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

121–130 of 187 posts

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

#121

Post by jfactorial »

globalnode wrote: post #84
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…

art is essentially human, warts n all, how can something non-human make human art.

A brush makes human art

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

#122

Post by rsynnott »

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…

Is that easy to imagine? I’m not sure it is, particularly.

Ultimately, the LLM industry can’t run on jam tomorrow forever. At some point, people have to stop concentrating on the hypothetical magic future, and concentrate on what actually exists.

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

#123

Post by rsynnott »

spiderice wrote: post #61
impomura wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're conflating the reality of the situation with me . I didn't say I wanted AI generated content. Just that it seems like it will inevitably win. All the insults in your comment just stem from an imaginary and inaccurate picture of me, a stranger, that you created in your head. > don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset Then why respond?

> You're conflating the reality of the situation with me.

… I mean, you’re the one talking about a hypothetical future rather than what actually exists.

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

#124

Post by ofcourseyoudo »

blueyes wrote: post #5

Fun fact: Justine Bateman of Family Ties, once the most famous TV actress in the world, holds a degree in computer science from UCLA.

fun fact but that is a real stretch to say she was the most famous TV actress in the world when she probably wasn't even the most famous on Family Ties

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

#125

Post by rollinDyno »

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…

I think the other thread did a good job showing you that it's the other way around, people who have been in the industry do not tend to have the imagination people with fresh eyes (and maybe some tech chops) do.

An example I had in mind was when Affleck was speaking of being able to generate the show but with their preferred cast from a different production. He really has no clue that people will be generating themselves and their friends as the main characters of these stories. Like this one, there are many other examples where I thought he was lacking creativity.

Kudos to him for spending time thinking about it but I'm surprised how well received his thoughts have been for just stringing a few ideas together.

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

#126

Post by rollinDyno »

K0balt wrote: post #102
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.

While AI will ( and does) reduce the burden of writers, it’s going to -kill- celebrity acting in most cases. In doing so, it will turn directing on its ear in a way that many talented directors will not be able to adapt to. Directors will become proxy actors by having to micromanage AI acting skills. Or Perhaps they will be augmented with a team of “character operators” that do the proxy-acting. Either way, there wil…

Why would it require a director if a generative process can use the information it has on audience (even individual) preferences to produce the story and format that will best hook consumers?

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

#127

Post by ofcourseyoudo »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #115
hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except every company you listed is a technology company. It's technologists doing technology. Katzenberg proves the point.

Amazon, Netflix, Quibi (a disaster run by a non-technologist), AirBnB, Google, Facebook. These are websites and apps.

I don't think Griffin is particularly illustrative of anything except it's nice to ask your grammy for $100K when you're a teenager.

Feel free to listen to a NotebookLM podcast of a PG post, but if you think any AI is going to create an original thought that catches fire like the MCU, Call Her Daddy, Succession, cumtown, Hamilton, Rogan, Inside Out, Serial, or Wicked, maybe it's you that should stay out of the conversation when it comes to creativity.

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

#128

Post by danielmarkbruce »

ofcourseyoudo wrote: post #127
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except every company you listed is a technology company. It's technologists doing technology. Katzenberg proves the point. Amazon, Netflix, Quibi (a disaster run by a non-technologist), AirBnB, Google, Facebook. These are websites and apps. I don't think Griffin is particularly illustrative of anything except it's nice to ask your grammy for $100K when you're a teenager. Feel free to listen to a NotebookLM podcast of…

Amazon is a retailer. AWS is compute(/etc) for rent. AirBnB is homes for short term rent. Quibi is/was short movies on mobile. Google and facebook are advertising. Netflix is movies/tv shows. There is no such thing as a pure technology company - the technology has to be used to do something people want.

The people closest to the thing which is about to be dominated by machines are often clueless about what is going on.

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

#129

Post by blueyes »

ofcourseyoudo wrote: post #124
blueyes wrote: post #5

Fun fact: Justine Bateman of Family Ties, once the most famous TV actress in the world, holds a degree in computer science from UCLA.

fun fact but that is a real stretch to say she was the most famous TV actress in the world when she probably wasn't even the most famous on Family Ties

In 1986-87, when Family Ties was at its peak, it had a rating of 32.7, which means almost a third of all US households watched the show every week.

That probably amounted to 60m+ people tuning in, which is close to Super Bowl numbers ... every week. The TV audience was concentrated then in a way it isn't now. Yellowstone gets less than 12 million viewers per episode today.

Maybe you think Meredith Baxter was better known, but I'll bet more people were paying attention to the teenager than the hippie mom. But let's say she was no 2, or no 5. She was galaxies more famous than the most famous people on TV today. And she has a CS degree. Which taken together is more astonishing than Ben Affleck opining on LLMs.

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

#130

Post by danielmarkbruce »

ricoxicano wrote: post #62
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).

??? show me an AI prompt that can generate a movie premise in the last decade where the underlying model hasn't already been trained on that movie's plot.

show me a writer that hasn't been trained on a lot of movie plots before them.
Post reply on HN