[HN Gopher] Animate Anyone 2: High-Fidelity Character Image Anim...
___________________________________________________________________
Animate Anyone 2: High-Fidelity Character Image Animation
Author : ToJans
Score : 154 points
Date : 2025-02-16 11:20 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (humanaigc.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (humanaigc.github.io)
| ioulaum wrote:
| Wonder if they're planning to release code.
|
| I imagine some opensource player will try to recreate their model
| themselves too.
| echelon wrote:
| Alibaba and Ant Group don't release their code and weights, but
| Tencent sure does. I bet Tencent has one of these waiting in
| the wings.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| Unreleased models should not be treated as interesting
| xnx wrote:
| Very impressive improvement over Viggle. I don't know if Viggle
| was considered sota previously, but it's certainly had its moment
| of popularity at the end of last year.
|
| Tech has come a long way since Monty-Python style JibJab from
| 2004.
| echelon wrote:
| It's better than Viggle, but Alibaba doesn't release their
| models like Tencent does.
|
| Waiting for the Tencent version of this. It feels like Tencent
| releases a new model or two every single week. If they do
| release an equivalent, everyone will be able to clone Viggle's
| entire product offering.
|
| Models are becoming commodity faster than ever these days. We
| had _five_ foundation video models come out last week. I don 't
| know how Runway ML, with their $300M of fundraising, will be
| able to stay ahead or raise again. They don't have any special
| magic, and there's nothing spectacular about their product.
|
| I wouldn't want to be a foundation model company these days.
| China and any third string company release weights openly to
| gain network effects and salt the earth for foundation model
| value accretion. Product and brand awareness are all that
| matters.
|
| Edit: if anyone from Alibaba or Ant Group is reading, can you
| release your code and weights? Pretty please?
| joshdavham wrote:
| > Tech has come a long way since Monty-Python style JibJab from
| 2004.
|
| No doubt! I'm surprised people even remember JibJab.
| joshdavham wrote:
| Besides just being really cool, what are some of the clearest
| use-cases for this?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| If this has anything close to usable rigging data (from what I
| briefly read, it doesn't seem to), this would be a cheap
| pipeline for generating animations for real time applications
| out of video references.
|
| As it is, it seems like it might help for video editing and
| VFX. Being able to isolate out a human being lets you do all
| sorts of editing with less issues that can then be composited
| over later for a final shot.
| radley wrote:
| It also makes previz much easier. Stand-ins can run through
| the shots, including stunts. Then the main actors can be
| swapped in to provide a clearer estimate of what it would
| look like.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Catfishing
|
| Convincing older people that their children/relatives are in
| jail/hospital/kidnapped and need money
|
| Disinformation/chaos by faking important speeches by
| politicians
|
| Fake celebrity endorsements of products and causes
|
| Rewriting historical events with "newly uncovered" footage
|
| Other creative ways of ripping people off and lying
| tetris11 wrote:
| > Disinformation/chaos by faking important speeches by
| politicians
|
| I do wonder what the end game here would be. A race to the
| bottom where any televised speech is brought into question. I
| wonder if that would destabilize all power bases to the point
| that people will finally look at the actions of their
| politicians rather than their words. Wishful thinking
| perhaps.
| wruza wrote:
| I think that taking political speeches at face value was
| flawed anyway, so. Maybe someone will finally get tired of
| this circus and invents Bitrule somehow.
| ge96 wrote:
| Was thinking trying to look cool on a dating app
| barnabyjones wrote:
| Even though the examples have a clear green-screen effect, I
| would think some of the tricks/filters they used in old video
| games to make them look "realistic/cinematic" could work here,
| then advertisers would be able to plug in a picture of a model
| wearing their latest outfit to a stock video for social media
| and digital ads.
| radley wrote:
| It could also be used to "upload a picture of yourself" to
| see how you'd look in an outfit from all angles, walking, and
| in specific (aka dreamy) occasions.
| danwills wrote:
| Where I work in VFX (RSP) we have an ML department and a lot of
| what they do is about replacing things in footage (face
| replacement onto double-actors, de-ageing and so on). What they
| achieve (that brings significant value) seems fairly adjacent
| to the tech in the article. Our ML crew have the benefit of a
| strong compositing department (and other support) that can help
| integrate the results nicely and smooth over any rough edges.
| The ML team were nominated for a VES award for their work on
| Furiosa recently!
| bsenftner wrote:
| Personalized advertising: you using a new product and visually
| enjoying it. Blows my mind people do not see this application.
| marssaxman wrote:
| I don't see that application because uBlock Origin filters it
| out for me.
| radley wrote:
| Influencer promos are the more likely candidate.
| eumenides1 wrote:
| Memes, people will use it for the memes. I saw the NBA footage
| and yes, i want a gif of me posterizing Ben Simmons.
| jillyboel wrote:
| Deepfakes and porn.
| julianeon wrote:
| 100% of the capability could be absorbed by YouTubers looking
| to improve engagement (read: profit) with more interesting
| visuals. Since they have a bottomless need for that, this would
| get widely used within days of a commercial release.
|
| Since we live in a social media age, anything that looks
| "really cool" has basically immediate commercial applications.
| Even that phrase should set alarm bells off.
| azalemeth wrote:
| I really wouldn't use Donald Trump as an example character
| model...
| Mekoloto wrote:
| why?
| Timwi wrote:
| I'm not OP but I imagine they might be thinking that Trump
| will find a way to punish it, with him being a fascist and
| all. Just imagine you'd had done this with Hitler in 1932. By
| 1934 your life would basically be over.
| Mekoloto wrote:
| If people already assume this, the right response is to use
| him for everything and starting to stand up in form of a
| protest
| jillyboel wrote:
| I never thought americans were this weak and pathetic.
| Y'all always screamed about "muh guns" and stuff like that,
| but now... You're just sitting idly while your new king
| takes over, even discouraging others to do anything that
| may upset your supreme ruler?
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| (To be fair, though I'm not in USA / an American, if
| we're going to stereotype and generalize unfairly, it
| seems it's largely the "Muh Guns" folks you refer to that
| support/vote for Trump and the like).
| Geee wrote:
| These people who complain are the guys who don't have
| guns.
| jillyboel wrote:
| Can't they just buy some? There's been loads of arguments
| on HN about how the right to own guns is seen as
| important, just for cases like this.
| rererereferred wrote:
| They are the ones arguing against the use of guns for
| cases like this. They are in the worse situation, either
| they lose or their ideology does.
| theultdev wrote:
| They don't have an ideology.
|
| They just parrot talking points aimed at stripping their
| rights away.
|
| Even the 1A is on the block because of "misinformation,
| hate speech, etc."
| BizarroLand wrote:
| My guess is that it would cause people like myself who
| intensely dislike him to avoid your technology because of
| the association.
|
| If I don't like it, I won't show it to my boss, he won't
| see it, and our company won't use your technology.
|
| Same could be said for showing Hillary Clinton or Kamala
| Harris for the other side, or Putin or Kim Jong Un or
| Mohammad and Jesus
|
| A smart tactic would be to avoid sensitive figures in
| general if your goal is to have your technology adopted by
| a wide audience.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| Because that scary state that you read about in dystopian
| novels and hear about in dystopian histories is a state that
| Americans live in at the moment. We are all actually people
| that are living in an important moment, and should be aware
| of Normalcy Bias.
| BtM909 wrote:
| First of all, this looks very impressive (besides that it will be
| used for memes, haha), but can someone explain why the faces and
| movements look almost cartoon-like?
| cornedor wrote:
| Light doesn't match up at all (look at the Ronaldo example) and
| the animation is far from perfect. Go through the one with the
| joker frame-by-frame, and you can see his arms moving through
| his body and stuff like that.
| lacoolj wrote:
| So I guess we're just about 2 or 3 iterations away from no longer
| being able to trust video as evidence in a courtroom. Just gotta
| fix the lighting and facial issues and bam! Precedent will be
| set.
| hassleblad23 wrote:
| I think we have already crossed that threshold. There are
| videos today that you'd have a hard time telling if they are AI
| generated. Not always, but sometimes.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| It's been decades since we haven't been able to blindly trust
| image and videos in court, image and video manipulation are
| almost as old as photography and cinema.
|
| And paper documents are still being used on court today despite
| being trivially counterfeit.
|
| Why so? Because court never trust documents blindly, the
| defendant can always object that it is fake and try and
| question their origin. If the concerns are deemed legitimate by
| the court, the document is going to be rejected (and an
| investigation will occur and the producer of the fake document
| will be charged heavily).
| BizarroLand wrote:
| It depends on the court. Typically evidence is shared with
| the opposing parties before the court assembles. If there is
| damning evidence like video of you dancing with the Joker,
| your side will have an opportunity to preview the video,
| examine it for being deepfaked, and have a chance to either
| try to exclude it or possibly will let it slide so that your
| experts can expose it in trial for being a fake, which could
| be a strong point in your favor.
|
| From my experience juries are not smart, but if you can show
| them they've been lied to they will destroy the side that
| lied to them, not to mention the punishments for lawyers that
| try to use AI technology to obtain verdicts in their favor by
| deception.
| slothtrop wrote:
| What's the digital signature equivalent of yellow ink for
| printers?
| BizarroLand wrote:
| This also vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average
| juror.
|
| This sounds insulting but it is intended to be a frank
| statement.
|
| In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors are
| above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and maybe
| half are at or below the 100 line.
|
| Add in that anyone over the age of 55 is on average far more
| susceptible to deepfake technology simply because they don't
| have the life experience and perceptual skills needed to
| discern the tells in the video, and you have a recipe for
| disaster.
|
| If you are in court and your opponent might use fabricated
| video evidence against you, you better hope that your jury is
| younger or that your lawyers and judges have the expertise
| needed to expose any deepfake technologies like this for what
| they are, or you might be cooked.
| croissants wrote:
| > In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors
| are above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and
| maybe half are at or below the 100 line.
|
| Maybe I'm missing the joke, but isn't IQ meant to follow a
| normal distribution with a mean/median of 100 with a standard
| deviation of 15, in which case you'd expect half of jurors to
| be below 100 and ~15% to be above 115, which is pretty close
| to what you've seen?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-20 23:01 UTC)