161–170 of 342 posts
Superficially impressive but what is the actual use case of the present state of the art? It makes 10-second demos, fine. But can a producer get a second shot of the same scene and the same characters, with visual continuity? Or a third, etc? In other words, can it be used to create a coherent movie --even a 60-second commercial -- with multiple shots having continuity of faces, backgrounds, and lighting? This quote…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying that your brain doesn't understand anything, it just analyzes the visual data coming in via your eyes and predicts the next step of reality
The brain also does that . It doesn’t do it exclusively, but we do it an awful lot . we do extensive amount of pattern matching and drop enormous amount of sensory input very quickly because we expect patterns and assume a lot about our surroundings. Unlearning this is a hard skill to pick up. There are many versions of training from martial arts to meditation that attempt to achieve this . Point is that alone is not…
I got access to the preview, here's what it gave me for "A pelican riding a bicycle along a coastal path overlooking a harbor" - this video has all four versions shown: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2024/pelicans-on-bic... Of the four two were a pelican riding a bicycle. One was a pelican just running along the road, one was a pelican perched on a stationary bicycle, and one had the pelican wearing a weird…
My company (Nim) is hosting Hunyuan model, so here's a quick test (first attempt) at "pelican riding a bycicle" via Hunyuan on Nim: https://nim.video/explore/OGs4EM3MIpW8
I think it's as good, if not better than Sora / Veo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you can eat? Surely they charge a lot for that, at least. And how would you even find all the videos?
Who says they've talked to Google about it at all? I can't speak to OpenAI but ByteDance isn't waiting for permission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
our only hope for verifying truth in the future is that state officials give their speeches while doing kick flips and frontside 360s.
What officials actually say doesn't make a difference anymore. People do not get bamboozled because of lack of facts. People who get bamboozled are past facts.
By the time the politician says it, you've been soaking in it for weeks or months, if not longer. That just confirms the bias that has been implanted in you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is the value of having a human behind content if it gets to the point that content generated by AI is indistinguishable from content generated by humans?
I think "indistinguishable" is a receding horizon. People are already good at picking out AI text, and AI video is even easier. Even if it looks 100% realistic on the surface, the content itself (writing, concept, etc) will have a kind of indescribable "sameness" that will give it away. If there's one thing that connects all media made in human history, it's that humans find humans interesting. No technology (like li…
Source? My experience has been that people at most might be “ok” at picking up completely generic output, and outright terrible at identifying anything with a modicum of effort or chance placed into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, using Occams Razor; Sundar is a shit CEO and is playing catchup with a company largely fueled by innovations created at Google but never brought to market because it would eat into ads revenue. That, or they have a secret super human intelligence under wraps at the pentagon.
That's the conventional take, but (as far as I can tell), the TPU program was also started under Sundar, which would have been a bold investment at the time, and looks like absolute genius in retrospect. OpenAI might be well-capitalized, but they're (1) bleeding money, (2) no clear path to profitability, and (3) competing head-to-head with a behemoth who can profitably provide a similar offering at 10-20x cheaper (li…
That’s the core issue, and they’ve also pissed off a non-zero percentage of top talent by ditching what still existed of Google culture and going full “Corporate Megacorp” a few years ago.
Google is having to pay a ton to retain the talent they have left and it’s often not enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The brain also does that . It doesn’t do it exclusively, but we do it an awful lot . we do extensive amount of pattern matching and drop enormous amount of sensory input very quickly because we expect patterns and assume a lot about our surroundings. Unlearning this is a hard skill to pick up. There are many versions of training from martial arts to meditation that attempt to achieve this . Point is that alone is not…
I think people are just fundamentally not willing to attribute intelligence to things that can't have conversations. This is why the incredible belief was possible that babies or dogs don't feel pain. Once the AI is given some long term memory all of these ideas that AI is just a parrot will suddenly be gone and I personally think that it will probably be pretty easy to give robots memories and their own personal mot…
Mimicking more patterns like emotion and motivation may be better user experience, it doesn't make the machine any smarter, just a better mime.
Your thesis is that as we mimic reality more and more the differences will not matter, this is a idea romanticized by popular media like Blade Runner.
I believe there are classes of applications, particularly if the goal singularity or better than human super intelligence, emulating human responses no matter how sophisticated won't take you take there. Proponents may hand wash this as moving the goalposts, it is only refining the tests to reflect the models of the era.
If the proponents of AI were serious about their claims of intelligence than they should also be pushing for AI rights , there is no such serious discourse happening, only issues related to human data privacy rights on what can be used by AI models for learning or where they can the models be allowed to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What officials actually say doesn't make a difference anymore. People do not get bamboozled because of lack of facts. People who get bamboozled are past facts.
Off topic from the video AI thread, but to elaborate on your point: people believe what they want, based on what they have been primed to believe from mass media. This is mainly the normal TV and paper news, filtered through institutions like government proclamations, schools, and now supercharged by social media. This is why the "narrative" exists, and news media does the consensus messaging of what you should belie…
Random fact: Veo means "I see" in Spanish. Take it on any way you want.