Meta Movie Gen • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#781

Post by chefandy » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:27 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #558

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need an image for an ad. You write a brief and send it to an artist who follows your brief and makes the image for you. You make more detailed briefs, or you make generic briefs. You receive an image. Regardless, did you make that image or just get a response to your brief? You want a painting of your dog. You send the painter dozens of photos of your dog. You describe your dog in rapturous, incredible, detail. Y…

> Did you make that painting? Were you the artist in any normal parlance? The symphony conductor just waves her hands reading the score, does she make music? The orchestra makes all the sounds. She just prompts them. Same for movie director.

The symphony conductor gets credit for being the conductor-- not for being Beethoven. A film director has a thousand times more influence on their final product than a conductor has on theirs, and they still don't try to take credit for the writing, costume, set design, acting, score, special effects, etc. etc. etc. I've yet to see stable diffusion spit out a list of credits after generating an image.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#782

Post by WhyOhWhyQ » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:31 AM UTC

mlboss wrote: post #764

WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anybody create stuff that the AI companies are just going to instantly subsume and reproduce far more cheaply? There is not going to be a meaningful economy based on creativity in the next 50 years, any more than there is one now. And then it is going to be far worse. The actual "winners" are just going to be the people who through arbitrary processes like fortunate birth or lucky circumstances are granted…

That is a very pessimistic take. In my opinion things are much more accessible now. Nobody cares about your background on internet as long as you can provide value. For example, you can build a wrapper over an LLM focussed on a niche this weekend(using cursor/copilot) and launch it over twitter. It is very much possible with the tools we have. If you market it hard and provide value consumers will line up. This kind…

I said 50 years from now.

People like you who think you're going to come out on top of this by throwing everyone else under the bus, treating them like consumers, are a huge part of the problem. That kind of parasitic behavior is not "providing value" except in the cynical way that it let's you devalue other people's lives for your own gain.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#783

Post by gitaarik » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:36 AM UTC

akoboldfrying wrote: post #682

valval wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, it won’t take long before human eyes won’t be able to distinguish AI generated content from original. The only regret I have about that is losing video as a form of evidence. CCTV footage and the like are a valuable tool for solving crimes. That’s going to be out the window soon.

Trust can be preserved by adding PKI at the hardware level. What you said about CCTV is true; once the market realises and demand appears, camera manufacturers will start making camera modules that, e.g., sign each frame with the manufacturer's private key, enabling Joe Public to verify that that frame came from a camera made by that manufacturer. Reputational risk makes the manufacturer store the private key in the…

Oh wow, that's a great idea. Isn't this already happening maybe?

Recently someone said here that it's noticable that videos from CCTV cameras are often filmed with a phone or camera on a screen instead of using the original video, and people were speculating that it might be hard or impossible to get access to the original recording because of bureaucracy or something, but that recording a playback on a screen with a phone or camera or something is then often allowed. Maybe they also do this partly so that the original can't be easily messed with by other people.

But yeah if you can verify that a certain video was filmed at a certain time by a certain camera, that is great. Of course the companies providing these cameras should be trustworthy, and that the camera's are actually really sending what they actually record, and that the company itself doesn't mess with the original recordings.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#784

Post by squarefoot » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:38 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #620

M4v3R wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be a loong time before AI can produce lead actors that are believable, act exactly the way you as a director want and tell the story you want to tell, so I think at least for now you'll still need the actors for the lead roles. But I can totally this being used for generating people/stuff in the background of certain shots in a low budget movie.

Isn't that a core problem now. Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. But this limits promotion where actors do interviews and sell the movie to the public. It also limits an actor doing something crazy that tanks a movie like a tweet.

> Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem.

Also, some great lines in movies came from actors ad libs. I hope there will always be some space for mild hallucination; without improvisation we wouldn't even have jazz.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#785

Post by oblio » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:38 AM UTC

cpill wrote: post #735

woggy wrote: post #731

It's already bad, but the amount of garbage that is going to flood YouTube now is going to make it unusable.

oh yeah, YouTube is a pristine environment right now

Yeah, but it's going to become 100x worse.

And for the average person, 1000x worse.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#786

Post by farts_mckensy » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:40 AM UTC

shit_game wrote: post #715

bko wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did washing machine devalue the work of people washing by hand? Did cameras devalue the work of portrait artists? ATMs to bank tellers? Tractor to farmer? Car to horses? Again, it's technology. I guess I shouldn't have said I never heard an argument. I just never heard a good one that can't be applied to pretty much any other technology that came before.

Things like washing machines and cars liberated people from labor and saved their time, which they couldn then use to persue other goals. For many, making art is their goal - generative AI isn't liberating people from the burden of making art, it's making art a non-viable endeavour for millions of people.

It's like saying that cameras take away oil painting as a viable endeavor. You can still be an oil painter in today's world. It's just a bit more niche, and not many people can make a living doing it. Plenty of people are still going to make art. They're just going to have to get day jobs like the rest of us to support that activity. Or they're going to have to figure out how to do something so weird and unique that AI can't possibly replicate it. Things like multimedia storytelling, ARGs, and performance art could enter a golden age as TV and movies become outmoded.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#787

Post by slashdave » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:40 AM UTC

tomw1808 wrote: post #414

Why does it look ... fake? Before you downvote, don't get this as a belittling the effort and all the results, they are stunning, but as a sincere question. I do plenty of photography, I do a lot of videography. I know my way around Premiere Pro, Lightroom and After Effects. I also know a decent amount about computer vision and cg. If I look at the "edited" videos, they look fake. Immediately. And not a little bit. T…

The models produce a form of average video, but with artificial sharpness added for a form of consistency. A truly and consistently original image requires something these models do not have, which is a world model.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#788

Post by oblio » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:41 AM UTC

wiseowise wrote: post #90

So I’m probably going to be too closed minded about this: but who the f*ck asked for this and did anyone consider consequences of easily accessible AI slop generation? It’s already nearly impossible to find quality content on the internet if you don’t know where to look at.

It's only going to be worse and aggregators aka gatekeepers will increase in value immensely.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#789

Post by komali2 » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:51 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #710

latexr wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if they use AI and you can't tell the difference, does it really matter? It does, yes. To use your own analogy, if one pays for an artisanal product and is served something out of a production line in a factory, that is fraud. > It's never explained You’re not paying attention, it is often explained. One huge reason is that it devalues the work of artists who are already struggling to make any money by using th…

Did washing machine devalue the work of people washing by hand? Did cameras devalue the work of portrait artists? ATMs to bank tellers? Tractor to farmer? Car to horses? Again, it's technology. I guess I shouldn't have said I never heard an argument. I just never heard a good one that can't be applied to pretty much any other technology that came before.

My argument is this: technology has been driving down the market value of human labor for the last century at least, and soon the market value of human labor will be pennies.

I specifically use market value because the market valuation mechanism is irrational and its meaning of "value" is different from what people often mean when they talk about value. E.g. the contributions of a fireman are far more valuable to a society than those of a mutual fund manager, but the market value of the fireman's labor is far lower.

Anyway I don't know when it'll happen but the cost of doing many things with AI, automation, etc will soon be very low, and having a human do the thing maybe worse maybe better, will be prohibitively expensive. Even if you argue that in the past new technologies have created new jobs, one can look at the labor market value trend of the last 70 years to see that it seems we've passed some turning point where human labor market value in emerging skillsets can't surpass the ability of technology to make them redundant - by which I mean take a look at them wages, they are slip sliding into oblivion.

Maybe not all jobs, but if even 20% of people can't justify their existence under capitalism with labor in a way that feeds and houses them, that's a historic national crisis.

Stopping technological development probably isn't the long term solution. Unions are great but also just a bandaid on a broken system - don't we want to enjoy the benefits of decreased scarcity?

It's time to start having real conversations about how to organize our society as scarcity diminishes to near 0, or if you don't like that, how to organize our societies with the expectation that 20% of people or more simply won't be able to justify their existence through labor.

If you can think of a way to make capitalism work in such a way without enforcing artificial scarcity, I'm all ears, but I'm skeptical. Probably we need to stop requiring people to justify their existence with labor and just let people have food, shelter, medical care etc in return for nothing at all. We almost certainly already have the resources to allow this, and if we don't today we definitely will in 50 years.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#790

Post by huimang » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 5:52 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #691

famahar wrote: post #672

I've kinda given up on the internet at this point. It's sad but comforting. My social networks are just my friends and I've started to get back into reading books and long form blogs. Don't want to be exposed to this endless slop. Every day it gets harder to find something that was so easy before. It's all being buried by endless content. I'm hoping some non AI generative content branch of the internet will be create…

It's just a technology. Much like you can still buy "hand made" shoes, there will be people that create curated hand made content. And if they use AI and you can't tell the difference, does it really matter? I really don't understand why there is so much negativity for a new technology. It's never explained, just taken as a fact and people bemoaning the new state of the world.

> And if they use AI and you can't tell the difference, does it really matter?

Yes. It devalues artists further (on top of only existing due to grand scale theft of art). It also is slop devoid of intention.

If that's not enough, it's ecologically devastating. I would rather not waste millions of gallons of water on slop that gets generated and thrown away.