At what point did someone look at this and think: "Ah yes, this will be good for humanity right now" ?
Meta Movie Gen
511–520 of 1001 posts
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#512Why 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…
At “the public” Internet scale, if a hundred million people click Generate, imagine if Meta ends up paying a million dollars instantaneously. - How many clicks of Generate are budgeted for? - How many clicks should each user’s quota be? - How much advertising revenue will be earned per click? - Why should they give away a million dollars? Right now, AI costs for this are so high that offering this feature ‘for free’…
Meta owns their data centers, so I don't think that framing is quite right. Increased traffic might cost marginally more in terms of electricity usage, but I think mostly what would happen is the service would degrade.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
> TikTok already shows that you can out-influence Hollywood/governments in 10 seconds with your smartphone I can accept the premise that TikTok is trying to do this. Do we have any objective measurement on how effective it has been?
There’s literally non stop article and studies on misinformation of every category. The evidence is beyond abundant. I’m not suggesting TikTok themselves is trying to do this, but it (and twitter, instagram, facebook, etc etc) is shaping people’s world views.
My sense is that there is abundant evidence of something, but I'm unable to judge the holistic effect size and direction.
My default perspective is that because humans are so adaptable, every technology shapes our world views. TikTok and Instagram impact us, but so does the plow and shovel. We have research that shows IG harming self-image in some segments of teen girls; what I have not seen evaluated much is how Youtube DIY videos bring self-esteem through teaching people skills on how to make things. These platforms also connect people - my wife had a very serious but rare complication in pregnancy, and her mental health was massively improved by being able to connect with a group of women who had been through/were going through something similar.
My overall point is that it's not very interesting to me to say that technology shapes our world views. Which views? In which way, to what extent? Is it universal, or a subpopulation? Are there prior indications, or does it incept these views? Which views? How much good or harm? How do we balance that?
But what we are left with is a very small view through the keyhole of a door into a massive room that is illuminated with a flickering flashlight. We then glom onto whatever evidence supports our biases and preconceptions, ignoring that which is unstated, unpopular, or violates our sense of the world.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
I don't buy this narrative at all. People like people and increasingly follow artists because of their personality and overall "brand." No one cares about generated AI art or its creator(s), because it's not interesting. It's also not sharable with other humans; see, for example, the frenzy around going to a Taylor Swift concert. The mass appeal and shared interest is part of the draw. At best, you'll get something l…
That may be the case today but kids are starting to grow up with this stuff as part of their lives, and I don't think we can anticipate the reaction as both they and the models grow in tandem. I think human creativity is much deeper than LLMs, but that is from my human perspective and I can't fully rule out that the LLMs may become better at it at some point in the future. I actually think they're already smarter and more creative than most people (though not more than the potential of any given human if they practiced/trained thoroughly).
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#515Man, 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…
We are at a crossroads of technology, where we're still used to the idea that audio and video are decent proof that something happened, in a way in which we don't generally trust written descriptions of an event. Generative AI will be a significant problem for a while, but this assumption that audio/video is inherently trustable will relatively soon (in the grand scheme of things) go away, and we'll return to the his…
I feel as though i am honor-bound to say that this isn't new and we havent really been living in a place where we can trust in the way you claim. Its simply that every year it rapidly becomes more and more clear that there is no "original". you're not wrong i just think its important for people who care about such things to realize this the result of a historical process which has been going on longer than we've all been alive. in fact, it likely started at the beginning of the 100-200 year period you're talking about, but its origins are much much older than that.
read simulacra and simulation: https://0ducks.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/simu...
or this essay from pre-war germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
…I mean, it was advancing slowly for linguistic tasks until late 2022, that’s fair. That’s why we’re in such a crazy unexpected rollercoaster of an era - we accidentally cracked intuitive computing while trying to build the best text autocomplete. AI in general is from 1950, or more generally from whenever the abacus was invented. This very website runs on AI, and always has. I would implore us to speak more exactly…
AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit content of no use to anybody and the next iteration of customer support phone menu trees that sound more convincingly yet remain just as useless. That and another round of IP theft and mass surveillance in the name of progress.
This is a consequence of a type of cognitive bias - bad examples of AI are more easily detectable than good examples of AI. Subsequently, when we recall examples of AI content, bad examples are more easily accessible. This leads to the faulty conclusion that.
> AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit content of no use to anybody
Good AI goes largely undetected, for the simple reason that it closely matches the distribution of non-AI content.
Controversial aside: This is same bias that results in non-passing trans people being representative of the whole. Passing trans folk simply blend in.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#517A lot of folks in this thread have mentioned that the problem with the current generation of models is that only 1 in (?) prompts returns something useful. Isn't that exactly what a reward model is supposed to help improve? I'm not an ML person by any means so the entire concept of reward models feels like creating something from nothing, so very curious to understand more.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shameless plug: I just created a short AI film (1) and tried to tell an actual story and trigger emotions. I spent countless hours crafting the script, choosing the shots, refining my prompts, generating images, animating images, generating music, sounds, and so on... For me AI tools are just that - tools. True, you have to yield them some "control", but at the end of the day you are still the one guiding and directi…
I have a newborn daughter, so watching this made me cry a little bit, alone at my desk. If yall needed evidence of these tools giving everyday people the ability to make emotion-tugging creations, I'll send you a picture of the tears! Now I'm thinking I can finally make the (IMO) dope music videos that come to me sometimes when I'm listening to a song I really love.
I got to the scene where there is a doctor visit (halfway though) and though "NOPE, I'm not going through this[1] again" and closed it.
[1] The first minutes of UP
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regularly catch my kids watching AI generated content and they don't know it.
A surprising amount of it is really popular too. I recently figured out that the Movie Recaps channel was all AI when the generated voice slipped and mispronounced a word in a really unnatural way. They post videos almost daily and they get millions of views. Must be making bank.
But it uses AI only for audio, right? Script for the vid seems to be written by human, given the unusual humor type of this channel. I started watching this channel some time ago.
Re: Meta Movie Gen
#520Earlier 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.
I regularly catch my kids watching AI generated content and they don't know it.
It's kind of an interesting phenomenon. I read something on this. Basically being born between ~1980 and ~1990 is a huge advantage in tech.