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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Sora is here

#851

Post by 1kaizen »

fraXis wrote: post #481
pier25 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Google would allow me to remove the AI stuff from search results. 99% of the times it's either useless or wrong.

Add a -ai to the end of your Google search query. There are also browser extensions that stop the AI content from displaying. I use the one for Chrome called "Remove Google Search Generative AI".

This is vaporware/false advertising.

We don't have tech to correctly "detect ai" in 2024, which is why education has broken down over the last few years with serial cheating in every institution.

Every company so far that claimed to detect AI generated slug has failed.

Re: Sora is here

#852

Post by Cthulhu_ »

superfrank wrote: post #420
lelandfe wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw my first AI video that completely fooled commenters: https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU This was not marked as AI-generated and commenters were in awe at this fuzzy train, missing the "AIGC" signs. I'm quite nervous for the future.

I know there are people acting like this is obvious that this is AI, but I get why people wouldn't catch it, even if they know that AI is capable of creating a video like this. A) Most of the give aways are pretty subtle and not what viewers are focused on. Sure, if you look closely the fur blends in with the pavement in some places, but I'm not going to spend 5 minutes investigating every video I see for hints of AI…

B is / will be huge; the largest amount of "mindless" content is consumed on phones, with half attention, often with other distractions going on and in between doing other stuff, and can be watched on older / lower fidelity devices, slower internet connections, etc. AI content needs high resolution / big screens and focused attention to "discover".

The truth is... most people will simply not care. Raised eyebrow, hm, cute, next. Critical watching is reserved for critics like the crowd on HN and the like, but they represent only a small percentage of the target audience and revenue stream.

Re: Sora is here

#853

Post by Cthulhu_ »

lambdaone wrote: post #815
KennyBlanken wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can see the perspective/angle of the objects changing slightly as the camera moves in a way that makes it pretty obvious they're CG, AI or otherwise. That's always been a problem with AI generated imagery in video/animation; it changes too much frame to frame. If researchers figure out how to address that, yeah, we've got a problem. Until then - this looks worse tha Then there's the usual giveways for CG - sharpn…

Yes. The lack of diffuse reflection from the pink train is the clearest giveaway, and AI videos in general have problems with getting shadows and radiosity right. There's also the existence of the real-world Hello Kitty Shinkansen and the APM Cat Bus in Japan that makes this image more plausible.

That last point is also important; if it's not surprising, people will just accept it without being too critical about it. And since these AI tools are trained with real / existing content, creating realistic-enough content will be the norm. I think the first big AI generators - dall-e and co - had their model trained on more fantastical / artistic sources, and used that primarily as their model, also because realistic generation (like humans) wasn't yet good enough, or too uncanny. But uncanny and art work well together.

Re: Sora is here

#854

Post by arsenico »

computerex wrote: post #416
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…

They should have kept this amazing tech under the wraps because you have a bad feeling about it? Hate to break it to you, but there have been fake videos on the internet ever since it has existed. There are more ways to fake videos than GenAI. If you haven't been consuming everything on the internet with a high alert bs sensor, then that's an issue of its own. You shouldn't trust things on the internet anyway unless…

Cannot even quality "It has always been shit, so no problem at it becoming even shittier" as a hot take.

Re: Sora is here

#855

Post by Cthulhu_ »

circlefavshape wrote: post #825
dagmx wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content. I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. It’s the same for GenAI, though I think there are more tells. Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.

> Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it. This goes for conversation too! My neighbour recently told me about a mutual neighbour who walks 200 miles per day working on his farm. When I explained that this is impossible he said "I'll have to disagree with you there"

That's a cultural issue that seems to have developed in the past years (decades? idk), where people take their own opinion (or what they think is their own opinion) as unchallengeable gospel.

In my opinion anyway, I'm gonna have to disagree with any counterpoints in advance.

Re: Sora is here

#856

Post by liendolucas »

In a not so distant future we might need to have some sort of regulation that forces uploaders (or content creators) to declare if videos have been generated with ai tech or not and depending on the content such declaration might carry legal consequences. On the other side hosting platforms should display clearly if such content was declared ai generated or not as well. Right now I can't see a simple and good enough solution as this that could mitigate the spread of malicious content.

Re: Sora is here

#857

Post by Cthulhu_ »

quenix wrote: post #422
computerex wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they are a net negative? What's your source?

My opinion ;-) That's what HN is for

Do add "in my opinion" or prefix with "I think", because your definite wording implied you were stating a verifiable fact. Telling opinions like they are facts and then backtracking with "oh but it was just my opinion" is a big problem in (online?) society / discourse, and has led to a lot of misinformation and anti-scientific takes spreading.

"The earth is flat" - "Can you prove it?" - "Oh it's just my opinion". It's dishonest.

Re: Sora is here

#858

Post by lelandfe »

krick wrote: post #795
lelandfe wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw my first AI video that completely fooled commenters: https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU This was not marked as AI-generated and commenters were in awe at this fuzzy train, missing the "AIGC" signs. I'm quite nervous for the future.

Looks dope though. But what impressed me recently was some crypto-scam video, featuring "a clip" from Lex Fridman Podcast where Elon Musk "reveals" his new crypto or whatever (sadly, the one I saw is currently deleted). It didn't really look good, they were talking with weird pauses and intonations, and as awkward these 2 normally are, here they were even more unnatural. There was so much audacity to it I laughed out…

I wish you were right that there is no way to completely fool viewers, but I know you are not. I was fooled! Note that I call out "AIGC." If that wasn't there (I only noticed it on repeat views), I would have simply had no way to tell. These are early, primitive AI generated videos, and I'm already unable to differentiate. Many in this thread talk about movie CG; there are countless movie scenes that fool all viewers.

Re: Sora is here

#859

Post by jfoster »

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…

That could be nice. If you think that rabbits crawl like on the sora.com homepage, but then you see one hopping in real life, you might have more of a sense of wonder about the world.

Re: Sora is here

#860

Post by sbarre »

Quekid5 wrote: post #846
cess11 wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A precondition is likely that one has mainly watched CGI-heavy movies for most of one's life. Compared to old school analog movies or fairly raw photography that looks as fake as the Coca-Cola Santa. There's a rather obvious lack of detail that real photography would have catched.

> A precondition is likely that one has mainly watched CGI-heavy movies for most of one's life. Indeed, a great (if counterintuitive) example of this is The Wolf of Wall Street. I bet a lot of people would be surprised at just how much CGI is used in that just for set/location.

The OG film for that was Forrest Gump. It is often lauded as one of the first movies to use CGI heavily but in completely, and intentionally, unnoticeable ways...
Post reply on HN