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

Meta Movie Gen

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#281

Post by gcr » 

    > 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.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#282

Post by dageshi »

jsheard wrote: post #81
dageshi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but... it's good enough? There were movies with horrible VFX that still sold perfectly well at the time.

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.

Yeah, that's a fair point.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#283

Post by adamc »

wavemode wrote: post #223
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 impressiv…

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.

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.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#284

Post by heurist »

keiferski wrote: post #89
cs702 wrote: post #35

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…

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.

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.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#285

Post by ddtaylor »

lopis wrote: post #52
TrackerFF wrote: post #6

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.

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.

I regularly catch my kids watching AI generated content and they don't know it.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#286

Post by adamc »

IanCal wrote: post #193
adamc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#287

Post by adamc »

xnx wrote: post #250
adamc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

No, what makes art are choices (and execution). But the examples given were too general and didn't exercise much control over the choices.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#288

Post by ddtaylor »

cubefox wrote: post #267
sionisrecur wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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?

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#289

Post by heurist »

consteval wrote: post #246
dyauspitr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 so…

You forget that there's a human behind the prompt, stitching frames and dialogue together.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#290

Post by stale2002 »

adamc wrote: post #61
mywacaday wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN