361–370 of 1001 posts
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
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…
> 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, explicitl…
Step 1. Train AI on pornographic videos
Step 2. Feed AI images of your ex
Step 3. Profit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
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.
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.
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…
The solution to that is to make models both open weight and open source. That will equalize the level playing field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> It is totally possible right now to at least generate images with no discernible tell. I have yet to find examples of this
* https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fvs0e1
* https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fak0jl/fi...
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…
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!
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…
The solution to that is to make models both open weight and open source. That will equalize the level playing field.