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

Meta Movie Gen

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#141

Post by visarga »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #114
nthdesign wrote: post #92

My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity. Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at…

> And, through the same lens, maybe human-created art is more interesting because it is real. Conversations I have with people in real life almost always come back to this point. Most people find AI stuff novel, but few find it particularly interesting on an artistic level. I only really hear about people being ecstatic about AI online, by people who are, for lack of a better term, really online, and who do not have…

> Insisting on the bare minimum human involvement as a feature is just a non starter for me if something is presented as art

You can make the guidance as superficial or detailed as you like. Input detailed descriptions, use real images as reference, you can spend a minute or a day on it. If you prompt "cute dog" you should expect generic outputs. If you write half a screen with detailed instructions, you can expect it to be mostly your contribution. It's the old "you're holding it wrong" problem.

BTW, try to input an image in chatGPT or Claude and ask for a description, you will be amazed how detailed it can get.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#142

Post by vouaobrasil »

nanna wrote: post #48

Absolutely terrifying. Please stop.

Absolutely agree. It's very terrifying and will likely cause mass disruption because it will disintegrate the social fabric that is held together by people needing other people for stuff.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#144

Post by dyauspitr »

oulipo wrote: post #116

Impressive, yet more burning GPUs and pushing CO2 in the atmosphere just for stupid stuff that is only of interest to rich western people... I'd rather have those people work on climate change solutions

No thank you, I not going to let my beloved progressives be dragged into Luddism just so you can feel a little better about yourself through insignificant changes without a meaningful impact on the environment. Anything with true lasting effects will have to be top down like renewable resources/energy, EVs, viable alternatives to plastic, nuclear energy etc.

The argument should never be about reducing energy usage, rather it should be about how we generate that energy in a clean, renewable way.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#145

Post by mrtksn »

nthdesign wrote: post #92

My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity. Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at…

AI content is already very dull, the text is dull the music is dull the images and videos are also dull. No one is interested in AI Seinfeld or this short movie that AI created. Their only audience is just people admiring what the machines come to be able to do.

Any AI content that's good, and there are a few of them, actually has plenty of human creativity in it.

There are some AI artist that begin to emerge or there are some AI generated personas out there who are interesting but they are interesting only because the people behind it made it interesting.

I am not fatalistic at all for the creatives. AI is going to wipe out the producers and integrators(people that specialize in putting things together, like coders who code when tasked, painters who paint when commissioned, musicians that play once provided with the score), not the creatives.

The GOTCHA, IMHO, will be people not developing skills because the machine can do it but I guess maybe they will the skills that make the machine sing.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#146

Post by vouaobrasil »

kleiba wrote: post #88

To all the folks with negative opinions of this work: you guys are nuts! This work is incredible . Is it the end of the line yet? Of course not, but come on! This is unbelievably cool, and who of you would have predicted any of this ten years ago?

For me, peace in society, a nice world where humans can share what they create, and nature outside and preserved are all much better than "cool", and this "cool" tool threatens all of the above.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#147

Post by throwaway2203 »

phainopepla2 wrote: post #121
nthdesign wrote: post #92

My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity. Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at…

I suspect the demand for human creative output will shrink, as AI generated content will be so cheap and prevalent, even as it will only ever be an imitation of human art. The same way that most people eat terrible, flavorless tomatoes from the supermarket, instead of the harder to grow heirloom varieties. But I don't think human creativity is going anywhere. Unless there is some breakthrough that moves it far beyond…

There might be more creating it than there are those valuing it

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#148

Post by causal »

Animats wrote: post #101
nthdesign wrote: post #92

My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity. Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at…

"And, through the same lens, maybe human-created art is more interesting because it is real." Most human-created art is rather bad. I used to go to a lot of art openings, and we'd look at some works and ask "will this have been tossed in five years?"

Being pleasing to the eye is often not the point. Technical ability is a small part of the art experience. That's one reason a lot of people hate calling image gens "art" - it's so flashy without substance. But it's also a reason I don't think generative AI is much of a threat to the human practice of art-making.

That said, AI is probably a threat to roles in the entertainment industry. But it's also worth noting that much of the creativity was being sucked out of entertainment well before AI arrived.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#149

Post by righthand »

nthdesign wrote: post #92

My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity. Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at…

So we’ll automate away entertainment jobs but none of the cool science jobs will be automated? I don’t understand how this proposed world will have an available work for scientists but not entertainers.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#150

Post by mathgeek »

adamc wrote: post #61
mywacaday wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we only a few years away from one person/small group made movies where the dialog, acting, location and special effects can be tweaked endlessly for a relatively low cost. If I was a studio exec I'd be worried.

I wouldn't be. How is any of this going to lead to meaningful art? I don't think you get "The Green Mile" from something like this.

We already exist in a world where most of the revenue for film companies comes from formulaic productions. Studio execs certainly worry about how they are going to create profits in addition to any concerns about the qualitative cultural value of the films.
Post reply on HN