11–20 of 399 posts
The > A golden retriever eating ice cream on a beautiful tropical beach at sunset, high resolution example is terrifying.
It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective statistical models, certainly better than our previous models, but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly effective.
This looks like the video equivalent of Dall-E 1. Hard to believe how far we've come so quickly. The paper talks about "pseudo 3D attention layers" that are used in place of temporal attention layers for each dimension due to memory consumption. It seems like AI research is vastly outpacing GPU development.
Even then, these videos are only like 50 frames long - and a real movie you would want to be hundreds of thousands of frames long.
Like in 10 years you could plug this tech into high end VR and get a prompted reality dynamically generated that would be indistinguishable from our own.
A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making - lmao. I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley artifacts, and I don't think it will improve much from here. It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective statistical models, certainly better than our previous models, but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly effective.
Any more specific reason why you feel this way? Curious
A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making - lmao. I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley artifacts, and I don't think it will improve much from here. It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective statistical models, certainly better than our previous models, but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly effective.
That's a bold prediction. Why do you think that?
The first thing I thought was the exact opposite. This isn't very good, but it's only version 1. Motion pictures are less than 150 years old. In another 150 years I bet virtual filmmaking will progress a lot.
A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making - lmao. I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley artifacts, and I don't think it will improve much from here. It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective statistical models, certainly better than our previous models, but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly effective.
I don’t want to think reality is a simulation, but wouldn’t our everyday experience being generated by a neural network be far far simpler to achieve than a universe of infinite minuscule atoms all interacting.. like ozcam’s razor is pointing towards our lives being a realistic dream. Like in 10 years you could plug this tech into high end VR and get a prompted reality dynamically generated that would be indistinguis…
A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making - lmao. I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley artifacts, and I don't think it will improve much from here. It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective statistical models, certainly better than our previous models, but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly effective.
> I don't think it will improve much from here That's a bold prediction. Why do you think that? The first thing I thought was the exact opposite. This isn't very good, but it's only version 1. Motion pictures are less than 150 years old. In another 150 years I bet virtual filmmaking will progress a lot.
A lot of people saying it's over for traditional movie-making - lmao. I look at these and see nothing but uncanny valley artifacts, and I don't think it will improve much from here. It's like self-driving cars. They use almost very effective statistical models, certainly better than our previous models, but they never seem to shake off that "almost" and become truly effective.