Ben Affleck's surprisingly comprehensive take on LLMs for video • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by mkleczek » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:45 PM UTC

spiderice wrote: post #28

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…

> Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write? The answer seems obvious: because it's better. Obviously it isn't better now . But it's easy to imagine a day in the not-too-distant future where AI can shit out 1000 hours of content that is better in every way than what humans create. And it will even feel more human than the human made stuff because the AI will have learned that we like that. What…

> The answer seems obvious: because it's better.

Define "better".

The point really is that "better" in this context means "made by a human" - not "faked to look like made by a human". People need connection to other people - art is one of the means of communicating _between people_.

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

#42

Post by duxup » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:45 PM UTC

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.

I would if that changes for more personal communication?

If someone didn’t write something, I’m not sure I have much interest in talking to them about it.

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

#43

Post by burnte » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:46 PM UTC

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)

I don't want to watch a movie cranked out by an AI. I want to see a movie that came from another human's mind because they have an idea they want to communicate with me. LLMs have nothing to "say".

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

#44

Post by TheAceOfHearts » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:47 PM UTC

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…

AI tools will continue to get better, and they'll really shine when they can enable increasingly smaller teams of people to execute on their creative vision. Existing non-AI tools have already helped enable tiny teams to create media which is enjoyed by millions of people; the biggest and most recent example is how Source2 is used to animate Skibidi Toilet. But there's still room for increasing accessibility.

The biggest issue I've noticed with most existing AI-gen tools is that they only focus on generating completed output. Ideally you'd have tools that can generate multiple layers or scenes within creative tools to allow for continued iteration.

The future is when one person can do by themselves what previously would've taken hundreds or thousands of people. I'm really looking forward to what sort of creative works we'll get from people that wouldn't normally have access to Hollywood-tier resources.

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

#45

Post by impomura » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:47 PM UTC

spiderice wrote: post #28

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…

> Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write? The answer seems obvious: because it's better. Obviously it isn't better now . But it's easy to imagine a day in the not-too-distant future where AI can shit out 1000 hours of content that is better in every way than what humans create. And it will even feel more human than the human made stuff because the AI will have learned that we like that. What…

it's impossible to answer to this line of reasoning without wasting time so I'll just start right away with the ad hominem.

you just don't like art, you don't understand it and you want slop, admit it and don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset

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

#46

Post by xenospn » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:47 PM UTC

spiderice wrote: post #28

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…

> Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write? The answer seems obvious: because it's better. Obviously it isn't better now . But it's easy to imagine a day in the not-too-distant future where AI can shit out 1000 hours of content that is better in every way than what humans create. And it will even feel more human than the human made stuff because the AI will have learned that we like that. What…

Can AI write really funny jokes? honest question

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

#47

Post by slater » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

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)

> He is wrong. Movies will be automated and when they will be, all these actors will be first one to go.

Man, whom should I trust? A guy who's been living and breathing movies since the 1990s, or a 19-minute-old, green-colored account on hackernews? Man, I just don't know.

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

#48

Post by coldtea » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

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…

>My favorite quote on this topic is "Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write?"

"If you're like the average consumer, because you have no life, and would doomscroll whatever shit we post for you, and watch whatever slop we produce for you. You did it with the tons of crap remakes, rehashes, franchize, and "multiverse" crap in the 2010-2024 span, you ain't gonna stop just because it's an AI writing it. It's not like the commercial hacks writing the stuff you watched earlier were any more creative than AI".

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

#49

Post by spiderice » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

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…

> (so far)

This parenthetical is doing a lot of work here.

Also, you make a lot of claims that just don't seem to reflect what I've seen. Many human-made movies are cookie cutter plots (ie the new Twisters), and many AI prompts return seemingly novel results. Whether or not that are actually novel isn't all that relevant, since humans aren't databases that have memorized all the source material.

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

#50

Post by mkleczek » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

kleiba wrote: post #29

The trope of the sci-fi robot has been so engrained into our cultural narrative that I think people constantly underestimate the creative capabilities of AI. People still think in terms of this dichotomy of math/science and art/creativity. But AI has already broken through so many boundaries of what anyone would have believed possible just a few years ago. I hear people complaining about uncanny valley stuff all the…

The point is: art is a means of communicating _between people_. We can appreciate pictures/movies/music generated by machines but at the end of the day we (people) are in a deep need of connection to _other people_.

I don't believe replacing people with machines in this context is possible (one might say: by definition). But if it happens it will be the anti-utopian world of loneliness.