361–370 of 1001 posts
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…
I'm curious to know - is it actually useful for real world tasks that people/companies need videos for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
If the producer wants to publish good physics, they get good physics.
It doesn't matter if it is AI, CGI, live action, stop motion, pen-and-ink animation, or anything else.
The output is whatever the production team wants it to be, just as has been the case for as long as we've had cinema (or advertising or documentaries or TikToks or whatevers).
Nothing has changed.
I wonder what it is about EU and UK law, in particular, that restricts its availability there. Their FAQs don't mention this. If it's about training models on potentially personal information, the GDPR (EU and UK variants) kicks in, but then that hasn't restricted OpenAI's ability to deploy (Chat)GPT there. The same applies to broader copyright regulations around platforms needing to proactively prevent copyright vio…
Hollywood's days are numbered. If you are a creative in this industry, start preparing to transition to another industry or adapt. Your boss is highly likely to be toying around with this. The first entirely AI generated film (with Sora or other AI video tools) to win an Oscar will be less than 5 years away.
A reminder: as advanced as CGI is today, lots and lots of movie are still based on (very expensive) real-life scenery or miniature sets (just two of many examples), because they are far, far more realistic than what you get out of computers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For the $20/month subscription: you get 50 generations a month. So it is included in your subscription already! Nice. For the Pro $200/month subscription: you get unlimited generations a month (on a slower que).
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.