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

Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 187 posts

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#31

Post by aetherson »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #12

My favorite quote on this topic is "Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write?" Especially when you're talking about fiction and reading/watching for enjoyment, what does it matter if you can shit out 1000 hours of AI content? Maybe it's good to keep babies entertained? Studios have gotten so into the habit of treating "content" as a fungible commodity, but the fact is that even blockbuster mov…

This is the classic expression of the fallacy that the value of something is based on the cost to create it from the seller, not the benefit it brings to the buyer.

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#32

Post by dartos »

moralestapia wrote: post #16
moogly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He even contradicts his whole premise of "actors will always be necessary" with his example of a custom generated series episode. He said it would be "janky and weird" and likened it to a remix.

People who think generating language is very much different from generating audio/video are in for a ride, which I think is the flaw with his reasoning. (Also, yeah, there's a very strong interest for him in saying actors will not be replaced, but let's assume he's being frank here). All the "AI personalities" that are already popping up here and there are already decent enough, again, it will only take a couple year…

> People who think generating language is very much different from generating audio/video are in for a ride, which I think is the flaw with his reasoning.

How could anyone think they are similar?

You don’t just pump video data into an LLM training pipeline and get video models.

A lot of work goes into both. It’s non trivial and only barely related.

It’s only recently that transformer models are being used for video.

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#34

Post by dham »

moralestapia wrote: post #13
sottol wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How soon though? 2 years? 10? 50? He starts by saying this won't happen soon, _maybe_ ever.

I'd bet that in two years you could do something equivalent to that "make me a new episode" use case. I already see really convincing deep fakes on Facebook, etc., it's not an impossible problem anymore, it's just a matter of increasing their quality.

Convincing deepfakes is a strong word. There are also people out there who think modern CG looks good, too. There will always be people who are ultra-sensitive to things like this. So convincing might take 2x as long for some vs others.

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#35

Post by threetonesun »

nwgo wrote: post #19

He is wrong. Movies will be automated and when they will be, all these actors will be first one to go. I say this despite him and Matt Damon my favorite actors. When it pours it rains. They don't know what is in store and what we are working on. Hint: codename: Project Hailey (named after Ho--y)

The movie industry is already endlessly pumping out crap with real actors, I suppose it won't get much worse if it removes them entirely.

On the other hand, there's a whole other medium for actors that AI can't replace.

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#36

Post by matsemann »

jrflowers wrote: post #7
TheAtomic wrote: post #4

Was it? He concludes that LLMs will never write Shakespeare, or create original work of that caliber, or animate an actor the way Ben Guinness could have done it. I'm paraphrasing but isn't this confirmaation bias from a guy now heavily vested in making movies? Move 37 was so astonishing the world champiion Go player, hardly known for theatrics, got up and left the table. It was considered an insanely "original" move…

I like this analogy. If one piece of software can win a game then a completely different piece of software can win at making movies

But a game is something with an objective measure. Either a move is good or it's not. Can you say the same of parts in a movie, where it's more about taste?

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#37

Post by moralestapia »

aeturnum wrote: post #18
moralestapia wrote: post #6

This will age like a dead fish out in the Sun. He even contradicts his whole premise of "actors will always be necessary" with his example of a custom generated series episode. Also, >implying the non-AI content we have nowadays is highly creative and unique *facepalm*

You're mis-reading what he says. People create new stuff, AI (so far) remixes old stuff. Down the line you will be able to order a remix of succession and AI should be able to do that for you but it won't be able to add any interesting additional spin - it's just gonna make it to order (obviously a big deal! which he says). >implying the non-AI content we have nowadays is highly creative and unique You just inserted…

???

Show me a movie in the last decade where the premise of it couldn't be generated by some AI prompt.

(I'll even make it easier by stating that said AI prompt can be generic and to some degree trivial; i.e. not the premise explicitly laid out in the prompt).

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#38

Post by squidsoup »

nwgo wrote: post #19

He is wrong. Movies will be automated and when they will be, all these actors will be first one to go. I say this despite him and Matt Damon my favorite actors. When it pours it rains. They don't know what is in store and what we are working on. Hint: codename: Project Hailey (named after Ho--y)

You can't automate art, sorry. Maybe you can crank out a bunch of hollywood dross that undiscerning audiences will slop up, but you're not adding anything of value to our culture.

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#39

Post by njtransit »

aetherson wrote: post #31
bdndndndbve wrote: post #12

My favorite quote on this topic is "Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write?" Especially when you're talking about fiction and reading/watching for enjoyment, what does it matter if you can shit out 1000 hours of AI content? Maybe it's good to keep babies entertained? Studios have gotten so into the habit of treating "content" as a fungible commodity, but the fact is that even blockbuster mov…

This is the classic expression of the fallacy that the value of something is based on the cost to create it from the seller, not the benefit it brings to the buyer.

Additionally, there are lots of examples where cheaper production has produced an inferior product yet the difference in price causes the inferior product to usurp in superior product. Building materials exhibit this effect frequently: plaster vs. drywall, asphalt vs. slate, balloon framing vs structural masonry, etc.

In media, TikTok exemplifies this effect. People watch fewer movies (expensive, high quality) and watch more short-form content (cheap, low quality).

Re: Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video

#40

Post by fldskfjdslkfj »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #12

My favorite quote on this topic is "Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write?" Especially when you're talking about fiction and reading/watching for enjoyment, what does it matter if you can shit out 1000 hours of AI content? Maybe it's good to keep babies entertained? Studios have gotten so into the habit of treating "content" as a fungible commodity, but the fact is that even blockbuster mov…

We already have procedurally generated content in games - and quite a few of those seem to be pretty popular.
Post reply on HN