Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

komiko.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#131

Post by TeMPOraL »

latexr wrote: post #91
kachapopopow wrote: post #40

Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if art…

> So it makes me wonder if artists will just be downgraded to an "AI" training position, but it could be for the best as people can draw what they like instead and have that input feed into a model for training which doesn't sound too bad. Doesn’t sound too bad? It sounds like the premise of a dystopian novel. Most artists would be profoundly unhappy making “art” to be fed to and deconstructed by a machine. You’re no…

> You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine.

That's the definition of commercial art, which is what most art is.

> “Art” is not drawing random pictures.

It's exactly what it is, if you're talking about people churning out art by volume for money. It's drawing whatever they get told to, in endless variations. Those are the people you're really talking about, because those are the ones whose livelihoods are being consumed by AI right now.

The kind of art you're thinking of, the art that isn't just "drawing random pictures", the art that the term "deconstruction" could even sensibly apply to - that art isn't in as much danger just yet. GenAI can't replicate human expression, because models aren't people. In time, they'll probably become so, but then art will still be art, and we'll have bigger issues to worry about.

> There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse.

Now that is just marketing communications - advertising, sales, and associated fraud. GenAI is making everyone's lives worse by making the job of marketers easier. But that's not really the fault of AI, it's just the people who were already making everything shitty picking up new tools. It's not the AI that's malevolent here, it's the wielder.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#132

Post by rererereferred »

rchaud wrote: post #129
falsaberN1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm an artist with 30+ years of experience. Downgraded to AI training? Nonsense. You forget artists do more than just draw for money, we also draw for FUN, and that little detail escapes every single AI-related discussion I've been reading for the last 3 years.

The issue is whether the artists creating things for love of the game will be crowded out even further by studios churning out slop (or in HN terms, Minimal Viable Products) for cash. There are probably 15 disposable reality TV shows created for every scripted sitcom or drama that needs good writers, set designers and directors.

The ones doing it because they like it don't need to care about the mass produced slop.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#133

Post by rererereferred »

rhubarbtree wrote: post #54
kachapopopow wrote: post #40

Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if art…

I think many artists will see that if they publish anything original then AI companies will immediately use it as training data without regards to copyright. The result will be less original art. They will simply stop creating it or publishing it. IMO music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are incentivised to go down that path. AI will do the same for…

> music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are incentivised to go down that path.

Is there data for this? I feel there's more musicians than ever and there's more very talented musicians than ever and the most famous ones are more famous than ever so I would like to see if that's correct.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#134

Post by pca006132 »

falsaberN1 wrote: post #117
kachapopopow wrote: post #40

Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if art…

Disclaimer: I'm an artist with 30+ years of experience. Downgraded to AI training? Nonsense. You forget artists do more than just draw for money, we also draw for FUN, and that little detail escapes every single AI-related discussion I've been reading for the last 3 years.

Not an artist myself. I think some artists may become more like head chefs in some Chinese restaurant, who is more like QA and give direction to cooks to improve their work. I think it is hard to notice the details and give concrete feedback if you are not working on it professionally for a long time.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#135

Post by TeMPOraL »

earthnail wrote: post #47
sshine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the…

Here’s the argument: The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators. The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.

That makes no sense, neither legally nor philosophically.

> Language developed independently of translators.

And it also developed independently of writers and poets.

> Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.

Not writers and poets, apparently. And so maybe not even artists, who typically mostly painted book references. Color perception and symbolism developed independently of professional artists, too. Moreover, all of the things you mention predate copyright.

> The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.

But that will never happen; it's near-impossible to stop humans from generating novel arts. They just do it as a matter of course - and the more accessible the tools are, the more people participate.

Yes, memes are a form of art, too.

What's a real threat is lack of shared consumption of art. This has been happening for the past couple decades now, first with books, then with visual arts. AI will make this problem worse by both further increasing volume of "novel arts" and by enabling personalization. The real value we're using is the role of art as social objects - the ability to relate to each other by means of experiencing the same works of art, and thus being able to discuss and reference it. If no two people ever experienced the same works of art, there's not much about art they can talk about; if there's no shared set of art seen by most people in a society, there's a social baseline lost. That problem does worry me.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#136

Post by rererereferred »

darylteo wrote: post #42
veonik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude… are you telling me it isnt actually finished? I am watching season 1 for the first time…

No it's not. 4 of 10 volumes. The IP is likely doa anyway as it's on indefinite hiatus

Tanigawa released a new volume a few years ago, like 10 years after the last one. But still, it probably doesn't have the popularity it once had so a new animation sounds unlikely.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#137

Post by sshine »

emsign wrote: post #71
sshine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the…

You can't compare translation to creating new works of art. Sorry mom, but that's apples and oranges. A dangerously false comparison.

As noted in another sub-thread, translations are indeed works of art. As evidence, my mom has received royalties for her translations for decades, both from sales and from library lending. And she could sue for copyright infringement if someone stole her translation. The only difference is that she needs permission to distribute the translation, unless it’s translated from the public domain.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#138

Post by brookst »

earthnail wrote: post #47
sshine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the…

Here’s the argument: The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators. The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.

Translations absolutely have copyright.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#139

Post by TeMPOraL »

rchaud wrote: post #129
falsaberN1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm an artist with 30+ years of experience. Downgraded to AI training? Nonsense. You forget artists do more than just draw for money, we also draw for FUN, and that little detail escapes every single AI-related discussion I've been reading for the last 3 years.

The issue is whether the artists creating things for love of the game will be crowded out even further by studios churning out slop (or in HN terms, Minimal Viable Products) for cash. There are probably 15 disposable reality TV shows created for every scripted sitcom or drama that needs good writers, set designers and directors.

They already are; have been for decades now. AI is amplifying this, true, but art done for love and for money are already pretty much disjoint ventures, and in areas where they mix (like TV shows), it's an uphill battle for the artist - and they're not always right, either; a good show is more than just great writing or beautiful art.

Re: AniSora: Open-source anime video generation model

#140

Post by brookst »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #86
imiric wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The output of artists has copyright. Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art that they don't like for a myriad of…

>Art created by humans is not entirely original. The catch here is that a human can use single sample as input, but AI needs a torrent of training data. Also when AI generates permutations of samples, does their statistic match training data?

No human could use a single sample if it was literally the first piece of art they had ever seen.

Humans have that torrent of training data baked in from years of lived experience. That’s why people who go to art school or otherwise study art are generally (not always of course) better artists.

Post reply on HN