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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Sora is here

#941

Post by 5040 »

dagmx wrote: post #297
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.

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.

>Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content

A related phenomenon is not being able to hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. I find the notion astonishing, and yet lots of people cannot tell the difference.

Re: Sora is here

#942

Post by yunwal »

carlosjobim wrote: post #397
mojuba wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think AI "art" can be as useful as the text generators, i.e. only within certain limits of dull and stupid stuff that needs to exist but has little to no value. For example, you need to generate a landing page for your boring company: text, images, videos and the overall design (as well as code!) can be and should be generated because... who cares about your boring company's landing page, right?

Then you don't understand the purpose of a landing page. If the boring company hires somebody to make the landing page who actually understands their job, the landing page will have great importance.

> the landing page will have great importance.

Most companies don't need this. They need a page that has their contact info and some general information about services they provide so they can have a bare minimum internet presence and show up on google maps.

Re: Sora is here

#943

Post by lelandfe »

magicalhippo wrote: post #591
starshadowx2 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The face of the girl on the left at the start in the first second should have been a giveaway.

Just like all the obvious signs[1] the moon landings were faked. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120829004513/http://stuffucanu...

Just wanted to say I really enjoyed this!

Re: Sora is here

#944

Post by lancesells »

underdeserver wrote: post #872
solfox wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, because these tools like this are being made available before output is perfected, you and many others are being trained in AI discernment; being able to detect fake things will be a helpful skill to have for some time: another form of critical thinking. It would be FAR worse if a privately held advanced AI's outputs were unleashed without the population being at least somewhat cautious of everythi…

I think as these things will get bigger and better much faster than we can learn to discern.

I'm wondering that as well but I also wonder if it's a bit like CGI where it's somewhat hit a limit on realness. I'm not saying CGI doesn't get better but is a 2024 Gollum that much more realistic than 2004 Gollum? Maybe I'm wrong but I wonder if that plastic feel to AI lessens but still sticks around.

Re: Sora is here

#945

Post by lancesells »

dagmx wrote: post #297
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.

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.

> Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content.

But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.

Re: Sora is here

#946

Post by Auracle »

phtrivier wrote: post #808
BoorishBears wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People would not respect the mandate, and we would consider that illegal, and use the monopoly on force to take money out of their bank account. Imagine a culture that would harness their frustration at being left out in the direction of innovating on their own. Defining the status quo on things like watermarks by leading the field and then demonstrating how to act from the front. Seems like they'd be more effectiv…

That's going to sound luddite and backwards, but to be completely honest, I'm not 100% "frustrated" about being "left out" from "far west"-style AI image generation. At this point, really, I can think of exactly two use cases: * cheaply producing ads * cheaply producing fake news And it's terrifying, and the people jumping in the bandwagon are scaring me. There is this quote in "13 days" [1] where people are discussi…

I’ve used AI art generation to make birthday cards for all of my nieces and nephews, to entertain my friends (making them into crappy superheroes, anime girls, etc.), to quickly “brainstorm” logos, make assets for an app I’m making…

You know, stuff you’d use any images for.

Re: Sora is here

#947

Post by runarberg »

SamPatt wrote: post #738
runarberg wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Blair Witch Project was a (surprise) creative masterpiece. It worked with very limited technology to create a very clever plot which was paired with an amazing marketing. The combination of which the world hadn’t seen before. It took some creative geniuses to peace the Blair Witch Project together. Generative AI will never produce an experience like that. I know never is a long time, but I’m still gonna call it.…

It's a tool. The cleverness and artistry comes from the humans, not from the tools they use. The AI isn't creating the fresh ideas. People are.

So what you are saying is some aspects of movie making will use AI as parts of their jobs. That is very realistic and probably already happening.

Saying that large video models will be in theaters sounds like a completely different and much more ambitious prediction. I interpreted it as if large video models will produce whole movies on their own from a script of prompts. That there will be a single film maker with only a large video model and some prompts to make the movie. Such films will never be in the theater, unless by some grifter, and than it is certain to be a flop.

Re: Sora is here

#948

Post by skydhash »

joe_the_user wrote: post #771
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 thing about Hollywood is that movies aren't made by a producer or director creating a description and an army of actors, tech and etc doing exactly that. What happens is a description becomes a longer specification or script that's still good and hangs together in itself and then further iterations involving professionals who can't do "exactly what the director wants" but rather do something further that's good a…

Also, a team of experts and professionals that knows better than the director how a specific thing work.

Re: Sora is here

#949

Post by carlosjobim »

yunwal wrote: post #942
carlosjobim wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you don't understand the purpose of a landing page. If the boring company hires somebody to make the landing page who actually understands their job, the landing page will have great importance.

> the landing page will have great importance. Most companies don't need this. They need a page that has their contact info and some general information about services they provide so they can have a bare minimum internet presence and show up on google maps.

Absolutely, if your company doesn't want to make sales or if you want to be bothered all the time by people calling and mailing only for them to find out your product isn't a fit for them. Or if you want third party sellers to take over most of your business like Booking.com, AirBnB DoorDash or Amazon.

Companies who understand the importance of a customer friendly and functional web presence get a great return on their investment. And it's much better for the customer.

Re: Sora is here

#950

Post by jusonchan81 »

liendolucas wrote: post #856

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…

My hunch is that it should be easy to decipher if it’s a AI video based on how the frames transitions.
Post reply on HN