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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Sora is here

#311

Post by anonu »

lacoolj wrote: post #235

A little worried how young children watching these videos may develop inaccurate impressions of physics in nature. For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? The sailing ship - are those water movements correct? The sinking of the elephant int…

> inaccurate impressions of physics

Or just inaccurate impressions of the physical world.

My young kids and I happened to see a video of some very cute baby seals jumping onto a boat. It was not immediately clear it was AI-generated, but after a few runs I noticed it was a bit too good to be true. The kids would never have known otherwise.

Re: Sora is here

#312

Post by mojuba »

fooker wrote: post #299
AyyEye wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's big difference between cartoonishly incorrect and uncanny valley plausibly correct.

There's a huge amount of such stuff in movies. Special effects, weapons physics, unrealistic vehicles and planes, or the classic 'hacking'.

Yes but a movie is a movie whereas these AI-generated videos will likely be used to replace stock footage in other (documentary, promotional, etc.) contexts

Re: Sora is here

#314

Post by Fade_Dance »

cj wrote: post #281
sccomps wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? Well, none of the existing animation movies follow exact laws of physics.

Take the example to the extreme: In 10 years, I prompt my photo album app "Generate photorealistic video of my mother playing with a ladybug". The juxtaposition of something that looks extremely real (your mother) and something that never happened (ladybug) is something that's hard for the mind to reconcile. The presence of a real thing inadvertently and subconsciously gives confidence to the fake thing also being re…

I think this hooks in quite well to the existing dialogue about movies in particular. Take an action movie. It looks real but is entirely fabricated.

It is indeed something that society has to shift to deal with.

Personally, I'm not sure that it's the photoreal aspect that poses the biggest challenge. I think that we are mentally prepared to handle that as long as it's not out of control (malicious deep-fakes used to personally target and harass people, etc.) I think the biggest challenge has already been identified, namely, passing off fake media as being real. If we know something is fake, we can put a mental filter in place, like a movie. If there is no way to know what is real and what is fake, then our perception reality itself starts to break down. That would be a major new shift, and certainly not one that I think would be positive.

Re: Sora is here

#315

Post by jsheard »

sccomps wrote: post #253
lacoolj wrote: post #235

A little worried how young children watching these videos may develop inaccurate impressions of physics in nature. For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? The sailing ship - are those water movements correct? The sinking of the elephant int…

> For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? Well, none of the existing animation movies follow exact laws of physics.

Animation doesn't follow exact laws of physics, but the specific ways they don't follow physics have very deliberate intent behind them. There's a pretty clear difference between the coyote running off a cliff and taking 2 seconds to start falling, and a character awkwardly floating over the ground because an AI model got confused.

Re: Sora is here

#316

Post by zoover2020 »

fooker wrote: post #299
AyyEye wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's big difference between cartoonishly incorrect and uncanny valley plausibly correct.

There's a huge amount of such stuff in movies. Special effects, weapons physics, unrealistic vehicles and planes, or the classic 'hacking'.

Yet, in a movie setting it's clear something is a special effect or alike which is not the case for GenAI. Massive underestimation of the potential impact in this thread, scary.

Re: Sora is here

#317

Post by a_wild_dandan »

byteknight wrote: post #284
sccomps wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? Well, none of the existing animation movies follow exact laws of physics.

Feels like you're looking for a strawman argument, and may have found one. I would retort that animation and real-life-looking video do different things to our psyche. As an uneducated wanna-be intellectual, I would lean toward thinking real-looking objects more directly influence our perception of life than animations.

Animation can look real though, e.g sci-fi vfx. But maybe you’re concerned about how prolific it may be? I could see that. Personally I think it’ll be fine. It’s just that disruptive tools create uncertainty. Or maybe I’m overcompensating to avoid being the “old man yelling at cloud” dude.

Re: Sora is here

#318

Post by dylan604 »

spullara wrote: post #282
sccomps wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? Well, none of the existing animation movies follow exact laws of physics.

gravity acts immediately, you don't hover in the air for few seconds before falling

then how will I have time to flash my sign to the audience that says "uh-oh"?

Re: Sora is here

#319

Post by throwawayian »

lacoolj wrote: post #235

A little worried how young children watching these videos may develop inaccurate impressions of physics in nature. For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? The sailing ship - are those water movements correct? The sinking of the elephant int…

Don’t worry, you are.

Re: Sora is here

#320

Post by ics »

fooker wrote: post #299
AyyEye wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's big difference between cartoonishly incorrect and uncanny valley plausibly correct.

There's a huge amount of such stuff in movies. Special effects, weapons physics, unrealistic vehicles and planes, or the classic 'hacking'.

There’s also a huge difference in what people, even children, expect when sitting down to watch a movie versus seeing a clip of some funny cat/seal hybrid playing football while I’m looking for the Bluey episode we left off on. My daughter is almost five and cautiously asks “is that real?” about a lot of things now. It definitely makes me work harder when trying to explain the things that don’t look real but actually are; one could definitely feel like it takes some of the magic away from moments. I feel alright in my ability to handle it, it’s my responsibility to try, but it isn’t as simple as the Looney Tunes argument or, I believe, dramatic effects in movies and TV.
Post reply on HN