VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

Post by eigenvekt » Thu, Apr 25, 2024, 10:19 AM UTC

mrandish wrote: post #208

scoobertdoobert wrote: post #92

Is anyone else concerned at the societal effects of technology like this? In one of the examples they show a young girl. In the upscale example it's quite clearly hallucinating makeup and lipstick. I'm quite worried about tools like this perpetuating social norms even further.

No, I'm not concerned. When an AI is trained on a largely raw, uncurated set of low-quality data (eg most of the public internet), it's going to miss subtle distinctions some humans might prefer that it make. I'm confident that pretty quickly the majority of the general public using such AIs will begin to intuitively understand this. Just as they have developed a practical, working understanding of other complex tech…

Post by fwip » Thu, Apr 25, 2024, 3:31 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #212

fwip wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frame-rate upscaling is fine for video, but for animation it's awful. I think it's almost inherently so, because of the care that an artist takes in choosing keyframes, deforming the action, etc.

This just sounds like the AI is just not good enough yet. I mean it's pretty clear now that there is nothing stopping AI from producing close to or sometimes even exceeding human artists. A big problem here is good training material

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 25, 2024, 3:35 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #154

fwip wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, avoiding creating societally-harmful content is what the Gemini "debacle" was attempting to do. It clearly had unintended effects (e.g: generating a black Thomas Jefferson), but when these became apparent, they apologized and tried to put up guard rails to keep those negative effects from happening.

What Gemini was doing -- what it was explicitly forced to do by poorly considered dogma -- was societally harmful. It is utterly impossible that these were "unintended"[1], and were revealed by even the most basic usage. They aren't putting guardrails to prevent it from happening, they quite literally removed instructions that explicitly forced the model to do certain bizarre things (like white erasure, or white quot…

Post by rowanG077 » Thu, Apr 25, 2024, 4:39 PM UTC

fwip wrote: post #233

rowanG077 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just sounds like the AI is just not good enough yet. I mean it's pretty clear now that there is nothing stopping AI from producing close to or sometimes even exceeding human artists. A big problem here is good training material

Baffling to me that you think that AI art is capable of "exceeding" the human training material.

Post by shepherdjerred » Thu, Apr 25, 2024, 7:32 PM UTC

Version467 wrote: post #238

shepherdjerred wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that a complete collapse of the industry seems highly unlikely to me. Unlikely in the next 10 years or the next 100?

I wouldn’t have any confidence in any predictions I make 100 years into the future even if we didn’t have the current AI developments. With that said, I’m pretty confident that the movie industry will exist in 10 years (maybe heavily tranformed, but still existing and still pretty big). If it’s still a big part of current popculture by then (vs obviously on its way out) then I’d expect a collapse of it to require a c…