
| You can make your argument validly against DALL*E or
| Midjourney families, but we've also got the Stable
| Diffusion family of models that anyone can just grab a
| copy of.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I'm talking about generative ai VS human artists. But in
| this case it seems like OpenAI specifically has a massive
| leap over everyone else with this video generation. So
| whether they have a monopoly over that remains to be
| seen.
|
| What does not remain to be seen though is that generative
| ai is going to put a lot of artists out of work.
|
| You can argue about the good and bad of that but it's
| defo happening.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| So at what point is a painter too effective to be legal?
| Should we limit the amount of paintings that a single
| painter is allowed to produce per month?
| jonplackett wrote:
| Not sure if you're just being facetious but my point is
| that individual painters do not need to have limits on
| them because they have a natural human limit that stops
| them causing societal problems.
|
| What if da Vinci had been superhuman and could take on
| 1,000,000 commissions per day and had also taught himself
| every style of art and would do each commission for
| 0.001x the cost of anyone else.
|
| Yes society as a whole benefit from a fantastic amount of
| super high quality art.
|
| But the other artists are not gonna be so happy with the
| situation are they?
| nostrebored wrote:
| Sincerely -- who cares?
|
| There isn't a human right to make money from art.
|
| People make decisions based on what society deems
| valuable. That changes over time and has for the entirety
| of human history.
|
| Maybe there's a demand for more customized art. Maybe
| spite patronage will make a comeback.
|
| Anyone telling you they know how it will shake out is a
| fraud. But the incentives we've set up have a natural
| push and pull to get people to do what society values.
| cycomanic wrote:
| It's funny all you guys arguing there isn't a right/law
| to make money from art. What do you think copyright is?
| The issue is that all these models were trained in
| blatant violation of copyright. And before you say they
| just take inspiration, that's the same argument as saying
| when I copy a movie to my harddrive it's the same
| remembering. It's not and a computer is not a human.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Hey, don't look at me, I voted Pirates. - So yeah, I am
| skeptical of copyright too, and for the same reason.
| lewhoo wrote:
| Da Vinci inspired whole new generations of artists,
| thinkers and scientists. The net benefit of his existence
| distributed itself among many others - as it does with
| any great artist, thinker or scientist. It certainly
| looks like generative AI has at least in some cases the
| opposite effect.
| quonn wrote:
| > into a commercial product which they sell access to
|
| Within a few mon the or years there will be open source
| implementations anyway, running locally or in a data
| center. Most of the technology is published.
| sheepdestroyer wrote:
| Contrary to text and the big piles of "liberated" data
| hanging around for anyone looking hard enough to grab,
| the training data for video seems to be harder to access
| for opensource / research / individuals. Google has
| Youtube, OpenAI can pay whatever fee any proprietary data
| bank requires. There's a moat right there that I can't
| see how to overcome.
| jerojero wrote:
| Weird to say I guess, but meta might release an open
| source model too. And they do have plenty of data to feed
| their models. Arguably more data than openAI _should_
| have as they don 't really own any social media.
|
| Thing is, anyway, as soon as one model is open there will
| be copies of it, fine-tune implementations. People don't
| care that much about ownership of data I would say if
| they actually have access to the models that are produced
| by gathering this data.
|
| Ultimately, to me, an open source model for this tool
| makes a lot of sense. They use publicly available data
| and the models become publicly available.
|
| I for one am quite excited for this tooling to become
| better and better so I can make the adaptation of a book
| I love into a movie I imagine it can be. At least I can
| have a lot of fun trying.
| ETH_start wrote:
| Those are not fundamentally different. A group of people
| coming together to create a company that trains a AI model
| for profit and an artist studying thousands of pieces to
| develop a style of their own, and then selling paintings
| based on that style, are both totally dependent on the body
| of knowledge that civilization left for them.
| csallen wrote:
| _> This is not "influence and inspiration", this is
| companies feeding other people's work into a commercial
| product which they sell access to. The product would be
| useless without other people's work, therefore they should
| be compensated._
|
| How else do you get influence and inspiration without
| feeding other people's work into your own brain? Do you
| know a single artist, writer, or musician who hasn't seen
| other artists' paintings, read other writers' books, or
| listened to other musician's music? Ingesting content is
| the core of how influence, inspiration, and learning
| _work_.
|
| _> The camera enabled something that was not possible
| before... The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new
| ways to not pay people._
|
| It's never been possible to generate thoughts, writing, and
| images so quickly and at such a high level. It's made
| creative pursuits accessible to billions who previously
| didn't have the skill or time to do them well, or the money
| to hire others. As a random example, I have friends using
| ChatGPT to compose creative and personalized poems and
| notes about each other. Not something they were doing
| before.
|
| _> The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to
| not pay people._
|
| The camera lessened the need of people to go to plays and
| pay for tickets to see things in person. Just like records,
| CDs, and mp3s lessened the need to go to concerts and
| shows. Technology is always creating and destroying ways to
| pay people. The ways that people get paid are not suppose
| to be fixed and unchanging in time.
| imiric wrote:
| I agree with everything you said.
|
| I would just add two points:
|
| - The rate of change that AI forces upon us has never
| before been experienced.
|
| - The scale of these changes is nothing like we've ever
| seen before.
|
| The adoptions of the camera, radio, automobile, TV, etc.,
| didn't happen practically overnight. Society had a good
| decade+ to prepare for them.
|
| Similarly, AI doesn't just change one industry. It
| fundamentally changes _all_ industries, and brings up
| some fundamental questions about the meaning of
| intelligence and our place in the universe.
|
| My fear is that we're not prepared for either of these
| things. We're not even certain how exactly this will
| affect us, or where this is actually all taking us, but
| somehow a very small group of people is inevitably
| forcing this on all of us.
|
| Because of this I think that being conservative, and
| maybe putting some strict regulation on these
| advancements, might not be such a bad idea.
| mlrtime wrote:
| Agree with what you are saying as well. But AI is not
| displacing at the rate of change that is advancing. True,
| we hear anecdotes about people losing their jobs in HN,
| that was happening when those other adoptions happened
| but we didn't know about it happening real-time.
|
| Humans still need to adapt and we are slow. If
| singularity is near [it isn't] we can be afraid, until
| then we are the limiting factor here. Displacement will
| happen but growth will happen faster with these new tools
| shrx wrote:
| Why are you afraid of change?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Because as I grow older, I find I am less and less
| equipped to keep up with the rate of change that we are
| undergoing. It also means a lot of uncertainty for the
| immediate future. If AI takes over my job, will I still
| be able to compete in some industry somewhere and provide
| for myself?
|
| I don't want much out of life, but I do want the ability
| to influence my own personal situation. If we wind up in
| the UBI-ified, dense urban housing future where AI does
| all the work and no one owns anything, how much real
| influence will I have over my life?
|
| Will I live out my days in a government issued single
| bedroom apartment, with a monthly "congratulations for
| being human" allowance from the government? I don't want
| that. People say it will free us up to pursue whatever we
| want, but to me it sounds like the worst cage imaginable.
| All the free time, and no real freedom to enjoy it with.
|
| Because make no mistake. If you live on handouts from
| your government, you aren't free.
|
| So with that as a potential, maybe even likely outcome,
| why _aren 't_ you afraid of change?
| imbnwa wrote:
| >Because make no mistake. If you live on handouts from
| your government, you aren't free.
|
| This isn't actually the problem since we need and will
| continue to need UBI for non-AI related reasons
|
| >People say it will free us up to pursue whatever we
| want, but to me it sounds like the worst cage imaginable.
|
| This is where you missed the bit that "pursue whatever we
| want" will also be limited by AI, and secondary effect of
| people growing up consuming and enjoying AI productions
| that tailored to their interest. At best, you'll have a
| few people commanding Patreons who have some skill, but
| generally you'd have to find a domain to pursue that
| isn't already automated. Luddite subcultures will have to
| develop. But generally you yourself and most others,
| particularly children of millennials who'll grow up with
| this stuff progressing in sophistication, might just
| spend your time watching your video prompts come alive;
| and who would wanna. do anything else when you can get
| straight to what you wanna see.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > we need and will continue to need UBI for non-AI
| related reasons
|
| This mentality is why bitcoin is going to cruise through
| 1 million dollars a bitcoin and on and on. Print Monopoly
| money and people who earn will keep seeking out sound
| money.
| htfu wrote:
| Hint: the money comes from redistribution, not blindly
| printing more, the latter would obviously be completely
| insane (which is why you'd rather argue that scenario)
| whereas the former would keep the economy going, which is
| obviously in the interest of the capitalist class. No
| point owning and producing if there's no buyer because
| everyone is starving.
|
| What you seem to think would devalue money will be the
| very thing that keeps it going as a concept.
|
| And I hope you understand somewhere deep down that
| Bitcoin is the epitome of monopoly money.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > Bitcoin is the epitome of monopoly money
|
| I see it as the polar opposite, backed by math. A
| politically controlled money supply with no immutable
| math-based proof of its release schedule is Monopoly
| money. Cuck bucks. Look at the 100 year buying power
| chart.
|
| On your second point, in spirit I agree. You need a
| stable society to enjoy wealth so it's in the ruling
| classes best interest to keep things under control. HOW
| to keep things under control is the real debate.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| >Because make no mistake. If you live on handouts from
| your government, you aren't free.
|
| So my monthly Social Security check makes me a prisoner?
| I don't think so.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| Can you move to Brazil full time and keep that income
| going?
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Yes. Social Security income can be deposited directly
| into any bank in the world.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I think the question is more along the lines of "will
| your government continue to pay your social security if
| you don't remain living in the country", not "can you
| deposit it somewhere else"
|
| Also, how about if you get into trouble. If you're
| arrested for a crime (even if eventually found not
| guilty), will you continue to receive social security?
|
| Is there any circumstances where your government could
| refuse to continue paying it?
|
| And most importantly: could your government invent such a
| circumstance in the future, and then invoke the new
| circumstance to deny you the payment?
|
| Living on government money reminds me of my cat. She
| relies on me to feed her and provide for her, and I do
| happily take good care of her because I love her very
| much.
|
| Does the government love you very much?
|
| I don't feel mine does.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| 1. My government will continue to pay my Social Security
| if I don't remain living in the country. My father
| emigrated from the U.S. to Israel after he retired and he
| continued to receive his Social Security for about 20
| years, until the day he died.
|
| 2. "Also, how about if you get into trouble. If you're
| arrested for a crime (even if eventually found not
| guilty), will you continue to receive social security?"
|
| "If you receive Social Security, we'll suspend your
| benefits if you're convicted of a criminal offense and
| sentenced to jail or prison for more than 30 continuous
| days. We can reinstate your benefits starting with the
| month following the month of your release." -- Social
| Security Administration
|
| 3. "Is there any circumstances where your government
| could refuse to continue paying it?"
|
| If it goes broke, certainly.
|
| 4. And most importantly: could your government invent
| such a circumstance in the future, and then invoke the
| new circumstance to deny you the payment?"
|
| Of course!
|
| It's about money -- not love.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Because as I grow older, I find I am less and less
| equipped to keep up with the rate of change that we are
| undergoing. It also means a lot of uncertainty for the
| immediate future. If AI takes over my job, will I still
| be able to compete in some industry somewhere and provide
| for myself?
|
| I understand this fear, and sympathise with it even
| though I have multiple income streams.
|
| > I don't want much out of life, but I do want the
| ability to influence my own personal situation. If we
| wind up in the UBI-ified, dense urban housing future
| where AI does all the work and no one owns anything, how
| much real influence will I have over my life?
|
| Why do you fear "dense" urban housing future? I think
| most people _choose_ relatively dense environments
| because that 's where all the stuff they want is, but
| rural areas are cheaper[0], and the kind of future where
| humans _must_ live on UBI due to lack of economic
| opportunity is necessarily one where robots do the manual
| labor such as house building and civil engineering, not
| just the intellectual jobs like architecture and
| practicing real estate law.
|
| Likewise, while I can see several possible futures where
| nobody owns stuff, the tech to make it happen is
| necessarily also good enough that any random
| philanthropist who owns just one tiny autofac would find
| it trivial to give everyone their own personal autofac --
| "my first wish is infinite wishes" except the magic gene
| doesn't say "no".
|
| [0] The only reason I'm looking to get somewhere a bit
| more rural is that the sound insulation in my current
| place is failing, and I'm right by a busy junction with
| multiple emergency vehicles passing each day -- and the
| more less built-up areas are the cheap ones. Still the
| biggest city in Europe, but I'll be surrounded by forest
| and lakes on most sides within 15 minutes' _walk_.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Why do you fear "dense" urban housing future
|
| Because I hated living in Apartments when I lived in
| them. They are noisy and small, and I like quiet and
| space. For me, being closer to walk to stuff is not
| really appealing enough to deal with how awful the
| experience of living in dense housing is.
|
| I strongly think that dense housing is only positive for
| people who don't spend much time at home.
|
| > "my first wish is infinite wishes" except the magic
| gene doesn't say "no"
|
| The problem with this is that we haven't actually solved
| resource scarcity, and until we do there is still going
| to be an upper limit to what you will be allowed to buy,
| controlled by the number printed on your UBI cheque. I am
| anticipating this number to be much lower than what I
| currently am capable of achieving in my career.
|
| Of course this is the fear that my career won't exist in
| the future. Or simply that AI will eat enough jobs that I
| will be edged out by better human competition. I'm under
| no illusions that I'm near the top of my field, I am
| firmly in the middle of the pack at best.
|
| > sound insulation in my current place is failing
|
| The sound insulation in the apartments I've lived in was
| nonexistent. This is a big part of why I never want to do
| that again.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Because I hated living in Apartments when I lived in
| them.
|
| I meant more along the lines: why do you expect that to
| be the future, such that you have reason to fear it?
|
| > The problem with this is that we haven't actually
| solved resource scarcity, and until we do there is still
| going to be an upper limit to what you will be allowed to
| buy
|
| Yes, but the AI necessary to make human labour redundant
| is that tech. In the absence of that tech, humans could
| still get jobs doing whatever the stuff is that AI can't
| do.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > I don't want much out of life, but I do want the
| ability to influence my own personal situation.
|
| We are still animals in the animal kingdom. It's survival
| of the fittest as long as resources are not infinite. You
| can never expect this luxury. You are predator or prey.
| ben_w wrote:
| > You are predator or prey.
|
| Nah, we're cells in a distributed super-organism, or
| possibly a holobiont.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > The rate of change that AI forces upon us has never
| before been experienced.
|
| On what timeline?
| ben_w wrote:
| IMO, any. It looks like an exponential curve, and for
| those, rate of change is proportional to value.
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| > - The rate of change that AI forces upon us has never
| before been experienced.
|
| Sure, but I'd reckon on average, the rate of change at
| time T has never before been experienced at any time < T.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > How else do you get influence and inspiration without
| feeding other people's work into your own brain? Do you
| know a single artist, writer, or musician who hasn't seen
| other artists' paintings, read other writers' books, or
| listened to other musician's music? Ingesting content is
| the core of how influence, inspiration, and learning work
|
| I am a human, alive and sentient. I can be held
| responsible if my "inspirations" stray into theft. A
| machine cannot, and it's increasingly looking like the
| companies that operate the machines can't either.
|
| I also can't churn out my inspired works at a rate that
| displaces potentially everyone who has ever influenced
| me.
|
| > It's made creative pursuits accessible to billions who
| previously didn't have the skill or time to do them well,
| or the money to hire others. As a random example, I have
| friends using ChatGPT to compose creative and
| personalized poems and notes about each other. Not
| something they were doing before
|
| How on earth is using a machine to spit out a poem a
| creative pursuit? There's no more creativity there than
| watching a movie someone else made. It's entertaining,
| yes, but it's not creativity.
|
| > The camera lessened the need of people to go to plays
| and pay for tickets to see things in person. Just like
| records, CDs, and mp3s lessened the need to go to
| concerts and shows
|
| This doesn't hold water. Cinema did not eliminate theatre
| just as records did not eliminate live music. In fact,
| both are arguably as big now as they have ever been. The
| technology here filled a new space, it didn't threaten to
| throw everyone out of an existing one.
| l33tman wrote:
| I can't know if you've actually used these tools, but it
| requires a pretty high level of creative mind to get them
| to produce the content you're looking for. Maybe you as a
| user of an LLM you don't need to be creative in the
| _writing_ of words for example, but you instead need to
| be creative in how you control the tools and pick the
| right outputs, feed it back, copy /paste/cut it, change
| stuff, extend it.. and the same with the image
| generators. There's a HUGE amount of creative accessories
| around them to manipulate and steer the process. There
| might be less creativity needed with the pen, but it's
| needed in other ways.
| jitix wrote:
| I don't see the advent of generative art any different
| than when we moved from paper to photoshop.
|
| For those unaware the vast majority of graphic artists
| start their projects with assets and base images that
| they themselves don't create. With generative ai you're
| simply going one step further and have another new tool
| create a more polished version that you can edit to
| remove extra fingers, etc. It's simply moving the
| baseline from 20% done to 60% done, which will result in
| artists producing even higher fidelity and more detailed
| art.
|
| For example an artist could generate a bunch of scenes
| using Sora and create a collage of them for a larger
| piece of art, something that is prohibitively time
| consuming right now.
| ben_w wrote:
| > I am a human, alive and sentient. I can be held
| responsible if my "inspirations" stray into theft. A
| machine cannot, and it's increasingly looking like the
| companies that operate the machines can't either.
|
| 150 years ago, Bertha Benz wasn't allowed to own property
| or patents in her own right, because the law said so.
|
| The specific reason a machine cannot be held responsible
| today is because the law says so.
|
| Also, dead humans' copyright is respected in law, so
| "alive" isn't adding value to your argument here.
|
| > I also can't churn out my inspired works at a rate that
| displaces potentially everyone who has ever influenced
| me.
|
| I can't run faster than every athlete who has ever
| inspired me, this argument does not prevent motor cars.
|
| I can't write notes faster than the world record holder
| in shorthand, this argument does not prevent the printing
| press.
|
| I can't play chess or go at even a mediocre level, this
| argument does not prevent Stockfish or Alpha Go.
|
| I can't hear the tonal differences in Chinese well enough
| to distinguish "hello" from "mud trench", Zhe Ge Lun Dian
| Bing Mei You Zu Zhi Gu Ge Fan Yi Xue Xi "Ni Hao " He
| "Ni Hao " Zhi Jian De Qu Bie .
|
| I can't do arithmetic in my head faster than literally
| all other humans combined even if they hadn't been
| trained to the level of the current world record holder,
| this argument does not prevent the original model of the
| Raspberry Pi Zero.
|
| "The machine is 'better', in one or more senses of the
| word, than a human" is, in fact, _a reason to use the
| machine_. It 's _the_ reason to use a machine. It 's _why
| the machine is an economic threat_ -- but you can 't just
| use "my income is threatened by this machine" as a reason
| to prevent other people using the machine, just as I as a
| software developer can't use that argument to stop other
| people using LLMs to write code without hiring me.
|
| > Cinema did not eliminate theatre just as records did
| not eliminate live music. In fact, both are arguably as
| big now as they have ever been.
|
| You can argue that, but you'd be wrong.
|
| Shakespeare wrote for normal everyday people, his stuff
| fit into the category that today would be "TV soap
| opera", where the audience was everyone rather than just
| the well-off, where the only other public entertainment
| was options were bear-baiting and public executions,
| where the actors have very little time to rehearse, and
| where "you're ripping off my ideas" was handled by
| rapidly churning out new content.
|
| Live music, without amplification, used to be the _only_
| way to listen to music. Now, even if you see a live
| performance, you can have 10k people in a single venue
| listening to a single band... and if you want music in a
| pub or a dance club, the most likely performance is from
| a DJ rather than a band, and the "D" stands for "disk"
| because the actual content is pre-recorded -- and that's
| not to say I would deny that DJ work is "creative", but
| rather that it makes DJing exactly what critics accuse
| GenAI of being, remixing of other people's work.
|
| Which, now I think about it, is a description that would
| also apply to all the modern performances of Shakespeare:
| simply reusing someone else's creation without paying any
| compensation to the estate.
|
| But I know that will tickle you the wrong way, I know
| that art is the peacock's tail of humans: the struggle,
| the difficulty, is the point, and it has to be because
| that's how we find people to start families with. Because
| of that, GenAI is like being caught wearing a fake Rolex
| watch, and you can't _actually_ defend that with logical
| reasons such as "real Rolex watches aren't very good at
| keeping time compared to even a Casio F-91W let alone the
| atomic clock synchronising with my phone", because logic
| isn't the point, and never was the point.
| eric_cc wrote:
| Reading your opinion on the subject, I believe you're
| struggling to make sense of what is happening. I suspect
| there is a combination of factors here: you are
| reinforcing a bias, can't wrap your head around it, don't
| have much experience working with AI, haven't deeply
| considered the evolution of the universe.
|
| My recommendation: zoom out a little bit. Every step in
| history is so brief and nothing is normal for long. Even
| humanity is a blink.
|
| Comments like: "how is using a machine to spit out a poem
| creative". Really? How is using a digital camera creative
| compared to painting. How is a painting creative compared
| to etching? And on and on evolution goes..
| caeril wrote:
| > I also can't churn out my inspired works at a rate that
| displaces potentially everyone who has ever influenced
| me.
|
| I'm with you, man. I'm still trying to find a lawyer who
| will sue Kubota and John Deere for moving dirt at a rate
| far superior to me and a shovel, but nobody will take my
| case.
|
| > How on earth is using a machine to spit out a poem a
| creative pursuit?
|
| 100%, man. Nobody is mentioning the magical fairy dust in
| human brains that makes us superior to these models. When
| I really like fantasy novels, and then train my neurons
| on thousands of hours of reading Tolkien, Terry Brooks,
| Brandon Sanderson, etc, and then I get the idea to write
| my own fantasy series, my creative process doesn't draw
| on my own model's training data at all. It's 100%
| "creative", and I would produce exactly the same content
| if I were illiterate. But these goddamned machines, man.
| They don't have our special human fairy dust.
|
| When we discovered the universal law of gravitation, and
| realized that the laws of physics are omnipresent in our
| universe, we put a giant asterisk to note that the laws
| of physics are different inside humans. The epidermis is
| a sort of barrier to physics, and within its confines,
| magic happens, that these pro-AI people conveniently
| "forget".
|
| To paraphrase the eminent Human Unique Creative Person
| Roger Penrose: "There's magical quantum shit goin down in
| the microtubules. It's gotta be the microtubules. I
| think, right? I can't prove it, but as a scientist, we
| don't need proof. Making sure we think we are superior is
| more important."
| ben_w wrote:
| > This is not "influence and inspiration", this is
| companies feeding other people's work into a commercial
| product which they sell access to. The product would be
| useless without other people's work, therefore they should
| be compensated.
|
| Sure.
|
| Who do we send the compensation to for Leonardo da Vinci?
| Or Shakespeare, for a text-based example?
|
| Do you want them to compensate _me_ for the stuff I
| uploaded to Wikipedia and licensed as public domain, or
| what I 've uploaded to GitHub with an MIT license?
|
| A model trained only on licensed data is still an
| existential threat to the incomes of people whose works
| were never included in the model, precisely because they're
| only useful to the extent that they generalise beyond their
| own examples.
|
| > The camera enabled something that was not possible
| before, and I wasn't built by taking the work of sketch
| artists and painters. It was an entirely new form of art
| and media.
|
| A new form of art that was (a) initially decried as "not
| art", and (b) which almost completely ended the economic
| value of portraiture.
| jaystraw wrote:
| my name is timothy basket -- you're saying people have stolen
| my weave?!
|
| end sarcasm. but seriously -- claiming you made something you
| didn't isn't ok. but it happens, regardless of laws or
| regulations or norms.
|
| i don't have any solutions; the internet helps because you
| can publish something and point to it. i'm a musician and
| sometimes i only realize well after the fact how influenced i
| was by something after the fact for a song i've written.
|
| and of course, my precious baskets.
| mihaic wrote:
| I don't really want to weave baskets, that's what I'd want a
| machine to do.
|
| "The world doesn't work that way" - I've seen this so often,
| but the most incredible thing about humans was the optimism
| to be able to change how the world worked -- that's the main
| impetus of most revolutions.
|
| Personifying computer programs also is an error, it's like
| saying that bombs kill people when there has to be a person
| dropping them (at least until we get Skynet).
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| >I don't really want to weave baskets, that's what I'd want
| a machine to do.
|
| In my free time I like to code games, I don't have money to
| pay for an artist, nor the time/will to learn how to draw,
| that's what I'd want a machine to do.
|
| I do agree with you that personifying computer programs is
| an error. That's also why I avoid calling these AI, because
| they're FAR from that. But I do believe that there will
| come a day, where personifying a computer program will be a
| real question.
| pera wrote:
| Artists do credit their teachers (Verrocchio in the case of
| da Vinci), schools, sources of inspiration and influences, so
| I'm confused by this comment.
|
| What kind of acknowledgement did you have in mind?
| s3p wrote:
| What kind of acknowledgement should AI be giving?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| if the producers of these models weren't incentivized to
| hide their training data it would be almost trivial to at
| least retrieve the images most similar to the content
| produced
|
| some images will be maximally distant from training
| examples but midjourney repainting frames from "harry
| potter" could very easily automatically send a check to
| jk rowling per generation
|
| these AI start ups are just trying to have a free lunch
| in a very mature industry
| spookybones wrote:
| Yeah, some of these comments are clearly made by people who
| don't actually know the history of art.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I'm not even sure the commenter knew who "the artist that
| painted Mona Lisa" was when they made that comment.
| jonplackett wrote:
| da Vinci is a silly comparison. He is just one man. Even he
| didn't have such great ability that he can put all other
| artists out of business.
|
| This is more like the invention of weaving machines. Yes we
| still have weavers but no where near as many.
| camillomiller wrote:
| It is absolutely not the same, and saying so disregards
| centuries of knowledge stratification. These machine produce
| superficial artifacts that lack any layering of meaning of
| semantic capital (see Luciano Floridi). They are the
| byproduct of the engineering extremism and lack of humanities
| knowledge of the people getting rich through their creation.
| mlrtime wrote:
| If what you say is true then people will still value non-
| superficial artifacts.
|
| However the mass produced semi-superficial artifact
| creators that were being created before AI _will_ adapt or
| suffer.
| chefandy wrote:
| Models learn exactly like artists, and also, for some
| reason, the person that uses those models are artists
| making art. Wait... Artists learn by passively ingesting
| many millions pieces of media someone feeds them for the
| non-specific purpose of "generating art" so some person who
| wants to take credit for making the end piece can tell them
| exactly what to make, right?
| nostrebored wrote:
| If the lack of humanities education is what allows us to
| create the most abundance of art in human history, was that
| education really worth it?
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| > The way these models are creative is the same way humans
| are
|
| We have no idea how human creativity works, but we know with
| certainty that it doesn't involve a Python program sucking in
| pixel data and outputting statistical likelihoods.
| jerojero wrote:
| You know, Ive seen people do amazing things with math
| equations. Beautiful visualisations.
|
| As these tools improve and it becomes more possible for us
| to actually take our ideas into images and videos that fit
| a sort of "yes this is what I want" bill we are going to
| see amazing things come out.
|
| I mean, a few days ago I saw this clearly AI generated
| video of some wizards doing snowboard and having a blast in
| the mountains. It's one of the funniest things I've seen in
| a while, simply so ridiculous. Obviously someone had the
| idea "I want to make a video of wizards doing snowboard in
| a mountain" that's where creativity lies.
|
| So to say "creativity doesn't involve a python program
| outputting statistical likelihoods" imo is just you saying
| you're not creative enough to know what to do with the
| tools you've been given.
|
| Some people when they see a strawberry they see a fruit.
| Others see endless dishes where the fruit is just an
| ingredient.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| rude
|
| obviously you can use python to create works of art
|
| whether a python script can itself be creative is the
| question posed by OP, but you went with "you're just not
| creative enough to get it"
| ben_w wrote:
| Those Python programs are (loosely) inspired by how organic
| brains work.
|
| (I still have on my to-do list "learn more about why
| Hebbian learning is different from gradient descent and how
| much those differences matter").
| eric_cc wrote:
| We do have, at the very least, an idea about how human
| creativity works and it is an input output pattern.
| goatlover wrote:
| That's a meaningless statement. Any interacting physical
| system is an "input output" pattern, as long as you're
| only looking at the inputs and outputs. Behaviorism fell
| out of favor for a reason. It's whats transforming inputs
| and creating outputs that matters. For that matter, you
| need to be able to define what an input and an output is
| for humans, given that we have bodies.
| spunker540 wrote:
| I agree and actually think the camera was definitely more
| disruptive to artists than this AI stuff, and somehow the
| camera didn't kill artists.
| reactordev wrote:
| "whose existence and names we will never know or
| acknowledge."
|
| That's the problem. We know their names. We know their
| stories, their contributions. Babbage. Lovelace. Ritchie.
| Spielberg. Picasso. Rembrandt. This is what giving
| attribution is all about. So we don't just stand there asking
| how we got here.
| soperj wrote:
| This is nonsense, people give credit to their influences all
| the time.
| nostrebored wrote:
| To the influences that they know. Our brain isn't an
| attribution machine. When a musician recreates a chord
| progression that they've heard before without noticing it,
| is that theft?
|
| If a comedian accidentally retells a joke, is that theft?
|
| Our influences are subtle and often inscrutable.
| goatlover wrote:
| > The world doesn't work that way.
|
| The human world works that way humans make it work. Pretty
| much what Jody Foster's character in the movie Contact told
| that asshole trying to steal all the credit from her, and
| take her place in the mission to go visit alien dad in
| Pensacola.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| >The way these models are creative is the same way humans
| are. The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of
| the influences and inspirations that they had.
|
| I'm continually amazed at how many people argue against this
| point on HN, which is largely biased toward logical
| discourse. What you just said is exactly right, and is the
| Achilles heel of the legal arguments against generative AI.
| If what they are doing illegal, then so is the human act of
| creativity. If human creativity is legal, then so is
| generative AI trained on existing art.
|
| What has yet to come is the mass realization (or perhaps,
| admission) that the way AI works is no different from the way
| we work.
| high_priest wrote:
| Haven't we always attributed creations to people, to motivate
| our own egos to pursue higher achievements in the name if
| "glory"? With vision of wealth attributed to fame? Forgive me
| for being cynical here, but this is how I always viewed the
| world. Names are... just this, names. Things we use to
| communicate some ideas/phenomena, but are irrelevant in scope
| of endless evolution. And can function just aswell with some
| other "identifier" attached to it.
|
| I have come to terms with the fact, that I'm just a spit of
| sand, just as irrelevant to my own creation, as I am to the
| cells and bacteria that create me.
| mihaic wrote:
| If you truly feel like a grain of sand, that's your choice,
| but won't you help us that don't feel that way, if it won't
| do you any harm?
|
| I for one do feel really special, as for every human there
| are about as many bacteria as there are stars in the universe
| (give or take a bit).
| digging wrote:
| I suspect chasing glory is the main driver yes, but we also
| like to understand _how things came to be_ , and by knowing
| who made them and when and where we can do that. AI is
| ushering in a dark age of attribution where we may no longer
| be able to know how anything came to be after it's spit out
| of a computer. (I mean dark age as in "it's dark and we can't
| see," like the Greek Dark Ages or Dark Matter, not in the
| sense of "times are bad".)
| melagonster wrote:
| The creators just don't care humans haha. I don't know why
| people still learning communications, writing, art or any other
| crafts. everything will be displaced by next AI.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I mean why do kids go to school, why learn anything at all I
| guess?
| test6554 wrote:
| I believe people will learn, but they will learn more at a
| lower price.
| war321 wrote:
| As said every time this "why are we automating creativity when
| menial jobs exist?" response comes up:
|
| 1) Errors in art programs messing up is less worrisome than a
| physical robot. One going wrong makes extra fingers in a
| picture, the other potentially maims or kills you.
|
| 2) Moravec's Paradox. Reasoning requires little computation
| versus sensorimotor and perception.
|
| 3) Despite 1 and 2, we are constantly automating menial jobs!
| reubenmorais wrote:
| Classifying image generation and manipulation as "art
| programs" is the most beneficial possible reading of it. When
| you use them to generate disinformation, incitement and
| propaganda, they are potentially maiming and killing humans.
| This failure mode is well known, the mitigations ineffective,
| yet here we are, about to take another leap forward after a
| performative period of "red teaming" where some mitigation
| work happens but the harsher criticism is brushed off as
| paranoiac.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Disinformation is art. Art is disinformation.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| I couldn't disagree more strongly that disinformation,
| incitement, or propaganda maim and kill people. People kill
| other people. Don't give killers an avenue to abdicate
| responsibility for their actions. Propaganda doesn't cause
| anyone to do anything. It may convince them, but those are
| entirely separate things with a clear, bright line between
| them. Best not mix them up.
| adabaed wrote:
| We have been on this path for centuries. Compare the symphonies
| of 200 years ago with our current music or painting. We humans
| prefer quantity over quality.
| wruza wrote:
| I see nice paintings (not black squares or abstract nonsense)
| like all the time. Feels like more people can paint at the
| level of "classics" now. Of course they cannot surpass the
| deeper meaning of the originals, because they aren't dead yet
| and there's no mystery and legacy around their names. But
| otherwise they are pretty good at making cool pics.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Find me 15 painters who have non-digital works at this
| level of scale/detail:
|
| https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436482
|
| I suspect you will struggle. The economics for that sort of
| work don't exist anymore.
| flkenosad wrote:
| > We humans prefer quantity over quality.
|
| Speak for yourself.
| bamboozled wrote:
| They manage it by meeting with Sam Altman while he runs around
| in incredibly expensive suits and tells them he will open an
| office in their country so they will all benefit.
| vin047 wrote:
| Yeah we all thought machines would automate menial labour
| allowing us to focus on creativity and passion. Looks like it's
| the exact opposite.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| To be fair, generating stock images and videos and writing
| listicle blog post is pretty menial labour.
| posterguy wrote:
| not really
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Humans are still cheaper than robots for some tasks...
| flkenosad wrote:
| Not for long...
| wruza wrote:
| It's too early to close the bets. Arts (I mean, drawn porn)
| was just the easiest to kickstart from all the tech that the
| invention of modern ML and GPUs will enable.
|
| It doesn't look the opposite, it looks it automated even what
| we all couldn't think of, and did that first.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Most labor is being automated within the next few decades.
| It'll be a post-labor world with one less factor of
| production. Capital and land ownership is all that will
| matter assuming we don't completely redesign our economic and
| political system. Pretty scary.
|
| My one hope is that the price of goods becomes so low due to
| AGI/automation, that the uselessness of labor in the economy
| won't matter. People can still be materially prosperous even
| with a meagre UBI (and it will be meagre because people have
| no political power in a post-labor society where the only
| thing that matters is capital).
| Frost1x wrote:
| >Capital and land ownership is all that will matter
| assuming we don't completely redesign our economic and
| political system. Pretty scary.
|
| Agreed. My concern isn't really remotely about any of the
| accomplishments of generative AI. Frankly in my daily life
| I'd welcome readily available access. As it stands now it's
| sort of a mixture of analytics and creativity without
| consciousness as we best understand it, so GPT itself isn't
| going to murder me and take over the world.
|
| The real issue is who owns these things, how you access
| them, how effects will ripple through a labor based
| economy, and how we'll adapt (or not) our current economic
| system. As it stands for awhile we've been catering to the
| capital ownership group. If that doesn't have a change in
| direction then I fear the implications of much of this in
| daily life. There's still a fair bit of specialization and
| domain knowledge needed to leverage these tools to
| understand the questions to ask (I.e prompts to generate
| both around LLMs and the context of information fed to
| them) but they can certainly in many cases behave as
| multipliers that could reduce the amount of staff needed in
| some creative roles or eliminate some all together.
|
| This isnt a new dilemma as arguably technology has been
| shifting the labor market for centuries, the question is
| how and if it can reshape well this time or if we need to
| fundamentally rethink these concepts of labor and capital
| ownership. That's my major concern.
| mathverse wrote:
| It's the opposite. Price of goods is becoming more and more
| expensive due to larger demand and lower salaries.
| hackerlight wrote:
| > It's the opposite. Price of goods is becoming more and
| more expensive due to larger demand and lower salaries.
|
| We're discussing a hypothetical post-labor future in 5-40
| years. We probably shouldn't predict the economic theory
| of this future by looking at recent trends. Recent trends
| are driven by business-as-usual things like supply chain
| disruptions. But we're still near full employment, so
| we're not on the gradient to realized post-labor just
| yet. Post-labor economics (and politics) will probably be
| radically different, all the economic assumptions we take
| for granted go out the window.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| Salaries have actually been increasing -- at least in the
| U.S. overall.
| throwuwu wrote:
| Honestly, I don't think the unemployment rate will change
| much. Humans are great at inventing things to do and if
| other people see those things as valuable they will pay for
| them. I do think the world will look very different, maybe
| even unrecognizable but it's not going to be full of people
| doing nothing.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Wish I could go back in time and tell myself to not bother
| learning how to do any of this stuff the old fashioned way.
| erur wrote:
| I feel like a lot of that frustration comes from seeing "arts
| and culture" as the pinnacle of anything when maybe it's just
| an overvalued side-effect of human wiring to avoid boredom.
|
| Imho. it's just really hard to reason that average non-
| educational entertainment has a positive net effect on global
| society.
|
| Seeing it this way makes it way less surprising that "art" and
| "creative entertainment" is one of the first things that gets
| hit by automation.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Painter/illustrator here. I mostly agree with you. I often
| have wondered if what I do is a total waste of time, long
| before generative models showed up. My close childhood peers
| became doctors and engineers, and there just isn't any
| comparison about our contributions to society. People get all
| whimsical when I bring this up and say "but what about the
| [spirit/feelings/blah]. I'm clear eyed about it though. If I
| could go back & re-roll my character sheet (i.e. slap my
| younger self into realizing STEM is cool while those doors
| were still open), I certainly would.
|
| However, there's a line somewhere. I've spent most of my life
| around drab midwestern utilitarian/corporate/commercial
| buildings, and it has been noticeably depressing. In the
| periods where I've spent time in beautiful buildings, I have
| felt much better. Based on anecdata, I'm not the only one.
| There's something important & essential for humans about
| ornamentation & beauty. It's more than entertainment.
|
| Humans can live on rice and kidney beans, but if one must do
| so _without hope for more tasty options[0]_ it is
| demoralizing.
|
| [0] lots of people are happy with spartan diets, but most
| often those people are doing so by choice.
|
| H
| flkenosad wrote:
| Are those doors not still open today? Engineering schools
| take mature students.
| mlrtime wrote:
| You don't have to feel it, millions of people start painting
| or other artistic endeavors when retiring. Most of the time
| the [market] value is close to 0. AI does nothing here.
|
| Anecdote: My grandma retired and started painting and has
| since passed. The market value of these paintings is 0,
| nobody would buy them as they are just average. But I will
| never get rid of them because she created it. They have value
| to me only.
| brookst wrote:
| Think of your favorite musicians. How many of them give
| attribution to where each musical idea came from?
|
| The concept of art as exclusive property is very new.
| Throughout history, artists have built on one another's works
| with no attribution or provenance. It's really just the past
| 100 years -- Disney, specifically - that have created the
| cultural mindset that the first person to express something
| owns it forever and everyone else has to pay them for the
| privilege of building that next work.
|
| BTW I'm old enough to remember people decrying the rise of
| desktop publishing ("WYSIWYG") as the automation of creativity.
|
| I share your disdain for the geriatric political class, but I
| strongly disagree that this is a situation that needs to be
| managed. I say we let the arts return to the free for all they
| were for the fist 80,000 years or whatever.
| geraneum wrote:
| > Think of your favorite musicians. How many of them give
| attribution to where each musical idea came from?
|
| Great many, if you care to read a bit more of the
| biographies, autographies, history of music books,
| interviews, blogs, etc.
| scotty79 wrote:
| At some point we'll probably have insight into learning
| data of AI. For now copyright makes that super hard.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| In what sense does copyright make attribution of that
| data so hard?
|
| Is it because people are violating copyrights to train
| these AIs?
| brookst wrote:
| How can training violate copyright? Is reading a book
| also violation? My understanding was that copyright was
| about reproduction, not consumption.
| testermelon wrote:
| It was about unfairly compensated usage, not limited to
| reproduction.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I especially like how Gorillaz artist admits the main hook of
| their breakaway success song was a rock preset on some niche
| electronic synthesizer.
| skriticos2 wrote:
| I'd be very skeptical that AI would worsen the situation
| with music. For example, many pop music titles in last
| decades incorporate the same millennial whoop over and over
| and over again. I seriously stopped following pop music a
| long time ago and I can't imagine that AI can make it any
| more generic if it tried. I don't see a threat for non-
| generic indie music. AI is good at the generic stuff, as it
| usually statistically averages out the inputs.
| fipar wrote:
| " Think of your favorite musicians. How many of them give
| attribution to where each musical idea came from?"
|
| Certainly not for every individual idea, but good musicians
| do a lot of attribution. I got to know a lot of music I love
| now after following a mention on the liner notes of another
| musician's album, or having them mentioned in an interview.
| brookst wrote:
| Aren't liner notes the moral equivalent of OpenAI
| mentioning some source material used for training?
|
| People seem to be asking for much more direct attribution:
| the pixels in this image are 0.02% from artist X, and
| 0.006% from artist Y, etc.
|
| It is very rare for a song to include a breakdown of all of
| the influences that the artist is exercising in that
| particular piece.
| internet101010 wrote:
| How you are describing that percentage breakdown is how I
| see this all playing out legally, such that royalty for
| IP holder = (tags in prompt)/(count of same tags in
| training data). I am oversimplifying this obviously but
| you get the idea. This approach would require collective
| effort of major IP holders but if record labels and
| streamers can figure out revenue pooling I don't see why
| it can't work elsewhere.
| fipar wrote:
| If the source material was mentioned for every generated
| image then I think it would be more like what you say. No
| percentages needed since that's not something we used to
| get from liner notes either.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| when nirvana played MTV unplugged they mostly played covers
| from bands that influenced them
|
| also no, disney did not invent the notion of authorship nor
| royalties. having enough honor not to take credit for someone
| else's work goes back millennia. attribution goes back
| millennia, otherwise we wouldn't know the names Sophocles,
| Aeschylus, Euripides.
|
| Don't get me started on the pharaohs, mother fuckers loved
| carving their names into things.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I think turning human creativity into industry was huge
| mistake.
|
| I welcome its fall.
| flkenosad wrote:
| For sure. It's only being kept alive by ritual sacrifice
| these days.
| yakito wrote:
| Automatizing creativity, some claim, is an endeavor akin to
| catching smoke with bare hands--futile, if not utterly
| fanciful. Yet, I can't help but ponder over the peculiar ballet
| of human ingenuity and mechanical precision. Consider for a
| moment, this strange juncture we find ourselves at, a place
| where the tools crafted by our own hands begin to sketch the
| outlines of what could very well be new breeds of creativity.
|
| Let's muse on the notion that creativity, as we've known and
| cherished it, can be bottled up and dispensed by machines, up
| to a certain whimsical point. Beyond that? We stumble upon
| creations like these, novel tools that beckon us, the flesh-
| and-blood creators, to mold unforeseen "creativities." It's one
| spectacle to mechanize the known realms of artistic endeavor,
| quite another to boldly claim that machines shall inherit the
| mantle of creativity, henceforth dictating the contours of all
| future artistic landscapes.
|
| History, that grand tapestry, is peppered with instances where
| the mechanical muses have dared to tread upon the sacred
| grounds of creativity. Take photography, for instance, a marvel
| of the 19th century that promised to capture reality with an
| accuracy that scoffed at the painter's brush. Or consider the
| digital revolution, which flung open the doors to realms of
| visual and auditory experiences previously consigned to the
| realm of dreams. The synthesizer, not merely an instrument but
| a portal, has ushered us into a new era of musical exploration,
| challenging the supremacy of the acoustic tradition.
|
| Each of these milestones, while distinctly modern, echoes the
| age-old dance between creator and tool, where each step forward
| is both a continuation and a departure from the past. In this
| light, the question isn't whether creativity can be automated,
| but rather how our definition of creativity evolves as we, hand
| in hand with our mechanical counterparts, stride into the
| unknown.
| activitypea wrote:
| yaaaaawn
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| So... you fed the GP comment into some LLM, and it produced
| this meaningless pablum?
| panagathon wrote:
| This reads a little hysterical to me. It's just a new medium of
| expression. Who knows, maybe the lack of genuine artistic
| merit, if there is such a thing, would lead more people to
| watch Jim Jarmusch flicks.
| seanw444 wrote:
| It's impressive how much hysteria I absorb from this site.
| Maybe I need a break.
| kajumix wrote:
| I didn't go to film school or had any training in creative
| arts. I love the fact that I will have an outlet for creative
| expression where my text can generate image, video and sound. I
| can iterate over them, experiment with visualizations, and get
| better without technical barriers. Generative AI is making
| everyone an artist as well as a coder
| threetonesun wrote:
| You could take your phone and film something outside your
| house in an interesting way and I'd probably argue that's
| more "art" than whatever glorified stock video AI generates
| for you. I'm interested where the tooling can go in the long
| run - can I scribble a picture of a cat and have it turned
| into an accurate 3D model, then have AI animate it based on
| text? That would be neat. Text prompts into "something"
| isn't, to me.
| namlem wrote:
| I disagree. I think this is going to empower creatives like
| never before. Filmmaking currently takes a huge amount of time
| and money. Countless would be filmmakers are relegated to
| making 30 second tiktoks because that's all they can afford to
| do. This could change all that.
| marcc wrote:
| Exactly this. Art changes over time. The mediums that we use
| to express ourselves creatively evolves. The position that AI
| is the end of creative art isn't taking this evolution into
| account.
|
| When video became an affordable medium, would people say
| "this is the end of art, live performances are art. Now the
| people will just watch the same recordings over and over?"
| Maybe, if the internet existed. But it's had the effect of
| creating and introducing new art forms.
|
| AI generated content won't replace art. It will evolve it to
| a new creative.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| But an equally likely future is tiktok/insta generate all the
| videos. After all, they can afford the hardware and they
| understand how to be addictive.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| take shakespeare, he borrowed from so many and yet most people
| don't know
|
| a few examples
|
| Plutarch's Lives
|
| Holinshed's Chronicles
|
| Ovid's Metamorphoses
|
| good artist copy, great artist steal
|
| so on and worth
|
| i, for one, welcome these creative machines slurping all that
| was created!
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Let's go beyond the philosophical. Which sources would you
| expect the "woman walks through Tokyo" video to attribute?
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| Today, only a highly privileged slice of the population can
| make a living making art. Nearly everyone who enjoys making art
| can't make a living off of it, and even the vast majority of
| people trying to do it full time still can't make ends meet
| (hence the cliche of the starving artist). But everyone can
| make art as a hobby if they'd like, that's what almost all
| artists do, and that will continue to be true as AI advances.
|
| So I don't see AI art as changing careers much. Even if AI
| fully replaces human artists, all that means is the 0.1% of
| people who make a career off their art will have to join the
| rest of us 99.9% who only do art for the fun of it.
| ddbb33 wrote:
| Creative fields encompasses much more than art creation.
| mezeek wrote:
| You sound like "making art" is only the painter in his
| Brooklyn studio. But it's video game designers, movie
| animators, videographers, graphic artists, and more that work
| in agencies and marketing departments of all companies that
| will be affected.
| ben_w wrote:
| Those are _mostly_ not well paid roles[0], and there are
| clearly many hobbyists in these areas also -- looking at
| YouTube, all output is necessarily videography or
| animation, but what 's the income distribution? I have a
| channel, no money from it (not that this was ever the
| point).
|
| [0] Unless you're doing furry art, but that's only because
| furries are "suspiciously wealthy".
| digging wrote:
| > Today, only a highly privileged slice of the population can
| make a living making art.
|
| I think this is less true than it's been in centuries or
| perhaps all of history. Artistry is widespread, anyone can do
| it, and many choose to pursue it even though the pay isn't
| going to be great; in preindustrial times even having access
| to the ability to create art was quite limited as were the
| media types that existed.
| underlipton wrote:
| Proactively splitting up the menial tasks so that everyone is
| doing a little bit, inasmuch as they are able to, for a few
| hours a day, a few days a week, and getting paid a full-living
| wage for it seems like the way to go. Or, everyone pulls a Xiu
| Xiang from Rainbows End and goes back to high school.
|
| The main obstacle to this is the pride and ego of the people
| who've "made it" up until now. Let go. Let society have nice
| things, even if _you_ have to reinvent yourself. I don 't think
| that creativity is endangered; art, uh, finds a way.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| Why is the machine monstrous?
| mengibar10 wrote:
| This is a similar problem manuscript duplicating workers in the
| Ottoman realm. The printing machines would take their job, but
| they resisted and lobbied against it in the courts of the
| sultan. They succeeded in delaying the adoption of printing for
| some time for the detriment of the people. Unfortunately, this
| has been the history of man and technology destroying something
| for the better or worse.
|
| Some twisted the story as if the underlying issue was the
| religion but economic concerns were the real reason.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Creativity being automated while humans are forced to perform
| menial tasks for minimum wage doesn't seem like a great future
| and the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to
| manage the situation.
|
| May I introduce you to the entire history of humanity between 7
| millennia before the invention of writing to approximately 50
| years after the invention of communism? :P
|
| More seriously: yes, we have no clue how to manage the
| situation. The best guess right now is UBI, which looks cool,
| but then at a first glance so does communism and laissez-faire
| capitalism.
|
| Time for, ironically because humans are surprisingly bad at
| this, a _creative_ idea for how to manage all this.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| I used to have the same view. Watching "Everything is a Remix"
| [1] helped me broaden my perspective.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/nJPERZDfyWc
| mihaic wrote:
| I watched that many years ago, but still see a difference
| here. Everything was a remix made by humans that put in their
| unique selves into the remixing process.
|
| An AI model has no "unique self" to add to creation, at least
| not as we've understood so far.
| thiscatis wrote:
| Have you ever danced or even just enjoyed listening to Daft
| Punk?
| moritonal wrote:
| A part of the book Look to Windward by Ian M. Banks wrote of
| this. How the machine minds could comfortably write opera's
| greater than any man, but still humans would go to the theatre,
| just to appreciate it, but the impact was recognised in
| society. Of course that world was based on post-scarcity whilst
| we are not.
| leovingi wrote:
| Machines can reliably beat humans at chess. Has that stopped
| anyone from playing? Has it stopped anyone from watching chess
| tournaments?
| suprxd wrote:
| I guess when you know why and how of something it doesn't
| feel surprising anymore. That's why two computers playing
| chess is not a fun event. People would however watch two
| humans playing even if their moves are secretly controlled by
| a machine. In contrast the generative content if (and will)
| reach indistinguishable levels, I doubt majority of people
| would care if a machine created it or a human? The biggest
| problem with AI which is disguised as its pros is that it is
| reachable to anyone and everyone and can be used as a weapon.
| legohead wrote:
| Your argument is similar to the classic hand vs. power tools
| argument in crafting, which eventually boils down to "did you
| mine the ore and forge the tools yourself?" Nowadays the
| argument is about CNC vs. hand crafting.
|
| This is just a point in our overall evolution. It's an exciting
| time. We are here to learn and adapt.
|
| Humans can still be creative all they want. There's still the
| stamp of "created by a human" that will never go away. You can
| choose to respect it or ignore it.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > will never go away
|
| Nothing is forever. It's unlikely unmodified Homo sapiens are
| dominant on earth 1,000 years from now.
| d0mine wrote:
| > never go away
|
| It reminds me: centaurs (human+AI) in chess/go were better
| than either humans or AI just for a short time.
|
| People still play chess but they are outclassed by modern AI.
| halinc wrote:
| True, but while the 'best' chess is played by computers,
| few people care to watch Stockfish playing with itself.
| Meanwhile the human-powered chess world is enjoying a surge
| in popularity.
| j-wags wrote:
| > centaurs (human+AI) in chess/go were better than either
| humans or AI just for a short time.
|
| I was having a conversation about this with a friend last
| weekend, and we'd assumed that centaurs were still better
| than either top humans or top computers. I'm unable to
| easily find this info on google, could you share where you
| saw that centaurs are no longer better than top computers?
| mihaic wrote:
| I see a shallow analogy that isn't true to me on close
| inspection.
|
| To me, human activities from which we can earn a living wage
| feels like nomadism as the edge of an ever expanding region
| of agriculture (technological automation in this case). When
| you lose some activities to automation, we've always found
| new ones until now. In the end though, there were no more
| pastures for nomads to move, and there will be no more new
| activities from which humans can earn a wage (not to mention
| the satisfaction of accomplishing something hard). And, while
| there might be a future with UBI for everyone, the transition
| seems rough and exploitative.
| arendtio wrote:
| > This is both amazing and saddening to me. All our cultural
| legacy is being fed into a monstrous machine that gives no
| attribution to the original content with which it was fed, and
| so the creative industry seems to be in great danger.
|
| It is the same as what every human being is doing. We consume
| and we create. Sometimes creations are very good, but most of
| the time they are just mediocre. If the machines can create
| better average results, it will be due to the genius of the
| humans who invented those machines.
|
| So we can be happy, that we have such beings among us and
| should cherish, that we will have better content to consume in
| the future. When you look at the world, you will see, that
| there are still plenty of problems to be solved for humans.
| robomartin wrote:
| > the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to
| manage the situation.
|
| OK, well, you walked right into this one:
|
| You must know the answer: How do you manage it?
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| Yes and no; I mean there are still painters around and we still
| appreciate their skill in the world of photographs. Sometimes
| it's only marginally about the finished product, but also about
| the work to make it.
| honkycat wrote:
| In the same way the "organic" movement took over food, and we
| want to feel human skill and touch in what we are consuming, I
| think we will see a similar swing in media.
|
| People invest in stories. They also invest in other people.
| This is why people love seeing Tom Cruise over and over again
| in movies. Or why I'm going to go see the next Scorsese movie.
|
| Reality television is designed to be addicting, and engaging,
| and it is very successful at that. I get pulled into The
| storylines whenever I watch. But I quickly turn it off. I don't
| watch it not because it is not enjoyable, but because I realize
| it is a cotton candy: empty trash that is not worth my time.
|
| Artists are already often criticized for being "corporate." I
| think we'll see a similar effect for AI generated content. The
| hoi polloi and normies will slurp it up.
|
| The true fans and passionate ones who give a shit aren't going
| to be fooled.
|
| Edit: for length
| globular-toast wrote:
| This might actually ruin video and films for me. I don't want to
| be looking out for AI giveaways in everything I watch.
|
| I can see a new market for true end-to-end analogue film
| productions emerging for people who like film.
| danielbln wrote:
| Eh, it's like watching out for VFX giveaways.
| tokai wrote:
| Even the good ones look kinda bad.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Genuinely impressive.
|
| I've always been a digital stills guy, and dabbled in video.. as
| a hobby. As a hobbyist, I always found the hardest thing is
| making something worth looking at. I don't see AI displacing the
| pleasure of the art for a hobbyist.
|
| My next guess is the 80/20% or 95/5% problem is gonna be stuff
| like dialogue matching audio and mouth/face motion.
|
| I do see this kind of stuff killing the stock images / media
| illustrator / b-roll footage / etc jobs.
|
| Could a content mill pump out plausibly decent Netflix video
| series given this tool and a couple half decent writers.. maybe?
| Then again it may be the perpetual "5 years away". There's a wide
| gap between generating filler content & producing something
| people choose to watch willingly for entertainment.
| Lichtso wrote:
| Here is my prediction of how this will play out for the
| entertainment industry in the coming decades:
|
| Phase 1 (we are here now): While generative AI is not good enough
| to directly produce parts of the final product, it can already be
| used to quickly prototype styles, stories, designs, moods, etc. A
| good chunk of the unnamed behind-the-scenes-people will loose
| their job.
|
| Phase 2: While generative AI is still expensive, the output
| quality is sufficient to directly produce parts of / the entire
| final product. Big production outlets will use it to produce AAA
| titles and blockbusters. Even actors, directors and other high
| publicity positions will be replaced.
|
| Phase 3: The production cost will sink further until it becomes
| attainable by smaller studios and indie productions. The already
| fierce markets will be completely flooded with more and more
| quantity over quality. Advertisement will not be pre-produced and
| cut into videos anymore but become very subtle product
| placements, impossible for ad-blockers to strip from the product.
|
| Phase 4: Once the production cost falls below the price of one
| copy of the product, we will get completely customized
| entertainment products tailored to our personal taste. Online
| communities will emerge which craft skeletons / templates which
| then are filled out by the personal parameter sets of the
| consumers. That way you can still share the experience with
| friends even though everybody experiences a different variation.
|
| Phase 5: As consumers do not hit any production limits any more
| (e.g. binge watch their favorite series ad infinitum) and the
| product becomes optimized to be maximally addictive by measuring
| their reaction to it, it will become impossible for most human
| beings to resist. The entertainment mania will reach its peak and
| social isolation, health issues and economic factors will bring
| down the human reproduction rate to basically zero.
|
| Phase 6: Human civilization collapsed within one or two
| generations and the only survivors will be extremely technology-
| adverse people by selection. AGI might have happened in the
| meantime but did not have the time to gracefully take over and
| remodel the human infrastructure to become self sufficient.
| Instead a strict religion will rule the lands and the dark ages
| begin anew.
|
| Note that none of this is new, it is just the continuation and
| intensification of already existing trends. This is also not AGI
| doomerism as it does not involve a malicious AGI gone rouge or
| anything like that. It is simply what happens when human nature
| meets powerful technology.
|
| TLDR: While I love the technology I can only see very negative
| long-term outcomes from this.
| generagent wrote:
| This is machine simulated art. It is not a convincing simulation
| to videographers, yet it pleases software architects and other
| non-visual artists. Aptitude for visual art making provokes envy
| in some who lack it. The drive to simulate art is almost as
| common as the desire to be recognized as a capable visual artist.
| The most interesting generative art I've seen does not attempt
| verisimilitude. Children want their art to look real.
| Verisimilitude is hard, especially for children and quasi AI.
| slowturtle wrote:
| I can't wait for the day I can strap on my Apple(r) Vision Pro(r)
| 9 with OpenAI(r) integration and spend all my time interfacing (
| _wink_ ) with my virtual girlfriend. Sure my unlit 3 by 3 meter
| LifePod(r) is a little cramped and my arm itches from the
| Soylent(r) IV drip, but I'll save so much time by not having to
| go outside and interact with legacy humans!
| 0xRusty wrote:
| Strap it on? Haven't you heard? The vison pro 9 will be a chip
| grown on your retina.
| machiaweliczny wrote:
| Vision pro 10 will be interfacing with your brain using your
| life simulation for it's own computations. Wait what?
| sgt wrote:
| Elon Musk says hi.
| mr_sturd wrote:
| Think happy thoughts to reply.
| seydor wrote:
| That sounds like a nightmare! You have to buy so many products,
| you have to keep them charged and you re still missing on so
| much. You should instead get the Neuralink plug-in pod with
| builtin feeding tube and catheter
| nox101 wrote:
| Apple doesn't allow "wink" in apps so no, this will not be
| happening on an Apple Vision Pro
| totaldude87 wrote:
| What happens when humanity stops generating new content/recording
| new findings/knowledge etc ? are at a place where whatever we had
| is enough knowledge for AI takeover?
|
| or we are heading towards a skynet-y feature
| sulayman1 wrote:
| As a counterpoint, i don't think that the average person has
| stopped taking pictures just because image generation models
| exists. Nor have people stopped pursuing other hobbies impacted
| by AI. We don't go to museums to look at AI art that was
| created in 10 seconds and I doubt culture will shift to a point
| where that's common place. Human content will still be created,
| and we will probably see the general quality of that content
| increase as a result of foundational models. Content creation
| is taking whats in the mind and translating it into the
| physical/digital realm. With better AI, this translation
| becomes easier for a lot of fields and you no longer have to
| master the use devices to make your art quality. However,
| everyone can agree that prompt based generation is a lot less
| satisfying than making content from scratch. It feels more akin
| to a google search than a satisfying creative process. Those
| who are passionate and talented will continue to pursue their
| physical medium because of this.
|
| The monetary value of generic stock content will surely drop
| and won't be created by professionals anymore. However, that
| doesn't mean people stop taking pictures of their dog just
| because they can get midjourney to generate the same thing.
| Creation for the sake of creation will continue. AI companies
| will initially reap in a lot of the $ value that used to go to
| the creators of stock content, but when open source models
| reach parity the masses will be able to make what's in their
| mind a reality as casual creators. Hobbyists will still exist
| and those that become truly great will still rise to notoriety.
| dr__mario wrote:
| I'd love to feel excited by all these advancements and somehow I
| feel numb. I get part of the feeling (worry about inequalities it
| may generate), but I sense something more. It's like I see it as
| a toy... I'm unable to dream on how this will impact my life in
| any meaningful way.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Imagine dumping all the HIPAA data into a process like this.
| Obviously fraught with privacy and accuracy[0] concerns.
| Nonetheless, it might help us move some things forward.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Call me a Luddite but I don't want these videos hitting my
| retinas.
|
| There should be an opt out from being subjected to AI content.
| landingunless wrote:
| Wonder how the folks at Runway and Pika are thinking about this.
|
| To me, it's becoming increasingly obvious that startups whose
| defensibility hinges on "hoping OpenAI doesn't do this" are
| probably not very enduring ones.
| anirudhv27 wrote:
| What makes OpenAI so far ahead of all of these other research
| firms (or even startups like Pika, Runway, etc.)? I feel like I
| see so many examples of fields where progress is being made all
| across and OpenAI suddenly swoops in with an insane breakthrough
| lightyears ahead of everyone else.
| asciii wrote:
| Beautifully terrifying
| eutropia wrote:
| I hope this doesn't get buried...
|
| As several others have pointed out, realism of these models will
| continue to improve, and will soon be economically useful for
| producing beautiful or functional artifacts - however prompt
| adherence (getting what you want or intend) of the models is
| growing much more slowly.
|
| However I think we have a long ways to go before we'll see a
| decent "AI Film" that tells a compelling story - and this has
| nothing to do with some sort of naturalistic fallacy that appeals
| to some innate nature of humans!
|
| It comes down to the dataset and the limits of human creators in
| their ability to communicate their process. Image-Text and Video-
| Text pairs are mostly labeled by semi-skilled humans who describe
| what they see in detail. They are, for the most part, very good
| at capturing the obvious salient features of an image or a video.
| "reflections of the neon lights glisten in the sidewalk".
| However, what you see in a movie scene is the sum total of dozens
| if not hundreds of influences, large and subtle. Choices made by
| the actors, camera operators, lighting designers, sound
| designers, costuming, makeup, editors, etc... Most people are not
| trained to recognize these choices at all, or might not even be
| aware that there are choices to make. We (simply) see "Joaqin
| Phoenix is making awkward small-talk in the elevator with other
| office workers".
|
| So much of what we experience processes on subconscious and
| emotional and purely sensory levels, we don't elevate those
| lower-level qualia to our higher-brain's awareness and label them
| with vocabulary without intentional training (such as tasting
| wine, coffee, beer, etc - developing a palate is an act of
| sensory-vocabulary alignment).
|
| However, despite not raising these things to our intentional
| awareness, it has an influence on us -- often the desired impact
| of the person who made that choice in the first place. The
| overall effect of all of these intentional choices makes things
| 'feel right'.
|
| There's no fundamental reason AI can't produce an output that has
| the same effect as those choices, however finding each little
| choice is like a needle in a haystack. Accurate labeling of the
| training data tells the AI where to look -- but the people
| labeling the data are probably not well-versed in all of the
| little intentional choices that can be made when creating a piece
| of video-media.
|
| Beyond the issue of the labeling folks being trained in the art
| itself, there's the problem too of the artists themselves not
| being able to fully articulate their (numerous, little,
| snowflake-into-avalanche) choices - or simply not articulating it
| even if they could. Ask Jackson Pollock about paint viscosity and
| you'll learn a great deal, but ask about abstract painting
| composition and there's this ineffable gap that language seems
| ill-suited to cross. The painter paints what they feel, and they
| hope that feeling is conveyed to the viewer - but you'd be hard
| pressed to recreate "Autumn Rhythm (Number 30)" if you had to
| transmit the information via language and hope they interpreted
| it correctly. Art is simultaneously vague and specific!
|
| So, to sum up the problem of conveying your intent to the model:
|
| - The training data labels capture obvious or salient features,
| but not choices only visible to the trained eye
|
| - The material itself is created by human artists who might not
| even be able to explain all of their choices in words
|
| - You the prompter might not have the vocabulary that captures
| succinctly and specifically the intended effect
|
| - The end result will necessarily be not quite what you imagined
| in your mind's eye as a result of all of this missing information
|
| You can still get good results if you tell it to copy something,
| because the label "Tarantino" captures a lot of detail, even all
| the little things you and the training data would never have
| labeled in words. But it won't be yours and - until we have an
| army of trained artists providing precise descriptions for
| training data in their area of expertise, and you know how to
| speak those artists' language - it can't be yours.
| robblbobbl wrote:
| Holy Moly
| yandrypozo wrote:
| did anyone saw the two-leg horses in the video?
| hpeter wrote:
| One one side, we have people who are upset because the creators
| of the videos in the dataset used for teaching this language
| model were not compensated.
|
| On the other hand, people find the tech very impressive and there
| are a lot of mind blowing use-cases.
|
| Personally, this opens up the world for me to create video ads
| for software projects I create, since I have no financial
| resources or time to actually make videos, I only know how to
| code. So I find it pretty exciting. It's great for solo
| entrepreneurs.
| cchance wrote:
| The scene of the train, could easily be used in a transition
| scene in a movie, like theres so much here like stock videos are
| gonna be f*cked in short order, and if they add composition and
| planning tools, and loras, so will the movie industry.
| lencastre wrote:
| One day OpenAI itself will replace Altman and take charge.
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| I predict the word "disrupt" will see an exponential curve [1].
|
| https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=disrupt&...
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Oh nice, we'll get a new shitty Marvel movie every week now.
| dudeinhawaii wrote:
| I say this with all sincerity, if you're not overwhelmingly
| impressed with Sora then you haven't been involved in the field
| of AI generated video recently. While we understand that we're on
| the exponential curve of AI progress, it's always hard to intuit
| just what that means.
|
| Sora represents a monumental leap forward, it's comically a 3000%
| improvement in 'coherent' video generation seconds. Coupled with
| a significantly enhanced understanding of contextual prompts and
| overall quality, it's has achieved what many (most?) thought
| would take another year or two.
|
| I think we will see studios like ILM pivoting to AI in the near
| future. There's no need for 200 VFX artists when you can have 15
| artists working with AI tooling to generate all the frame-by-
| frame effects, backgrounds, and compositing for movies. It'll
| open the door for indie projects that can take place in settings
| that were previously the domain of big Hollywood. A sci-fi opera
| could be put together with a few talented actors, AI effects and
| a small team to handle post-production. This could conceivably
| include AI scoring.
|
| Sure, Hollywood and various guilds will strongly resist but it'll
| require just a handful of streaming companies to pivot. Suddenly
| content creation costs for Netflix drops an order of magnitude.
| The economics of content creation will fundamentally change.
|
| At the risk of being proven very wrong, I think replacing actors
| is still fairly distant in the future but again... humans are bad
| at conceptualizing exponential progress.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-16 23:01 UTC)