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

Sora is here

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Sora is here

#191

Post by whstl »

naasking wrote: post #150
TeMPOraL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now expand that to movies and games and you can get why this whole generative-AI bubble is going to pop. What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. In other words, a corollary to your corollary is, "Fortunately, you don't need them to be, because no one cares about low-order bits…

I was just going to say this. If you have an artistic vision that you simply must create to the minutest detail, then like any artist, you're in for a lot of manual work. If you are not beholden to a precise vision or maybe just want to create something that sells, these tools will likely be significant productivity multipliers.

Exactly.

So far ChatGPT is not for writing books, but is great for SEO-spam blogposts. It is already killing the content marketing industry.

So far Dall-E is not for making master paintings, but it's great for stock images. It might kill most of the clipart and stock image industry.

So far Udio and other song generators are not able to make symphonies, but it's great for quiet background music. It might kill most of the generic royalty-free-music industry.

Re: Sora is here

#192

Post by ronsor »

sjm wrote: post #162

Anyone else find this stuff extremely distasteful? "Disrupting" creativity and art feels like it goes against our humanity.

I'm glad someone else said this. Hopefully we can get rid of that terrible disruptive camera too.

Re: Sora is here

#193

Post by Barrin92 »

andybak wrote: post #93
kranke155 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until these models can figure out physics, it seems to me they will be an interesting toy

They can figure out a fair bit of physics. It's not a "no physics" vs "physics" thing. Rather it's a "flawed and unreliable physics" thing. It's similar to the LLM hallucination problem. LLMs produce nonsense and untruths - but they are still useful in many domains.

It's a pretty binary thing in the sense that "bad physics" pretty quickly decoheres into no physics.

I saw one of these models doing a Minecraft like simulation and it looked sort of okay but then water started to end up in impossible places and once it was there it kept spreading and you ended up in some lovecraftian horror dimension. Any useful physics simluation at least needs boundary conditions to hold and these models have no boundary conditions because they have no clear categories of anything.

Re: Sora is here

#194

Post by elmigranto »

bongodongobob wrote: post #168
throwup238 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A frame is worth a billion rays” The last production I worked on averaged 16 hours per frame for the final rendering. The amount of information encoded in lighting, models, texture, maps, etc is insane.

What were you working on? It took a month to render 2 seconds of video?

I would guess there is more than one computer :)

Pixar's stuff famously takes days per frame.

Re: Sora is here

#195

Post by randomcatuser »

jsheard wrote: post #139
TeMPOraL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now expand that to movies and games and you can get why this whole generative-AI bubble is going to pop. What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. In other words, a corollary to your corollary is, "Fortunately, you don't need them to be, because no one cares about low-order bits…

> What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. Part of the problem is the "half decent approximations" tend towards a clichéd average, the audience won't know that the cool cyberpunk cityscape you generated isn't exactly what you had in mind, but they will know that it looks like eve…

a somewhat counterintuitive argument is this: AI models will make the overall creative landscape more diverse and interesting, ie, less "average"!

Imagine the space of ideas as a circle, with stuff in the middle being more easy to reach (the "cliched average"). Previously, traversing the circle was incredibly hard - we had to use tools like DeviantArt, Instragram, etc to agglomerate the diverse tastes of artists, hoping to find or create the style we're looking for. Creating the same art style is hiring the artist. As a result, on average, what you see is the result of huge amounts of human curation, effort, and branding teams.

Now reduce the effort 1000x, and all of a sudden, it's incredibly easy to reach the edge of the circle (or closer to it). Sure, we might still miss some things at the very outer edge, but it's equivalent to building roads. Motorists appear, people with no time to sit down and spend 10000 hours to learn and master a particular style can simply remix art and create things wildly beyond their manual capabilities. As a result, the amount of content in the infosphere skyrockets, the tastemaking velocity accelerates, and you end up with a more interesting infosphere than you're used to.

Re: Sora is here

#196

Post by david-gpu »

benchmarkist wrote: post #146
david-gpu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am certain no one at OpenAI actually understands enough of the theory to figure out how to do that We would love to learn more about the origin of your certainty.

I don't work there so I'm certain there is no one with enough knowledge to make it work with Hamiltonian constraints because the idea is very obvious but they haven't done it because they don't have the wherewithal to do so. In other words, no one at OpenAI understands enough basic physics to incorporate conservation principles into the generative network so that objects with random masses don't appear and disappear…

> the idea is very obvious but they haven't done it because they don't have the wherewithal to do so

Fascinating! I wish I had the knowledge and wherewithal to do that and become rich instead of wasting my time on HN.

Re: Sora is here

#197

Post by javier123454321 »

yeknoda wrote: post #9

I've found using these and similar tools that the amount of prompts and iteration required to create my vision (image or video in my mind) is very large and often is not able to create what I had originally wanted. A way to test this is to take a piece of footage or an image which is the ground truth, and test how much prompting and editing it takes to get the same or similar ground truth starting from scratch. It is…

This is the conundrum of AI generated art. It will lower the barrier to entry for new artists to produce audiovisual content, but it will not lower the amount of effort required to make good art. If anything it will increase the effort, as it has to be excellent in order to get past the slop of base level drudge that is bound to fill up every single distribution channel.

Re: Sora is here

#198

Post by TeMPOraL »

jsheard wrote: post #139
TeMPOraL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now expand that to movies and games and you can get why this whole generative-AI bubble is going to pop. What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. In other words, a corollary to your corollary is, "Fortunately, you don't need them to be, because no one cares about low-order bits…

> What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. Part of the problem is the "half decent approximations" tend towards a clichéd average, the audience won't know that the cool cyberpunk cityscape you generated isn't exactly what you had in mind, but they will know that it looks like eve…

> I think the pursuit of fidelity has made the models less creative over time (...) their output is ever more homogenized and interchangable.

Ironically, we're long past that point with human creators, at least when it comes to movies and games.

Take sci-fi movies, compare modern ones to the ones from the tail end of the 20th century. Year by year, VFX gets more and more detailed (and expensive) - more and better lights, finer details on every material, more stuff moving and emitting lights, etc. But all that effort arguably killed immersion and believability, by making scenes incomprehensible. There's way too much visual noise in action scenes in particular - bullets and lighting bolts zip around, and all that detail just blurs together. Contrast the 20th century productions - textures weren't as refined, but you could at least tell who's shooting who and when.

Or take video games, where all that graphics works makes everything look the same. Especially games that go for realistic style, they're all homogenous these days, and it's all cheap plastic.

(Seriously, what the fuck went wrong here? All that talk, and research, and work into "physically based rendering", yet in the end, all PBR materials end up looking like painted plastic. Raytracing seems to help a bit when it comes to liquids, but it still can't seem to make metals look like metals and not Fischer-Price toys repainted to gray.)

So I guess in this way, more precision just makes the audience give up entirely.

> they will know that it looks like every other AI generated cyberpunk cityscape and mentally file your creation in the slop folder.

The answer here is the same as with human-produced slop: don't. People are good at spotting patterns, so keep adding those low-order bits until it's no longer obvious you're doing the same thing everyone else is.

EDIT: Also, obligatory reminder that generative models don't give you average of training data with some noise mixed up; they sample from learned distribution. Law of large numbers apply, but it just means that to get more creative output, you need to bias the sampling.

Re: Sora is here

#199

Post by quenix »

sjm wrote: post #162

Anyone else find this stuff extremely distasteful? "Disrupting" creativity and art feels like it goes against our humanity.

The past few years' innovation in AI has roughly been split into two camps for me.

LLMs -- Awesome and useful. Disruptive, and somewhat dangerous, but probably more good than harm if we do it right.

'Generative art' (i.e. music generation, image generation, video generation) -- Why? Just why?

The 'art' is always good enough to trick most humans at a glance but clearly fake, plastic, and soulless when you look a bit closer. It has instilled somewhat of a paranoia in me when browsing images and genuinely worsened my experience consuming art on the internet overall. I've just recently found out that a jazz mix I found on YouTube and thought was pretty neat is fully AI generated, and the same happens when I browse niche artstyles on Instagram. Don't get me started on what this Sora release will do...

It changed my relationship consuming art online in general. When I see something that looks cool on the surface, my reaction is adversarial, one of suspicion. If it's recent, I default to assuming the piece is AI, and most of the time I don't have time or effort to sleuth the creator down and check. It's only been like a year, and it's already exhausting.

No one asked for AI art. I don't understand why corporations keep pushing it so much.

Re: Sora is here

#200

Post by minimaxir »

throw4321 wrote: post #89

One of the problems with a 10-month preannouncement is that the competition is ready to trash the actual announcement. Half an hour in, I already see half a dozen barely-concealed posts ranging from downplays to over-demands to non-user criticism.

The competition is ready to trash the announcement because the 10-month delay gave rise to several viable competitors, and that would still be the case if OpenAI never did the preannouncement. If OpenAI released Sora 10 months ago, there wouldn't be as much cynicism.
Post reply on HN