[HN Gopher] Meta Movie Gen
___________________________________________________________________
Meta Movie Gen
Author : brianjking
Score : 710 points
Date : 2024-10-04 13:03 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ai.meta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai.meta.com)
| brianjking wrote:
| Additional Links:
| https://x.com/AIatMeta/status/1842188252541043075
| https://ai.meta.com/static-resource/movie-gen-research-paper
|
| From Twitter/X:
|
| Today we're premiering Meta Movie Gen: the most advanced media
| foundation models to-date.
|
| Developed by AI research teams at Meta, Movie Gen delivers state-
| of-the-art results across a range of capabilities. We're excited
| for the potential of this line of research to usher in entirely
| new possibilities for casual creators and creative professionals
| alike.
|
| More details and examples of what Movie Gen can do
| https://go.fb.me/kx1nqm
|
| Movie Gen models and capabilities Movie Gen Video: 30B parameter
| transformer model that can generate high-quality and high-
| definition images and videos from a single text prompt.
|
| Movie Gen Audio: A 13B parameter transformer model that can take
| a video input along with optional text prompts for
| controllability to generate high-fidelity audio synced to the
| video. It can generate ambient sound, instrumental background
| music and foley sound -- delivering state-of-the-art results in
| audio quality, video-to-audio alignment and text-to-audio
| alignment.
|
| Precise video editing: Using a generated or existing video and
| accompanying text instructions as an input it can perform
| localized edits such as adding, removing or replacing elements --
| or global changes like background or style changes.
|
| Personalized videos: Using an image of a person and a text
| prompt, the model can generate a video with state-of-the-art
| results on character preservation and natural movement in video.
|
| We're continuing to work closely with creative professionals from
| across the field to integrate their feedback as we work towards a
| potential release. We look forward to sharing more on this work
| and the creative possibilities it will enable in the future.
| msp26 wrote:
| Any chance of this being released open weights? Or is the risk of
| bad PR too high (especially near a US election)?
|
| It being 30B gives me hope.
| thawab wrote:
| Meta text to image model cm3leon[0], was announced july 2023.
| It wasn't released yet, I think this one might take a while.
|
| [0] https://ai.meta.com/blog/generative-ai-text-images-cm3leon/
| diggan wrote:
| > Any chance of this being released open weights?
|
| Considering that Facebook/Meta releases blog posts titled "Open
| Source AI Is the Path Forward" but then refuses to actually
| release any Open Source AI, I'm guessing the answer is a hard
| "No".
|
| They might release it under usage restrictions though, like
| they did with Llama, although probably only the smaller
| versions, to limit the output quality.
| causal wrote:
| They have released a ton of open source? Llama 3 includes
| open training code, datasets, and models. Not to mention
| open-sourcing the foundation of most AI research today,
| pytorch.
| diggan wrote:
| Llama 3 is licensed under "Llama 3 Community License
| Agreement" which includes restrictions on usage, clearly
| not "Open Source" as we traditionally know it.
|
| Just because pytorch is Open Source doesn't mean everything
| Meta AI releases is Open Source, not sure how that would
| make sense.
|
| Datasets for Llama 3 is "A new mix of publicly available
| online data.", not exactly open or even very descriptive.
| That could be anything.
|
| And no, the training code for Llama 3 isn't available,
| response from a Meta employee was: "However, at the moment-
| we haven't open sourced the pre-training scripts".
| causal wrote:
| Sure, the Llama 3 Community License agreement isn't one
| of the standard open licenses and sucks that you can't
| use it for free if you're an entity the size of Google.
|
| Here is the Llama source code, you can start training
| more epochs with it today if you like:
| https://github.com/meta-
| llama/llama3/blob/main/llama/model.p...
|
| It's rumored Llama 3 used FineWeb, but you're right that
| they at least haven't been transparent about that:
| https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceFW/fineweb
|
| For models I prefer the term "open weight", but to assert
| they haven't open sourced models at all is plainly
| incorrect.
| diggan wrote:
| > Here is the Llama source code
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the code for doing
| inference?
|
| Meta employee told me just the other day: "However, at
| the moment-we haven't open sourced the pre-training
| scripts", can't imagine they would be wrong about it?
|
| https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-recipes/issues/693
|
| > For models I prefer the term "open weight"
|
| Personally, "Open" implies I can download them without
| signing an agreement with LLama, and I can do whatever I
| want with it. But I understand the community seems to
| think otherwise, especially considering the messaging
| Meta has around Llama, and how little the community is
| pushing back on it.
|
| So Meta doesn't allow downloading the Llama weights
| without accepting the terms from them, doesn't allow
| unrestricted usage of those weights, doesn't share the
| training scripts nor the training data for creating the
| model.
|
| The only thing that could be considered "open" would be
| that I can download the weights after signing the terms.
| Personally I wouldn't make the case that that's "open" as
| much as "possible to download", but again, I understand
| others understand it differently.
| causal wrote:
| The source I linked is the PyTorch model, should be all
| you need to run some epochs. IDK what the pretraining
| scripts are.
| diggan wrote:
| Doesn't the training script need to have a training loop
| at least? Loss calculation? A optimizer? The script you
| linked contains neither, pretty sure that's for inference
| only
| causal wrote:
| Oof you're right - no loss function or optimizer in
| place, so you'd need add that plus pull in data +
| tokenizer to get a training loop going.
|
| Apologies - you are right and I was wrong. I would edit
| my comments but they're past the edit window, will leave
| a comment accordingly.
| causal wrote:
| Past the edit window - want it to be higher up that only
| the model architecture is shared, no training scripts, as
| diggan correctly points out.
| imjonse wrote:
| That and the NFSW finetunes that will inevitably follow; unlike
| the text-gen finetunes these could really cause trouble with
| deepfakes.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Deepfakes are already a reality, the technology is already
| there and good enough for harm, the genie is not going back
| to the bottle.
|
| In fact, the more realistic the deepfakes become, the less
| harmful actual revenge porn and stolen sex videos can be,
| because of plausible deniability.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| We live in a world where you can just say dumb bullshit
| about Haitians and millions of people will insist it's
| real.
|
| This "good deepfakes will prevent harm because of plausible
| deniability" is absurd copium, and utterly divorced from
| reality.
|
| Speak to victims some time. You are not helping them.
| happyraul wrote:
| Hippos can't actually swim though.
| diggan wrote:
| Was my first reaction too when seeing the video at the top. But
| then after thinking about it, it makes sense as an example, you
| want to showcase things that aren't real but look realistic. A
| hippo swimming looks real, but it isn't as they don't swim.
| elpocko wrote:
| I have watched some films recently, and they are full of weird
| mistakes. A bunch of balloons can't lift your house into the
| air. DeLoreans can't actually travel through time. Gamma rays
| don't give you superhuman strength. A 6502 CPU couldn't power
| an advanced AI for killer robots from the future. So
| unrealistic.
| awfulneutral wrote:
| Haha, this is the first thing I thought of too. I knew adult
| hippos walk on the bottom, but from looking at existing videos
| it looks like small (baby/pygmy) hippos do too, they don't
| float at the surface like this.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| All the vids have that instantly recognizable GenAI "sheen", for
| the lack of a better word. Also, I think the most obvious
| giveaway are all the micro-variations that happen along the
| edges, which give a fuzzy artifact.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> All the vids have that instantly recognizable GenAI "sheen"_
|
| That's something that can be fixed in a future release or you
| can fix it right now with some filters in post in your
| pipeline.
| surfingdino wrote:
| > "That's something that can be easily fixed in a future
| release (...)"
|
| This has been the default excuse for the last 5+ years. I
| won't hold my breath.
| ekianjo wrote:
| You had AI videos 5 years ago?
| surfingdino wrote:
| AI in general.
| bbor wrote:
| ...I mean, it was advancing slowly for linguistic tasks
| until late 2022, that's fair. That's why we're in such a
| crazy unexpected rollercoaster of an era - we
| accidentally cracked intuitive computing while trying to
| build the best text autocomplete.
|
| AI in general is from 1950, or more generally from
| whenever the abacus was invented. This very website runs
| on AI, and always has. I would implore us to speak more
| exactly if we're criticizing stuff; "LLMs" came around
| (in force) in 2023, both for coherent language use
| (ChatGPT 3.5) and image use (DALLE2). The predecessors
| were an order of magnitude less capable, and going back 5
| years puts us back in the era of "chatbots", aka dumb
| toys that can barely string together a Reddit comment on
| /r/subredditsimulator.
| surfingdino wrote:
| AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit
| content of no use to anybody and the next iteration of
| customer support phone menu trees that sound more
| convincingly yet remain just as useless. That and another
| round of IP theft and mass surveillance in the name of
| progress.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| This is a consequence of a type of cognitive bias - bad
| examples of AI are more easily detectable than good
| examples of AI. Subsequently, when we recall examples of
| AI content, bad examples are more easily accessible. This
| leads to the faulty conclusion that.
|
| > AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit
| content of no use to anybody
|
| Good AI goes largely undetected, for the simple reason
| that it closely matches the distribution of non-AI
| content.
|
| Controversial aside: This is same bias that results in
| non-passing trans people being representative of the
| whole. Passing trans folk simply blend in.
| airstrike wrote:
| We don't have AI in general today
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| 5 years ago there were no AI videos. A bit over a year ago
| the best AI videos were hilarious hallucinations of Will
| Smith eating spaghetti.
|
| Today we have these realistic videos that are still in the
| uncanny valley. That's insane progress in the span of a
| year. Who knows what it will be like in another year.
|
| Let'em cook.
| authorfly wrote:
| Disco Diffusion was a (bad) thing in 2021 that lead to
| the spaghetti video / weird Burger Kind Ads level
| quality. But it ran on consumer GPUs / in Jupyter
| notebook.
|
| 2 years ago we had decent video generation for clips
|
| 7 months ago we have Sora
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39393252 (still
| silence since then)
|
| With these things, like DALL-E 1 and GPT-3, the original
| release of the game changer often comes ca. 2 years
| before people can actually use it. I think that's what
| we're looking at.
|
| I.e. it's not as fast as you think.
| bbor wrote:
| What video generation was decent 2 years ago? _Will smith
| eating spaghetti_ was barely coherent and clearly broken,
| and that was March 2023
| (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-will-smith-eating-
| spaghett...).
|
| And isn't this model open source...? So we get access to
| it, like, momentarily? Or did I miss something?
| AJ007 wrote:
| The subtle "errors" are all low hanging fruit. It reminds
| me of going to SIGGRAPH years back and realizing most of
| the presentations were covering things which were almost
| imperceptible when looking at the slides in front. The
| math and the tech was impressively, but qualitatively it
| might have not even mattered.
|
| The only interesting questions now have nothing to do
| with capability but with economics and raw resources.
|
| In a few years, or less, clearly we'll be able to take
| our favorite books and watch unabridged, word-for-word
| copies. The quality, acting, and cinematography will
| rival the biggest budget Hollywood films. The "special
| effects" won't look remotely CG like all of the newest
| Disney/Marvel movies -- unless you want them to. If
| publishers put up some sort of legal firewall to prevent
| it, their authors, characters, and stories will all be
| forgotten.
|
| And if we can spend $100 of compute and get something I
| described above, why wouldn't Disney et al throw $500m at
| something to get even more out of it, and charge everyone
| $50? Or maybe we'll all just be zoo animals soon (Or the
| zoo animals will have neuralink implants and human level
| intelligence, then what?)
| surfingdino wrote:
| > "In a few years, or less, clearly we'll be able to take
| our favorite books and watch unabridged, word-for-word
| copies."
|
| That would be a boring movie.
| lancesells wrote:
| > In a few years, or less, clearly we'll be able to take
| our favorite books and watch unabridged, word-for-word
| copies. The quality, acting, and cinematography will
| rival the biggest budget Hollywood films. The "special
| effects" won't look remotely CG like all of the newest
| Disney/Marvel movies -- unless you want them to. If
| publishers put up some sort of legal firewall to prevent
| it, their authors, characters, and stories will all be
| forgotten.
|
| I don't think so at all. You're thinking a movie is just
| the end result that we watch in theaters. Good directing
| is not a text prompt, good editing is not a text prompt,
| good acting is not a text prompt. What you'll see in a
| few years is more ads. Lots of ads. People who make
| movies aren't salivating at this stuff but advertising
| agencies are because it's just bullshit content meant to
| distract and be replaced by more distractions.
| ben_w wrote:
| Indeed, adverts come first.
|
| But at the same time, while it is indeed true that the
| end result is far more than simply just making good
| images, LLMs are weird interns at everything -- with all
| the negative that implies as well as the positive, so
| they're not likely to produce genuinely award winning
| content all by themselves even though they can do better
| by asking them for something "award winning" -- so it's
| certainly conceivable that we'll see AI indeed do all
| these things competently at some point.
| ben_w wrote:
| > In a few years, or less, clearly we'll be able to take
| our favorite books and watch unabridged, word-for-word
| copies. The quality, acting, and cinematography will
| rival the biggest budget Hollywood films. The "special
| effects" won't look remotely CG like all of the newest
| Disney/Marvel movies -- unless you want them to. If
| publishers put up some sort of legal firewall to prevent
| it, their authors, characters, and stories will all be
| forgotten.
|
| I'm also expecting, before 2030, that video game
| pipelines will be replaced entirely. No more polygons and
| textures, not as we understand the concepts now, just
| directly rendering any style you want, perfectly, on top
| of whatever the gameplay logic provided.
|
| I might even get that photorealistic re-imagining of
| _Marathon 2_ that I 've been wanting since 1997 or so.
| atrus wrote:
| I think the big blind spot people have with these models is
| that the release pages only show _just_ the AI output. But
| anyone competently using these AI _tools_ will be using them
| in step X of a hundred step creative process. And it 's only
| going to get worse as both the AI tools improve and people
| find better ways to integrate them into their workflow.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| Yeah exactly. Video pipelines that go into productions we
| only see the end results of have a lot of steps to them
| beyond just the raw video output/capture. Even
| Netflix/Hollywood productions without VFX have a lot of
| retouching and post processing to them.
| derefr wrote:
| Not even filters; every _text2image_ model ever created
| thusfar, can be very easily nudged with a few keywords into
| generating outputs in a specific visual style (e.g. artwork
| matching the signature style of any artist it has seen the
| some works from.)
|
| This isn't an intentional "feature" of these models; rather,
| it's kind of an inherent part of how such models work -- they
| learn associations between tokens and structural details of
| images. Artists' names are tokens like any other, and
| artists' styles are structural details like any other.
|
| So, unless the architecture and training of this model are
| very unusual, it's gonna at least be able to give you
| something that looks like e.g. a "pencil illustration."
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| At least all the humans in these videos seem to have the
| correct number of fingers, so that's progress. And Moo Deng
| seems to have a natural sheen for some reason so can't hold
| that against them. But your point about the edges is still a
| major issue.
| dageshi wrote:
| Yeah but... it's good enough?
|
| There were movies with horrible VFX that still sold perfectly
| well at the time.
| jsheard wrote:
| An important contrast is that early VFX offered strong
| control with weak fidelity, and these prompt-based AI systems
| offer high fidelity with weak control. Intent matters if you
| want to make something more than a tech demo or throwaway
| B-roll and you can't communicate much intent in a 30 word
| prompt, assuming the model even follows the prompt
| accurately.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Just need to wait for someone to develop a version of
| ControlNet that works with this system.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| This is such an important problem of the entire genAI idea.
| It's absurd that people keep focusing on quality instead of
| talking about it.
|
| But then, a lot of people have financial reasons to ignore
| the problem. What's too bad, because it's hindering the
| creation of stuff that are actually useful.
| dageshi wrote:
| Yeah, that's a fair point.
| blueblisters wrote:
| Yeah controlnet-style conditioning doesn't solve for
| consistent assets, or lighting, framing etc. Maybe its
| early but it seems hard to get around traditional 3D assets
| + rendering, at least for serious use-cases.
|
| These models do seem like they could be great
| photorealism/stylization shaders. And they are also pretty
| good at stuff like realistic explosions, fluid renders etc.
| That stuff is really hard with CG.
| blargey wrote:
| I wonder how much RLHF or other human tweaking of the models
| contributes to this sort of overstauration / excess contrast in
| the first place. The average consumer seems to prefer such
| features when comparing images/video, and use it as a heuristic
| for quality. And there have been some text-to-image comparisons
| of older gen models to newer gen, purporting that the older,
| more hands-off models didn't skew towards kitschy and overblown
| output the way newer ones do.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| I don't think that's a bug. I think that helps us separate
| truth from fiction as we navigate the transition to this new
| world.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Ever heard of post processing? Because no, you can't trust
| these signals to always exist with AI content.
| lopis wrote:
| I assure you that's not enough. These are high quality videos.
| Once they get uploaded to social media, compression mostly
| makes imperfections go away. And it's been shown that when
| people are not expecting AI content, they are much less likely
| to realize they are looking at AI. I would 100% believe most of
| these videos were real if caught off guard.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| I regularly catch my kids watching AI generated content and
| they don't know it.
| throwup238 wrote:
| A surprising amount of it is really popular too. I recently
| figured out that the Movie Recaps channel was all AI when
| the generated voice slipped and mispronounced a word in a
| really unnatural way. They post videos almost daily and
| they get millions of views. Must be making bank.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| I was watching UFC recaps on Youtube and the algorithm
| got me onto AI generated MMA content, I watched for a
| while before realizing it. They were using old videos
| which were "enhanced" using AI and had an AI narrator. I
| only realized it when the fight footage got so old, and
| the AI had to do so much work to touch it up, that
| artifacts started appearing in the video. Once I realized
| it I rewatched the earlier clips in the video and could
| see the artifacts there too, but not until I was looking
| for them.
| Twisell wrote:
| Most probably they employ overseas, underpaid workers
| with non-standard English accents and so they include
| text-to-speach in the production process to smoothen the
| end result.
|
| I won't argue wether text to speech qualifies as an AI
| but I agree they must be making bank.
| derefr wrote:
| > Most probably they employ overseas, underpaid workers
| with non-standard English accents and so they include
| text-to-speach in the production process to smoothen the
| end result.
|
| Might also be an AI voice-changer (i.e. speech2speech)
| model.
|
| These models are most well-known for being used to create
| "if [famous singer] performed [famous song not by them]"
| covers -- you sing the song yourself, then run your
| recording through the model to convert the recording into
| an equivalent performance in the singer's voice; and then
| you composite that onto a vocal-less version of the
| track.
|
| But you can just as well use such a model to have
| overseas workers read a script, and then convert that
| recording into an "equivalent performance" in a fluent
| English speaker's voice.
|
| Such models just slip up when they hit input phonemes
| they can't quite understand the meaning of.
|
| (If you were setting this up for your own personal use,
| you could fine-tune the speech2speech model like a
| translation model, so it understands how your specific
| accent should map to the target. [I.e., take a bunch of
| known sample outputs, and create paired inputs by
| recording your own performances of them.] This wouldn't
| be tenable for a big low-cost operation, of course, as
| the recordings would come from temp workers all over the
| world with high churn.)
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Can you identify any of these models?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder if they are making bank. Seems like a race to
| the bottom, there's no barrier to entry, right?
| atomic128 wrote:
| Right, content creators are in a race to the bottom.
|
| But the people who position themselves to profit from the
| energy consumption of the hardware will profit from all
| of it: the LLMs, the image generators, the video
| generators, etc. See discussion yesterday:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41733311
|
| Imagine the number of worthless images being generated as
| people try to find one they like. Slop content creators
| iterate on a prompt, or maybe create hundreds of video
| clips hoping to find one that gets views. This is a
| compute-intensive process that consumes an enormous
| amount of energy.
|
| The market for chips will fragment, margins will shrink.
| It's just matrix multiplication and the user interface is
| PyTorch or similar. Nvidia will keep some of its
| business, Google's TPUs will capture some, other players
| like Tenstorrent
| (https://tenstorrent.com/hardware/grayskull) and Groq and
| Cerebras will capture some, etc.
|
| But at the root of it all is the electricity demand.
| That's where the money will be made. Data centers need
| baseload power, preferably clean baseload power.
|
| Unless hydro is available, the only clean baseload power
| source is nuclear fission. As we emerge from the
| Fukushima bear market where many uranium mining companies
| went out of business, the bottleneck is the fuel:
| uranium.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| But it uses AI only for audio, right? Script for the vid
| seems to be written by human, given the unusual humor
| type of this channel. I started watching this channel
| some time ago.
| throwup238 wrote:
| It's hard to tell whether they use AI for script
| generation. After having seen enough of those recaps, the
| humor seems to be rather mechanical and basic humor is
| relatively easy to get from an LLM if prompted correctly.
| The video titles also seem as if they were generated.
|
| That said, this channel has been producing videos well
| before ChatGPT3.5/4 so at the very least they _probably_
| started with human written scripts.
| the_af wrote:
| A group I follow about hobby/miniatures (as in wargaming
| miniatures and dioramas) recently shared an "awesome"
| image of a diorama from another "hobby" group.
|
| The image had all the telltale signs of being AI
| generated (too much detail, the lights & shadows were the
| wrong scale, the focus of the lens was odd for the kind
| of photo, etc). I checked that other group, and sure
| enough, they claim to be about sharing "miniature
| dioramas" but all they share is AI-generated crap.
|
| And in the original group, which I'm a member of and is
| full of people who actually create dioramas -- let's say
| they are "subject matter experts" -- nobody suspected
| anything! To them, who are unfamiliar with AI art, the
| photo was of a real hand-made diorama.
| dham wrote:
| It's kind of an interesting phenomenon. I read something on
| this. Basically being born between ~1980 and ~1990 is a
| huge advantage in tech.
| ben_w wrote:
| The only generation that ever knew how to set the clock
| on a VCR: our parents needed our help; our kids won't
| have even seen a VCR outside of a museum, much less used
| one.
| mikae1 wrote:
| _> it 's been shown that when people are not expecting AI
| content, they are much less likely to realize they are
| looking at AI._
|
| At this point, looking at a big tech SoMe feed I would expect
| that _everything_ is, or at least could be, gen AI content.
| jetrink wrote:
| A friend who lives in North Carolina sent me a video of the
| raging floodwaters in his state- at least that's what the
| superimposed text claimed it was. When I looked closer, it
| was clearly an Indian city filled with Indian people and
| Indian cars. He hadn't noticed anything except the flood
| water. It reminded me of that famous selective attention test
| video[1]. I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it, but
| it's amazing what details we can miss when we aren't looking
| for them. I suspect this is made even worse when we're
| casually viewing videos in a disjointed way as on social
| media and we're not even giving one part of the video our
| full attention.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
| itslennysfault wrote:
| hmmm... Maybe it's because I knew it was testing me, but I
| noticed it right away and counted the right count.
|
| I could see it being pretty shocking if I hadn't, but I
| honestly can't imagine how I'd miss that.
| firebaze wrote:
| > hmmm... Maybe it's because I knew it was testing me,
| but I noticed it right away and counted the right count.
|
| > I could see it being pretty shocking if I hadn't, but I
| honestly can't imagine how I'd miss that.
|
| The point of the video wasn't to count correctly, but to
| see the gorilla
| yunwal wrote:
| cool, he noticed it right away
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| I believe them. Why would people lie on the internet?
| bee_rider wrote:
| 99% the person was playing along for the rest of us, so
| we get a chance to enjoy the video as intended.
| xsmasher wrote:
| > I noticed it right away
| jetrink wrote:
| It probably doesn't work if you're primed to look for
| hidden details. I took the test along with my Psychology
| 101 class of about 30 people and no one noticed anything
| amiss.
| hackernewds wrote:
| I do not see how the examples you mentioned are related to
| the topic? What does selective attention have to do with
| the video looking AI generated in all the frames?
| CSSer wrote:
| Their argument is that if someone is affected by
| confirmation bias, they likely won't notice these kinds
| of details.
|
| Essentially, send me a video of something I care about
| and I will only look for that thing. Most people are not
| detectives, and even most would-be detectives aren't yet
| experts.
| scotty79 wrote:
| If you see a text accompanying some content you can de-
| prime yourself by saying "nuh-uh, that's exactly what it's
| fscking not."
| szundi wrote:
| probably people will soon develop a habit of verifying
| every detail in videos of interest haha
| szvsw wrote:
| Cause people are well known for verifying every detail in
| most other forms of media already right?
| jsheard wrote:
| For the entire duration of the Russia/Ukraine war "combat
| footage" that is actually from the video game ARMA 3 has
| gone viral fairly regularly, and now exactly the same thing
| is happening with Israel/Iran.
| aguaviva wrote:
| And which YouTube happily promotes straight to the top,
| of course -- thanks to the efforts of its rocket-science
| algorithm team. (Not sure whether the ones I've been
| seeing were generated by that particular platform, but YT
| does seem to promote obviously fake and deceptively
| labelled "combat" footage with depressing regularity).
| ynniv wrote:
| The willingness of people to believe that combatants are
| wearing cinematic body cams for no tactical reason can
| only be matched by their willingness to assume people
| meticulously record every minute of their lives just so
| they can post a once-in-a-lifetime event on TikTok.
|
| Who even needs AI generated videos when you can just act
| out absurdity and pretend it's real?
| Seanambers wrote:
| As far as I know, most of the viral stuff has been active
| air defence CWIS and the like which can be hard to
| discern.
|
| There's a morbid path from the grainy Iraq war and
| earlier shaky footage, through IS propaganda which at the
| time had basically the most intense combat footage ever
| released to the Ukraine war. Which took it to the morbid
| end conclusion of endless drone video deaths and edited
| clips 30+ mins long with day long engagements and
| defending.
|
| And yes, to answer your belief that there is none - there
| is loads of "cinematic body cam footage out there now".
| stavros wrote:
| It's kind of sad that we don't even need AI to create
| misinformation, the bar for what people will fall for is
| really low.
| fossuser wrote:
| People believe false things easily if it confirms their
| priors. Confirmation bias is strong.
|
| Fake images play into that, but they don't need to be AI
| generated for that to be true, it's been true forever.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Indeed watching Reels or Tiktok videos is an exercise in
| testing your bullshit meter and commenting accordingly to
| let the uninformed know hey this is most likely fake.
| wpietri wrote:
| And let's not forget the paper that goes with the video,
| which has a stellar title:
| http://www.chabris.com/Simons1999.pdf
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I thought the movements were off. The little girl on the beach
| moves like an adult, the painter looks like a puppet, and
| everything is in slow motion?
| declan_roberts wrote:
| They look like some commercial promo video, which makes sense
| since that's probably what they were trained on.
| the_af wrote:
| To me they seem off, but off in the same sense real humans in
| ads always seem off. E.g. the fake smile of the smiling girl.
| That's what people look like in ads.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It's my understanding that the AI sheen is done on purpose to
| give people a "tell". It is totally possible right now to at
| least generate images with no discernible tell.
| spookie wrote:
| > It is totally possible right now to at least generate
| images with no discernible tell.
|
| I have yet to find examples of this
| grumbel wrote:
| There are numerous tricks and LORAs to make realistic
| images without the overpolish you get by default:
|
| * https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fvs0e1
|
| * https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fak0jl
| /fi...
| daedrdev wrote:
| Haha, I think I can maybe tell on like one or two of
| those
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| In the linked webpage, the following _videos_ would be good
| enough to trick me:
|
| - The monkey in hotspring video, if not for its weird
| beard...
|
| - The koala video I would have mistaken for hollywood-
| quality studio CGI (although I would know it's not _real_
| because koalas don 't surf... do they?)
|
| - The pumpkin video if played at 1/4 resolution and 2x
| speed
|
| - The dog-at-Versailles video edit
|
| If the videos are that good, I'm sure I already can't
| distinguish between real photos and the best AI images. For
| example, ThisPersonDoesNotExist isn't even very recent, but
| I wouldn't be able to tell whether most of its output is
| real or not, although it's limited to a certain style of
| close-up portrait photography.
|
| https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > limited to a certain style of close-up portrait
| photography
|
| Not to take away from your point but it's more limited
| than one might think from this phrase. As an exercise,
| open that page and scroll so the full image is on your
| screen, then hover your mouse cursor within the iris of
| one of the eyes, refresh and scroll again. (Edit: I just
| noticed there's a delayed refresh button on the page, so
| one can click that and then move their mouse over the eye
| to skip a full page refresh.) I've yet to see a case
| where my mouse cursor is not still in line with the iris
| of the next not-person.
| hoosieree wrote:
| Video autotune.
| dekhn wrote:
| That sheen looks (to me) like some of the filters that are used
| by people who copy videos from TV and movie and post them on
| (for example) facebook reels.
|
| There's an entire pattern of reels that are basically just
| ripped-off-content with enough added noise to (I presume) avoid
| content detection filters. Then the comments have links to scam
| sites (but are labelled as "the IMDB page for this content").
| CSSer wrote:
| The idea that Meta's effectively stolen content is tainted by
| a requirement to avoid collecting stolen content is laughably
| ironic.
| kylebenzle wrote:
| Yes, but thats just a hypothesis, have we seen any evidence
| that shows the cause of the "AI sheen" is bad training
| data, or more likly, just a shortcomming of generating
| realistic photos from text at this early stage.
| alana314 wrote:
| I'm thankful to be able to recognize that sheen, though I think
| it will go away soon enough
| demaga wrote:
| It is maybe recognizable in most cases, but definitely not
| instantly nor easily. I could definitely see nobody noticing
| one of those clips used in an otherwise non-AI video
| production.
| forgetfulness wrote:
| A lot look like CGI, but I wouldn't be able to tell that they
| weren't created by an actual animator.
| sixothree wrote:
| I did some images generation and found a LORA for VHS footage.
| It's amazing what "taking away the sheen" can do to make an
| image look strikingly real.
| Loughla wrote:
| The ATV turning in mid air was a giveaway as well. Physics
| seems to be a basic problem for these type of videos.
| jsheard wrote:
| If nothing else it will produce some amazing material for this
| account, once the content farms get their hands on it:
| https://x.com/FacebookAIslop
| niles wrote:
| Crashes Firefox mobile. Looks pretty impressive on Chrome!
| Apparently hosted only
| lwansbrough wrote:
| This is really something. The spatial and temporal coherence is
| unbelievable.
| sourraspberry wrote:
| Impressive.
|
| Always important to bear in mind that the examples they show are
| likely the _best_ examples they were able to produce.
|
| Many times over the past few years a new AI release has "wowed"
| me, but none of them resulted in any sudden overnight changes to
| the world as we know it.
|
| VFX artists: You can sleep well tonight, just keep an eye on
| things!
| bbor wrote:
| Tbf, the biggest private infrastructure project in the history
| of humanity is now underway (Microsoft GPU centers), the
| fastest app to reach #1 on the App Store was released
| (ChatGPT), and it's dominating online discourse. Many companies
| have used LLMs to justify layoffs, and /r/writers and many,
| many fanart subreddits already talk of significant changes to
| their niches. All of this was basically at 0 in 2022, and 100
| by early 2023. It's not normal.
|
| Everyone should sleep well tonight, but only because we'll look
| out for each other and fight for just distribution of
| resources, not because the current job market is stable. IMO :)
| chucky_z wrote:
| VFX artists cannot sleep well, they're already being displaced
| with AI or being forced to use it to massively increase their
| output.
|
| Here's an example thread:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/vfx/comments/1e4zdj7/in_the_climate...
|
| I am not trying to be negative, however it is the reality that
| ML/LLM has eliminated entire industries. Medical transcription
| for example is essentially gone.
| sionisrecur wrote:
| I don't see it as that much of a problem. It's like washing
| machines taking away people's job of washing clothes, what
| are they gonna do with their time now? Maybe something more
| productive.
| cubefox wrote:
| We really have a problem once there are no more jobs left
| for us humans, and only the people who own capital (stocks,
| real estate etc) will be able to earn money from dividends.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| > We really have a problem once there are no more jobs
| left for us humans
|
| What is the required amount of labor humans should have
| to do?
| krapp wrote:
| The amount required to pay rent on their continued
| survival, which in a capitalist society, and excluding
| members of the capitalist class, will never be zero.
| chucky_z wrote:
| ... something more productive than art?
|
| that's quite a productive thing. art has tremendous value
| to society.
|
| why don't we automate the washing machine more instead of
| automating the artist?
| echoangle wrote:
| Well we already automated all the easy stuff (washing
| machines for example), and now we're automating more
| stuff as we get better at it.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Washing machines and roombas were the low hanging fruits
| in the real world.
|
| Automating more in the real world is much (much) harder
| than grabbing the low-hanging fruits in the digital
| world.
| dagmx wrote:
| That thread you linked doesn't seem to align at all with your
| claims though? The majority of comments do not make the claim
| that they're using any GenAI elements.
|
| As someone who's worked in the industry previously and am
| quite involved still, very few studios are using it because
| of the lack of direction it can take and the copyright
| quagmire. There are lots of uses of ML in VFX but those
| aren't necessarily GenAI.
|
| GenAI hasn't had an effect on the industry yet. It's unlikely
| it will for a while longer. Bad business moves from clients
| are the bigger drain, including not negotiating with unions
| and a marked decline in streaming to cover lost profits.
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes, and like pretty much every AI release I've seen, even
| these cherry-picked examples mostly do not quite match the
| given prompt. The outputs are genuinely incredible, but if you
| imagine actually trying to use this for work, it would be very
| frustrating. A few examples from this page:
|
| Pumpkin patch - Not sitting on the grass, not wearing a scarf,
| no rows of pumpkins the way most people would imagine.
|
| Sloth - that's not really a tropical drink, and we can't see
| enough of the background to call it a "tropical world".
|
| Fire spinner - not wearing a green cloth around his waist
|
| Ghost - Not facing the mirror, obviously not reflected the way
| the prompter intended. No old beams, no cloth-covered
| furniture, not what I would call "cool and natural light". This
| is probably the most impressively realistic-looking example,
| but it almost certainly doesn't come close to matching what the
| prompter was imagining.
|
| Monkey - boat doesn't have a rudder, no trees or lush greenery
|
| Science lab - no rainbow wallpaper
|
| This seems like nitpicking, and again I can't underestimate how
| unbelievable the technology is, but the process of making any
| kind of video or movie involves translating a very specific
| vision from your brain to reality. I can't think of many
| applications where "anything that looks good and vaguely
| matches the assignment" is the goal. I guess stock footage
| videographers should be concerned.
|
| This all matches my experience using any kind of AI tool. Once
| I get past my astonishment at the quality of the results, I
| find it's almost always impossible to get the output I'm
| looking for. The details matter, and in most cases they are the
| only thing that matters.
| psb217 wrote:
| The one thing that immediately stood out to me in the ghost
| example was how the face of the ghost had "wobbly geometry"
| and didn't appear physically coupled to the sheet. This and
| the way the fruit in the sloth's drink magically rested on
| top of the drink without being wedged onto the edge of the
| glass as that would require were actually some of the more
| immediate "this isn't real" moments for me.
| burkaman wrote:
| I think those types of visual glitches can probably be
| fixed with more or better training, and I have no doubt
| that future versions of this type of system will produce
| outputs that are indistinguishable from real videos.
|
| But better training can't fix the more general problem that
| I'm describing. Perfect-looking videos aren't useful if you
| can't get it to follow your instructions.
| elcomet wrote:
| The ghost is insanely impressive, it's the example that
| gave me a "wow" effect. The cloth physic looks stunning, I
| never thought we would reach such a level of temporal
| coherence so fast.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I find the edit video with text the most fascinating aspect. I
| can see this being used for indie films that doesn't have a CGI
| budget. Like the scene with the movie theater, you can film them
| on lounge chairs first and then edit it to seem like a movie
| theater.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Why bother? Actors cost money and scheduling is difficult. Do
| the whole thing in AI - the model will be trained on better
| actors than your indie cast, anyway.
| M4v3R wrote:
| It will be a loong time before AI can produce lead actors
| that are believable, act exactly the way you as a director
| want and tell the story you want to tell, so I think at least
| for now you'll still need the actors for the lead roles. But
| I can totally this being used for generating people/stuff in
| the background of certain shots in a low budget movie.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Isn't that a core problem now. Getting actors to act
| exactly how you want was never a solved problem.
|
| But this limits promotion where actors do interviews and
| sell the movie to the public. It also limits an actor doing
| something crazy that tanks a movie like a tweet.
| l33tbro wrote:
| The answer is that it depends on the director. For David
| Fincher or the Coen brothers, having this level of
| exactitude and precision is what their craft is all
| about.
|
| But for plenty of other masters - think Cassavetes, Mike
| Leigh, even PTA - the actor's outstanding talent and
| instincts bring something to the script and vision that
| is outside of their prescriptive powers. Their focus is
| essentially setting up a framework for magic to happen
| inside of.
| zappchance wrote:
| Consistentency between scenes is one possible reason.
| gen3 wrote:
| 100% agree, the background replace that puts the guy into a
| stadium would be fully usable as a cut in a movie/tv show, and
| the background is believable enough that no one would bat an
| eye. If you use it properly, I expect a quality uplift on indie
| films/shorts. Your limit is your creativity
| quest88 wrote:
| That's very impressive.
| Jean-Papoulos wrote:
| Website doesn't work on Firefox and videos don't play on Edge.
| They should consider asking the AI to make a correct website
| before having it make hippos swim.
| loufe wrote:
| The entire page load is completely broken on Edge for me.
| Bizarre
| littlestymaar wrote:
| It works fine for me on Firefox on Linux, weird.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Also Firefox 127.0.1 on Linux, works perfectly (using an
| NVIDIA GPU).
| chinathrow wrote:
| That's a bit old, isn't it?
| adrian_b wrote:
| It is only a little more than 3 months old, so I would
| not call that old.
|
| I avoid updating to each new Firefox version, because
| from time to time they break some features important for
| me.
| aphit wrote:
| All works fine for me here in Edge, odd.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Not working in Safari on my MBP either.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| I use Edge at work: the videos played without issue (version
| 129.0.2792.65 on Windows).
|
| I use Firefox on my personal device: the website worked fine
| though took an extra "hiccup" to load compared to Edge (version
| 131.0 on Windows).
| chillingeffect wrote:
| Yeah it doesn't play the video for me on S10+. I can't imagine
| what they're doing to break that. It's just another disposable
| consumerist craze anyway.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| Some of these look really obviously bad, like the guy spinning
| the fire and the girl running along the beach. And it completely
| failed at the bubbles
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| doesn't need to be movie quality, just needs to be tiktok
| quality and this totally passes the bar.
|
| Are you ready to become a penguin in all of your posts to
| maximise aquatic engagement? I am.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| I've become a robot and a demon to maximise engagement, its
| called being a vtuber
| nsagent wrote:
| Interesting perspective, considering a paper ByteDance just
| released yesterday [1] has much worse video quality. If your
| comparison is to real videos, then for sure the quality isn't
| great. If instead you compare to other released research, the
| this model is one of the best released thus far.
|
| [1]: https://epiphqny.github.io/Loong-video/
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Okay, let's give it a participation trophy for being the best
| of the slop category.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| Yeah, some were impressive, but others looked quite bad. The
| guy running in the desert looked like a guy floating over the
| ground only sporadically making contact with the sand. The
| footfalls in a lot of these videos look pretty janky or "soft".
|
| The clothing changes also have pretty rough edges, or just look
| like they're floating over the original model. The 3D glasses
| one looked atrocious. The lighting changes are also pretty
| lacking.
| Bloedcoins wrote:
| I have not had the same feeling as you and i do look at ai art
| for quite. awhile.
|
| Are you still impressed though?
| tiborsaas wrote:
| The spinning fire was one that could easily fool me if a 0.5
| shot was in a music video. Context is everything.
| cs702 wrote:
| _Impressive._
|
| It's only going to get better, faster, cheaper, easier.[a]
|
| Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to ask the
| machines: "Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the likeness
| of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role."
|
| Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to have
| immersive VR experiences that are crafted to each person.
|
| Sooner than anyone could have expected, we won't be able to
| identify deepfakes anymore.
|
| We sure live in interesting times!
|
| ---
|
| [a] With apologies to Daft Punk:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAjR4_CbPpQ
| mywacaday wrote:
| Are we only a few years away from one person/small group made
| movies where the dialog, acting, location and special effects
| can be tweaked endlessly for a relatively low cost. If I was a
| studio exec I'd be worried.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| If I was a human I'd be worried.
| edgyquant wrote:
| These are tools by and for humans
| ceejayoz wrote:
| So are nukes.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I guess cats probably think we are tools for feeding
| them...
| adamc wrote:
| I wouldn't be. How is any of this going to lead to meaningful
| art?
|
| I don't think you get "The Green Mile" from something like
| this.
| meiraleal wrote:
| > I wouldn't be. How is any of this going to lead to
| meaningful art?
|
| Local art, local actors, local animations telling stories
| about local culture. A netflix for every city, even
| neighborhoods. That's going to be crazy fun.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| There are plenty of great outsider storytellers and
| artists. Youtube is proof of this. People mostly do comedy
| on youtube because that's what the medium supports on a low
| budget, but AI is going to change that.
| adamc wrote:
| I'm really not seeing how that would happen from these
| examples. It would seem like achieving an adequate,
| directorial level of control would require writing a
| novel -- or, anyway, more than a conventional screenplay
| -- to get the AI to make the movie you wanted.
|
| There is so much that has to be conveyed in making a
| film, if you want it to say something particular.
| meiraleal wrote:
| > It would seem like achieving an adequate, directorial
| level of control would require writing a novel -- or,
| anyway, more than a conventional screenplay -- to get the
| AI to make the movie you wanted.
|
| And? What's the problem with that? You seem to be locked
| in a "prompt to get a movie" mindset.
| adamc wrote:
| Those are the examples provided. When they deliver pro
| tools for generating movie clips, I will be more
| convinced, but that hasn't remotely happened yet.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| I'd love to see what'd happen if someone dumped the entire
| text of the Silmarillion or the Hobbit into one of these
| models. Assuming context windows and output capacity become
| large enough.
| bnj wrote:
| Especially primed by all the lord of the rings movies,
| for example; I could see the studio taking all the
| archived footage, camera angles, all the extra data that
| was generated in the creation of the films and feeding
| that into something like this model to create all kinds
| of interesting additional material.
| Hrun0 wrote:
| > I don't think you get "The Green Mile" from something
| like this.
|
| ...yet
| vundercind wrote:
| Extremely-heavily-CG movies already mostly look like shit
| compared to ones where they build sets and have props and
| location shoot, even if somewhat assisted by computer
| compositing and such (everything is, nowadays). [edit: I
| don't even mean that the graphics look bad, but the
| creative and artistic choices tend to be poor]
|
| The limitations of reality seem to have a positive effect
| on the overall process of film making, for whatever reason.
| I expect generative AI film will be at least as bad. Gonna
| be hard to get an entire _well-crafted_ film out of them.
| ben_w wrote:
| You're unlikely to get an AI that wins accolades for the
| same reason that's unlikely with humans: they represent the
| absolute pinnacle of achievement.
|
| The same AI can still raise the minimum bar for quality. Or
| replace YouTubers and similar while they're still learning
| how to be good in the first place.
|
| No idea where we are in this whole process yet, but it's a
| continuum not a boolean.
| observationist wrote:
| What accolades? The Hollywood self-congratulatory
| conspicuous consumption festivals they use to show how
| good they are at producing "art" every year? The film
| festivals where billions of dollars are spent on clothing
| and jewelry to show off the "class" of everyone
| attending, which people like Weinstein used to pick
| victims, and everyone else uses as conspicuous
| consumption and "marketing" media?
|
| Pinnacle is not the word I'd use. Race to the bottom,
| least possible effort, plausibly deniable quality, gross
| exploitation, capitalist bottom line - those are all
| things I'd use to describe current "art" awards like
| Grammy, Oscars, Cannes, etc.
|
| The media industry is run by exploiting artists for
| licensing rights. The middle men and publishers add
| absolutely nothing to the mix. Google or Spotify or
| platforms arguably add value by surfacing, searching,
| categorizing, and so on, but not anywhere near the level
| of revenue capture they rationalize as their due.
|
| When anyone and everyone can produce a film series or set
| of stories or song or artistic image that matches their
| inner artistic vision, and they're given the tools to do
| so without restriction or being beholden to anyone, then
| we're going to see high quality art and media that
| couldn't possibly be made in the grotesquely commercial
| environment we have now. These tools are as raw and rough
| and bad performing as they ever will be, and are only
| going to get better.
|
| Shared universes of prompts and storylines and media
| styles and things that bring generative art and
| storytelling together to allow coherent social sharing
| and interactive media will be a thing. Kids in 10 years
| will be able to click and create their own cartoons and
| stories. Parents will be able to engage by establishing
| cultural parameters and maybe sneak in educational,
| ethical, and moral content designed around what they
| think is important. Artists are going to be able to
| produce every form of digital media and tune and tweak
| their vision using sophisticated tools and processes, and
| they're not going to be limited by budgets, politics,
| studio constraints, State Department limitations,
| wink/nod geopolitical agreements with nation states, and
| so on.
|
| Art's going to get weird, and censorship will be nigh on
| impossible. People will create a lot of garbage, a lot of
| spam, low effort gifs and video memes, but more artists
| will be empowered than ever before, and I'm here for it.
| ben_w wrote:
| > What accolades?
|
| Any accolades, be that professional groups, people's
| awards, rotten tomatoes or IMDB ratings.
|
| > Race to the bottom, least possible effort, plausibly
| deniable quality, gross exploitation, capitalist bottom
| line - those are all things I'd use to describe current
| "art" awards like Grammy, Oscars, Cannes, etc.
|
| I find them ridiculous in many ways, but no, one thing
| they're definitely not is a race to the bottom.
|
| If you want to see what a race to the bottom looks like,
| _The Room_ has a reputation for being generally terrible,
| "bad movie nights" are a thing, and _Mystery Science
| Theater 3000_ 's schtick is to poke fun at bad movies.
|
| > The media industry is run by exploiting artists for
| licensing rights.
|
| Yes
|
| > The middle men and publishers add absolutely nothing to
| the mix. Google or Spotify or platforms arguably add
| value by surfacing, searching, categorizing, and so on,
| but not anywhere near the level of revenue capture they
| rationalize as their due.
|
| I disagree. I think that every tech since a medium became
| subject to mass reproduction (different for video and
| audio, as early films were famously silent) has pushed
| things _from_ a position close to egalitarianism
| _towards_ a winner-takes-all. This includes Google:
| already-popular things become more popular, because
| Google knows you 're more likely to engage with the more
| popular thing than the less popular thing. This dynamic
| also means that while anyone will be free to _make_ their
| own personal vision (although most of us will have all
| the artistic talent of an inexperienced Tommy Wiseau),
| almost everyone will still only watch a handful of them.
|
| > Art's going to get weird, and censorship will be nigh
| on impossible.
|
| Bad news there, I'm afraid. AI you can run on your
| personal device, is quite capable of being used by the
| state to drive censorship at the level of your screen or
| your headphones.
| mathgeek wrote:
| We already exist in a world where most of the revenue for
| film companies comes from formulaic productions. Studio
| execs certainly worry about how they are going to create
| profits in addition to any concerns about the qualitative
| cultural value of the films.
| adamc wrote:
| Even formulaic movies from hollywood have directors and
| actors doing a million things the AI will do randomly
| unless you tell it otherwise.
| riskable wrote:
| > How is any of this going to lead to meaningful art?
|
| Nearly _all_ the movies that go to theaters aren 't
| "meaningful art". Not only that but what's meaningful _to
| you_ isn 't necessarily what's meaningful to others.
|
| If someone can get their own personal "Godzilla VS The Iron
| Giant" crossover made into a feature-length film it will be
| meaningful _to them_.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > Nearly all the movies that go to theaters aren't
| "meaningful art".
|
| No but what they are is expensive, flashy, impressive
| productions which is the only reason people are
| comfortable paying upwards of $25 each to see them. And
| there's no way in the world that an AI movie is going to
| come anywhere close to the production quality of Godzilla
| vs Kong.
|
| And like, yeah, their example videos at the posted link
| are impressive. How many attempts did those take? Are
| they going to be able to maintain continuity of a
| character's appearance from one shot to the next to form
| a coherent visual structure? How long can these shots be
| before the AI starts tripping over itself and forgetting
| how arms work?
| wavemode wrote:
| My suspicion is that, if AI moviemaking actually becomes
| common, there will be a younger generation of folks who
| will grow up on it and become used to its peculiarities.
|
| We will be the old ones going "back in my day, you had to
| actually shoot movies on a camera! And background objects
| had perfect continuity!" And they will roll their eyes at
| us and retort that nobody pays attention to background
| objects anyway.
| adamc wrote:
| Shades of autotune.
|
| But I have faith that people will notice the difference.
| The current generation may not care about autotune, but
| that doesn't mean another generation won't. People
| rediscover differences and decide what matters to them.
|
| When superhero movies were new, almost everyone loved
| them. I was entranced. After being saturated with them...
| the audience dropped off. We started being dissatisfied
| with witty one-liners and meaningless action. Can you
| still sell a super-hero movie? Sure. Like all action
| movies, they internationalize well. But the domestic
| audiences are declining. It makes me think of Westerns.
| At one time, they were a hollywood staple. Now, not so
| much. Yes, they still make them, and a good one will do
| fine, but a mediocre one... maybe not.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > The current generation may not care about autotune
|
| The previous generation's care about autotune was also
| flatly wrong. Autotune was used by a few prominent
| artists then and is more widely used now _as an aesthetic
| choice,_ for the sound it creates which is distinctly not
| natural singing, as the effect was performed by running
| the autotune plugin at a much, much higher setting than
| was expected in regular use.
|
| Tone correction occurs in basically every song production
| now, and you never hear it. Hell, newer tech can perform
| tone correction on the fly for live performances, and the
| actual singing being done on the stage can be swapped out
| on the fly with pre-recorded singing to let the performer
| rest, or even just lipsync the entire thing but still
| allow the performer to jump in when they want to and ad-
| lib or tweak delivery of certain parts of songs.
|
| The autotune controversey was just wrong from end to end.
| When audio engineers don't want you to hear them
| correcting vocals, you don't hear it. I'd be willing to
| buy another engineer being able to hear tone correction
| in music, but if a layman says they do, sorry but I
| assume that person's full of shit.
| adamc wrote:
| There are a bunch of videos (e.g., Wings of Pegasus) on
| youtube that cover pitch-correction, and there are plenty
| of examples you can hear.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| My suspicion (and fear) is that _poor_ members of the
| younger generation are going to grow up reading AI kids
| books and watching AI TV shows, and playing AI generated
| iPad games, and be less literate, less experienced, less
| rounded and interesting people as a result. This is
| _already_ kind of a problem where under-served kids
| access less, experience less, and are able to do less and
| I see AI doing nothing but absolutely slamming the gas on
| that process and causing already under-served kids to be
| _even more under-served._ That human created art will be
| yet another luxury only afforded to the children of the
| advantaged classes.
|
| And maybe they won't have a problem with it, like you
| say, maybe that'll just be their "normal" but that seems
| so fucking sad to me.
| philipkglass wrote:
| If poor kids of the future grow up reading AI book-slop
| instead of classic books that's going to be due to
| complicated factors of culture and habit rather than
| economic necessity. Most of the traditional Western canon
| of "great literature" is already in the public domain,
| available for free.
|
| https://standardebooks.org/
|
| For newer in-copyright works, public libraries commonly
| offer Libby:
|
| https://company.overdrive.com/2023/01/25/public-
| libraries-le...
|
| It gives anyone with a participating-system library card
| free electronic access to books and magazines. And it's
| unlikely that librarians themselves will be adding AI
| book-slop to the title selection.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > If poor kids of the future grow up reading AI book-slop
| instead of classic books that's going to be due to
| complicated factors of culture and habit rather than
| economic necessity.
|
| To be clear, I'm not talking great literature. I'm
| talking Clifford the Big Red Dog type stuff.
|
| That said I still have a number of problems with this
| assertion:
|
| It will absolutely be down, in part, to economic
| necessity. Amazon's platform is already dealing with a
| glut of shitty AI books and the key way they get ahead in
| rankings is being cheaper than human-created
| alternatives, and they can be cheaper because having an
| AI slop something out is way less expensive and time
| consuming than someone writing/illustrating a kid's book.
|
| Moreover, our economy runs on the notion that the easier
| something is to do, the more likely people are to do it
| at scale, and vetting your kids media is hard and
| annoying as a parent at the best of times: if you come
| home from working your second job and are ready to
| collapse, are you going to prepare a nutritious meal for
| your child and set them up with insightful, interesting
| media? No you're going to heat up chicken nuggets and put
| them in front of the iPad. That's not good, but like,
| what do you expect poor parents to do here? Invent more
| time in the day so they can better raise their child
| while they're in the societal fuckbarrel?
|
| And yes, before it goes into that direction, yes this is
| all down to the choices of these parents, both to have
| children they don't really have the resources to raise
| (though recent changes to US law complicates that choice
| but that's a whole other can of worms) and them not
| taking the time to do it and all the rest, yes, all of
| these parents could and arguably should be making better
| choices. But ALSO, I do not see how it is a positive for
| our society to let people be fucked over like this
| constantly. What do we GAIN from this? As far as I can
| tell, the only people who gain anything from the
| exhausted-lower-classes-industrial-complex are the same
| rich assholes who gain from everything else being
| terrible, and I dunno, maybe they could just take one for
| the team? Maybe we build a society focused on helping
| people instead of giving the rich yet another leg up they
| don't need?
| philipkglass wrote:
| _...if you come home from working your second job and are
| ready to collapse, are you going to prepare a nutritious
| meal for your child and set them up with insightful,
| interesting media? No you 're going to heat up chicken
| nuggets and put them in front of the iPad._
|
| This is what I mean by "complicated factors of culture
| and habit." An iPad costs more than an assortment of
| paper books. Frozen chicken nuggets cost more than basic
| ingredients. But the iPad and nuggets _are_ faster and
| more convenient. The kids-get-iPad-and-nuggets habit is
| popular with middle-income American families too, not
| just poor families where parents work two jobs. The
| economic explanation is too reductive.
|
| I'm not trying to say that this is the "fault" of parents
| or of anyone in particular. When the iPad came out I
| doubt that Apple engineers or executives thought "now
| parents can spend less time engaging with children" or
| that parents thought of it as "a way to keep the kids
| quiet while I browse Pinterest" but here we are.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean, that's the thing though. We now have had kids
| parked in front of iPads for a good amount of time, along
| with other technical innovations like social media, and
| we have documented scientific proof of the harms they do
| to children's self-esteem, focus and mental acuity. I
| don't think the designers of the iPad or even the
| engineers at Facebook set out to cause these issues,
| _but. they. did._ And now we have a fresh technology in
| the form of AI that whole swathes of "entrepreneurs" are
| ready to toss into more children's brains as these
| previous ones were.
|
| Is it too much to ask for a hint of _caution_ with regard
| to our most vulnerable populations brains?
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| As a former iPad (OS) designer, and former Facebook feed
| engineer, of course we're upset about what happened. Most
| of us fought valiantly, with awareness, against what
| became the dark forces and antisocial antipatterns. But
| the promo-culture performance incentive system instituted
| by HR being based on growth metrics at all costs made all
| of us powerless to stop it. Do something good for the
| world, miss your promo or get fired.
|
| Circa 2020 a huge number of fed-up good-intentioned
| engineers and designers quit. It had no effect, at all.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I'm genuinely sorry that happened to you. That had to be
| an absolute nightmare of an experience.
|
| To be clear: I am not saying that engineers need to be
| better at preventing this stuff. I am saying regulators
| need to _demand_ that companies be careful, and study how
| this stuff is going to affect people, not just yeet it
| into the culture and see what happens.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| I was there (Apple) at the time. Absolutely did NOT
| expect this thing that Steve thought was a neat way to
| see the whole NYT front page at once, was going to be the
| defining MacGuffin of an entire generation of children.
| aenvoker wrote:
| There's already conversation in AI art about how "Y'all
| will miss all these weird AI glitches when they're gone!"
| It will become the new tape hiss. Something people will
| nostalgically simulate in later media that doesn't have
| it naturally.
| StevenNunez wrote:
| Looking forward to watching this post age like milk.
| adamc wrote:
| They are art compared to getting uncontrolled choices.
| Who decides what the actors look like? How they move?
| What emotions their faces are to convey? How the blocking
| works for a scene? What the color scheme is for the
| movie? How each shot is taken? Etc.
|
| There is a vast difference between a formulaic hollywood
| movie and some guy with a camera. If I say "Godzilla vs.
| The Iron Giant" what is the plot? Who is the good guy?
| Why does the conflict take place?
|
| AI will come up with something. Will it be compelling
| even to the audience of one?
|
| As a toy, maybe. As an artistic experience... not
| convinced.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Who decides
|
| You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't
| making these decisions either.
|
| What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups
| and checking off boxes based on the data from that.
|
| A market focus group driven decisions for a movie is just
| as much, if not more so, of an "algorithm" than when a
| literal computer makes the decision.
|
| Thats not art. Its the same as if a human manually did an
| algorithm by hand and used that to make a movie.
| adamc wrote:
| Some of it is done that way, but by no means all of it.
| You can easily see the differences, because, say, Wes
| Anderson movies are not the same as Martin Scorsese
| movies.
|
| If it were really all just market decisions, directors
| would have no influence. This is not remotely the case.
| Nor are they paid as though that were true.
| chefandy wrote:
| This is a common perspective among people that don't
| realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff
| informs which movies get _approved_ and it certainly can
| inform broader _script changes_ , _casting changes_ , and
| in some cases _editing decisions_ , but there's a
| UNIVERSE of other artistic decisions that need to be
| made. Implying that the people involved are mere
| technicians implementing a marketing strategy is
| exponentially more reductive than saying developers and
| designers aren't relevant to making software because
| marketing surveys dictate the feature development
| timeline. A developer's input is far more fungible than
| an artist working on a feature film.
|
| I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and
| strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the
| film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those
| cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of
| dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic
| the explosions are; clothing selection and how the
| costumes change situationally or throughout the film;
| indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery;
| what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all
| of the sets and the strategies they use to weather
| things; what specific locations they shoot at within an
| area and which direction they point the camera, how the
| grading might change the mood and imply thematic
| connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of
| camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then
| there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those
| things and a million others are contributions from
| individual artists contributing their own art in one big
| collaborative project.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| You'll never be able to talk to your friends about it.
| Culture wouldn't be a shared experience. We would all
| watch our own unique AI generated things.
| sroussey wrote:
| More likely there will be cliches.
| IanCal wrote:
| But what they're describing is a case where someone with
| the storytelling ability but not the money or technical
| skills could create something that looks solid.
|
| You're imagining "pls write film" but the case of being
| able to film something and then adjust and tweak it, easily
| change backdrops etc could lead to much higher polish on
| creations from smaller producers.
|
| Would the green mile be any less hard hitting if the lights
| flickering were caused by an AI alteration to a scene? If
| the mouse was created purely by a machine?
| adamc wrote:
| I don't have a problem with adjusting small elements of
| the film, but that isn't going to make it a tool for
| youtubers (or home users off the grid) to tell their own
| stories.
| cjenkins wrote:
| Looking back on history I think this will lead to
| meaningful art (and tons and tons of absolute garbage!).
|
| The printing press led to publishing works being reachable
| by more people so we got tons of garbage but we also got
| those few individual geniuses that previously wouldn't have
| been able to get their works out.
|
| I see similarities in indie video/PC games recently too.
| Once the tech got to the point that an individual or small
| group could create a game, we got tons of absolute garbage
| but also games like Cave Story and Stardew Valley (both
| single creators IIRC).
|
| Anything that pushes the bar down on the money and effort
| needed to make something will result in way more of it
| being made. It also hopefully makes it possible for those
| rare geniuses to give us their output without the dilution
| of having to go through bigger groups first.
|
| I'm also excited from the perspective that this decouples
| skills in the creative process. There have to be people out
| there with tremendous story telling and movie making skills
| who don't have the resources/connections to produce what
| they're capable of.
| adamc wrote:
| The printing press enabled the artistic visions of single
| individuals (the writers) to find a wide audience.
|
| To do something similar, this has to allow the director
| (or whomever is prompting the AI) to control all
| meaningful choices so that they get more or less the
| movie the intend. That seems far away from what is
| demonstrated.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| You don't get "The Green Mile" from this, because it's a
| tool. You get "The Green Mile" with artistic vision. The
| tool has to be told what to do. But now a director can
| shoot a film with actors who don't match the physical
| description of a character in a story, and then correct
| their race/gender/figure/whatever with AI. That probably
| means they save money on casting. A director can shoot a
| scene inside a blank set and turn it into a palace with AI.
| That saves money from shooting on location or saves money
| from having to pay for expensive sets.
|
| So now a director with a limited budget but with a good
| vision and understanding of the tools available has a
| better chance to realize their vision. There will be tons
| of crap put out by this tool as well. But I think/hope that
| at least one person uses it well.
|
| But because it will make shooting a movie more accessible
| to people with limited budgets, the movie studios, who
| literally gatekeep access to their sets and moviemaking
| equipment, are going to have a smaller moat. The
| distribution channels will still need to select good films
| to show in theaters, TV, and streaming, but the industry
| will probably be changing in a few years if this
| development keeps pace.
| adamc wrote:
| This is the best answer I've seen, but I think what was
| demonstrated is miles away from this. A lot would need to
| be able to be specified (and honored) from the prompts,
| far more than any examples have demonstrated.
|
| I'm not against tools for directors, but the thing is,
| directors tell actors things and get results. Directors
| hire cinematographers and work with them to get the shots
| they want. Etc. How does that happen here?
|
| Also, as someone else mentioned, there is the general
| problem that heavily CG movies tend to look... fake and
| uncompelling. The real world is somehow just realer than
| CG. So that also has to be factored into this.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| I think it starts simple. Have you ever been watching a
| movie or tv show, and it shows the people walking up to
| the helicopter or Lamborghini and then cut to "they've
| arrived at their destination no transportation in sight"?
|
| It will start out with more believable green screen
| backgrounds and b roll. Used judiciously, it will improve
| immersion and cost <$10 instead of thousands. The actors
| and normal shots will still be the focus, but the
| elements that make things more believable will be cheaper
| to add.
|
| Have you ever noticed that explosions look good? Even in
| hobby films? At some point it became easy to add a
| surprisingly good looking explosion in post. The same
| thing will happen here, but for an increasing amount of
| stuff.
| adamc wrote:
| That I could believe, although... there is quite a bit of
| commentary from film buffs that lots of the stuff done in
| post doesn't quite look right, compared to older films.
|
| Which doesn't mean it won't keep happening (economics),
| but it doesn't necessarily mean any improvement in movie
| quality.
| frumper wrote:
| It doesn't look right in a lot of older films either.
| Plenty of entertaining films were poor quality yet still
| make money and attract audiences.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Interesting that you pick that example in particular. Due
| to the sheer depth of behinds the scenes takes HBO has
| provided for Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon, it
| seems to be the consensus view among effects folks that
| CG fire and explosions are nearly impossible to get right
| and real fire is still the way to go.
| quuxplusone wrote:
| "Why is it so hard to make fire look good in movies?"
| (New York magazine, October 2023)
|
| https://www.vulture.com/article/movies-fire-computer-
| generat...
|
| https://archive.is/u8Ugr
| takinola wrote:
| My guess is the art form will evolve. When YouTube
| started, some people thought it would not be able to
| compete with heavily produced video content. Instead,
| YouTube spawned a different type of "movie". It was
| short-form, filmed on phone cameras, lightly scripted,
| etc. The medium changed the content. I suspect we will
| see new genres of video content show up once this tech is
| widely available.
| DaemonAlchemist wrote:
| The first real movies made 100 years ago looked like
| something someone today could put together in their
| garage on a shoestring budget. AI-generated movies have
| existed for just two years, and are only going to get
| better. This is bleeding edge research, and I haven't
| seen any sign yet of AI models hitting a quality ceiling.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > I don't think you get "The Green Mile" from something
| like this.
|
| But maybe you do get _Deadpool & Wolverine 3_
|
| Guess where the money is?
| adamc wrote:
| If it becomes easy to make "Deadpool & Wolverine", it
| will no longer be where the money is. Everything that
| becomes a commodity attracts competition and ceases to be
| special. (You can see some of that in super-hero movies,
| which have started to be generic and lost some of their
| audience.)
|
| But, in reality, even making that kind of film is miles
| away from these examples.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > _If it becomes easy to make "Deadpool & Wolverine", it
| will no longer be where the money is. Everything that
| becomes a commodity attracts competition and ceases to be
| special. (You can see some of that in super-hero movies,
| which have started to be generic and lost some of their
| audience.)_
|
| Well, given the studios still hold the copyright, they
| can severely constrain supply to keep profits up.
|
| My suspicion is that this kind of stuff gradually reduces
| some of the labor involved in making films and allows
| studios to continue padding their margins.
| xnx wrote:
| > How is any of this going to lead to meaningful art?
|
| It's a powerful tool. A painting isn't better because the
| artist made their own paint. A movie made with IRL camera
| may not be better than one made with an AI camera.
| adamc wrote:
| No, what makes art are choices (and execution). But the
| examples given were too general and didn't exercise much
| control over the choices.
| aenvoker wrote:
| The examples given aren't trying to be artistic. They're
| demonstrating technical capabilities as simply as
| possible.
| atmavatar wrote:
| From this and other comments, I get the impression that
| most on HN assume the tool will be used exclusively by
| people without any sort of artistic talent, either
| plagiarizing existing works and/or producing absolute
| dreck.
|
| However, I see an interesting middle ground appear: a
| talented writer could utilize the AI tooling to produce a
| movie based upon their own works without having to involve
| Hollywood, both giving more writers a chance to put their
| works in front of an audience as well as ensuring what's
| produced more closely matches their material (for better or
| worse).
| stale2002 wrote:
| Who says even a majority of the content you see online is
| meaningful art?
|
| The algorithms and people making content for the algorithm
| were trends that have dominated for years already.
|
| None of that is "real" art, when you are just making
| something optimized for an algorithm.
| denisvlr wrote:
| Shameless plug: I just created a short AI film (1) and
| tried to tell an actual story and trigger emotions. I spent
| countless hours crafting the script, choosing the shots,
| refining my prompts, generating images, animating images,
| generating music, sounds, and so on... For me AI tools are
| just that - tools. True, you have to yield them some
| "control", but at the end of the day you are still the one
| guiding and directing them.
|
| Similarily, a film director "just" gives guidance to a
| bunch of people: actors, camera operator, etc. Do you
| consider the movie is his creation, even if he didn't
| directly perform any action? A photographer just has to
| push a button and the camera captures an image. Is the
| output still considered his creation? Yes and Yes, so I
| think we should consider the same with AI assisted art
| forms. Maybe the real topic is the level of depth and
| sophistication in the art (just like the difference between
| your iPhone pictures and a professional photographer's) but
| in my opinion this is orthogonal to it being human or AI
| generated.
|
| To be honest so far we have mostly seen AI video demos
| which were indeed quite uninteresting and shallow, but now
| filmmakers are busy learning how to harness these tools, so
| my prediction is that in no time you will see high quality
| and captivating AI generated films.
|
| (1) https://artefact-ai-film-festival.com/golden-
| hours-66f869b36... Please consider liking it!
| herval wrote:
| this is an excellent example that despite all the
| technical limitations (the ugly image artifacts, the lack
| of exact image consistency, etc), it's _already possible_
| to create something that connects. The "format purists"
| currently dismiss AI tooling the same way they used to
| dismiss computer graphics animation back when Toy Story 1
| came out.
|
| Excellent work!
| wanderingbit wrote:
| I have a newborn daughter, so watching this made me cry a
| little bit, alone at my desk.
|
| If yall needed evidence of these tools giving everyday
| people the ability to make emotion-tugging creations,
| I'll send you a picture of the tears!
|
| Now I'm thinking I can finally make the (IMO) dope music
| videos that come to me sometimes when I'm listening to a
| song I really love.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| I got to the scene where there is a doctor visit (halfway
| though) and though "NOPE, I'm not going through this[1]
| again" and closed it.
|
| [1] The first minutes of UP
| cbsks wrote:
| Very well done! I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried.
| scudsworth wrote:
| a shameless plug deserves an honest review: this is dog
| shit
| genewitch wrote:
| I, uh, gave some more nuance because i had some free time
| as a sibling comment to this. I hope we don't get
| downvoted because someone has to call a spade a spade.
| scudsworth wrote:
| good comment, haha. agree with those points and would
| add, since im thinking about it again now, that the
| entire work feels like a fairly (deeply) shallow riff on
| the opening sequence in pixar's "up". but of course with
| no stakes or emotional impact whatsoever.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| That's not a review. It's an (probably honest) opinion
| stated like a fact.
|
| I liked it.
| scudsworth wrote:
| sure it is. that's my critical evaluation of this work.
| if you liked it, i highly recommend the hallmark channel,
| lifetime, family channel originals, the netflix straight-
| to-vod swimlane, and a frontal lobotomy.
| genewitch wrote:
| I'm in agreement with scudsworth here, but i have a
| little more nuance, i think. I know how long this took,
| and how many compromises were made. The only reason this
| works, at all, is because humans have a massive list of
| cultural memes and tropes that shorthand "experience" for
| us. it has the "AI can only generate 2-5 seconds of video
| before it goes completely off the rails" vibe; which
| allows it to fit in with the ADHD nature of most video
| production of the last 30 years - something a lot of
| people _do not like_. For an example where this was
| jarring in the video, when they 're drawing or painting,
| you cut the scene slightly too late, you can see the AI
| was about to do some wild nonsense.
|
| What happened to the mom? Why does the kid get older and
| younger looking? why does the city flicker in the
| beginning? which kid is his in the ballet performance?
| why do they randomly have "lazy eye"? i could keep going
| but i think we all get my point.
|
| I can intuit the tropes used by the AI to convey meaning,
| and i'd be willing to list them all with relevant links
| for the paltry sum of $50. Be warned, it will be a very
| large list. Tropes and "memes" are doing 100% of the
| heavy lifting of this "art".
|
| Sorry, human. As someone who stopped creating art on a
| daily basis due to market dilution (read: it's too hard
| to build a fanbase that i care about), i am very critical
| of most "art" produced anyhow.
|
| this is dogshit.
| adamc wrote:
| I will take a look. Good to hear.
| lairv wrote:
| I'm not sure, I see a common pattern with autonomous vehicle,
| text to image, llms: the last 10% are hard to achieve
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's true of everything
| ActionHank wrote:
| Yet VCs are sold that last 10% and an additional 10% on
| top. No idea why they keep throwing their money into the
| fire.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Because VCs are compulsive gamblers, and they're
| convinced the payout if they "win" is enormous
| herval wrote:
| to be fair, that's exactly what the asset class EXISTS
| for - betting on huge outcomes, no matter the odds.
| People misunderstand that due to how much of tech is "VC
| funded" when building stuff that would fare better as a
| bootstrapped company (or funded by other means)
| darepublic wrote:
| I'm grateful for this
| Mistletoe wrote:
| If we judge from AI writing, we can extrapolate what an AI
| movie would be like. I cannot imagine reading an AI book.
| It would look and smell like a book but nothing of value or
| new insight would be inside. Michael Bay might be very
| interested.
| bovermyer wrote:
| Michael Bay has said that he doesn't like AI.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I stand corrected. I should have remembered that
| organisms that occupy the same niche have the strongest
| competition.
| blululu wrote:
| You look back at old movies, and on a technical level
| they really aren't as good as contemporary trash
| productions. But they knew how to weave the camera and a
| script into something amazing back then even if they
| didn't have resolve and aftereffects to polish every
| shot. A good script writer, editor and cinematographer
| have a huge impact on the quality of a movie. But these
| roles are only a small portion of the operating budget of
| a movie. Filming every single scene is an exhausting
| undertaking and this constitutes the bulk of a movie
| production's budget. If you can get good quality footage
| without leaving your garage then you can have a small
| team make a great movie. Maybe not the extent where you
| simply click a button but to the level that you would
| launch straight to a streaming service.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yes, AI will probably fail miserably for a while at
| least, at making the sort of well written artistic,
| clever movie that nobody watches. The only ones that need
| to be worried are the studios making churning out massive
| blockbusters...
| wrsh07 wrote:
| Self driving cars are quite safe and ubiquitous if you're
| in the right cities
| psychoslave wrote:
| I don't know, for a car the last 10% has a direct relation
| with "people die" that is obvious to everyone. With the
| movie made in anyone basement, the risks are far less
| likely to create such a vivid perception of dramatic end
| result.
|
| Not that cyber-bullying and usurpation schemes escalating a
| whole new level being less of a concern in the aftermaths,
| to be clear.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Less about risk parallels and more about control
| parallels. The last 10% of fine grained control over a
| system is hard. Like every time I've done text to image
| prompting and it gives me a great starting point, but
| cannot get certain details i want, no matter how i ask.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| If you look at the majority of their catalogue these days,
| they really aren't trying to squeeze that last 10% out of
| the movie quality these days anyways, so I doubt it will
| matter.
| llmthrow102 wrote:
| The average person spends 9-11 hours per day consuming
| media depending on what source you look at. When people are
| playing games or browsing social media at the same time
| that they have the latest Netflix show on their TV, you
| can't tell me that this is really valuable time spent to
| deepen one's understanding of the human experience; it's a
| replacement for the human experience.
|
| Most people will not notice if the soundtrack to a new TV
| show is made by a 5 word AI prompt of "exciting build-up
| suspense scene music" while they're playing pouring money
| into their mobile gacha game to get the "cute girl, anime,
| {color} {outfit}" prompt picture that is SSS rank.
|
| You or I might not care for AI slop, but it's a lot cheaper
| to produce for Netflix or Zinga or Spotify or whatever, and
| if they go this route, they don't have to pay for writers,
| actors, illustrators, songwriters, or licensing for someone
| else's product. They'll just put their own AI content on
| autoplay after what you're currently watching, and hope
| most people don't care enough to stop it and choose
| something else.
| bee_rider wrote:
| A 90% approximation of what somebody wants might be more
| interesting to that person, than a 99% approximation of
| what some studio exec wants.
| ActionHank wrote:
| I doubt it and if we were no one would be earning money
| anymore and wouldn't have cash to pay for the cost to run
| these services.
| void-pointer wrote:
| Or this is the top, and the only thing AI will be able to
| generate is boring and uninspiring clips.
|
| Ever notice how they never show anyone moving quickly in
| these clips?
| cle wrote:
| Studio execs don't do any of that stuff anyway. It's the long
| list of people in the movie credits who should be worried.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > If I was a studio exec I'd be worried
|
| Counterpoint: home "studio" recording has been feasible for
| decades, but music execs are not ruffled. Sure, you get a
| Billie Eilish debut album once a generation, but the other
| 99.99% of charting music is from the old guard. The
| media/entertainment machine is so much bigger than just
| creating raw material.
| kingofthehill98 wrote:
| But mostly just porn.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| I think AI porn is overhyped. We've had the ability to create
| realistic photos and short vids for over a year now and
| onlyfans creators are still doing fine. AI porn is just a
| niche for stuff that humans don't want to perform.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| I think AI porn is chocked full of fascinating moral
| quandaries. It kind of transcends all other types of GenAI
| for the amount of hard questions it asks society.
|
| As they say, porn is always the leading spear of
| technology. It's something to keep an eye on (no pun
| intended) to understand how society will accept/integrate
| generated content.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| It's definitely interesting from a moral and tech
| perspective.
|
| However, commercially it seems like a niche within the
| existing structures of porn. Mostly competing with the
| market for animated stuff. At least that's where it is
| right now, and its already at photorealistic parity with
| human content creators.
| Bloedcoins wrote:
| 'still'
|
| We have not had the ability to create interesting ai porn
| vids yet. How would we? Meta just showed movie gen.
|
| But i'm pretty sure the short images of moving woman very
| subtle might gotten the one or other of. Just wait a little
| bit until you can really create wat you are looking for.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| HN doesn't feel like right place to share links, but have
| a look at what's available on fanvue.
|
| I'm not sure exactly what models the account owners use,
| but I think it's a mix of Stable diffusion video touched
| up with adobe tooling.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| You obviously have not spent any time on civit.ai if
| you're saying that.
|
| What scares me most is that in my opinion, by far the
| best prompt writers are the ones who are deeply
| "motivated" and "experienced" with prompting. Often the
| best prompters have only one hand on the keyboard at a
| time.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| You have no idea how much butthurt their is from
| specifically artists who draw at the AI NSFW models which
| exist.
|
| I can trivially fine-tune and create more art from certain
| artists in an hour than they have produced themselves in
| their whole careers. This makes a lot of people very upset.
| mon_in_the_moon wrote:
| You sound like two minute papers.
| ben_w wrote:
| In enthusiasm perhaps, but when I play that in my own head
| with the voice of Dr. Karoly Zsolnai-Feher, he doesn't script
| his videos like that. I can't recall a single instance of him
| using triple repetition like that.
| throwawayk7h wrote:
| what a time to be alive.
| keiferski wrote:
| This sounds gimmicky and worth watching once or twice, then
| forgetting about. Worthwhile art will continue to be created
| from a specific person's/group's vision, not an algorithmically
| generated sum of personal preferences.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| You'll never be able to tell them apart.
| williamcotton wrote:
| You will if you go see someone pick on a guitar at an open
| mic!
| keiferski wrote:
| _" Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the likeness
| of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role."_
|
| This sounds marginally above fanfiction, so I do think
| it'll be very easy to tell them apart. "Terminator, except
| with Adam Sandler and set on Mars" is a cute, gimmicky
| idea, not a competitor to serious work.
| gedy wrote:
| Maybe, but I guarantee you this is going to get banned in
| the US for "safety" or "misinformation" reasons
| eventually (with large backing from Hollywood).
| aenvoker wrote:
| Well, yeah. If you explicitly try to come up with a cute,
| gimmicky idea, it's not going to be serious. Taste still
| matters regardless of paint, cameras or computers.
| consteval wrote:
| It depends on how shallow your understanding of media is.
|
| I'm sure this can be used to create entertaining movies
| that are fun and wacky. I don't think it can create
| impactful movies.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I think that's an extremely short sited perspective.
| There isn't much that separates a "fun and wacky" movie
| from something impactful from a cinematography
| perspective. With the right music, ambience and script
| you could absolutely do any genre of movie you wish to.
| consteval wrote:
| I disagree, I believe your perspective is short-sighted.
| If you really think what makes a movie "impactful" is the
| music, ambience, and script then I don't think you have
| much media literacy.
|
| It's no more ridiculous than saying what makes a painting
| impactful is the brush strokes. But if I copy Picasso's
| work stroke for stroke, why am I not Picasso? After all,
| the dumbass paints like a child, admittedly! How could
| someone like him ever be considered a great painter?
| heurist wrote:
| You forget that there's a human behind the prompt,
| stitching frames and dialogue together.
| consteval wrote:
| If they are stitching then I would consider that a form
| of art.
|
| However, merely describing something is not doing the
| thing. Otherwise, the business analysists at my company
| would be software engineers. No, I make the software, and
| they describe it.
|
| The end-goal here is humanless automation, no? Then I'm
| not sure your assumption holds up. If there's no human, I
| question the value.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| > If there's no human, I question the value.
|
| You may question the value but if it's anything like rugs
| you won't be in the majority. People pay a significant
| premium for artisanal handmade rugs but that being said,
| more than 95% of the rugs people use are machine made
| because they're essentially indistinguishable from a
| handmade one and are much, much cheaper and just as
| functional.
| gedy wrote:
| I don't agree. While "just" audio, I've made a few AI
| songs that have made people tear up and trigger strong
| emotions.
|
| I think you can do this with video too, just more
| challenging right now.
| consteval wrote:
| I'm sure eventually you can, but I don't think triggering
| emotions is the correct "KPI" so to speak.
|
| On social media platforms, typically the most popular
| content triggers the strongest emotions. It's rage-bait
| however, or sadness bait, or any other kind of emotional
| manipulation. It tricks the human mind and drives up
| engagement, but I don't think that is indicative of its
| value.
|
| To be clear, I'm certain that's not what you're doing,
| and the music is good. But I think it's complicated
| enough that triggering emotions isn't enough data to
| ascertain value.
|
| I don't know, exactly, what combination of measurements
| are needed to ascertain value. But I'm confident human-
| ness is part of the equation. I think if people are even
| aware of the fact a human didn't make something they lose
| interest. That makes the future of AI in entertainment
| dicey, and I think that's what fuels the constant
| dishonesty around AI we're seeing right now. Art is funny
| in how it works because, I think, intention does matter.
| And knowledge about the intention matters, too. It maybe
| doesn't make much sense, but that's how I see it.
| aenvoker wrote:
| Right now there is a ton of stigma around AI art. That
| stigma fuels a ton of poorly-informed rhetoric against
| it. There is also tons and tons of casual use of AI art
| being shitposted for funsies everywhere that reinforces
| that rhetoric that AI art means "Push button. Receive
| crap. Repeat."
|
| Meanwhile, as someone who has been engaged with the AI
| art community for years, and spent years volunteering
| part-time as a content moderator for Midjourney, the
| process of creating art via AI _with intentionality_ is
| deeply human.
|
| As an MJ mod, I have seeeeeeen things.... It's like
| browsing though people's psyche. Even in public
| portfolios people bare their souls because they assume no
| one will bother to look. People use AI to process the
| world, their lives, their desires, their trauma. So much
| of it is straight-up self-directed art therapy. Pages and
| pages, thousands of images stretching over weeks,
| sometimes months, of digging into the depths of their
| selves.
|
| Now go through that process to make something you intend
| to speak publicly from the depth of your own soul. You
| don't see much of that day to day because it is
| difficult. It's risky at a deeply personal level to
| expose yourself like that.
|
| But, be honest: How much deeply personal art do you see
| day to day? You see tons of ads and memes. But, to find
| "real art" you have to explicitly dig for it. Shitposting
| AI images is as fun and easy as shitposting images from
| meme generators. So, no surprise you see floods of
| shitposts everywhere. But, when was the last time you
| explicitly searched out meaningful AI art?
| consteval wrote:
| > But, be honest: How much deeply personal art do you see
| day to day?
|
| You bring up a good point - very little. But, to be fair,
| those people aren't necessarily trying to convince me
| it's art.
|
| I think you're mostly right but I am a little caught up
| on the details. I think it's mostly a thing of where the
| process is so different, and involves no physical strokes
| or manipulation, that I doubt it. And maybe that's
| incorrect.
|
| However, I will also see a lot of people who don't know
| how to do art pretending like they've figured it all out.
| I also see the problem with that. It wouldn't be such a
| problem if people didn't take such an overly-confident
| stance in their abilities. I mean, it's a little
| offensive for that guy mucking around for an hour to act
| like he's DiVinci. And maybe he's a minority, I wouldn't
| know, I don't have that kind of visibility into the
| space.
|
| I think a lot of the friction comes from that. Shitposts
| are shitposts, but I mean... we call them shitposts, you
| know? They, the people that make them, call them
| shitposts. There's a level of humility there I haven't
| necessarily seen with "AI Bros".
|
| I think, if you really love art, AI can be a means to
| create a product but it can also be a starting point to
| explore the space. Explore styles, explore technique,
| explore the history. And I think that might be missing in
| some cases.
|
| For a personal example, I'm really into fashion and
| style. I love clothes and always have. But it's really
| been an inspiration to me to create clothes, to sew. I've
| done hand sewing, many machine stitches too. And I don't
| need to - I could explore this in a more "high-level"
| context, and just curate clothing. But I think there's
| value in learning the smaller actions, including the
| obsolete ones.
| aenvoker wrote:
| Check out
|
| https://x.com/ClaireSilver12
|
| https://www.clairesilver.com/collections
|
| from the POV of fashion illustration. Her "corpo|real"
| collection took something like 9 months to create and was
| published nine months ago.
| sionisrecur wrote:
| Isn't a specific person's vision basically their personal
| preferences?
| keiferski wrote:
| Not really. A vision implies a particular kind of project,
| presumably created by someone with expertise and some well-
| thought through ideas about what it ought to be. Personal
| preferences just mean that someone likes X qualities.
|
| To use a real-world example: if the Renaissance-era patrons
| had merely written down their preferences and had work made
| to match those preferences, it's highly unlikely that you'd
| have gotten the _Mona Lisa_ or _David._
|
| Which is to say that, there will definitely be some
| interesting and compelling art made with AI tools. But it
| will be made by a specific person with an artistic vision
| in mind, and not merely an algorithm checking boxes.
| heurist wrote:
| I rarely watch movies or read books twice anymore. There's
| too much content already. The challenge with purely human art
| at this point is that it will be silenced by the perpetual
| flood of half-assed generated work. There will be room in
| elite art circles for more, but at some point the generated
| stuff will be so ubiquitous (and even meaningful) that anyone
| without connections is going to have a tough time building an
| audience for their handcrafted work, unless it happens to be
| particularly controversial or 'difficult' to make. The demand
| for visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI
| models. Generative AI is not there quite yet but there's no
| reason to think it won't be better than 90%+ of purely human
| content within a decade given the pace of development over
| the last few years.
| keiferski wrote:
| I don't buy this narrative at all. People like people and
| increasingly follow artists because of their personality
| and overall "brand." No one cares about generated AI art or
| its creator(s), because it's not interesting. It's also not
| sharable with other humans; see, for example, the frenzy
| around going to a Taylor Swift concert. The mass appeal and
| shared interest is part of the draw.
|
| At best, you'll get something like a generic sitcom. The
| idea that "all visual stimulus will be satisfied by
| hypertuned AI models" doesn't line up with how people
| experience the arts, at all.
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| I fully agree here. I want to be part of an audience, and
| as part of that audience I always look at the human
| development of the things to share - artifacts in the
| case of fine art, or experiences in the case of
| performative art. The artist will always be more
| important than their work to me.
|
| I don't want to carry mechanical solutions labelled
| culture - deterministic enough, despite hallucinations -
| into the next generation that follows my own. It's an
| impressive advancement for automation, sure, but just not
| a value worth sharing as human development.
|
| That being said, I think GenAI could be a valuable
| addition in any blueprint-/prototype-/wireframing phase.
| But, ironically, it positions itself in stark contrast to
| what I would consider my standards to contemporary
| brainstorming, considering the current Zeitgeist:
| - truthful to history and research (GenAI is marketing
| and propaganda) - aware of resources (GenAI is
| wasteful computing) - materialistic beyond mere
| capitalistic gains (GenAI produces short-lived digital
| data output and isn't really worth anything)
| heurist wrote:
| That may be the case today but kids are starting to grow
| up with this stuff as part of their lives, and I don't
| think we can anticipate the reaction as both they and the
| models grow in tandem. I think human creativity is much
| deeper than LLMs, but that is from my human perspective
| and I can't fully rule out that the LLMs may become
| better at it at some point in the future. I actually
| think they're already smarter and more creative than most
| people (though not more than the potential of any given
| human if they practiced/trained thoroughly).
| javier123454321 wrote:
| Exactly, there will be a lower barrier to entry, but making
| content that stands out will require the same (or more)
| effort.
| ajkjk wrote:
| "we will be able to" -> "someone with a financial interest in
| my believing them says that we will be able to"
| indigoabstract wrote:
| It looks _impressive_ , yet I'm not feeling very impressed. If
| only I could get as high as you do from watching those demo
| reels.
|
| Out of curiosity, what is it that people do with these things?
| Do they put them on TikTok?
| sangnoir wrote:
| > It looks impressive, yet I'm not feeling very impressed.
|
| The demos was made by nerds (said with love) with a limited
| time window. Wait until the creatives get a hold of the tool.
| ratedgene wrote:
| We are super cooked! I love the future!!!!
| nakedrobot2 wrote:
| that sounds awful. we need to start asking ourselves just
| because we _can_ , do we need to fulfill all of our prurient
| desires?
| animanoir wrote:
| this user is a prime example of "consoooooooooooooom!!!!!!!!!!"
| conductr wrote:
| > Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to ask
| the machines: "Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the
| likeness of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role."
|
| I've been doing this with ChatGPT, except it's more of a "turn
| into a screenplay" then "create a graphic of each scene" and
| telling it how I want each character to look. It's works pretty
| well but results in more of a graphic novel than a movie. I'm
| definitely been waiting for the video version to be available!
| sensanaty wrote:
| Does anyone other than PMs when thinking up user stories do
| shit like this or finds this kinda stuff desirable? It just
| sounds like a business person who doesn't have a life other
| than selling their product trying to think up "real user"
| usecases every time.
| bakugo wrote:
| Nope. This is just like when cryptobros would regularly
| insist that cryptocurrencies would replace banks by the end
| of the decade. It's safe to assume that anyone who makes such
| wild predictions is a bagholder who stands to gain
| financially from said wild predictions coming true, even
| though they never will.
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| Frankly, yes.
|
| Many creative works these days require the effort and input
| of so many people, so much time, and so much money that they
| can't have a specific creative vision. Mediums like book,
| comics, indie movies, and very low budget indie games, where
| the the end product was created by the smallest number of
| people, have the most potential to be interesting and
| creative. They can take risks. This doesn't mean they will be
| good, most aren't, but it means that the range of quality is
| much broader, with some having a chance to shine in ways
| which big budget projects just can't. The issue with small
| teams and small budgets is that they are inherently limited
| in what they can create. Better tools allows smaller groups
| of people to make things that previously would have required
| an entire studio but without diluting the creative vision.
|
| Will this also result in a tidal wave of low effort garbage?
| Of course it will. But that can be ignored.
| indymike wrote:
| The giant crab-like thing in the background of the Hippo swimming
| (if a hippo could swim) is the stuff of nightmares.
| bbor wrote:
| Incredible, simply incredible. You know a paper is seminal when
| all the methods seem obvious in hindsight! Though I'm not caught
| up on SOTA, so maybe some of this is obvious in normal-sight,
| too.
|
| RIP Pika and ElevenLabs... tho I guess they always can offer
| convenience and top tier UX. Still, gotta imagine they're
| panicking this morning! Upload an image of
| yourself and transform it into a personalized video. Movie Gen's
| cutting-edge model lets you create personalized videos that
| preserve human identity and motion.
|
| Given how effective the still images of Trump saving people in
| floodwater and fixing electrical poles have been despite being
| identifiable as AI if you look closely (or think...), this is
| going to be nuts. 16 seconds is more than enough to convince
| people, I'm guessing the average video watch time is much less
| than that on social media.
|
| Also, YouTube shorts (and whatever Meta's version is) is about to
| get even worse, yet also probably more addicting! It would be
| hard to explain to an alien why we got so unreasonably good at
| optimal content to keep people scrolling. Imagine an automated
| YouTube channel running 24/7 A/B experiments for some set of
| audiences...
| nanna wrote:
| Absolutely terrifying. Please stop.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Absolutely agree. It's very terrifying and will likely cause
| mass disruption because it will disintegrate the social fabric
| that is held together by people needing other people for stuff.
| Sgt_Apone wrote:
| Absolutely. What's even the purpose of this thing? Who is it
| really serving?
| clvx wrote:
| Off topic but some day you could live off grid with your own
| solar fusion mini reactor powering your own hardware that enables
| creating your own stories, movies and tales. No more need of
| streaming services. Internet would be to obtain news, goods and
| buy greatest and latest (or not) data to update your models.
| Decentralization could be for once not as painful as it is now;
| however, I still believe every single hardware vendor would try
| to hook to the internet and make you install an app. Looking
| forward to this AI revolution for sure.
| adamc wrote:
| I'm not. The likelihood that such movies (for example) would
| have anything significant to say about being human seems very
| low.
|
| If one watches movies, reads books, etc. just to pass the time,
| maybe this would be some kind of boon. But for those of us
| looking for meaningful commentary on life, looking to connect
| with other human beings, this would be some circle of hell.
| It's some kind of solipsism.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| That doesn't follow at all. If I come up with a meaningful
| story and use AI to generate clips and stich them together to
| tell it, that's real art.
|
| If you disagree with that, you're basically saying La Jetee
| isn't art, which would be a hard sell.
| adamc wrote:
| I don't have anything against stitching together clips to
| tell your story, but I'm unconvinced that these demonstrate
| anything like that. As I said in another comment, it seems
| like you'd need to write a screenplay PLUS all the
| information the director, cinematographer, etc. use to
| create an actual movie -- everything from direction for how
| actors portray scenes to decisions on exactly how shots are
| constructed, to blocking for multiple actors in a scene, to
| color schemes...
|
| There are a LOT of choices in making a movie, and if you
| just let the AI make them, you are getting "random"
| (uncontrolled) choices. I don't think that is going to
| compare favorably to the real thing.
|
| If you can specify all that, then it's just a tool. Cool.
| But it's still going to take pro-level skills to use it.
| rolux wrote:
| If La Jetee was just some photos stitched together plus
| meaningful narration, then of course, you could use AI-
| generated photos.
|
| But would AI be able to quote Vertigo, like La Jetee does?
| Doesn't art, at least to some degree, require intent
| (including all intentional subversions of that intent
| dogma, of course)?
| zarzavat wrote:
| I wouldn't be so sure. AI can ingest far more information
| about humans than a human ever could. It has read our stories
| and understands our languages. AI might have more to say
| about humans than we do ourselves.
|
| Of course AI can never truly experience being human, it has
| no emotions, but it is excellent at mimicry and it can
| certainly provide a meaningful outside perspective.
|
| Is there anything to say about humanity that is not in the
| training corpus already?
| adamc wrote:
| Every new novel of any merit shows that there is. And the
| world keeps changing. The experience of being human keeps
| changing.
|
| Nothing AI has yet done has demonstrated anything at the
| level of art or mastery. I guess I'm unconvinced that
| throwing a million stories into the blender and
| synthesizing is going to produce a compelling one.
| schmorptron wrote:
| Maybe people with good story literacy and cultural
| comprehension will be able to tell the difference for
| much longer, maybe even indefinitely. But the majority of
| people, and I dread that includes me, won't, at some
| point. I've already fallen for some AI generated music
| and thought "hey, that sounds pretty good, I'll bookmark
| it". It's genuinely scary.
| 93po wrote:
| 95% of television and movies, to me, are completely
| uninteresting and not worth watching. the property of being
| human-made has a pretty low success rate for basically anyone
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| They used to say that the Internet would make people smarter
| and more knowledgeable.
|
| That prediction became true for like 5% of the population,
| everyone else is probably stupider than they were before,
| thanks to social media.
|
| Similarly, I think your prediction will apply to a small subset
| of humanity.
| TranquilMarmot wrote:
| To me, this feels like a very dystopian take. I watch movies,
| read books, and listen to music because they are a way to
| _connect_ with fellow human beings. Taking the human out of the
| equation also removes any meaning for me.
|
| I get that this is kind of a fundamental line in the sand for
| most of the "AI art" going around, and it seems like most
| people fall on one side or the other. "I consume art for
| entertainment" vs "I interact with art to experience the human
| condition".
|
| I also don't want to say that AI Art has _no_ value, because I
| think as a tool to help artists realize their vision it can be
| very useful! I just don 't think that art entirely made by AI
| is interesting.
| codeduck wrote:
| those penguins are incredibly buoyant.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Are any image / video generation tools giving just the output or
| the layers, timelines, transitions, audio as things to work with
| in our old fashioned toolsets?
|
| The problem: In my limited playing of these tools they don't
| quite make the mark and I would easily be able to tweak something
| if I had all the layers used. I imagine in the future products
| could be used to tweak this to match what I think the output
| should be....
|
| At least the code generation tools are providing source code.
| Imagine them only giving compiled bytecode.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Keep in mind that these technologies produce more stuff like
| what they've been trained on, and they need tremendous amounts
| of training data to pull that off.
|
| It so happens that there are innumerable samples of prose and
| source code and _rendered_ songs and videos and images to use
| as this training data.
|
| But that's not so much the case for professional workflows
| (outside of software development).
|
| If the tools can evolve to generating usefully detailed and
| coherent media _projects_ instead of just perceptually
| convincing media _assets_ , it's going to be a while before
| they get there.
| botanical76 wrote:
| They definitely do not give you an Adobe After Effects project.
| This is because of the way they are trained. I suspect a vast
| proportion of its training data is not annotated with the
| corresponding layers, timelines, etc so the model is unable to
| reproduce it like that. You basically just get video AFAIK.
| vunderba wrote:
| If you have experience as a graphic designer, you can get very
| far with any layer based graphic tools like Krita or Affinity
| in conjunction with proper inpainting against generative image
| models - in fact that's InvokeAI's entire target user base.
| 39896880 wrote:
| They all have dead eyes. It's creepy.
| tempusalaria wrote:
| We live in the future. I just hope we consumers get easy access
| to these video tools at some point. I want to make personal
| movies from my favorite books
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| I'm not impressed with the quality. Did they mean to make it look
| so cartoony?
| brokensegue wrote:
| A lot of them don't look cartoony to me. Better then previous
| video generators
| Hard_Space wrote:
| Yet another one-shot, single-clip Instagram machine that can't do
| a follow-on shot natively.
|
| As it stands, the only chance you have of depicting a consistent
| story across a series of shots is image-to-video, presuming you
| can use LoRAs or similar techniques to get the seed photos
| consistent in themselves.
| skerit wrote:
| I made a silly 1-hour long movie with friends +/- 20 years ago,
| on DV tape. I would love to use this to actually be able to
| implement all the things we wanted to achieve back then
| tikkun wrote:
| FAQs I found:
|
| Is it available for use now? Nope
|
| When will it be available for use? On FB, IG and WhatsApp in 2025
|
| Will it be open sourced? Maybe
|
| What are they doing before releasing it? Working with filmmakers,
| improving video quality, reducing inference time
| kleiba wrote:
| To all the folks with negative opinions of this work: you guys
| are nuts! This work is _incredible_. Is it the end of the line
| yet? Of course not, but come on! This is unbelievably cool, and
| who of you would have predicted any of this ten years ago?
| KevinGlass wrote:
| It's incredible in the same way an AK-47 is incredible. This
| sort of thing is going to uproot all of culture and god knows
| what happens after that.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| For me, peace in society, a nice world where humans can share
| what they create, and nature outside and preserved are all much
| better than "cool", and this "cool" tool threatens all of the
| above.
| wiseowise wrote:
| So I'm probably going to be too closed minded about this: but who
| the f*ck asked for this and did anyone consider consequences of
| easily accessible AI slop generation?
|
| It's already nearly impossible to find quality content on the
| internet if you don't know where to look at.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| I did and I'm quite happy that this is happening :) It's
| unleashing a new computing era when you just have to lean back,
| close your eyes and your vision can materialize without a
| Hollywood production crew.
| NexRebular wrote:
| And it's great as anyone can use it in whichever way they
| want since machine generated content does not have copyright
| protections.
|
| We will finally achieve the dream of everything being in
| public domain!
| nthdesign wrote:
| My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that
| A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity.
| Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades
| improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions
| (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate
| any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this
| kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at that point, we decide
| that exploring space, stretching our knowledge of physics and
| chemistry, and combating disease are far more interesting because
| they are _real_. And, through the same lens, maybe human-created
| art is more interesting because it is _real_.
| solaris152000 wrote:
| I had a similar thought. I knew someone who lived a life of
| crime, for a long time he was very poor like most criminals,
| but for a while made it big. He could buy anything he wanted,
| he always liked suits so bought very nice suits. But they meant
| nothing to him, he couldn't enjoy them, as he didn't _earn_
| then.
|
| I wonder if it will be the same with AI. When you can have
| anything for nothing, it has no value. So the digital world
| will have little meaning.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| That's my optimistic belief as well but I've also been
| disappointed at every turn. The future feels like a
| nihilistic joke constantly competing to plot the most
| disappointing course forward.
|
| More likely the average person will happily lap up AI
| generated slop.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| He might be an exception because most people would have no
| problems riding around in a million dollar car whether they
| earned it or not.
| jprete wrote:
| Nobody cares about driving around in a million-dollar car.
| They want the money/power/status of the person who owns the
| million-dollar car. An unearned million-dollar car is
| practically a liability instead of an asset.
| jppittma wrote:
| Or maybe, the limiting factor in one's ability to create art
| will be... creativity rather than the technical skills
| necessary to make movies, draw, or pluck strings.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The issue is that the human performance of those things is
| precisely how creativity is expressed. You can tell an AI to
| write a story you envision but if there's nothing unique in
| the presentation (or it copies the presentation from existing
| media to a large extent) you still end up with boring output.
| ativzzz wrote:
| A lot of creativity is generated by spending countless hours
| sharpening
|
| > the technical skills necessary to make movies, draw, or
| pluck strings
|
| AI will (hopefully) be an accelerator for the people still
| putting in the hours. At least it is for coding
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Nah, creativity cannot be separated from the means. "The
| medium is the message". It is precisely the interaction of
| technical skill and the mind that creates something truly
| wonderful.
| farts_mckensy wrote:
| That's not exactly what McLuhan meant by that statement.
| "The medium is the message" refers more to how the medium
| itself influences the way a message is perceived by an
| audience. It is not an assessment of the creative process
| itself. It's not as though I disagree entirely with what
| you're saying though. There are certainly ways in which the
| medium is highly influential over the process of creating
| something. But it's a mixed bag, and technical skill is not
| something to be celebrated in all cases. A technically
| accurate painting is oftentimes quite dull and uninspired.
| One could argue that creativity isn't just the interaction
| of skill and mind, but rather the ability to think beyond
| the medium, to embrace accidents, imperfections, and
| impulsive decisions.
| sonofhans wrote:
| Creativity isn't magic, it's a skill. There is no creativity
| without the application of it. By definition creativity
| produces something. Without skills it's not possible to
| produce anything.
|
| The act of creating teaches you to be better at creating, in
| that way and in that context. This is why people with
| practice and expertise (e.g., professional artists, like
| screenwriters and musicians) can reliably create new things.
| farts_mckensy wrote:
| I'm not sure I completely agree. In some ways, developing
| technical skills can drill creativity out of you and
| condition you to think in ways that are really quite rigid
| and formulaic.
| consteval wrote:
| > Creativity isn't magic, it's a skill
|
| I don't agree. There's some skill, some theory, behind it.
| But mastering this alone is almost worthless.
|
| There's a huge overlap between creatives and mental
| illness, particularly bipolar disorder. It seems perfectly
| mentally stable people lack that edge and insight. To me,
| that signals there is some magic behind it.
|
| And it's magic because then it must not be rationale and it
| must not make sense, because the neurotypical can't see it.
|
| I think it's sort of like how you can beat professional
| poker players with an algorithm that's nonsensical. They're
| professionals so they're only looking at rationale moves;
| they don't consider the nonsensical.
| spookie wrote:
| All artists I have known have spent most of their lives
| practicing. Just as I have practiced programming.
|
| That's the biggest edge, commitment.
|
| To think that you _need_ to be neurodivergent to be an
| artist is non-sensical and stating mastering the craft
| itself is worthless is indicative of a lack of respect
| for their work.
|
| I'm baffled by this type of comment here in all honesty.
| Really, broaden your horizons.
| consteval wrote:
| > To think that you _need_ to be neurodivergent to be an
| artist
|
| You will notice I never said this.
|
| All I said, and is true, is there is a correlation
| between being an artist and being neurodivergent.
|
| > stating mastering the craft itself is worthless
|
| Where did I say this too?
|
| It appears you're having an argument with a ghost. You're
| correct, that argument is baffling! I wonder then why you
| made it up if you're just gonna get baffled by it? Seems
| like a waste of time, no?
|
| Look, art is two things: perspective and skill. One
| without the other is worthless.
|
| I can have near perfect skill and recreate amazing works
| of art. And I will get nowhere. Or, I can have a unique
| and profound perspective but no skill, and then nobody
| will be able to decipher my perspective!
| spookie wrote:
| I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but please clarify how this
| two quotes don't align with what I said?
|
| > But mastering this alone is almost worthless.
|
| > And it's magic because then it must not be rationale
| and it must not make sense, because the neurotypical
| can't see it.
|
| Not trying to take them out of context, but specifying
| them. You mention, from my understanding, that mastering
| is almost worthless without the magic, and the magic only
| being there if you're neurodivergent.
|
| This implies one cannot be a proper artist if not
| neurodivergent. Now, I could be misinterpreting it, so I
| apologize in advance.
| consteval wrote:
| I never said the magic is "only" there if you're
| neurodivergent, I said it seems to me neurodivergent
| people seem to be more likely to have the magic.
|
| > There's a huge overlap between creatives and mental
| illness
|
| Keyword overlap, but I don't think it's 100%
|
| Magic is maybe not the right word here, but I do think
| it's indescribable. It's some sort of perspective.
|
| But I stand by this: > that mastering is almost worthless
| without the magic
|
| How, exactly, you obtain the magic is kind of unknown.
| But I do think you need it. Because skill alone is just
| not worth much outside of economics. You can make great
| corporate art, but you're not gonna be a great artist.
|
| I think if you're perfectly rationally minded, you're
| going to struggle a lot to find that magic. I shouldn't
| say it's impossible, but I think it's close to.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Certainly, life-long commitment to some discipline is not
| something that is in the middle of the bell curve.
|
| I don't know if neurodivergence might have any overlap,
| but I wouldn't be surprise that a study reveals it to be
| as correlated as the fact that most rich people were born
| in wealthy families.
| jppittma wrote:
| To an extent. Take cooking for example though- I don't
| doubt that writing recipes and trying them builds ones
| creative muscle, on the other hand, I don't think being
| we'd be at a loss for great chefs if we were to automate
| the cutting of onions, the poaching of eggs, and the
| stirring of risotto.
| sonofhans wrote:
| Of course we would. That's my entire point.
|
| Take poaching eggs for example. Let's say you automate
| that 100% so as a human you never need to do it again.
| Well, how good are your omelettes then? It's a similar
| activity -- keeping eggs at the right temperature and
| agitation for the right amount of time. Every new thing
| you learn to do with eggs -- poaching, scrambling,
| omelettes, soft-cooking for ramen -- will teach you more
| about eggs and how to work with them.
|
| So the more you automate your cooking with eggs the worse
| you get at all egg-related things. The KitchenBot-9000
| poaches and scrambles perfect eggs, so why bother? And
| you lose the knowledge of how to do it, how to tell the
| 30-second difference between "not enough" and "too much."
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| The discipline and care to get good at it are what the things
| that spur creativity.
| adventured wrote:
| 99% of humanity have very little interest in creating.
| They're mimics, they're fine with copying, hitting repost, et
| al. You see this across all social media without exception
| (TikTok being the most obvious mimic example, but it's the
| same on Reddit as well). You see it in day to day life. You
| see it in how people spend their time. You see it in how
| people spend their money. And none of this is new.
|
| The public can create vast amounts of spectacular original
| content right now using Dalle, MidJourney, Stable Diffusion -
| they have very little interest in doing so. Only a tiny
| fraction of the population has demonstrated that it cares
| what-so-ever about generative media. It's a passing curiosity
| for a flicker of an instant for the masses.
|
| The hilariously fantastical premise of: if we just give
| people massive amounts of time, they'll dedicate their brains
| to creativity and exploration and live exceptionally
| fulfilling lives - we already know that's a lie for the
| masses. That is not what they do at all if you give them
| enormous amounts of time, they sit around doing nothing much
| at all (and if you give them enormous amounts of money to go
| with it, they do really dumb things with it, mostly focused
| on rampant consumerism). The reason it doesn't work is
| because all people are not created equal, all people are not
| the same, all brains are not wired the same, the masses are
| mimics, they are unable & unwilling to originate as a prime
| focus (and nothing can change that).
| farts_mckensy wrote:
| That's simply untrue. Children have a natural inclination
| to create art. It is slowly drilled out of them by various
| factors, in large part, economic pressures. One of my best
| friends has a natural talent for drawing. He even made a
| children's book. Guess what? He became a cop because being
| a graphic artist is too precarious. If we alleviate the
| pressures that cause people to become closed off to the
| possibility of creating art, more people will be open to
| it.
| jancsika wrote:
| You: escape the oppressive technical limitations of scoring a
| piece for an orchestra through novel use of _technology_.
|
| Csound: To make a sine tone, we'll describe the oscillator in
| a textfile as if it were a musical instrument. You can think
| of this textfile as a blueprint for a kind of digital
| _orchestra_. Later we 'll specify how to "play" this
| orchestra using another text file, called the _score_.
| Fricken wrote:
| You don't need any special technical skills to write the next
| great American novel. Few people actually do it. Talent and
| dedication are as elusive as ever.
| Animats wrote:
| _" And, through the same lens, maybe human-created art is more
| interesting because it is real."_
|
| Most human-created art is rather bad. I used to go to a lot of
| art openings, and we'd look at some works and ask "will this
| have been tossed in five years?"
| causal wrote:
| Being pleasing to the eye is often not the point. Technical
| ability is a small part of the art experience. That's one
| reason a lot of people hate calling image gens "art" - it's
| so flashy without substance. But it's also a reason I don't
| think generative AI is much of a threat to the human practice
| of art-making.
|
| That said, AI is probably a threat to roles in the
| entertainment industry. But it's also worth noting that much
| of the creativity was being sucked out of entertainment well
| before AI arrived.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Unless we have god-like robotics I don't see AI making physical
| art any time soon. We can print out photos but people still buy
| paintings. We can 3D print but people still buy sculptures.
| People are paid to design and build beautiful buildings and
| interiors.
|
| And of course if you can combine skills with sculpture with
| graphic design you're getting more specialized and are more
| likely to make a living - even if the field of graphic design
| is decimated by AI. That's generally how I feel about my skills
| as a programmer. I'm not _just_ a programmer. So even if AI
| does most of the work with coding I can still write code for
| income as long as it 's not the only reason I'm getting paid.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| The idea that we won't care about art is frankly strange. But I
| think people will still need to make interesting art regardless
| of the tools.
|
| So far AI doesn't seem very good at the creative element.
| sk11001 wrote:
| Earning a living through creativity doesn't work for the
| majority of people anyway even without AI in the picture.
| Creative expression is a thing that exists for its own sake,
| the people who make a living out of it are lucky outliers.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| And so what if they are outliers? It is precisely the
| outliers that spice up our artistic wealth to make it truly
| interesting.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| "So what" is that OP's children shouldn't be terrified
| about the prospects of an artistic career because of AI. It
| is not going from "good career choice" to "long shot", more
| like "long shot" to "somewhat longer shot".
| briandear wrote:
| We heard this same argument when cameras were invented. Yet
| some of the most valuable paintings in the world were created
| in the 20th century.
|
| We heard it again when electronic music started becoming a
| thing.
|
| Formula 1 wouldn't exist if the blacksmiths had their way.
|
| The unknown scares people because they are afraid of their
| known paradigms being shattered. But the new things ahead are
| often beyond anything of which we could ever dream.
|
| Be optimistic.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| One must not use analogy to analyze individual technologies.
| People were afraid of the camera, yes, but the camera does
| _not_ attempt to replace painting. AI attempts to replace
| photography, painting, and all sorts of art with something
| that looks like the real thing. Photography never tried to do
| that, as photographs don 't look anything like paintings.
| ToValueFunfetti wrote:
| When the camera was invented, it did replace what paintings
| were used for at the time. Photographs don't look like
| paintings, but up until the camera paintings were trying to
| look like photographs. It's no coincidence that
| impressionism arrived at the same time as the camera.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| There is a difference between replacing usage and
| replacing the exact art and the people who make it. Yes,
| the camera influenced painting, but it did not destroy
| it. AI attempts to destroy natural human expression.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Is anyone working on a painting robot that would use
| colors, strokes and textures based off of great painters?
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| > And, through the same lens, maybe human-created art is more
| interesting because it is real.
|
| Conversations I have with people _in real life_ almost always
| come back to this point. Most people find AI stuff novel, but
| few find it particularly interesting _on an artistic_ level. I
| only really hear about people being ecstatic about AI online,
| by people who are, for lack of a better term, _really_ online,
| and who do not have the skills, know-how, or ability, to make
| art themselves.
|
| I always find the breathless joy that some people express at
| this stuff with confusion. To me, the very instant someone
| mentions "AI generated" I just instantly find it un-interesting
| artistically. It's not the same as photoshop or using digital
| art suites. It's AI generated. Insisting on the bare minimum
| human involvement _as a feature_ is just a non-starter for me
| if something is presented as art.
|
| I'll wait to see if the utopian vision people have for this
| stuff comes to fruition. But I have enough years of seeing
| breathless positivity for some new tech curdle into resignation
| that it's ended up as ad focused, bland, MBA driven, slop, that
| I'm not very optimistic.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| I think the main point is that art is interesting _precisely_
| because it can transmit human experience. It 's communication
| from another human being. AI "media" completely lacks that.
| It's more of an expression of the machine-soul, which is
| tempting us to continue its development until it takes over.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| For me, art is more interesting, moving, soul connecting
| the more it is made by less and less people. Art by one
| person gives me a unique perspective to the artists mind.
| AI generated art is the opposite of being created by one
| person. It's an amalgamation of millions or billions of
| people's input. To me that's uninteresting, not novel and
| not mind-expanding at all.
| visarga wrote:
| > Insisting on the bare minimum human involvement as a
| feature is just a non starter for me if something is
| presented as art
|
| You can make the guidance as superficial or detailed as you
| like. Input detailed descriptions, use real images as
| reference, you can spend a minute or a day on it. If you
| prompt "cute dog" you should expect generic outputs. If you
| write half a screen with detailed instructions, you can
| expect it to be mostly your contribution. It's the old
| "you're holding it wrong" problem.
|
| BTW, try to input an image in chatGPT or Claude and ask for a
| description, you will be amazed how detailed it can get.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| You need an image for an ad. You write a brief and send it
| to an artist who follows your brief and makes the image for
| you. You make more detailed briefs, or you make generic
| briefs. You receive an image. Regardless, did you make that
| image or just get a response to your brief?
|
| You want a painting of your dog. You send the painter
| dozens of photos of your dog. You describe your dog in
| rapturous, incredible, detail. You receive a painting in
| response. Did you make that painting? Were you the artist
| in any normal parlance?
|
| When you use chatGPT or Claude you're signing up to
| _getting_ / _receiving_ the image generated as a response
| to your prompt, not _creating_ that image. You 're
| involvement is always lessened.
|
| You might claim you made that image, but then you would be
| like a company claiming they made the response to their
| brief, or the dog owner insisting they were the painter,
| which everyone would consider nonsensical if not plain
| wrong. Are they collaborators? Maybe. But the degree of
| collaboration _in making the image_ is very very small.
| visarga wrote:
| > Did you make that painting? Were you the artist in any
| normal parlance?
|
| The symphony conductor just waves her hands reading the
| score, does she make music? The orchestra makes all the
| sounds. She just prompts them. Same for movie director.
| chefandy wrote:
| It's still very different. What you describe is _exactly_
| what an art director does, which is creative and
| difficult-- there 's a good reason many commercial artists
| end their careers as art directors but none start there.
| Anybody that says making things that look good _and_
| interesting using generative AI is easy or doesn 't require
| genuine creativity is just being a naysayer. However, at
| most, the art director is credited with the compilation of
| other people's work. In no situation would they claim
| authorship over any of the pieces that other people made no
| matter how much influence they had on them. This
| distinction might seem like a paperwork difference to
| people outside of the process, but it's not. Every stroke
| of the pen or stylus or brush, scissor snip, or pixel
| pushed is specifically informed by that artist's unique
| perspective based on their experience, internal state,
| minute physical differences, and any number of other non-
| quantifiable factors; there's no way even an identical twin
| that went to the same school and had the same work
| experience would have done it exactly the same way with the
| same outcome. Even using tools like Photoshop, which in
| professional blank-canvas art creation context use little
| to no automation (compared to finishing work for
| photography and such that use more of it.) And furthermore,
| you can almost guarantee that there's enough consistency in
| their distinctions that a knowledgeable observer could
| consistently tell which one made which piece. That's an
| artistic perspective-- it's what makes a piece that
| artist's own piece. It's what makes something someone's
| take on the mona lisa rather than a forgery (or, copy I
| guess if they weren't trying to hide it) of the mona lisa.
| It's also what NN image generators take from artists.
| Artists don't learn how to do that-- they learn broad
| techniques-- their perspective is their humanity showing
| through in that process. That's what makes NN image
| generators learning process different from humans, and why
| it's can make a polaroid look like a Picasso in his
| synthetic cubist phase but gets confused about the upper
| limit for human limb counts. I think generative AI could be
| used to make statements with visual language, closer to
| design than art. I definitely think it could be used to
| make art by making images and then physically or digitally
| cutting pieces out and assembling them. But no matter how
| detailed you get in those prompts, there aren't enough
| words to express real artistic perspective and no matter
| what, your still working with other people's borrowed
| humanity usefully pureed and reformed by a machine. These
| tools are fundamentally completely different than tools
| like Photoshop. In art school I worked with both physical
| media and electronic media and the fundamental processes
| are exactly the same. Things like typography in graphic
| design are much easier, but you're still doing the same
| exact process and reasoning about the same exact things on
| a computer that you do working on paper and sending it to a
| "paste up man," as they did until the 80s/90s. People
| aren't just being sour pusses about this amazing new art
| tool-- it's taking and reselling their humanity. I actually
| think these image generators are super neat -- I use them
| to make more boards and references all the time. But no
| matter how specific I get with those prompts, I didn't make
| any of that. I asked a computer and that computer made it
| for me out of _other people 's art._ A lot of people who
| are taken by their newfound ability to make polished images
| on command refuse to believe it, but it's true. It's a
| fundamentally different activity.
| visarga wrote:
| > your still working with other people's borrowed
| humanity usefully pureed and reformed by a machine
|
| Exactly, isn't it amazing? You can travel the latent
| space of human culture in any direction. It's an endless
| mirror house where you can explore. I find it an
| inspiring experience, it's like a microscope that allows
| zooming into anything.
| chefandy wrote:
| Sure it's a lot of fun. I also find it very useful for
| some things like references and mood boards. No matter
| how granular you get with control nets or LORAs and how
| good the models get, you just can't get the specificity
| needed for professional work and the forms it gives you
| are just too onerous to mold into a useful shape using
| professional tools. It's still, fundamentally, asking
| another thing to make it for you, like work for hire or a
| commission. Software like Nuke's copycat tool or Adobe's
| background remover or content-aware fill were
| professionally useful right off the bat because they were
| designed for professional use cases. Even then, text
| prompt image generators are more useful than not in low-
| effort, high-volume use cases where the extremely
| granular per-pixel nuance doesn't really matter. I doubt
| they'll ever be useful enough for anything higher-level
| than that. It's just fundamentally the wrong interface
| for this work. It's like saying a bus driver on a
| specific route with a bus is equally useful to a cab
| driver with a cab. There are obviously instances where
| that's true, but no matter how many great things you can
| show are on that bus route, and no matter how many people
| it's perfectly suited for, there's just no way a FedEx
| driver could use it to replace their van.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| > "AI generated" I just instantly find it un-interesting
| artistically
|
| How familiar are you with what is possible and how much human
| effort goes towards achieving it?
|
| https://civitai.com/images
|
| Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering -- these all went
| through a phase of being panned as "not real art" before they
| were accepted, but they were all eventually accepted and they
| all turned out to have their own type of merit. It will be
| the same for AI tools.
| jsheard wrote:
| If I were trying to convince people that AI art is
| interesting and creative then I would not choose to
| highlight the site dedicated to strip-mining the creativity
| of non-AI artists, to produce models which regurgitate
| their ideas ad infinitum.
| spookie wrote:
| Not to mention extremely suspicious checkpoints that
| produce imagery of extremely young women. Or in others
| words women with extremely child like features in ways
| kids should not be presented.
| consteval wrote:
| I would say the difference here is with these:
|
| > Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering
|
| You still make these. You sit down and form the art.
|
| When you use AI you don't make anything, you ask someone
| else to make it, i.e. you've commissioned it. It doesn't
| really matter if I sit down for a portrait and describe in
| excruciating detail what I want, I'm still not a painter.
|
| It doesn't even matter, in my eyes, how good or how shit
| the art is. It can be the best art ever, but the only
| reason art, as a whole, has value is because of the human
| aspect.
|
| Picasso famously said he spent his childhood learning how
| to paint professionally, and then spent the rest of his
| life learning how to paint like a child. And I think that
| really encapsulates the meaning of art. It's not so much
| about the end product, it's about the author's intention to
| get there. Anybody can paint like a child, very few have
| the inclination and inspiration to think of that.
|
| You can see this a lot in contemporary art. People say it
| looks really easy. Sure, it looks easy now, because you've
| already seen it and didn't come up with it. The coming up
| with it part is the art, not the thing.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| > You still make these. You sit down and form the art.
|
| When you use a camera you don't make anything. You press
| a button and the camera makes it. You haven't even
| described it.
|
| When you use photoshop you don't make anything. You press
| buttons and the software just draws the pixels for you.
| It doesn't make you a painter.
|
| When you use 3D rendering software you don't make
| anything. You tell the computer about the scene and the
| computer makes it. You've barely commissioned it.
|
| It's easy to be super reductive. Easy but wrong.
| consteval wrote:
| Sorry, I don't think it's the same because making
| physical specifications via modifying pixels, or 3D art,
| or forming a shot is something you do.
|
| It's the difference between making a house with wood and
| making a house by telling someone to make a house. One is
| making a house, one isn't.
|
| The problem with AI is that it's natural language. So
| there's no skill there, you're describing something,
| you're commissioning it. When I do photoshop, I'm not
| describing anything, I'm modifying pixels. When I do 3D
| modeling, I'm not describing anything, I'm doing
| modeling.
|
| You can say that those more formal specifications is the
| same as a description. But it's not. Because then why
| aren't the business folks programmers? Why aren't the
| people who come up with the requirements software
| engineers? Why are YOU the engineer and not them?
|
| Because you made it formally, they just described it. So
| you're the engineer, they're the business analysts.
|
| Also, as a side note, it's not at all reductive to say
| people who use AI just describe what they want. That is
| literally, actually, what they do. There's no more secret
| sauce than that - that is where the process begins and
| ends. If that makes it seem really uninspired then that's
| a clue, not an indicator that my reasoning is broken.
|
| You can get into prompt engineering and whatever, I don't
| care. You can be a prompt engineer then, but not an
| artist. To me it seems plainly obvious nobody has any
| trouble applying this to everyone else, but suddenly when
| it's AI it's like everyone's prior human experience
| evaporates and they're saying novel things.
| aenvoker wrote:
| Try it sometime. Don't just type one prompt and declare
| the job done. Try to make something that invokes a
| reaction in yourself.
|
| AI makes it easy to generate ten thousand random images.
| Making something of interest still requires a lot of
| digging in the tools and in your self.
| consteval wrote:
| Right, it can require describing and refining over and
| over. I still don't think that means you did the thing.
| Otherwise, the business analysts who have to constantly
| describe requirements would be software engineers, but
| they're not.
|
| Not that that isn't a skill in it of itself. I just don't
| think it's a creationary skill. What you're creating is
| the description, not the product.
| aenvoker wrote:
| Best reply I can give ya I already typed up for someone
| else here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41743680
| ipaddr wrote:
| You are creating the product but have to go through an
| unclear layer and through trial and error you try to
| reach your original vision. No different from painting a
| picture for an amateur.
|
| The better you get the closer you can get to your
| original vision.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| I'll be blunt, all of those images look comically generic
| and extremely "AI".
|
| > Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering
|
| Those are not the same as AI. Using AI is akin to standing
| beside a great pianist and whispering into his ear that you
| want "something sad and slow" and then waiting for him to
| play your request. You might continue to give him _prompts_
| but you 're just doing that. In time, you might be called a
| "collaborator" but your involvement begins at bare minimum
| and you have to justify that you're more involved --- the
| pianist doesn't, the pianist is _making_ the music.
|
| You could record the song and do more to the recording, or
| improv along with your own instrument. But just taking the
| raw output again and again is simply getting a response to
| your prompt again and again.
|
| The prompt themselves are actually _more_ artistic as they
| venture into surrealist poetry and prose, but the images
| are almost always much less interesting artistically than
| the prompts would suggest.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| > I'll be blunt, all of those images look comically
| generic and extremely "AI".
|
| Ok, now I know you're watching through hate goggles.
| Fortunately, not everyone will bring those to the party.
|
| > Using AI is akin... [goes on to describe a clueless
| iterative prompting process that wouldn't get within a
| mile of the front page]
|
| You've really outed yourself here. If you think it's all
| just iterative prompting, you are about 3 years behind
| the tools and workflows that allow the level of quality
| and consistency you see in the best AI work.
| blargey wrote:
| I scrolled through and...have to agree with their
| impression. I'm confused as to what you thought is being
| demonstrated by images on https://civitai.com/images of
| all things, since it's all very high-concept/low-
| intentionality, to put it nicely. Did you mix it up with
| a different link?
| Nadya wrote:
| My litmus test is to simply lie. It weeds out the people
| hating AI simply because they know or think it is AI. If
| you link directly to an AI site they're already going to
| say they hate it or that it all "looks like AI slop". You
| won't get anywhere trying to meet them at a middle ground
| because they simply aren't interested in any kind of a
| middle ground.
|
| > https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/zq91wm/anon
| s_dis...
|
| Which is exactly the opposite of what the artists claim
| to want. But god is it hilarious following the anti-AI
| artists on Twitter who end up having to apologize for
| liking an AI-generated artwork pretty much as a daily
| occurrence. I just grab my popcorn and enjoy the show.
|
| Every passing day the technologies making all of this
| possible get a little bit better and every single day
| continues to be the worst it will ever be. They'll point
| to today's imperfections or flaws as evidence of
| something being AI-generated and those imperfections will
| be trained out with fine tuning or LoRA models until
| there is no longer any way to tell.
|
| E: A lot of them also don't realize that besides text-to-
| image there is image-to-image for more control over
| composition as well as ControlNet for controlling poses.
| More LoRA models than you can imagine for controlling the
| style. Their imagination is limited to strictly text-to-
| image prompts with no human input afterwards.
|
| AI is a tool not much different than Photoshop was back
| when "digital artists aren't real artists" was the
| argument. And in case anyone has forgotten: "You can't
| Ctrl+Z real art".
|
| Ask any fractal artists the names they were called for
| "adjusting a few settings" in Apophysis.
|
| E2:
|
| We need more tests such as this. The vast majority of
| people can't identify AI nearly as well as they think
| they can identify AI - even people familiar with AI who
| "know what to look for".
|
| https://www.tidio.com/blog/ai-test/
|
| Artworks (3/4) | Photos (6/7) | Texts (3/4) | Memes (2/2)
|
| Fun excerpt by the way:
|
| > Respondents who felt confident about their answers had
| worse results than those who weren't so sure
|
| > Survey respondents who believed they answered most
| questions correctly had worse results than those with
| doubts. Over 78% of respondents who thought their score
| is very likely to be high got less than half of the
| answers right. In comparison, those who were most
| pessimistic did significantly better, with the majority
| of them scoring above the average.
| TranquilMarmot wrote:
| Sorry, but there's nothing interesting or unique about the
| images on that site.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| > I only really hear about people being ecstatic about AI
| online, by people who are, for lack of a better term, really
| online, and who do not have the skills, know-how, or ability,
| to make art themselves.
|
| Well put. This is also my experience. And I'm no AI doom-
| monger or neo-Luddite.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| > I only really hear about people being ecstatic about AI
| online, by people who are, for lack of a better term, really
| online, and who do not have the skills, know-how, or ability,
| to make art themselves.
|
| Yes, I've noticed this. The people who are excited about it
| usually come off as opportunistic (hence the "breathless
| joy"), and not really interested in letting whatever
| art/craft they want to make deeply change them. They just
| want the recognition of being able to make the thing without
| the formative work. (I hesitate to point this out,
| anticipating allegations of elitism.)
|
| Plus, _really_ online people tend to dominate online
| discussions, giving the impression that the public will be
| happy to consume only AI generated things. Then again, the
| public is happy to consume social media engagement crap, so I
| 'm very curious what the revealed preference is here.
|
| The value in learning this stuff is that it changes you. I'll
| be forever indebted to my guitar teacher partially because he
| teaches me to do the work, and that evidence of doing the
| work is manifest readily, and to play the long, long game.
| aliasxneo wrote:
| I think a key piece here is that I often consume art from the
| mindset of, "What was the creator thinking?" What is their
| worldview? What social situations pushed them to express
| things in this way?
|
| For video, it's possible AI can feed into the overall
| creative pipeline, but I don't see it replacing the human
| touch. If anything, it opens up the industry to less-
| technical people who can spend more time focusing on the
| human touch. Even if the next big film has AI generation in
| it, if it came from someone with a fascinating story and
| creative insight, I'll still likely appreciate it.
| phainopepla2 wrote:
| I suspect the demand for human creative output will shrink, as
| AI generated content will be so cheap and prevalent, even as it
| will only ever be an imitation of human art. The same way that
| most people eat terrible, flavorless tomatoes from the
| supermarket, instead of the harder to grow heirloom varieties.
|
| But I don't think human creativity is going anywhere. Unless
| there is some breakthrough that moves it far beyond anything
| we've seen so far, AI will always be trailing behind us. Human
| creativity might become a more boutique product, like heirloom
| tomatoes, but there will always be people who value it.
| throwaway2203 wrote:
| There might be more creating it than there are those valuing
| it
| GaggiX wrote:
| Most of my entertainment is watching dudes sitting in their
| chairs talking into a microphone. I find it more entertaining
| than the billion dollar entertainment industry.
| batch12 wrote:
| I think there will be a body that certifies artistic content as
| organic similar to food. This will create a premium offering
| for organic content and a lower tier AI /uncertified level.
| mrtksn wrote:
| AI content is already very dull, the text is dull the music is
| dull the images and videos are also dull. No one is interested
| in AI Seinfeld or this short movie that AI created. Their only
| audience is just people admiring what the machines come to be
| able to do.
|
| Any AI content that's good, and there are a few of them,
| actually has plenty of human creativity in it.
|
| There are some AI artist that begin to emerge or there are some
| AI generated personas out there who are interesting but they
| are interesting only because the people behind it made it
| interesting.
|
| I am not fatalistic at all for the creatives. AI is going to
| wipe out the producers and integrators(people that specialize
| in putting things together, like coders who code when tasked,
| painters who paint when commissioned, musicians that play once
| provided with the score), not the creatives.
|
| The GOTCHA, IMHO, will be people not developing skills because
| the machine can do it but I guess maybe they will the skills
| that make the machine sing.
| righthand wrote:
| So we'll automate away entertainment jobs but none of the cool
| science jobs will be automated? I don't understand how this
| proposed world will have an available work for scientists but
| not entertainers.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| At least for Meta, this has implications for keeping people
| engaged in their metaverse.
| farts_mckensy wrote:
| Science is never going to supplant art. They serve two very
| different functions in society. What I hope is that performance
| art and experiences that can't be easily replicated by AI
| become more mainstream. Things like ARGs and multimedia
| storytelling, where there is a back and forth participatory
| sort of process between the audience and the creator.
| Fluorescence wrote:
| Cheaper more effective entertainment is likely to only cause
| more problems: it will be more addictive, better at hijacking
| our brains and attention, better at pushing the propaganda
| goals of the author, better at filling traditional "human
| needs" of relationships that forever separates us from each
| other into a civilisation of Hikikomori.
|
| I have little faith in an optimistic view of human nature where
| we voluntarily turn more toward more intellectual or worthy
| pursuits.
|
| On one hand, entertainment has often been the seed that drives
| us to make the imagined real, but the adjacent possible of
| rewarding adventure/discovery/invention only seems to get more
| unaffordable and out of reach. Intellectual revolutions are
| like gold rushes. They require discovery, that initial nugget
| in a stream, the novel idea that opens a door to new
| opportunities that draws in the prospectors. Without fresh
| opportunity, there is no enthusiasm and we stew in our juices.
|
| I suspect the only thing that might save us from total
| solipsistic brain-in-vat immersion in entertainment... is
| something like glp-1 type antagonists. If they can help us
| resist a plate of Danish maybe they can protect us from
| barrages of Infinite Jest brain missiles from Netflix about
| incestuous cat wizards or whatever. Who knows what alternatives
| this new permanently medicated society, Pharma-Sapiens, might
| pursue instead though.
| petesergeant wrote:
| We'll be able to start fuzz testing the human brain. A horror
| film that uses bio-feedback to really push the bits that are
| actually terrifying you, in real-time. Campaign videos that
| lean in to the bit that your lizard brain is responding to.
| slavik81 wrote:
| The Onion was ahead of the curve with "New Live Poll Lets
| Punits Pander To Viewers In Real Time".
| https://youtu.be/uFpK_r-jEXg
| schmorptron wrote:
| I believe you're right too. The internet and smartphones are
| great technology in general, and can do pretty great things
| but what they've ended up doing was screwing with the reward
| mechanisms in my brain since I was a teenager. Most optimized
| use case.
|
| Reading these threads sometimes feels like a bad idea,
| because you just get new sad ideas on how things will almost
| certainly be used to make it worse than just the ones you can
| come up on your own.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| They will be creating for a very small crowd. It will be nice
| for me, because I can't stand all the blockbuster movies that
| prioritize stretching physics with unrealistic special effects
| over plot and dialog.
|
| I think the musicians that are barely hanging on at this point
| would prefer to create over having to slog around on tours to
| pay their health insurance. But nobody is paying for creation.
| Alex-Programs wrote:
| > Maybe, at that point, we decide that exploring space,
| stretching our knowledge of physics and chemistry, and
| combating disease are far more interesting because they are
| real.
|
| It's a compelling thought - we all like hope - and I think it
| might be realistic if all of humanity were made up of the same
| kind of people who read hacker news.
|
| But is this not what the early adopters of the internet
| thought? I wasn't there - this is all second hand - but as far
| as I know people felt that, once everyone gained the ability to
| learn anything and talk to anyone, anywhere, humanity would be
| more knowledgeable, more thoughtful, and more compassionate.
| Once everyone could effortlessly access information, ignorance
| would be eliminated.
|
| After all, that's what it was like for the early adopters.
|
| But it wasn't so in practice.
|
| I worry that hopeful visions of the future have an aspect of
| projecting ourselves onto humanity.
| kypro wrote:
| Why would humans explore space when AIs are more intelligent
| and more physically able to?
|
| Seems more likely we'll just plug ourselves into ever more
| addicting dopamine machines. That's certainly the trend so far
| anyway.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Art and entertainment are different things.
| earth_walker wrote:
| Paint didn't replace charcoal. Photography didn't replace
| drawings. Digital art didn't replace physical media. Random
| game level generation didn't replace architecture.
|
| AI generated works will find a place beside human generated
| works.
|
| It may even improve the market for 'artsy' films and great
| acting by highlighting the difference a little human talent can
| make.
|
| It's not the art that's at risk, it's the grunt work. What will
| shift is the volume of human-created drek that employed
| millions to AI-created drek that employs tens.
| boogieknite wrote:
| Im hopeful US will have some subsidy for real creative works
| like ive seen in europe.
|
| My limited understanding is that AI could generate Netflix top
| 10 hits that mostly recycle familiar jokes. The creators made a
| great product, but i expect anyone who attended film school
| would rather try something new, only issue is Netflix wont foot
| the bill (i know, they take a few oscar swings a year now).
|
| Recent examples: TV Glow, Challengers, Strange Darling. All
| movies with specific, unique perspectives, visuals, acting
| choices, scripts, shots, etc. Think about the perspective in
| The Wire, The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm. There is plenty
| of great work that obviously is nearly impossible to reproduce
| by an AI and i hope that AI "art" is taxed in a way that funds
| human projects.
| zoogeny wrote:
| Consider another angle.
|
| I follow a lot of the new AI gen crowd on Twitter. This
| community is made up of a lot of creative industry people. One
| guy who worked in commercials shared a recent job he was on for
| a name brand. They had a soundstage, actors, sound people,
| makeup, lighting, etc. setup for 3 days for the shoot.
| Something like 25 people working for 3 days. But behind that
| was about 3 months of effort if one includes pre-production and
| post-production. Think about editing, color correction, sound
| editing, music, etc.
|
| Your creative children may live in a world where they can
| achieve a similar result themselves. Perhaps as a small team,
| one person working on characters, one person doing audio, one
| person writing a script. Instead of needing tens of thousands
| of dollars of rented equipment and 25 experts, they will be
| able to take ideas from their own head and realize them with
| persistence and AI generation.
|
| I honestly believe these new tools will unlock potential beyond
| what we can currently imagine.
| Miraste wrote:
| That will be the end of creative work. Marketing and
| promotion is already the most difficult part of any creative
| endeavor. With literally unlimited trash being produced,
| it'll become impossible.
| echoangle wrote:
| If I imagine a random person on the street, they certainly
| aren't enjoying fine human arts because it's made by a real
| person. They are scrolling TikTok and don't care if it's AI
| generated or not, if they even notice. The people actually
| caring about art because it is art are maybe 20% of the
| population.
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| I think 20% is being generous... more like 2%.
| layer8 wrote:
| Creativity is about having original ideas. So far, AI isn't
| that good at that, and neither at maintaining a consistent idea
| throughout a production. Will AI be able to come up with a
| compelling novel series, music album, video game, movie or TV
| series in ten years? Possibly, but there's also a good chance
| that it won't.
| elwell wrote:
| The same can be said about plain old I.
| sroerick wrote:
| I haven't had any luck being able to effectively generate
| compositions with text to image / text to video. Prompts like
| "subject in the lower third of the frame" have thus far
| completely failed me. I'm sure this will change in the future but
| this seems pretty fundamental for any 'AI Powered Film' to
| function the way a film director would.
|
| Curious if anybody has a solution or if this works for that
| Animats wrote:
| Likely results:
|
| - Every script in Hollywood will now be submitted with a previs
| movie.
|
| - Manga to anime converters.
|
| - Online commercials for far more products.
| sroussey wrote:
| Scripts with AI low quality "movie" with blocking etc is an
| interesting concept.
|
| Manga to anime already exists.
|
| Commercials, particularly for social/online, already happening
| as well.
| wseqyrku wrote:
| Looking at bolt.new I think all the Studio/IDE type of apps are
| going to look like that. Could be video or code or docs etc.
|
| I can see myself paying a little too much to have a local setup
| for this.
| jcims wrote:
| One thing I've noticed with the set of music generation tools (eg
| Udio, Suno) is that there's a sort of profound attachment to
| songs that you create. I've never made music the old fashioned
| way so I'm guessing the same could be true for that as well, but
| there are songs I've made on Udio that I personally think are
| amazing but nobody else really responds to. Conversely I can see
| similar levels of pride and attachment from others for songs they
| have created that don't do anything for me.
|
| It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out when you
| can make just about any kind of media you wish. (Especially when
| you can mix this as a form of 'embodiment' to realize
| relationships with virtual agents operated by LLMs.)
| SamBorick wrote:
| > I've never made music the old fashioned way so I'm guessing
| the same could be true for that as well
|
| Yes, it is. You should try it.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| It's the same feeling. No different from rebuilding that
| crazy synth you made one night, succeeding, and then being
| able to improv/vamp with it during a live session. It is a
| creative process and I urge anyone who finds the high level
| aspect of music creation to pursue the lower levels
| corytheboyd wrote:
| > I personally think are amazing but nobody else really
| responds to.
|
| Welcome to making music lol. Since there is so much of it, you
| have to make the absolute best to even be considered. And then,
| because so many people make the absolute best, people only care
| about the persona making the music (as great as you are, you
| aren't Taylor Swift, Kendrick Lamar, Damon Albarn). Your
| friends will never care about your music just because you are
| friends, don't fall into that trap. Also nobody cares about
| music without good lyrics, because again, there is just so much
| instrumental content out there that sounds the same, lyrics
| differentiate it with a human, emotional element.
|
| Just make stuff for fun. Listen to it every now and then and
| feel the magic of "hehe I made that"
| changing1999 wrote:
| > Also nobody cares about music without good lyrics
|
| Well, that's an exaggeration if I've ever seen one. Firstly,
| so much of current chart music has atrocious lyrics. And
| secondly, instrumental music is _very_ popular.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| You got me, I exaggerated on the internet. Sorry.
| changing1999 wrote:
| "Music is about communication" (John Lennon, IIRC). Don't
| expect people to profoundly connect to music that is nothing
| more than a collection of regurgitated ideas.
|
| Not to sound too crass, but a parallel could be drawn to
| smelling one's own farts and wondering why no one else
| appreciates the smell.
| TranquilMarmot wrote:
| "I microwaved this frozen pizza while I was desperately
| craving pizza, so it was perfect to me. Why does my friend
| who usually eats hand-crafted pizza not think it's as good?!"
| vunderba wrote:
| _One thing I 've noticed with the set of music generation tools
| (eg Udio, Suno) is that there's a sort of profound attachment
| to songs that you create._
|
| With all due respect, how could there be when at the click of a
| button you can generate entire songs? You didn't come up with
| the chord progression, the structure, the melodic motifs, or
| the lyrics.
|
| My attachment to my works is _directly proportional_ to the
| amount of effort it took to create them.
| s3p wrote:
| I think OP is saying they really enjoy the song. Not that
| they feel it is their magnum opus.
| wantsanagent wrote:
| Imagine you've had an idea bouncing around in your head, or
| even an emotion, for a long time and you've never been able
| to express it. Then one day you push a button and a piece of
| art captures what you've been feeling perfectly.
|
| It's not the craft that drives attachment in this case but
| the emotional resonance of something that you think _should_
| exist finally existing.
| changing1999 wrote:
| AI mentioned above is not at the level of capturing and
| expressing ideas or emotions beyond "a sad rock song about
| a breakup". Try guiding it to express any clearly formed
| musical idea.
|
| Author's attachment is to a large degree based on the false
| notion that they somehow contributed to the creation
| process.
|
| The generic, frigid, un-interesting "product" that is
| produced by said AI is why no one other than the prompter
| is moved by the result.
| jcims wrote:
| This is a tad overwrought. There _is_ a creative process,
| but it's much more akin to simple producing rather than
| composing.
|
| My point wasn't to debate the merit of generated music,
| it was simply to highlight the effect I described.
| changing1999 wrote:
| It's not closer to producing that it is to composing. In
| fact, I would say it's closer to composing in the sense
| that you can at least add lyrics.
|
| Production requires specifying very precise requirements,
| which the current gen AI is unable to follow. Even at the
| most fuzzy production level like "a song with strings and
| a choir", Suno will generate something completely
| irrelevant. And if you will try to go deeper -- use a
| classic Moog synth line in the chorus -- don't expect to
| get anything meaningful.
|
| I won't argue that in the most broad sense, prompt
| engineering is a creative process. Picking which shoes to
| wear to work is also a creative process. My argument is
| that this has barely anything to do with the process of
| music composition or production. You can literally reuse
| the same prompt to generate an image or a poem.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> You didn 't come up with the chord progression, the
| structure, the melodic motifs, or the lyrics._
|
| Both Suno and Udio allow paid subscribers to upload their own
| clips to extend from. It works for setting up a beat or
| extending a full composition from a DAW.
|
| Suno's is more basic than Udio's which allows in painting and
| can create intros as well as extensions, but the tools are
| becoming more and more powerful for existing musicians. With
| Udio you can remix the uploaded clip so you can create the
| cord progression and melody using one set of instruments or
| styles (or hum it) and transform it into another.
|
| I also use this feature all the time to move compositions
| from one service to the other. Suno is better at generating
| intros and interesting melodies while Udio is better at the
| editing afterwards.
| GrantS wrote:
| You can absolutely specify your own lyrics and structure to
| Suno.
| takinola wrote:
| I can imagine a painter two hundred years ago saying the same
| thing about photographs. How can you feel attachment to a
| picture when you did not make each brush stroke?
| jcims wrote:
| I have no explanation.
|
| It's not a sense of pride or accomplishment. I don't know
| what it is. Maybe a small amount of pride. It's hard to say.
| But there is a definite connection that feels different
| listening to songs i requested vs those that other people
| have.
| Kiro wrote:
| This is not unique to AI. People simply don't care about your
| stuff. Ask any regular artist or game developer.
| scudsworth wrote:
| link a song you prompted that you personally think is amazing
| dpcan wrote:
| You know it's going to happen:
|
| "I want a funny road trip movie staring Jim Carey and Chris
| Farley, based in Europe, in the fall, where they have to rescue
| their mom played by Lucille ball from making the mistake of
| marrying a character played by an older Steve Martin."
|
| 10 minutes later your movie is generated.
|
| If you like it, you save it, share it, etc.
|
| You have a queue of movies shared by your friends that they
| liked.
|
| Content will be endless and generated.
| adventured wrote:
| It'll require tens to hundreds of hours to script the flow of
| the AI content, to edit, make adjustments, clean it up, make
| the scenes link together smoothly, fix small glitches. Even
| with far more advanced AI, it won't come together like a movie
| people would enjoy watching, without vast human labor involved.
|
| Sub one percent of people are going to be willing to put in the
| hours to do it.
|
| The bulk of the spammed created content will be: the masses
| very briefly playing with the generative capabilities,
| producing low quality garbage that after five minutes nobody is
| interested in and then the masses will move on to the next
| thing to occupy a moment of their time. See: generative image
| media today. So few people care about the crazy image creation
| abilities of MidJourney or Flux, that you'd think it didn't
| exist at all (other than the occasional related headline about
| deepfakes and or politics).
| halyax7 wrote:
| Much of those editing steps could be streamlined and/or
| straight up automated so that estimate will come way down
| over time
| candiddevmike wrote:
| The content bubble apocalypse, where no one is ever watching
| the same thing and we lose all cultural connections to each
| other. At least until someone figures out an algorithm/prompt
| to influence the content, yvan eht nioj style.
| adventured wrote:
| The opposite will occur. Very little will change from how
| people consume content today. There won't be endless amounts
| of quality content, there will still be very little high
| quality content. There will be brief bursts of large amounts
| of garbage that nobody pays attention to (as a small
| percentage of people flirt with generative media and quickly
| lose interest; and the vast majority never bother at all).
|
| The extreme majority will all watch the same things just as
| they do today. High quality AI content will be difficult to
| produce and will be nearly as limited in the future as any
| type of high quality content is today. The masses will stick
| to the limited, high quality media and disregard that piles
| of garbage. Celebrity will also remain a pull for content,
| nothing about that will ever change (and celebrity will
| remain scarce, which will assist in limiting what the masses
| are interested in).
|
| By and large people only want to go where other people are
| at. Nothing about AI will change that, it's a trait that is
| core to humanity. The way that applies to content is just the
| same as it does a restaurant: content is a mental (and
| sometimes physical) destination experience just as a
| restaurant or vacation trip is.
| imiric wrote:
| I think both things will be true. We will enjoy common
| media that everyone else enjoys, not because of its high
| quality, but because it's shared shared within our social
| circles. And we will also generate highly personalized
| media for our own enjoyment, because we will have full
| control over it. The quality of this media won't
| necessarily be "garbage", and will likely be on par with
| professional productions. It will just be much more
| personal than anything a professional team could create for
| us.
|
| Though a reason we would gravitate towards common media
| more is if what someone brought up in the comments here
| comes to pass, and celebrities/actors license their
| likeness to studios only, and amateur tools are not
| licensed to use them. Though I think there will always be
| crafty/illegal ways around this. Also, likeness probably
| won't be worth much, if we can generate any type of
| character we like anyway. I, for one, couldn't be happier
| for celebrities and the cultural obsession around them to
| disappear.
| intended wrote:
| Rich people will afford the subscription costs for curated
| and verifiable content.
|
| Plebs will get the mass produced stuff, just like it has
| been for junk food.
|
| In the information case, even if you wanted to sell good
| quality, verifiable content, how are you going to keep up
| with the verification costs, or pay people when someone can
| just dupe your content and automate its variations?
|
| People who are poor dont have the luxury of time, and
| verifications cannot be automated.
|
| Most people dont work in infosec or Trust and safety, so
| this discussion wont go anywhere, but please just know - we
| dont have the human bandwidth to handle these outcomes.
|
| Bad actors are more prolific and effective than good,
| because they dont have to give a shit about your rules or
| assumptions.
| birracerveza wrote:
| Rick & Morty introduced the concept of interdimensional cable
| in 2014. Ten years later, it's a reality. Crazy stuff.
| ActionHank wrote:
| I don't know about you, but my friends and family are boring
| af. I wouldn't want to watch their queue of noise.
|
| I do hope that more talented people will have more leverage to
| create without the traditional gatekeeping, but I also doubt
| this will happen as the gatekeepers are all funding AI tooling
| as well.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| My girlfriend and I already sometimes use Suno like this for
| music. Just generate a bunch of songs under a specific genre
| (our favorite right now is nordic folk, dubstep) and just
| listen through. If we want to learn about or remember
| something, we make a Suno song about it. The songs are almost
| all bangers too so it's not even a chore to listen through!
| heurist wrote:
| > Generation failed: I'm sorry, but I cannot generate videos of
| real people. Please try another prompt.
| 7734128 wrote:
| Also no violence, or alluding to conspiracies, or historical
| events.
| oulipo wrote:
| Impressive, yet more burning GPUs and pushing CO2 in the
| atmosphere just for stupid stuff that is only of interest to rich
| western people...
|
| I'd rather have those people work on climate change solutions
| dyauspitr wrote:
| No thank you, I not going to let my beloved progressives be
| dragged into Luddism just so you can feel a little better about
| yourself through insignificant changes without a meaningful
| impact on the environment. Anything with true lasting effects
| will have to be top down like renewable resources/energy, EVs,
| viable alternatives to plastic, nuclear energy etc.
|
| The argument should never be about reducing energy usage,
| rather it should be about how we generate that energy in a
| clean, renewable way.
| dievskiy wrote:
| > Impressive, yet more burning GPUs and pushing CO2 in the
| atmosphere just for stupid stuff that is only of interest to
| rich western people
|
| Better to spend 10x amount of energy on humans that will give
| the same result?
| throwaway38543 wrote:
| Spoken like a true Frenchman. I suppose it's a good thing you
| don't have any say in what people research. Perhaps Mistral
| should be training weather models instead of silly chatbots for
| ERP?
| Bloedcoins wrote:
| At least companies are behind it which can actually put the
| money were its needed and compensate it.
|
| At least microsoft and google are on a co2 neutral race.
|
| And all of these clusters doing something can also do research
| and partially do.
|
| Its valid critisism, but we need to stop co2 production on a
| lot of other industries before we do that for datacenters.
| Datacenters save a lot more co2 (just think about not having to
| drive to a bank to do bank business).
| kkielhofner wrote:
| > burning GPUs and pushing CO2 in the atmosphere
|
| My startup develops AI for the nuclear power industry to drive
| process, documentation, and regulatory efficiency. We like to
| say "AI needs nuclear and nuclear needs AI".
|
| Big tech has finally realized/gone public that casually saying
| things like "we're building our next 1GW datacenter" is uhh,
| problematic[0].
|
| For some time now there has been significant interest/activity
| in wiring up entire datacenters to nuclear reactors (existing
| Gen 2, SMRs, etc):
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-huang-says-nuclear-pow...
|
| https://www.ans.org/news/article-5842/amazon-buys-nuclearpow...
|
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-signs-groundbreaking-en...
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/10/oracle-is-designing-a-data-c...
|
| https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4913714-google-ceo-eye...
|
| [0] - https://www.npr.org/2024/07/12/g-s1-9545/ai-brings-
| soaring-e...
| Zpalmtree wrote:
| utter loser mentality
| joshdavham wrote:
| I wonder if one day we'll have generative recommender systems
| where, instead of finding videos the algorithm thinks you'll
| like, it just generates them on the spot.
| turblety wrote:
| Why do these video generation ones never become usable to the
| public. Is it just they had to create millions of videos and
| cherry pick only a handful of decent generations? Or is it just
| so expensive there's no business model for it?
|
| My mind instantly assumes it a money thing and they're just
| wanting to charge millions for it, therefore out of reach for the
| general public. But then with Meta's whole stance on open ai
| models, that doesn't seem to ring true.
| FileSorter wrote:
| There are usable ones
|
| runwayml.com
|
| pika.art
|
| hailuoai.com
| grumbel wrote:
| klingai.com
|
| lumalabs.ai
| Apocryphon wrote:
| When I see lists of URLs like that I can only wonder what a
| future post archeologist, coming upon this long dusty
| thread half a decade from now, will find when they try to
| go to those sites.
| causal wrote:
| I'd guess 1 in 10 model demos turn out to be useful product, at
| best.
|
| This and Sora are particularly annoying, though, for how they
| put together these huge flashy showcases like they're
| announcing some kind of product launch and then... nothing.
| Apparently there's value in just flexing your AI-making muscle
| now and then.
| 93po wrote:
| to be fair, Sora was one of the most mind blowing technology
| showcases of my life, and openai is successful at raising
| tons of money
| ActionHank wrote:
| Cost vs profitability is a big factor and those that don't have
| a product on the market are heavily cherry picking their demos.
| zoogeny wrote:
| There are a few available to the public. runway.ai and kling
| are a couple that I see heavily used on Twitter.
|
| I pay for runway right now for experiments and it works. The
| problem is that maybe 1 out of 10 prompts result in something
| useable. And when I say useable I have pretty low standards.
| Since the model pumps out 5 or 10 second clips you have to be
| pretty creative since the models still struggle with keeping
| any kind of consistency between shots. Things like lighting,
| locations, characters can all morph within/between cips.
|
| The issue isn't quality exactly, it is like 80% there. When it
| works, it is capable of blowing your mind. You can get
| something that looks like it is a bonafide Hollywood shot. But
| that is a single 5 second or 10 second clip. So far there is no
| easy way to reliably piece those together to make even a 1
| minute long TikTok.
|
| The real problem is the cost. Since you have to sometimes do 10
| prompts to get a single acceptable shot it is like a 10x
| multiplier on the cost per second of video. That can get very
| expensive for even short experiments.
| hackernewds wrote:
| How much do you pay? Imagine if they could charge premium
| prices to studio's like $100k/user
|
| that's probably where the quality is, but not the billions
| yurylifshits wrote:
| Hi zoogeny (and anyone else here) -- you can try our new app
| Nim to address the Runway problems you describe
| https://alpha.nim.video
|
| We offer both image-to-video (same situation as Runway, need
| a few attempts to make something awesome) and video-to-video
| (under the name "Restyle 2.0") - this is our newest tool and
| is highly reliable, i.e. you can get complex motion (kissing,
| handshakes, boxing, skateboarding, etc) with controllable
| changes to input video (changing outfits, characters,
| backgrounds, styles).
|
| Unlike Runway and Kling, we currently offer a smiple
| UNLIMITED plan for just $10/mo. Check it out!
| https://alpha.nim.video
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Came here to say this... These companies all want patted on the
| back for how cool their video models are but we're still
| waiting on Sora since like last year. More and more publish
| these "look at us" papers but don't publish the models or even
| give us access to them.
|
| They do exist, Luma AI DreamMachine is pretty cool. As well as
| Kling, Minimax, etc. But they aren't anything like Sora or this
| appear to be. They work but these, while likely cherry-picked,
| are still a whole new breed of video generation. But who knows
| if we'll ever actually get to use them or if we're just
| supposed to reflect on them and think about how cool and
| impressive Facebook and OpenAI are.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| I'm confused the demo let me press a button and generate a
| video, was it not supposed to?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I didn't see a button for that. Just "download paper". Did I
| miss it?
| altairprime wrote:
| At "the public" Internet scale, if a hundred million people
| click Generate, imagine if Meta ends up paying a million
| dollars instantaneously.
|
| - How many clicks of Generate are budgeted for?
|
| - How many clicks should each user's quota be?
|
| - How much advertising revenue will be earned per click?
|
| - Why should they give away a million dollars?
|
| Right now, AI costs for this are so high that offering this
| feature 'for free' would bankrupt a small country in a matter
| of days, if everyone on Meta used it once. It doesn't
| particularly matter what the exact cost is: it's simply not
| tolerable to anyone who owes payment for the services provided.
|
| This is also why the AI industry is trying to figure out how to
| shift as much AI processing as possible to devices _without_
| letting users copy their models to profit off of the training
| research spend.
| tqi wrote:
| Meta owns their data centers, so I don't think that framing
| is quite right. Increased traffic might cost marginally more
| in terms of electricity usage, but I think mostly what would
| happen is the service would degrade.
| yojo wrote:
| The hardware serving web requests on Facebook is very
| different from the hardware used to generate these videos.
| It's different kit, that is currently quite expensive and
| power intensive.
|
| Facebook absolutely does not have a fleet of GPUs idling
| that could suddenly spring into action to generate a
| billion of these videos, nor do they have power stations on
| standby ready to handle the electricity load.
| tqi wrote:
| Right, my point is that "paying a million dollars
| instantaneously" isn't something that Meta would face the
| way a company with a public cloud infra would, and as a
| result their motivations / concerns are probably more
| along the lines of bad user experiences (due to
| performance bottlenecks) hurting public perception rather
| than runaway costs bankrupting the company.
| altairprime wrote:
| Having recently seen cost analysis for hosted enterprise
| generative AI, we'll continue to disagree on this point.
| You certainly are describing valid concerns but Meta
| never struck me as being particularly worried about how
| people think of them; and, I am certain this doesn't have
| the 'degrade' capability at the billion users scale -- it
| would have work queue lengths measured in weeks or more,
| which is useless for social media.
| afh1 wrote:
| Just release the model and anyone can run locally, there is
| no cost except for the end user. Meta has the cash flow to do
| this if they wanted.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Meta probably doesn't want people generating porn (and
| worse) with their models or derivations of their models,
| for obvious reputational reasons.
| ipaddr wrote:
| They are in the wrong business if that's the main concern
| and will get overshadowed by others as tike goes on.
| layer8 wrote:
| Consistency and continuity is the main problem. Take a look at
| the "Super Panavision" AI videos on YouTube.
|
| Those videos are a good measure for monitoring AI video
| improvement.
| jonplackett wrote:
| KlingAI is pretty good - but only 5 second clips for their v
| 1.5 model which is much better than 1.0
|
| I made this with it (after training a Flux Lora on myself)
|
| https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdJ6uSh1/
| nephy wrote:
| McDonald's art.
| deng wrote:
| These are not movies, these are clips. The stock photo/clip
| industry is surely worried about this, and probably will sue
| because 100% these models were trained on their work. If this
| technology ever makes movies, it'll be exactly like all the
| texts, images and music these models create: an average of
| everything ever created, so incredibly mediocre.
| devonsolomon wrote:
| I've long ago heard it said that the two drivers of technology
| innovation are the military and porn. And, welp, I don't see any
| use of this to the military.
| Krei-se wrote:
| This is totally awesome - the tech is out there and whether you
| use it to make videos or solve long human / world problems is up
| to you.
|
| Yeah, we might get the bad killer robots. But it's more likely
| this will make it unnecessary to wonder where on this blue planet
| you can still live when we power the deserts with solar and go to
| space. Getting clean nutrition and environment will be within
| reach. I think that's great.
|
| As with all technology: Yes a car is faster than you. And you can
| buy or rent one. But it's still great to be healthy and able to
| jog. So keep your brains folks and get some skills :)
| whiplash451 wrote:
| << out there >> is slightly optimistic.
|
| The model is not released and probably won't be for a while.
|
| And it probably costs Meta-scale infra to fine-tune to your
| needs.
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| It will be as interesting as our dreams. So maybe personally
| interesting, like for a small group sitting around a table and
| taking the piss. But it's not gonna make a global sensation.
| Jiahang wrote:
| student here ,i learn cs and management. And i really Puzzled
| what i learn now can help me have better life in this era of
| rapid development of technology.
| karel-3d wrote:
| Why don't videos like this ever trend?
|
| #cabincrew
|
| #scarletjohanson
|
| #amen
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Very cool.
|
| But I'm worried about this tech being used for propaganda and dis
| information.
|
| Someone with a 1K computer and enough effort can generate a video
| that looks real enough. Add some effects to make it look like it
| was captured by a CCTV or another low res camera.
|
| This is what we know about, who knows what's behind NDAs or
| security clearances.
| nuz wrote:
| Same was thought to happen about images but it hasn't. People
| quickly debunk AI generated content presented as real in
| replies or community notes. Not a real issue.
| FrequentLurker wrote:
| They didn't post any examples where it fails?
| smusamashah wrote:
| I was looking for that landslide effect (as seen even in Sora and
| Kling) where land seems moving very disproportionally to
| everything else. It makes me motion sick. I have not seen those
| Sora demo videos a second time for that reason.
|
| These are smooth, consistent, no landslide (except sloth floating
| in water, the stones on right are moving at much higher rate than
| the dock coming closer), no things appearing out of nowhere.
| Editing seems not as high quality (the candle to bubble example).
|
| To me, these didn't induce nausea while being very high quality
| makes it best among current video generators.
| pookha wrote:
| Facebook just spent 40 billion dollars on their AI
| infrastructure. Can they recoup those costs with stuff like this
| (especially after the VI debacle)? I doubt it. AI has been a wild
| ass jagged wasteland of economic failure since the 1950's and
| should be used with extreme caution by these companies...Like is
| it worth peoples time to spend ten\fifteen dollars (they have to
| eventually charge for this) to let AI create a, to be freank,
| half-assed valley of the uncanny movie? I respect the technology
| and what they're trying to accomplish but this just seems like
| they're going completely all in on an industry that's laid waste
| to smarter people than Mark.
| crakhamster01 wrote:
| In Facebook's case they have more to gain than just nifty gen
| AI features - better ads, content recommendations, etc. The
| investment in AI infra is a moat, and is why FB's ad platform
| has proven to be much more resilient to tracking changes than
| their competitors (e.g. Snap).
| heurist wrote:
| I've been saying for years that generated content is an impending
| tsunami that's going to drown out all real human voices online.
| The internet may become effectively unusable as a result for
| anything other than entertainment.
| boogieknite wrote:
| This is interesting and i see some of this now. Even here on HN
| and other forums i thought were mostly "human". Even one of my
| group chats i can tell one of my friends is using ai responses,
| but one of the other members cant tell and replies earnestly.
|
| I am grossed out by this. my instinct is to avoid ai slop. The
| interesting part to me is: What next? Where do we go? Will it
| be that "human" forums are pushed further into obscurity of the
| internet? Or will go so far as that we all start preferring
| meeting in person? Im clueless here
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Cryptography-secured/signed generated content / interactions?
| 93po wrote:
| worldcoin project solves a lot of this when combined with
| web of trust, however everyone's knee jerk reaction to
| worldcoin is pretty bad and so it's annoying to even
| mention it
| whiplash451 wrote:
| I'm not knowledgeable in crypto/worldcoin.
|
| I was rather thinking classical cryptography baked into
| generative networks.
| tim333 wrote:
| Worldcoin was intended to solve it but in practice it's
| not being used that way. Not enough adoption by users or
| websites.
|
| Maybe in the future?
|
| I'm a worldcoiner but so far it's just been free money.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| The paper that comes with this is nearly as crazy as the videos
| themselves. At a cool 92 pages it's closer to a small book than a
| normal scientific publication. There's nearly 10 pages of
| citations alone. I'll have to work through this in the coming
| days, but here's a few interesting points from the first few
| sections.
|
| For a long time people have speculated about The Singularity.
| What happens when AI is used to improve AI in a virtuous circle
| of productivity? Well, that day has come. To generate videos from
| text you need video+text pairs to train on. They get that text
| from more AI. They trained a special Llama3 model that knows how
| to write detailed captions from images/video and used it to
| consistently annotate their database of approx 100M videos and 1B
| images. This is only one of many ways in which they deployed AI
| to help them train this new AI.
|
| They do a lot of pre-filtering on the videos to ensure training
| on high quality inputs only. This is a big recent trend in model
| training: scaling up data works but you can do even better by
| training on less data after dumping the noise. Things they filter
| out: portrait videos (landscape videos tend to be higher quality,
| presumably because it gets rid of most low effort phone cam
| vids), videos without motion, videos with too much jittery
| motion, videos with bars, videos with too much text, video with
| special motion effects like slideshows, perceptual duplicates
| etc. Then they work out the "concepts" in the videos and re-
| balance the training set to ensure there are no dominant
| concepts.
|
| You can control the camera because they trained a dedicated
| camera motion classifier and ran that over all the inputs, the
| outputs are then added to the text captions.
|
| The text embeddings they mix in are actually a concatenation of
| several models. There's MetaCLIP providing the usual
| understanding of what's in the request, but they also mix in a
| model trained on character-level text so you can request specific
| spellings of words too.
|
| The AI sheen mentioned in other comments mostly isn't to do with
| it being AI but rather because they fine-tune the model on videos
| selected for being "cinematic" or "aesthetic" in some way. It
| looks how they want it to look. For instance they select for
| natural lighting, absence of too many small objects (clutter),
| vivid colors, interesting motion and absence of overlay text.
| What remains of the sheen is probable due to the AI upsampling
| they do, which lets them render videos at a smaller scale
| followed by a regular bilinear upsample + a "computer, enhance!"
| step.
|
| They just casually toss in some GPU cluster management
| improvements along the way for training.
|
| Because the MovieGen was trained on Llama3 generated captions,
| it's expecting much more detailed and high effort captions than
| users normally provide. To bridge the gap they use a modified
| Llama3 to rewrite people's prompts to become higher detail and
| more consistent with the training set. They dedicated a few
| paragraphs to this step, but it nonetheless involves a ton of
| effort with distillation for efficiency, human evals to ensure
| rewrite quality etc.
|
| I can't even begin to imagine how big of a project this must have
| been.
| gcr wrote:
| > Upload an image of yourself and transform it > into a
| personalized video. Movie Gen's > cutting-edge model lets
| you create personalized > videos that preserve human
| identity and motion.
|
| A stalker's dream! I'm sure my ex is going to love all the videos
| I'm going to make of her!
|
| Jokes aside, it's a little bizarre to me that they treat identity
| preservation as a feature while competitors treat that as a bug,
| explicitly trying not to preserve identity of generated content
| to minimize deepfake reputation risk.
|
| Any woman could have flagged this as an issue before this hit the
| public.
| PhearTheCeal wrote:
| When I read that text my first thought was making some videos
| of my mom that passed away, since so few videos of her exist
| and pictures don't capture her personality
| schlick wrote:
| This is a Black Mirror episode:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back
| garrettgarcia wrote:
| The fact that your first thought was how you could use this
| amazing tech to remember a lost family member who you love,
| and OP's first thought was that it could be used for evil so
| it shouldn't exist says a ton about each of you.
| allturtles wrote:
| Well I think the second use sounds creepy, too. I'm sure
| that says a ton about me.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| If you put a piece of technology into the world you should
| spend more time on what consequences that has for the
| living in the future, not the dead.
|
| As someone who has worked on payments infrastructure
| before, it's probably nice if your first thought is what
| great things an aunt can buy for her niece, but you're
| better off asking what bad actors can do with your
| software, or you're in for a bad surprise.
| thwarted wrote:
| How would videos created from photos, photos that didn't
| capture her personality, show her personality?
| dagmx wrote:
| Meta aren't exactly known for responsible use of technology.
|
| I would expect nothing less of Zuck than to imbue a culture of
| "tech superiority at all costs" and only focus on the
| responsible aspect when it can be a sales element.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| I'm surprised this hasn't already been done (or I'm not aware
| of it)...
|
| Step 1. Train AI on pornographic videos
|
| Step 2. Feed AI images of your ex
|
| Step 3. Profit
| azinman2 wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/technology/deepfake-ai-
| nu...
| bozhark wrote:
| why be weird and use real people for reference?
|
| why be extra weird and use a personal reference?
| roywiggins wrote:
| it very much has been done
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography
| kredd wrote:
| Pretty much anyone that I've talked to that somewhat works in
| AI industry, the attitude is "let it rip right now, and deal
| with the consequences as it's going to happen one way or
| another". I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but the
| reality is, it's inevitable whether we want it or not.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Your dream $11.99 kitchen knife! Perfect for stabbing! IT IS
| REAL!
|
| * product made without use of AI or any unnatural components.
| pure mountain iron
| meiraleal wrote:
| One positive aspect of it is that at some point people will
| just not care about nudes. Which is better for the victims of
| rageporn, not worse.
| darepublic wrote:
| The problem with gen AI right now is it still feels fairly
| obvious. There are numerous YouTube channels that primarily rely
| on gpt for the visuals. And I don't like them.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| Obvious to many, but not most, if Facebook is anything to go by
| tiborsaas wrote:
| I know people who use it day to day in their production
| workflow for ads and installations. You'd never know if they
| wouldn't break it down for you. Imagine 1 second scenes which
| happens so fast your bran just accepts it as "hand made" or
| professional job. 90% of it was generative AI, but the "good
| news" is that it still required a human editor who just
| happened to save a ton of time to make something that wasn't
| commercially viable because the client wouldn't paid for it
| otherwise.
| animanoir wrote:
| wow more useless tech
| smusamashah wrote:
| One extra clip on their blog post
|
| https://ai.meta.com/blog/movie-gen-media-foundation-models-g...
| zoogeny wrote:
| I wonder how they will package this as a product. I mean, there
| is some advantage to keeping the tool proprietary and wrapping it
| in a consumer product for Instagram/Facebook.
|
| What I hope (since I am building a story telling front-end for AI
| generated video) is that they consider b2c and selling this as a
| bulk service over an api.
| takinola wrote:
| The obvious use case for Meta is content generation. They
| provide the tools to content creators who create new content to
| post on Facebook/Instagram which increases Meta's ad inventory
| alexawarrior4 wrote:
| It is important to note, no matching audio dialog, or even an
| attempt at something like dialog. This seems to be way beyond
| current full video generation models.
| modeless wrote:
| Did I miss it or did they not say anything about letting people
| actually use these models, let alone open sourcing them?
| intended wrote:
| Man, everyone is happy with these advancements, and they are
| impressive.
|
| I'm here looking at users and wondering - the content pipelines
| are broader, but the exit points of attention and human brains
| are constant. How the heck are you supposed to know if your
| content is valid?
|
| During a recent apple event, someone on YT had an AI generated
| video of Tim Cook announcing a crypto collaboration; it had a
| 100k users before it was taken down.
|
| Right now, all the videos of rockets falling on Israel can be
| faked. Heck, the responses on the communities are already
| populated by swathes of bots.
|
| It's simply cheaper to create content and overwhelm society level
| filters we inherited from an era of more expensive content
| creation.
|
| Before anyone throws the sink at me for being a Luddite or
| raining on the parade - I'm coming from the side where you deal
| with the humans who consume content, and then decide to target
| your user base.
|
| Yes, the vast majority of this is going to be used to create
| lovely cat memes and other great stuff.
|
| At the same time, it takes just 1 post to act as a lightning rod
| and blow up things.
|
| Edit:
|
| From where I sit, there are 3 levels of issues.
|
| 1) Day to day arguments - this is organic normal human stuff
|
| 2) Bad actors - this is spammers, hate groups, hackers.
|
| 3) REALLY Bad actors - this is nation states conducting
| information warfare. This is countries seeding African user bases
| with faked stories, then using that as a basis for global
| interventions.
|
| This is fake videos of war crimes, which incense their base and
| overshadow the harder won evidence of actual war crimes.
|
| This doesn't seem real, but political forces are about
| perception, not science and evidence.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I only care about being able to express myself more easily
|
| Maybe get a job where interviewers are biased against my actual
| look and pedigree
|
| Just ignore everyone else's use of the tool
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > Just ignore everyone else's use of the tool
|
| That's precisely the hard part!
| AyyEye wrote:
| The Information Bomb. There's a reason military types and
| spooks are joining the boards of OpenAI and friends.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203092.The_Information_B...
|
| > After the era of the atomic bomb, Virilio posits an era of
| genetic and information bombs which replace the apocalyptic
| bang of nuclear death with the whimper of a subliminally
| reinforced eugenics. We are entering the age of euthanasia.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| There is some credence to the idea that the third reich was
| only possible due to mass media. Radio, television, and movie
| theatres broadcasting and rebroadcasting information onto a
| populace that did not have experience with media overload and
| therefore had no resistance to it.
|
| Not attempting to justify their actions or the outcomes, just
| that media itself is and has been long known to be a powerful
| weapon, like the fabled story of a city besieged by a greater
| army, who opened their gates to the invaders knowing that the
| invaders were lead by a brilliant strategist.
|
| The invader strategist, seeing the gates open, deduced that
| there must be a giant army laying in wait and that the gates
| being open were a trap, and so they turned and left.
|
| Had they entered they would have won easily, but the medium
| of communication, an open gate before an advancing horde, was
| enough in and of itself to turn the tide of a pitched battle.
|
| When we reach the point where we can never believe what we
| see or hear or think on our own, how will we ever fight?
| coldcode wrote:
| Also, cost. How many do you have to generate to get something
| you want? Does it take 1 or a 100 attempts to get something
| reasonable, and what does it cost for each attempt? Might not
| affect Hollywood, but someone has to pay for this to be
| profitable for Meta. How many 5-Gigawatt power stations will be
| required (what OpenAI wants to build all over the country) if
| lots of people use this?
| paganel wrote:
| A State-actor could have already done that manipulation using
| CGI or something. The answer is not to trust the people and
| persons who one sees as not to be trusted. As per your Israel
| example, I don't personality trust them because I have low
| levels of trust in genocidal regimes, so even if IDF-asset Gal
| Gadot were to come to my door and tell me that I won a million
| dollars I would just slam-shut the door in her face, never mind
| her and her ilk trying to convince me and people like me
| through videos posted on the internet of whatever it is they
| are trying to convince people of.
|
| Again, plain common sense just works, most of the times.
| csomar wrote:
| The solution to that is to make models both open weight and
| open source. That will equalize the level playing field.
| rolisz wrote:
| How will that help? How will uncle Joe be able to tell fake
| videos better with an open source model?
| ein0p wrote:
| Uncle Joe will just stop assuming that just because there's
| a video it is real. That hasn't been the case for decades.
| About time uncle Joe caught on.
| bee_rider wrote:
| So what's the plan to level the playing field in that case?
| Give everybody an equal amount of compute and ask them what
| sort of propaganda they'd like to have theirs contribute to?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| We are at a crossroads of technology, where we're still used to
| the idea that audio and video are decent proof that something
| happened, in a way in which we don't generally trust written
| descriptions of an event. Generative AI will be a significant
| problem for a while, but this assumption that audio/video is
| inherently trustable will relatively soon (in the grand scheme
| of things) go away, and we'll return to the historical medium.
|
| We've basically been living in a privileged and brief time in
| human history for the last 100-200 years, where you could
| mostly trust your eyes and years to learn about events that you
| didn't directly witness. This didn't exist before photography
| and phonograms: if you didn't witness an event personally, you
| could only rely on trust in other human beings that told you
| about it to know of it actually happened. The same will soon
| start to be true again, if it isn't already: a million videos
| from random anonymous strangers showing something happening
| will mean nothing, just like a million comments describing it
| mean nothing today.
|
| This is not a brave new world of post-truth such as the world
| has never seen before. It is going back to basically the world
| we had before photo, video, and sound recordings.
| bee_rider wrote:
| That's an interesting thought.
|
| I think I would not like to live in a world in which
| democracy isn't the predominant form of government. The
| ability of the typical person to understand and form their
| own opinions about the world is quite important to democracy,
| and journalism does help with that. But I guess the modern
| version of image and video heavy journalism wasn't the only
| thing we had the whole time; even as recent as the 90's (I'm
| pretty sure; I was just a kid), newspapers were a major
| source. And somehow America was invented before
| photojournalism, but of course that form of democracy would
| be hard for us to recognize nowadays...
|
| It is only when we got these portable video screens that
| stuff like YouTube and TikTok became really important news
| sources (for better or worse; worse I would say). And anyway,
| people already manage to take misleading or out of context
| videos, so it isn't like the situation is very good.
|
| Maybe AI video will be a blessing in disguise. At some point
| we'll have to give up on believe something just because we
| saw it. I guess we'll have to rely on people attesting to
| information, that sort of thing. With modern cryptography I
| guess we could do that fairly well.
|
| Edit: Another way of looking at it: basically no modern
| journalist or politician has a reputation better than an
| inanimate object, a photos or video. That's a really bizarre
| situation! We're used to consulting people on hard decisions,
| right? Not figuring out everything by direct observation.
| dguest wrote:
| It's not all the way back as long as solid encryption exists:
| Tim Cook could digitally sign his announcements, and assuming
| we can establish his signature (we had signatures and stamps
| 200 years ago) video proof still works.
|
| So we're not going all the way back, but the era of believing
| strangers because they have photographic or video proof is
| drawing to a close.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Cryptography is nice here, but the base idea remains the
| same: you need to trust the person publishing the video to
| believe the video. Cryptography doesn't help for most
| interesting cases here, though it can help with another
| level, that of impersonation.
|
| Sure, Tim Cook can sign a video so I know he is the one who
| published it - though watching it on https://apple.com does
| more or less the same thing. But if the video is showing
| some rockets hitting an air base, the cryptography doesn't
| do anything to tell you if these were real rockets or its
| an AI-generated video. It's your trust in Tim Cook (or lack
| thereof) that determines if you believe the video or not.
| squigz wrote:
| All this talk of trust speaks to the larger issue here
| too - that we've lost so much trust in governments and
| other important institutions. I'm not saying it was
| undeserved, but it's still an issue we need to fix.
| intended wrote:
| This is too much work for the human use case.
|
| Practically speaking, no one is going yo check provenance
| when scrolling through Reddit sitting on the pot.
| kurthr wrote:
| I'd argue it's a step or two more manipulative. Not only do
| bad actors have the ability to generate moving images which
| are default believed by many, they also have the ability to
| measure the response over large populations, which lets them
| tune for the effect they want. One step more is building
| response models for target groups so that each can receive
| tailored distraction/outrage materials targeted to them.
| Further, the ability to replicate speech patterns and voice
| for each of your trusted humans with fabricated material is
| already commonplace.
|
| True endstage adtech will require attention modeling of
| individuals so that you can predict target response before
| presenting optimized material.
|
| It's not just a step back, it's a step into black. Each
| person has to maintain an encrypted web of trust and hope
| nobody in their trust ring is compromised. Once they are,
| it's not clear even in person conversations aren't
| contaminated.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > Further, the ability to replicate speech patterns and
| voice for each of your trusted humans with fabricated
| material is already commonplace.
|
| Just like the ability to emulate the writing style of your
| trusted humans was (somewhat) commonplace in the time in
| which you'd only talk to distant friends over letters.
|
| > Once they are, it's not clear even in person
| conversations aren't contaminated.
|
| How exactly could any current or even somewhat close
| technology alter my perception of what someone I'm talking
| to in-person is saying?
|
| Otherwise, the points about targeting are fair -
| PR/propaganda has already advanced considerably compared to
| even 50 years ago, and more personalized propaganda will be
| a considerable problem, regardless of medium.
| intended wrote:
| The difference between artisanal work, vs mass production
| is enough to make it separate products.
|
| The rate of production is the incomparable, no matter
| what the parallels may seem.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Interesting thought. An alternative is a world where we can
| securely sign captured medium.
| ixtli wrote:
| I feel as though i am honor-bound to say that this isn't new
| and we havent really been living in a place where we can
| trust in the way you claim. Its simply that every year it
| rapidly becomes more and more clear that there is no
| "original". you're not wrong i just think its important for
| people who care about such things to realize this the result
| of a historical process which has been going on longer than
| we've all been alive. in fact, it likely started at the
| beginning of the 100-200 year period you're talking about,
| but its origins are much much older than that.
|
| read simulacra and simulation:
| https://0ducks.wordpress.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2014/12/simu...
|
| or this essay from pre-war germany https://en.wikipedia.org/w
| iki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...
| intended wrote:
| Which was the era of insular beliefs, rank superstition and
| dramatically less use of human potential.
|
| I feel that it's not appreciated, that we are (were) part of
| an information ecosystem / market, and this looks like the
| dawn of industrial scale information pollution. Like firms
| just dumping fertilizer into the waterways with no care to
| the downstream impacts, just a concern for the bottom line.
| stann wrote:
| Yeah... African users... oh poor infantile, gullible,
| creatures... so incapable of discerning truth from falsehood
| are the ones to be fooled by generative AI...I get the gist
| smallerize wrote:
| It's just something to put ads next to. Selling ad spots is the
| business, and investors demand an increase even if they already
| have 3.5 billion pairs of eyeballs.
| https://www.404media.co/where-facebooks-ai-slop-comes-from/
| echoangle wrote:
| This will just lead to people not taking videos as evidence
| anymore. Just like images of war crime aren't irrefutable
| evidence due to staging and photoshop, videos will lose their
| worth as evidence. Which is actually a good thing in some
| instances. If someone blackmails you with nudes/explicit
| videos, you can just ignore it and claim it's fake.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Before photography was invented, mass communications was all
| just words on paper, right?
|
| How would you know that the British burned down the white house
| in 1812? Anyone could fake a paper document saying it so.
| (Except many people were illiterate.)
|
| As far as I can see you need institutions you can trust.
| baxtr wrote:
| If this was true, why haven't we seen it with manipulated
| pictures?
|
| Maybe I'm not well informed but there seem to be no example for
| the issues you describe with photos.
|
| I believe it's actually worse than you think. People believe in
| narratives, in stories, in ideas. These spread.
|
| It has been like this forever. Text, pictures, videos are
| merely ways to proliferate narratives. We dismiss even clear
| evidence if it doesn't fit our beliefs and we actively look for
| proof for what we think is the truth.
|
| If you want to "fight" back you need to start on the narrative
| level, not on the artifact level.
| pk-protect-ai wrote:
| It is really amazing how consistent this model is in demo videos
| about world object details over time. This spatial comprehension
| is really spooky and super amazing at the same time. I hope Meta
| will release this model with open weights and open code, as they
| have done for the LLaMA models.
| ein0p wrote:
| Problem is, the moment they release weights someone will fine
| tune it to generate porn, including CP. So I wouldn't hold my
| breath for the weights release - no legal dept will sign off on
| something with this much fallout potential.
| chasing wrote:
| Periodic generative AI reminder:
|
| It will not make you creative. It will not give you taste or
| talent. It is a technical tool that will mostly be used to
| produce cheap garbage unless you develop the skills to use it as
| a part of your creative toolkit -- which should also include
| many, many other things.
| Juliate wrote:
| Impressive but meh.
|
| Impressive on the relative quality of the output. And of the
| productivity gains, sure.
|
| But meh on the substance of it. It may be a dream for (financial)
| producers. For the direct customers as well (advertisement
| obviously, again). But for creators themselves (who are to be
| their own producers at some point, for some)?
|
| On the maker side, art/work you don't sweat upon has little
| interest and emotional appeal. You shape it about as much as it
| shapes you.
|
| On the viewer side, art that's not directed and produced by a
| human has little interest, connection and appeal as well. You
| can't be moved by something that's been produced by someone or
| something you can't relate to. Especially not a machine. It may
| have some accidental aesthetic interest, much like generative art
| had in the past. But uninhabited by someone's intent, it's just
| void of anything.
|
| I know it's not the mainstream opinion, but Generative AI every
| day sounds more and more like cryptocurrencies and NFTs and these
| kinds of technologies that did not find _yet_ their defining
| problem to which they could be a solution.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Unless I'm missing something, this technology's harmful potential
| outweighs the good. What is the great outcome from it that makes
| society better? MORE content? TikTok already shows that you can
| out-influence Hollywood/governments in 10 seconds with your
| smartphone. Heck, you can cause riots through forwarding text
| messages on WhatsApp [1]. Not everything that can be done should
| be done, and I think this is just too harmful for people to work
| on. I wish we'd globally ban it.
|
| [1] https://www.dw.com/en/whatsapp-in-india-scourge-of-
| violence-...
| paul7986 wrote:
| I agree with Neil Degrasse Tyson AI will kill the Internet
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAuDmBYwLq4
|
| Though maybe there's hope if..
|
| 1. All deepfake image & video tech are enforced to add
| watermark labels & all websites that publish are force to label
| fake too.
|
| 2. Crazy idea but a govt issued Internet ID (ID.me is closest
| to that now with having to use to file taxes with the IRS)
| where your personal repuation and credit score are affected by
| publishing fake/scam/spam crap on the Internet ..affectively
| helping to destroy it. I want good actors on the web not ones
| that are out for a buck and in turn destroying it.
| echoangle wrote:
| 1. will never happen, it's way too interesting that people
| won't try to make an open source version where the watermark
| can easily be removed by users. Unless you actually
| criminalize it and put people in jail multiple years for
| building anything close to deepfakes, you won't be able to
| prevent that.
| paul7986 wrote:
| That's why websites uploaders need to read the meta data
| and found out how it was originally generated then publish
| / label it ..AI generated it its first creation was such.
| echoangle wrote:
| And how would you actually enforce that? What would
| happen if I as a private person AI-generated something on
| my computer and upload it without the metadata? Would I
| go to prison?
| paul7986 wrote:
| governments need to enforce that into all upload(ing)
| tech (web browser builders, apple's iphone sdk, androids,
| etc) and require all websites/apps to publish/label the
| metadata showing AI generated or not.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| > TikTok already shows that you can out-influence
| Hollywood/governments in 10 seconds with your smartphone
|
| I can accept the premise that TikTok is _trying_ to do this. Do
| we have any objective measurement on how effective it has been?
| azinman2 wrote:
| There's literally non stop article and studies on
| misinformation of every category. The evidence is beyond
| abundant.
|
| I'm not suggesting TikTok themselves is trying to do this,
| but it (and twitter, instagram, facebook, etc etc) is shaping
| people's world views.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| My sense is that there is abundant evidence of something,
| but I'm unable to judge the holistic effect size and
| direction.
|
| My default perspective is that because humans are so
| adaptable, every technology shapes our world views. TikTok
| and Instagram impact us, but so does the plow and shovel.
| We have research that shows IG harming self-image in some
| segments of teen girls; what I have not seen evaluated much
| is how Youtube DIY videos bring self-esteem through
| teaching people skills on how to make things. These
| platforms also connect people - my wife had a very serious
| but rare complication in pregnancy, and her mental health
| was massively improved by being able to connect with a
| group of women who had been through/were going through
| something similar.
|
| My overall point is that it's not very interesting to me to
| say that technology shapes our world views. Which views? In
| which way, to what extent? Is it universal, or a
| subpopulation? Are there prior indications, or does it
| incept these views? Which views? How much good or harm? How
| do we balance that?
|
| But what we are left with is a very small view through the
| keyhole of a door into a massive room that is illuminated
| with a flickering flashlight. We then glom onto whatever
| evidence supports our biases and preconceptions, ignoring
| that which is unstated, unpopular, or violates our sense of
| the world.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| This is great. Honestly imagine we get to a point this technology
| makes most things so demystified we move on to things that are
| more difficult.
|
| Like cool a movie doesn't need to cost $200 million or whatever.
|
| Imagine if those creative types were freed up to do something
| different. What would we see? Better architecture and factories?
| Maybe better hospitals?
| tyjen wrote:
| While we're still a fair distance away from creating polished
| products capable of replacing Hollywood gatekeeping; the bursting
| of the creative dam is on the horizon and it's exciting! I'm
| looking forward to when you can write a script and effectively
| make your own series or movie. Tweaking it as you go to fit your
| vision without the exhausting a large amount of resources,
| capital, and human networking to produce similar products pre-AI.
| ramshanker wrote:
| It feels like in the field of AI, a major advancement happens
| every month now!
| benabbott wrote:
| Things are about to get weird. We can't control this at any
| level:
|
| At the level of image/video synthesis: Some leading companies
| have suggested they put watermarks in the content they create.
| Nice thought, but open source will always be an option, and
| people will always be able to build un-watermarked tools.
|
| At the level of law: You could attempt to pass a law banning
| image/video generation entirely, or those without watermarks, but
| same issue as before- you can't stop someone from building this
| tech in their garage with open-source software.
|
| At the level of social media platforms: If you know how GANs
| work, you already know this isn't possible. Half of image
| generation AI is an AI image detector itself. The detectors will
| always be just about as good as the generators- that's how the
| generators are able to improve themselves. It is, I will not
| mince words, IMPOSSIBLE to build an AI detector that works
| longterm. Because as soon as you have a great AI content
| classifier, it's used to make a better generator that outsmarts
| the classifier.
|
| So... smash the looms..?
| dinfinity wrote:
| The challenge is to determine what is real, not what is fake.
|
| I think cryptographic signing and the classic web of trust
| approaches are going to prove the most valuable tools in doing
| so, even if they're definitely not a panacea.
| lytedev wrote:
| This comes up a lot. Because synthesis is so generally
| feasible plus the existence of very powerful editing tools
| for things like movies and whatnot, I'm guessing that it will
| simply become the norm to assume that any image, sound,
| movie, or whatever may be fake. I expect there won't be a way
| to verify something was synthesised or "real-synthesized"
| (since images and videos are ultimately synthesized
| themselves, just from reality instead of other synthesized
| content). Even with signing and web of trust we can only
| verify who is publishing something, but not the method of
| synthesis.
| tintor wrote:
| It can be verified if resulting video contains signed
| metadata with all intermediate steps needed to produce the
| video from original recording (which is digitally signed by
| camera).
|
| Downside is that large original video assets would need to
| be published, for such verification to work.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| You won't be able, as some average person, to trust that
| what you gets to Twitter, Instagram, or whatever image and
| video hosting platform gets popular in the future, is real,
| but 1) I'm not sure you can today anyway, 2) plenty of
| people don't consume anything from these platforms and get
| by fine, and 3) what are you even relying on this
| information for?
|
| Are you concerned about predicting the direction or "real"
| state of your national economy? Videos aren't going to give
| you that. Largely, you can't know. Heavily curated
| statistical reports compiled and published by national
| agencies can only give you a clear view in retrospect. Are
| you concerned that a hurricane might be heading your way
| and you need to leave? Don't listen to videos on social
| media. Listen to your local weather authority. Are you
| concerned about whether X candidate for some national
| office really said a thing? Why? Are any of these people's
| characters or policy positions really that unclear that the
| reality or unreality of two seconds worth of words coming
| out of their mouths are going to sway your overall opinion
| one way or another?
|
| Things you should actually care about:
|
| - How are you family and friends doing? Ask them directly.
| If you can't trust the information you get back, you didn't
| trust them to begin with.
|
| - How should you live your life? Stick with the classics
| here, man. Some combination of Aristotle, Ben Graham, and
| the basic AHA guidelines on diet and exercise will get you
| 95% of the way there.
|
| - How do you fix or clean or operate some equipment or item
| X that you own? Get that information from the manufacturer.
|
| Things you shouldn't care about:
|
| - Is the IDF or Hamas committing more atrocities?
|
| - Does Kamala Harris really support sex changes for
| convicted felons serving prison sentences funded by public
| money?
|
| - Can Koalas actually surf?
|
| Accept at some point that you can't know everything at all
| times and that's fine. You can know the things that matter.
| Get information from sources you actually trust, as in
| individual people or specific organizations you know and
| trust, not anonymous creators of text on Reddit. If you
| happen to be a national strategic decision maker that
| actually needs to know current world events, you're in
| luck. You have spy agencies and militaries that fully
| control the entire chain of custody from data collection to
| report compilation. If they're using AI to show you lies,
| you've got bigger problems anyway.
| dinfinity wrote:
| Trusted entities could vouch for the veracity (or other
| aspects) of things, especially if they are close to the
| source.
|
| We already implicitly do this: if a news outlet we trust
| publishes a photo and does not state that they are unsure
| of its veracity we assume that it is an authentic photo.
| Using cryptographic signing that news outlet could
| explicitly state that they have determined the photo to be
| real. They could add any type of signed statement to any
| bit of information, really. Even signing something as being
| fake could be done, with the resulting signed information
| being shareable (although one would imagine that any
| unsigned information would be extremely suspect anyway).
|
| The web of trust approach is to have a distributed system
| of trust that allows for less institutional parties to be
| able to earn trust and provide 'trusted' information, but
| there are also plenty downsides to it. A similar
| distributed system that determines trustworthiness in a
| more robust way would be preferable, but I am not aware of
| one.
| williamcotton wrote:
| The web of trust doesn't seem to scale! All of the online
| social platforms trend towards centralization for identify
| verification.
|
| In my (historically unpopular) opinion we have two optional
| choices outside of but still allowing for this anonymous
| free-for-all:
|
| A private company like Facebook uses a privileged system of
| identification and authentication based on login/password/2FA
| and relying on state-issued identification verification,
|
| OR, what I feel is better, a public institution that uses a
| common system based on PKI and state-issued identification,
| eg, the DMV issuing DoD Common Access Cards.
|
| Trusting districts and nation-states could sign each other's
| issuing authorities.
|
| The benefits are multifaceted! It helps authenticate the
| source of deep fakes. It helps fight astroturfing, foreign or
| otherwise. It helps to remove private companies fueled by
| advertising revenue from being in a privileged position of
| identification, etc, etc.
|
| I totally understand any downvotes but I would prefer if you
| instead engaged me in this conversation if you disagree.
|
| I'd love to have this picked apart instead of just feeling
| bummed out.
| farleykr wrote:
| I think pretty soon we will get to the point where there's some
| sort of significant boundary at all levels between online and
| real life because the only way to be sure you're seeing
| something real is to be interacting with it in real life. The
| internet will not be something you visit on a web browser to
| get information but will become a place you go where you will
| simply have to acknowledge that nothing is real. Obviously
| that's a concern now but I wonder if we'll get to a point where
| it's taken for granted at large that whatever you see on the
| internet just isn't real. And I wonder what implications that
| will have.
| afro88 wrote:
| > It is, I will not mince words, IMPOSSIBLE to build an AI
| detector that works longterm
|
| Like pretty much any tool involving detection of / protection
| from erroneous things, it's forever a cat and mouse game. There
| will always be new viruses, jailbreaks, banned content, 0-days
| etc. AI detection is no different.
| layer8 wrote:
| Just stop taking any video you see at face value? People
| managed without videos before video cameras were available, and
| the written word was never reliable to start with. Maybe the
| future won't be that different?
| slg wrote:
| Except that time "before video cameras" didn't coincide with
| a time in which everyone had a magic device in our pocket
| that allowed anyone to send a firehose of propaganda our way.
|
| If yellow newspapers were able to push us to war despite us
| knowing that "the written word was never reliable to start
| with", what will be the impact of the combination of this
| technology and the internet used against a population that
| has been conditioned over generations to trust video.
| layer8 wrote:
| If "fake news" is anything to go by, the population will
| quickly be de-conditioned from trusting video.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Absolutely not. You can just go to Twitter or Reddit,
| like https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/, to see an image with
| a (e.g. political) caption that purports something to be
| true and thousands of people will take it onboard as
| truth. Nobody asks for a source, or they are admonished
| when they do for apparently disagreeing with the
| political claim.
|
| You can go on Youtube to see charlatans peddle all sorts
| of convenient truths with no evidence.
|
| You don't even need AI. The bug is in the human wetware.
| hoten wrote:
| good advice for internet citizens (too bad the uptake will be
| too slow). but doesn't address how courts and law should
| function.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| So this is basically a regression to a 19th-century level in
| terms of being able to trust and understand reporting on the
| world beyond our own front door. People managed before
| photographic and video evidence was a thing; you could use
| eyewitness reports from trusted friends and news on the
| official telegraphs, to the extent that those were
| trustworthy. But it's certainly still a big step backward
| from the 20th century, that brief window of time where it was
| much easier to record physical evidence of an event than to
| fake it.
| afh1 wrote:
| Photographic evidence has been subject to manipulation
| before computers were even a thing, more so after Photoshop
| became widely available. There has always been forensics
| for that, which will continue to evolve.
|
| I think the issue with trust is rooted elsewhere - in
| social relations, politics, and not in AI generated
| content.
| maxwell wrote:
| What remaining institutions still command any trust?
| educasean wrote:
| ... Most of them?
|
| Do you read the news at all? If you can't trust any of
| them, then why even bother?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| It has, but it used to take a lot more skill to
| manipulate a photo than to take a photo, and convincing
| video manipulation was even harder. I'm also skeptical
| that forensics will be able to keep up, because of the
| basic principle of antagonistic training -- any technique
| forensics can use can be applied back into improving the
| pipeline that generates the image, defeating the forensic
| tool. That certainly wasn't the case in the 20th century.
| mikeshi42 wrote:
| I agree the cat is out of the bag, but GANs do not work like
| that. One of the common failure modes in training a GAN is that
| the discriminator gets too powerful too quickly and the
| generator then can no longer learn.
|
| Hard to say anything is impossible off of one point - but
| discrimination afaik is generally seen as the easier problem of
| the two, given you only need to give a binary output as opposed
| to a continuous one.
| elwell wrote:
| > IMPOSSIBLE to build an AI detector that works longterm
| return Math.random() < Math.pow(0.5, (new Date()).getFullYear()
| - 2023) ? "Not AI" : "AI";
|
| This should increase in accuracy over time.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| It turns out that "return 'AI'" is a better strategy when the
| probability is above 50%:
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/msJA6B9ZjiiZxT6EZ/lawful-
| unc...
| tintor wrote:
| Possible option is for cameras to digitally sign the original
| video as it is being recorded.
| mistercheph wrote:
| Oi mate, you 'ave a license for producing cryptographic
| signatures to embed on that footage?
| cloverich wrote:
| My favorite idea that nobody is talking about is how news
| organizations are about to get a second life. As soon as it
| becomes actually impossible to distinguish AI content from
| human content, news organizations will have the opportunity to
| provide that layer of analysis in a way that potentially can't
| be (easily) automated. They are ironically against it but IDK
| maybe they should be excited about it. Would love someone to
| poke holes in this.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| > Nice thought, but open source will always be an option, and
| people will always be able to build un-watermarked tools.
|
| Thats why you make it punishable by potential prison time if
| you create/disseminate an non watermarked video generated in
| this way.
| bitbasher wrote:
| If social media was the scourge of the last decade, the next
| decade's scourge will be artificial content.
|
| Digital minimalism is looking more and more attractive.
| rootedbox wrote:
| Did this website kill anyone else's phone?
| mucle6 wrote:
| The text to modify a video looks so cool
| tomw1808 wrote:
| Why does it look ... fake?
|
| Before you downvote, don't get this as a belittling the effort
| and all the results, they are stunning, but as a sincere
| question.
|
| I do plenty of photography, I do a lot of videography. I know my
| way around Premiere Pro, Lightroom and After Effects. I also know
| a decent amount about computer vision and cg.
|
| If I look at the "edited" videos, they look fake. Immediately.
| And not a little bit. They look like they were put through a
| washing machine full of effects: too contrasty, too much gamma,
| too much clarity, too low levels, like a baby playing with the
| effect controls. Can't exactly put my fingers on, but comparing
| the "original" videos to the ones that simply change one element,
| like the "add blue pom poms to his hands", it changes the whole
| video, and makes the whole video a bit cartooney, for lack of a
| better word.
|
| I am simply wondering why?!
|
| Is that a change in general through the model that processes the
| video? Is that something that is easy to get rid of in future
| versions, or inherently baked into how the model transforms the
| video?
| davedx wrote:
| This is just the landing page for a research paper? It's hard to
| understand what the actual production capabilities of this are.
| jmakov wrote:
| Wonder what a AI generated movie from the same script as original
| would look like.
| yorozu wrote:
| (commented on wrong thread somehow)
| mistercheph wrote:
| Wrong thread :)
| phkahler wrote:
| The kids kite is flying backwards....
| seydor wrote:
| I can finally watch Star Wars the Smurfs edition
| greybox wrote:
| At what point did someone look at this and think: "Ah yes, this
| will be good for humanity right now" ?
| oblio wrote:
| That person would have been fired :-(
| afh1 wrote:
| Seems to have great potential in the VFX industry, for one
| thing.
| tim333 wrote:
| I don't think it works like that. It's more "Hey! This tech can
| make funky videos"
| tqi wrote:
| A lot of folks in this thread have mentioned that the problem
| with the current generation of models is that only 1 in (?)
| prompts returns something useful. Isn't that exactly what a
| reward model is supposed to help improve? I'm not an ML person by
| any means so the entire concept of reward models feels like
| creating something from nothing, so very curious to understand
| more.
| jprete wrote:
| Bear in mind these systems have already been through the
| reward-based training, and these are the results that are good
| enough to show in public.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| It should be federal law that any video created with GenAI should
| be watermarked both stenographically and visually. (Same goes for
| images and audio.. not sure what can be done about ascii)
| qwery wrote:
| What can you even say about this stuff? It's another incremental
| improvement, good job Mark. These new video clips of yours are
| certainly something. I don't know how you do it. Round of
| applause for Mark!
|
| I will now review some of the standout clips.
|
| That alien thing in the water is horrifying. The background fish
| look pretty convincing, except for the really flamboyant one in
| the dark.
|
| I guess I should be impressed that the kite string seems to be
| rendered every frame and appears to be connected between the hand
| and the kite most of the time. The whole thing is really
| stressful though.
|
| _drunk sloth with weirdly crisp shadow_ should take the top slot
| from _girl in danger of being stolen by kite_.
|
| _man demonstrates novel chain sword fire stick with four or five
| dimensions_ might be better off in the bin...
|
| > The camera is behind a man. The man is shirtless, wearing a
| green cloth around his waist. He is barefoot. With a fiery object
| in each hand, he creates wide circular motions. A calm sea is in
| the background. The atmosphere is mesmerizing, with the fire
| dance.
|
| This just reads like slightly clumsy lyrics to a lost Ween song.
| hcks wrote:
| Round of applause for this useless unsubstantiated comment
| chaos_emergent wrote:
| it's totally wild that your first response is shitting on flaws
| rather than having your jaw drop at machines producing coherent
| videos from text.
|
| This is _the worst that machines will ever be at this task_,
| and most of the improvements that need to be made are a matter
| of engineering ingenuity, which can be translated to research
| dollars.
| salmonet wrote:
| This is Hacker News. That comment was way more positive than
| I expected for something like this and so I assumed this must
| be pretty awesome
| mempko wrote:
| Hippos can't swim. Things are about to get weird where people
| will start believing strange things. We already have people
| believing Trump helped people during the hurricane, with images
| of him wading through water (that are clearly AI generated if you
| look close enough). We are going to get a form of model collapse
| at not just the AI level, but societal one.
| garrettgarcia wrote:
| Harry Potter-style moving pictures are now a reality.
| swayvil wrote:
| Just feed it a book?
| throw310822 wrote:
| The porntential is immense.
|
| Seriously though. This is the company that is betting hard on VR
| goggles. And these are engines that can produce real time dreams,
| 3d, photographic quality, obedient to our commands. No 3d models
| needed, no physics simulations, no ray tracing, no prebuilt
| environments and avatars. All simply dreamed up in real time, as
| requested by the user in natural language. It might be one of the
| most addictive technologies ever invented.
| afh1 wrote:
| Or a multi billion dollar fluke like the Metaverse. Time will
| tell.
| complianceowl wrote:
| Hahahaha. I think Websters Dictionary may be interested in
| hiring you.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Did you just pornify a word?
| jsyang00 wrote:
| Meta is already a target for regulators - they are going to
| have to be very careful around this. I think this is why the
| "metaverse" is still more likely to be decentralized than
| created by a tech giant. Even if Meta wanted to take a
| libertarian, "dream whatever you want", stance or even a "dream
| whatever you want so long as it is more or less legal" stance,
| they would see a regulatory deluge come pouring down on them.
| There is no way VR will be able to go mainstream without a
| drawn out fight over content prohibitions. I think the early
| internet was a bit of a historical outlier in this sense, where
| it happened to come about when a relatively laissez-faire
| attitude towards censorship was prevailing and people did not
| realize the full impact it would have. That is not the case
| now. People understand on all sides that this technology has
| the potential to revolutionize our systems of social relations
| once again, and I suspect that they will be fighting tooth and
| nail to shape that outcome as they most desire.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > There is no way VR will be able to go mainstream without a
| drawn out fight over content prohibitions
|
| Could be, but it's a bit dystopian to imagine that the
| government would have a say on the images you can generate-
| locally and in realtime- and send straight to your own eyes,
| don't you think? Dystopian and very difficult to enforce,
| too.
| TranquilMarmot wrote:
| Sorry, but it's probably just going to be used for ads.
| sanj wrote:
| Hippos don't float.
| zamadatix wrote:
| When the comments range from "it's the demise of the world" to
| "it doesn't look quite right" (and everything in-between) you get
| a sense of just how early we are into this decade's "big new tech
| thing".
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Well I wouldn't have called it, but I think Meta is in the lead.
| They beat Apple to AR and affordable VR. Their AI tooling has
| basically caught up to OpenAI and at this rate will pass them -
| is anyone else even playing? Maybe their work culture is just
| better suited to realizing these technologies than the others.
|
| They're not really showing signs of slowing down either. Hey,
| Zuck, always thought you were kind of lame in the past. But maybe
| you weren't a one trick pony after all.
| the8472 wrote:
| > is anyone else even playing?
|
| Deepmind. Protein folding and solving math problems is just
| less sexy.
| TranquilMarmot wrote:
| Most of the comments here talking about bad actors using this for
| misinformation, but they're ignoring what Meta does- _it collects
| your information_ and _it sells ads_.
|
| Especially based on the examples on this site, it's not a far
| reach to say that they will start to generate video ads of you
| (yes, YOU! your face! You've already uploaded hundreds of photos
| for them to reference!) using a specific product and showing how
| happy you are because you bought it. Imagine scrolling Instagram
| and seeing your own face smelling some laundry detergent or
| laughing because you took some prescription medicine.
| bilekas wrote:
| This just seems to serpent eating its own tail and distopian to
| me, Facebook, a company where people share their own content like
| videos and pictures now generating content from nothing but AI.
| To what end?
| bhouston wrote:
| Where can I download this model? Meta is the open source AI
| company right?
| eth0up wrote:
| Alright, I may or may not be a moron, but none of my versions of
| Firefox can connect to this site because 'some HSTS shit'.
|
| Anyone able to update a dinosaur?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-04 23:00 UTC)