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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Sora is here

#331

Post by juddlyon »

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…

YouTube Shorts are full of AI animal videos with distorted proportions, living in the wrong habitat, and so on. They popped up on my son’s account and I hate them for the reasons you outline. They aren’t cartoonish enough explain away, nor realistic enough to be educational.

Re: Sora is here

#332

Post by t0bia_s »

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…

Young generation that will grow up with this tools will have completely different approach to anything virtual. Remember how prople though that camera stole part of their soul when they see themselves copied on picture?

Re: Sora is here

#333

Post by bee_rider »

jsheard wrote: post #315
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.

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.

It is a good point…

Although, plenty of kids have tied a blanket around their necks and jumped off some furniture or a low roof, right? Breaking a leg or twisting an ankle in their attempt to imitate their favorite animated superhero.

Re: Sora is here

#334

Post by dowager_dan99 »

sdenton4 wrote: post #255
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…

Between omnipresent cgi in movies and tv, animation, and video game physics (all of which are human-coded approximations of real physics, often intentionally distorted for various reasons), that ship has long since sailed.

no one is shooting blockbuster-grade CGI for stock footage though; the casualness of this is what will be the most impactful

Re: Sora is here

#335

Post by adregan »

Why keep building AI to do the things that people find fun to do rather than the mundane bullshit? All we’ll be left with is cleaning, folding laundry, and doing the dishes while AI does all the interesting things.

Re: Sora is here

#336

Post by meta_x_ai »

miltonlost wrote: post #62
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…

The adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" has the nice corollary "A thousand words isn't enough to be precise about an image". Now expand that to movies and games and you can get why this whole generative-AI bubble is going to pop.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A word is worth a thousand pictures. (E.g Love)

It is abstraction all the way

Re: Sora is here

#337

Post by TheAlchemist »

moralestapia wrote: post #234
sjm wrote: post #162

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

"And then everyone clapped ..." There's nothing wrong with technology going forward and this doesn't go against "creativity and art", to the contrary, it will enhance it.

That's the optimistic version and in theory I would agree - it will be a great enhancer of creativity for some poeple.

But mostly it will end up like the smartphones - we carry more computing power in our pockets that was used to send man to the moon, and instead of taking advantage of it to do great things, we are glued to this small screen several hours / day scrolling social medias nonsense. It's just human nature.

Re: Sora is here

#338

Post by thr3000 »

halyconWays wrote: post #293
pen2l wrote: post #80

Every day that passes I grow fonder of Google's decision to delay or otherwise keep a lot of this under the wraps. The other day I was scrolling down on YouTube shorts and a couple videos invoked an uncanny valley response from me (I think it was a clip of an unrealistically large snake covering some hut) which was somehow fascinating and strange and captivating, and then scrolling down a few more, again I saw someth…

[flagged]

So is yours! Mine isn't, however. I am a hard-nosed real boy now.

Re: Sora is here

#339

Post by imiric »

quenix wrote: post #294
imiric wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you see a distinction between models that generate text, and those that generate images, video or audio. They're all digital formats, and the technology itself is fairly agnostic about what it's actually generating. Can't text also be considered art? There's as much art in poetry, lyrics, novels, scripts, etc. as in other forms of media. The thing is that the generative tech is out of the bag,…

Simple: I am equally offput when LLMs are used for generating poetry, lyrics, novels, scripts, etc. I don't like it when low-effort generated slop is passed off as art . I just think that LLMs have genuine use for non-artistic things, which is why I said it's dangerous but may be useful if we play our cards right.

I see. Well, I agree to an extent, but there's no clear agreement about what constitutes art with human-generated works either. There are examples of paintings where the human clearly "just" slapped some colors on a canvas, yet they're highly regarded in art circles. Just because something is low-effort doesn't mean it's not art, or worthy of merit.

So we could say the same thing about AI-generated art. Maybe most of it is low-effort, but why can't it be considered art? There is a separate topic about human emotion being a key component these generated works are missing, but art is in the eyes of the beholder, after all, so who are we to judge?

Mind you, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. I think that all of this technology has deep implications we're only beginning to grapple with, and art is a small piece of the puzzle.

Post reply on HN