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

111–120 of 187 posts

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

#111

Post by aipatselarom »

aeturnum wrote: post #97
moralestapia wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? 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).

This feels almost like a request made in bad faith. I don't exactly know what quintessence of inspiration is required too put together any given movie - but lets take Portrait de la jeune fille en feu[1]. It's regarded as a masterwork on relationships and as visually stunning, judgements I agree with. The skill in its craft is in drawing out how the technique of painting lingers on details of humans in the same way t…

Here's your "Lady on Fire" generator, [1].

"Oh but you can't compare a paragraph to a whole movie script!"

Sure, just apply the same procedure recursively, stop at a depth where you're satisfied, see [2].

Bear in mind I've only spent like 10 minutes and a negligible amount of money. Now imagine you have a year and a budget of 10MUSD to come up with the best movie script you can create with the help of AI.

It really is only a matter of time ...

1: https://chatgpt.com/share/673bc781-0318-8003-a555-5ea4ea1463...

2: https://chatgpt.com/share/673bc976-0a24-8003-ab8e-11c7800527...

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

#112

Post by tokioyoyo »

tartoran wrote: post #90
spiderice wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Maybe AI will enjoy reading AI generated stuff but humans like flawed human made 'content'. Made by humans for humans (R).

My cynical take is, younger generation who is growing up with AI generated content will accept it as normal and move on. We only enjoy human-created stuff, as that seems "natural" to us. That "natural" feeling tends to change in every new generation.

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

#113

Post by danielmarkbruce »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #105
rollinDyno wrote: post #24

I'm not in the industry and I can tell he's failing to conceive many possibilities. I don't understand why he's being praised, I guess confidence impresses people.

> I'm not in the industry and I can tell he's failing to conceive many possibilities. It's also possible that because you're not in the industry, you don't understand the problem domain well enough. Tech bros love to think they're just so much smarter than everyone in other industries, but it rarely ends up being true. We saw this with Blockchain; this distributed consensus protocol was supposed to solve all the prob…

That's one example. Here are a few others...

Bezos wasn't in retail. He also wasn't in compute hardware.

Reed Hastings wasn't in entertainment and crushed it. Jeff Katzenberg was, and Quibi was a disaster.

Ken Griffin was a punk kid in harvard, never worked in finance. Jim Simmons was a math professor, didn't work in finance.

AirBnb guys weren't in real estate or tourism or whatever bucket you want that to be.

Larry & Sergey knew zero about advertising. Zuckerberg too.

The incumbents have been destroyed with some frequency by outsiders who take a different approach. It's almost impossible to tell in advance if understanding a domain is an asset or a liability.

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

#114

Post by hnthrowaway6543 »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #113
hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not in the industry and I can tell he's failing to conceive many possibilities. It's also possible that because you're not in the industry, you don't understand the problem domain well enough. Tech bros love to think they're just so much smarter than everyone in other industries, but it rarely ends up being true. We saw this with Blockchain; this distributed consensus protocol was supposed to solve all the prob…

That's one example. Here are a few others... Bezos wasn't in retail. He also wasn't in compute hardware. Reed Hastings wasn't in entertainment and crushed it. Jeff Katzenberg was, and Quibi was a disaster. Ken Griffin was a punk kid in harvard, never worked in finance. Jim Simmons was a math professor, didn't work in finance. AirBnb guys weren't in real estate or tourism or whatever bucket you want that to be. Larry…

Ok but you're listing people/businesses, not technologies, which is what I'm talking about. Or is this nonsensical LLM slop to prove a point?

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

#115

Post by danielmarkbruce »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #114
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one example. Here are a few others... Bezos wasn't in retail. He also wasn't in compute hardware. Reed Hastings wasn't in entertainment and crushed it. Jeff Katzenberg was, and Quibi was a disaster. Ken Griffin was a punk kid in harvard, never worked in finance. Jim Simmons was a math professor, didn't work in finance. AirBnb guys weren't in real estate or tourism or whatever bucket you want that to be. Larry…

Ok but you're listing people/businesses, not technologies, which is what I'm talking about. Or is this nonsensical LLM slop to prove a point?

Nah, you were talking about tech people operating outside of their domain. You just don't like how easy it is to show counter examples so you pretend you had some other point.

But if you don't know the technology involved for each of the above, maybe stay out of a conversation involving technology.

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

#116

Post by aeturnum »

aipatselarom wrote: post #111
aeturnum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels almost like a request made in bad faith. I don't exactly know what quintessence of inspiration is required too put together any given movie - but lets take Portrait de la jeune fille en feu[1]. It's regarded as a masterwork on relationships and as visually stunning, judgements I agree with. The skill in its craft is in drawing out how the technique of painting lingers on details of humans in the same way t…

Here's your "Lady on Fire" generator, [1]. "Oh but you can't compare a paragraph to a whole movie script!" Sure, just apply the same procedure recursively, stop at a depth where you're satisfied, see [2]. Bear in mind I've only spent like 10 minutes and a negligible amount of money. Now imagine you have a year and a budget of 10MUSD to come up with the best movie script you can create with the help of AI. It really i…

I think, if you are under the impression that Portrait of a Lady on Fire is even...gestured at in any way in your examples - then we are in different places (I recommend you start an ssri).

I urge you to compare this to the translation[1] of the shooting script of Portrait of a Lady on fire:

    1. STUDIO PARIS-INT-DAY
    A blank page. A feminine hand draws a black line, the first
    stroke of a drawing. Another blank page. And a new female
    hand, which starts a new line. This action is repeated
    several times, coinciding with the credits.

    WOMAN'S VOICE
    First my contours. My silhouette.

    The silhouette takes shape as we move from frame to frame and
    the sketch of the figure comes to life under the strokes of a
    pencil.

    A large room pierced with skylights. An artist's studio. It’s
    Paris in 1780. Eight young girls between 13 and 18 years old
    are sitting on stools that are nearly obscured by the
    fullness of their dresses. They are bent over their drawing
    boards, which serve them as support. The faces of the young
    girls are focused. Their eyes oscillate between their drawing
    and the horizon.
[1] https://www.tumblr.com/mlleclaudine/634613427269173248/engli...

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

#117

Post by danielmarkbruce »

ideasphere wrote: post #33

I don’t disagree with everything he’s saying but it’s odd seeing the responses this is getting when it sounds extremely rehearsed.

Rehearsed word soup. He clearly knows zero about the underlying technology. If he did understand it in any depth, he'd show a lot less certainty about the future.

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

#118

Post by danielmarkbruce »

slater wrote: post #47
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.

Why trust either?

What would a guy who has been living and breathing movies since the 1990s know about AI? Zero, and it shows. Did you trust newspaper guys in the 1990s too?

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

#119

Post by danielmarkbruce »

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…

People create new stuff? People remix old stuff. The movie industry is a joke as far as "new stuff" is concerned.

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

#120

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

His perspective mainly focuses on AI as a replacement for creativity, but he doesn't seem to consider it a tool for creative expression. I can envision a future where one person comes up with ideas, goes to their computer, puts everything together, and creates something comparable to what a small studio can produce today. This has already happened in music; in the '70s, the band Boston started with a single person working in a basement putting together a complete album and releasing it. Once it became a hit, they formed a full band.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_(band)

I can see a similar situation happening with AI. Hollywood is definitely undergoing changes; the traditional concept of having Hollywood in one location might fade away, leading to a global creation of filmmaking. While this increase in content could bring more creativity, it might also lead to an overwhelming amount of options. With thousands of films available, it may not be as enjoyable to watch a movie anymore. This could lead to a decline in the overall experience of enjoying films, which is not necessarily a positive outcome.

Post reply on HN