Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

imagen.research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 500 posts

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#161

Post by Etheryte »

dagmx wrote: post #115

I’ll be honest, as someone who worked in the film industry for a decade, this thread is depressing. It’s not the technology, it’s all the people in these comments who have never worked in the industry clamouring for its demise. One could brush it off as tech heads being over exuberant, but it’s the lack of understanding of how much fine control goes into each and every shot of a film that is depressing. If I, as a cr…

I agree with you, but I wouldn't take it so personally. There have been people claiming machines will make one industry or another obsolete for as long as we've had machines. In a way, sometimes they're right! But this doesn't mean the people are obsolete. Excel never made accountants obsolete, it just made their jobs easier and less tedious. I feel like content generation tools might offer something similar. How nice would it be if you could feed a storyboard into a program and get a low-fi version of the movie out so you can get a live feel for how the draft works. I don't think this takes anything away from the artists, if anything, it's just another tool that might make its way into their toolbox.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#162

Post by trention »

ALittleLight wrote: post #135
throwaway23597 wrote: post #113

Google continues to blow my mind with these models, but I think their ethics strategy is totally misguided and will result in them failing to capture this market. The original Google Search gave similarly never-before-seen capabilities to people, and you could use it for good or bad - Google did not seem to have any ethical concerns around, for example, letting children use their product and come across NSFW content…

Personally, I find it infuriating that Google seems to believe they are the arbiters of morality and truth simply because some of their predecessors figured out good internet search and how to profitably place ads. Google has no special claim to be able to responsibly use these models just because they are rich.

>Google has no special claim to be able to responsibly use these models

Well, they do have the "special claim" of inventing the model and not owing its release to anyone.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#163

Post by trention »

oceanplexian wrote: post #112
boh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge gap between "that's pretty cool" and a feature length film. People want to create specific stories with specific scenes in specific places that look a specific way. A "Couple kissing in the rain " prompt isn't going to produce something people are going to pay to see. It's more likely that you're still going to be filming/editing/animating but will have an AI layer on top that produces extra effects or…

I actually think it's the opposite, AI will probably be writing the stories and humans might occasionally film a few scenes. ~95% of TV shows and movies are cookie-cutter content, with cookie-cutter acting and production values, with the same hooks and the same tropes regurgitated over and over again. Heck they can't even figure out how to make new IP so they keep making reruns of the same old stuff like Star Wars, M…

Why would I want to watch AI-generated content?

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#164

Post by alok-g »

dagmx wrote: post #115

I’ll be honest, as someone who worked in the film industry for a decade, this thread is depressing. It’s not the technology, it’s all the people in these comments who have never worked in the industry clamouring for its demise. One could brush it off as tech heads being over exuberant, but it’s the lack of understanding of how much fine control goes into each and every shot of a film that is depressing. If I, as a cr…

In my opinion, this will unfold in multiple ways:

* Productivity enhancement tools for those in the film industry like you.

* Applications where the AI output is "good enough". I foresee people creating cool illustrations, cartoons, videos for short stories, etc. AI will make for easier/cheaper access to illustrations for people who did not have this earlier. As an example, I am as of now looking for someone who could draw some technical diagrams for my presentation.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#165

Post by brap »

What really fascinates me here is the movement of animals.

There's this one video of a cat and a dog, and the model was really able to capture the way that they move, their body language, their mood and personality even.

Somehow this model, which is really just a series of zeroes and ones, encodes "cat" and "dog" so well that it almost feels like you're looking at a real, living organism.

What if instead of images and videos they make the output interactive? So you can send prompts like "pet the cat" and "throw the dog a ball"? Or maybe talk to it instead?

What if this tech gets so good, that eventually you could interact with a "person" that's indistinguishable from the real thing?

The path to AGI is probably very different than generating videos. But I wonder...

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#166

Post by impalallama »

All this stuff makes me incredibly anxious about the future of art and artists. It can already very difficult to make a living and tons of artists are horrifically exploited by content mills and vfx shops and stuff like this is just going to devalue their work even more

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#168

Post by armchairhacker »

oceanplexian wrote: post #112
boh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge gap between "that's pretty cool" and a feature length film. People want to create specific stories with specific scenes in specific places that look a specific way. A "Couple kissing in the rain " prompt isn't going to produce something people are going to pay to see. It's more likely that you're still going to be filming/editing/animating but will have an AI layer on top that produces extra effects or…

I actually think it's the opposite, AI will probably be writing the stories and humans might occasionally film a few scenes. ~95% of TV shows and movies are cookie-cutter content, with cookie-cutter acting and production values, with the same hooks and the same tropes regurgitated over and over again. Heck they can't even figure out how to make new IP so they keep making reruns of the same old stuff like Star Wars, M…

The last-mile problem applies here too. GPT-3 text is convincing at a distance but when you look closely there is no coherence, no real understanding of plot or emotional dynamics or really anything. TV shows and movies are filled with plot holes and bad writing but it's not that bad.

Also I think "a good algorithm" is more than just repetitive content. The plots are reused and generic, but there's real skill involved into figuring out the next series to reuse with a generic plot which is still guaranteed not to flop because nobody actually wants to see reruns of that series or they accidentally screwed up a major plot point.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#169

Post by alphabetting »

faeriechangling wrote: post #138
throwaway23597 wrote: post #113

Google continues to blow my mind with these models, but I think their ethics strategy is totally misguided and will result in them failing to capture this market. The original Google Search gave similarly never-before-seen capabilities to people, and you could use it for good or bad - Google did not seem to have any ethical concerns around, for example, letting children use their product and come across NSFW content…

I’ve heard a lot of “data is the new oil” talk and the inevitability of google’s dominance yet I’m inclined to agree with you. Stable diffusion was a big wakeup call where it was clear how much value freedom and creativity really had. The ethics problem is an artifact of googles model of trying to keep their AI under lock and key and carefully controlled and opaque to outsiders in how the sausage gets made and what i…

I agree the ethicist types are very lame but if they were trying to be opaque and obscure how the sausage is made I don't think they would have released as many AI papers they have over past decade. It also seems to me that imagen is way better than stable diffusion. They're not aiming for a product that caters to AI creatives. They aiming for tools that would benefit a 3B+ userbase.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#170

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

kranke155 wrote: post #15

I’m going to post an Ask HN about what am I supposed to do when I’m “disrupted”. I work in film / video / CG where the bread and butter is short form advertising for Youtube, Instagram and TV. It’s painfully obvious that in 1 year the job might be exceedingly more difficult than it is now.

Adapt, it's what humans excel at.

Instead of feeling threatened by the new tools, think about how you can use them to enable your work.

One of the ironies* of these tools is that they only work because there is so much existing material they can be trained on. Absent that they wouldn't exist. That makes me think: why not think about how to train your own models than entail your own style? Is that practical, how can you make it work and how might you deploy that in your own work?

Something that everyone is sticking their heads in their sand about is the real possibility that training models on copyrighted work is a copyright violation. I can't see how such a mechanical transformation of others' work is anything but. People accept violating one person's copyright is a thing but if you do it at scale it somehow isn't.

* ironic because they seem creative but they create nothing by themselves, they merely "repackage" other people's creativity.

Post reply on HN