(commented on wrong thread somehow)
Wrong thread :)
Meta Movie Gen
481–490 of 1001 posts
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#482The kids kite is flying backwards....
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
The challenge is to determine what is real, not what is fake. I think cryptographic signing and the classic web of trust approaches are going to prove the most valuable tools in doing so, even if they're definitely not a panacea.
This comes up a lot. Because synthesis is so generally feasible plus the existence of very powerful editing tools for things like movies and whatnot, I'm guessing that it will simply become the norm to assume that any image, sound, movie, or whatever may be fake. I expect there won't be a way to verify something was synthesised or "real-synthesized" (since images and videos are ultimately synthesized themselves, just…
It can be verified if resulting video contains signed metadata with all intermediate steps needed to produce the video from original recording (which is digitally signed by camera).
Downside is that large original video assets would need to be published, for such verification to work.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#484Things are about to get weird. We can't control this at any level: At the level of image/video synthesis: Some leading companies have suggested they put watermarks in the content they create. Nice thought, but open source will always be an option, and people will always be able to build un-watermarked tools. At the level of law: You could attempt to pass a law banning image/video generation entirely, or those without…
Possible option is for cameras to digitally sign the original video as it is being recorded.
Oi mate, you 'ave a license for producing cryptographic signatures to embed on that footage?
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#485All 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.
That sheen looks (to me) like some of the filters that are used by people who copy videos from TV and movie and post them on (for example) facebook reels. There's an entire pattern of reels that are basically just ripped-off-content with enough added noise to (I presume) avoid content detection filters. Then the comments have links to scam sites (but are labelled as "the IMDB page for this content").
The idea that Meta’s effectively stolen content is tainted by a requirement to avoid collecting stolen content is laughably ironic.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#486Things are about to get weird. We can't control this at any level: At the level of image/video synthesis: Some leading companies have suggested they put watermarks in the content they create. Nice thought, but open source will always be an option, and people will always be able to build un-watermarked tools. At the level of law: You could attempt to pass a law banning image/video generation entirely, or those without…
Just stop taking any video you see at face value? People managed without videos before video cameras were available, and the written word was never reliable to start with. Maybe the future won’t be that different?
good advice for internet citizens (too bad the uptake will be too slow). but doesn't address how courts and law should function.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend who lives in North Carolina sent me a video of the raging floodwaters in his state- at least that's what the superimposed text claimed it was. When I looked closer, it was clearly an Indian city filled with Indian people and Indian cars. He hadn't noticed anything except the flood water. It reminded me of that famous selective attention test video[1]. I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it, but it's a…
hmmm... Maybe it's because I knew it was testing me, but I noticed it right away and counted the right count. I could see it being pretty shocking if I hadn't, but I honestly can't imagine how I'd miss that.
> hmmm... Maybe it's because I knew it was testing me, but I noticed it right away and counted the right count.
> I could see it being pretty shocking if I hadn't, but I honestly can't imagine how I'd miss that.
The point of the video wasn't to count correctly, but to see the gorilla
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#488Why do these video generation ones never become usable to the public. Is it just they had to create millions of videos and cherry pick only a handful of decent generations? Or is it just so expensive there's no business model for it? My mind instantly assumes it a money thing and they're just wanting to charge millions for it, therefore out of reach for the general public. But then with Meta's whole stance on open ai…
There are a few available to the public. runway.ai and kling are a couple that I see heavily used on Twitter. I pay for runway right now for experiments and it works. The problem is that maybe 1 out of 10 prompts result in something useable. And when I say useable I have pretty low standards. Since the model pumps out 5 or 10 second clips you have to be pretty creative since the models still struggle with keeping any…
How much do you pay? Imagine if they could charge premium prices to studio's like $100k/user
that's probably where the quality is, but not the billions
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A friend who lives in North Carolina sent me a video of the raging floodwaters in his state- at least that's what the superimposed text claimed it was. When I looked closer, it was clearly an Indian city filled with Indian people and Indian cars. He hadn't noticed anything except the flood water. It reminded me of that famous selective attention test video[1]. I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it, but it's a…
I do not see how the examples you mentioned are related to the topic? What does selective attention have to do with the video looking AI generated in all the frames?
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earning a living through creativity doesn't work for the majority of people anyway even without AI in the picture. Creative expression is a thing that exists for its own sake, the people who make a living out of it are lucky outliers.
And so what if they are outliers? It is precisely the outliers that spice up our artistic wealth to make it truly interesting.
"So what" is that OP's children shouldn't be terrified about the prospects of an artistic career because of AI. It is not going from "good career choice" to "long shot", more like "long shot" to "somewhat longer shot".