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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#171

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #139
briandear wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We heard this same argument when cameras were invented. Yet some of the most valuable paintings in the world were created in the 20th century. We heard it again when electronic music started becoming a thing. Formula 1 wouldn’t exist if the blacksmiths had their way. The unknown scares people because they are afraid of their known paradigms being shattered. But the new things ahead are often beyond anything of which…

One must not use analogy to analyze individual technologies. People were afraid of the camera, yes, but the camera does not attempt to replace painting. AI attempts to replace photography, painting, and all sorts of art with something that looks like the real thing. Photography never tried to do that, as photographs don't look anything like paintings.

When the camera was invented, it did replace what paintings were used for at the time. Photographs don't look like paintings, but up until the camera paintings were trying to look like photographs. It's no coincidence that impressionism arrived at the same time as the camera.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#172

Post by riskable »

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.

> How is any of this going to lead to meaningful art?

Nearly all the movies that go to theaters aren't "meaningful art". Not only that but what's meaningful to you isn't necessarily what's meaningful to others.

If someone can get their own personal "Godzilla VS The Iron Giant" crossover made into a feature-length film it will be meaningful to them.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#173

Post by adventured »

jppittma wrote: post #100
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…

Or maybe, the limiting factor in one's ability to create art will be... creativity rather than the technical skills necessary to make movies, draw, or pluck strings.

99% of humanity have very little interest in creating. They're mimics, they're fine with copying, hitting repost, et al. You see this across all social media without exception (TikTok being the most obvious mimic example, but it's the same on Reddit as well). You see it in day to day life. You see it in how people spend their time. You see it in how people spend their money. And none of this is new.

The public can create vast amounts of spectacular original content right now using Dalle, MidJourney, Stable Diffusion - they have very little interest in doing so. Only a tiny fraction of the population has demonstrated that it cares what-so-ever about generative media. It's a passing curiosity for a flicker of an instant for the masses.

The hilariously fantastical premise of: if we just give people massive amounts of time, they'll dedicate their brains to creativity and exploration and live exceptionally fulfilling lives - we already know that's a lie for the masses. That is not what they do at all if you give them enormous amounts of time, they sit around doing nothing much at all (and if you give them enormous amounts of money to go with it, they do really dumb things with it, mostly focused on rampant consumerism). The reason it doesn't work is because all people are not created equal, all people are not the same, all brains are not wired the same, the masses are mimics, they are unable & unwilling to originate as a prime focus (and nothing can change that).

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#175

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

visarga wrote: post #141
beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

You need an image for an ad. You write a brief and send it to an artist who follows your brief and makes the image for you. You make more detailed briefs, or you make generic briefs. You receive an image. Regardless, did you make that image or just get a response to your brief?

You want a painting of your dog. You send the painter dozens of photos of your dog. You describe your dog in rapturous, incredible, detail. You receive a painting in response. Did you make that painting? Were you the artist in any normal parlance?

When you use chatGPT or Claude you're signing up to getting/receiving the image generated as a response to your prompt, not creating that image. You're involvement is always lessened.

You might claim you made that image, but then you would be like a company claiming they made the response to their brief, or the dog owner insisting they were the painter, which everyone would consider nonsensical if not plain wrong. Are they collaborators? Maybe. But the degree of collaboration in making the image is very very small.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#176

Post by farts_mckensy »

sonofhans wrote: post #134
jppittma wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe, the limiting factor in one's ability to create art will be... creativity rather than the technical skills necessary to make movies, draw, or pluck strings.

Creativity isn’t magic, it’s a skill. There is no creativity without the application of it. By definition creativity produces something. Without skills it’s not possible to produce anything. The act of creating teaches you to be better at creating, in that way and in that context. This is why people with practice and expertise (e.g., professional artists, like screenwriters and musicians) can reliably create new thin…

I'm not sure I completely agree. In some ways, developing technical skills can drill creativity out of you and condition you to think in ways that are really quite rigid and formulaic.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#177

Post by petesergeant »

Fluorescence wrote: post #170
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…

Cheaper more effective entertainment is likely to only cause more problems: it will be more addictive, better at hijacking our brains and attention, better at pushing the propaganda goals of the author, better at filling traditional "human needs" of relationships that forever separates us from each other into a civilisation of Hikikomori. I have little faith in an optimistic view of human nature where we voluntarily…

We'll be able to start fuzz testing the human brain. A horror film that uses bio-feedback to really push the bits that are actually terrifying you, in real-time. Campaign videos that lean in to the bit that your lizard brain is responding to.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#178

Post by mattgreenrocks »

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…

> 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 the skills, know-how, or ability, to make art themselves.

Yes, I've noticed this. The people who are excited about it usually come off as opportunistic (hence the "breathless joy"), and not really interested in letting whatever art/craft they want to make deeply change them. They just want the recognition of being able to make the thing without the formative work. (I hesitate to point this out, anticipating allegations of elitism.)

Plus, really online people tend to dominate online discussions, giving the impression that the public will be happy to consume only AI generated things. Then again, the public is happy to consume social media engagement crap, so I'm very curious what the revealed preference is here.

The value in learning this stuff is that it changes you. I'll be forever indebted to my guitar teacher partially because he teaches me to do the work, and that evidence of doing the work is manifest readily, and to play the long, long game.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#179

Post by candiddevmike »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #83
kingofthehill98 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But mostly just porn.

I think AI porn is overhyped. We've had the ability to create realistic photos and short vids for over a year now and onlyfans creators are still doing fine. AI porn is just a niche for stuff that humans don't want to perform.

I think AI porn is chocked full of fascinating moral quandaries. It kind of transcends all other types of GenAI for the amount of hard questions it asks society.

As they say, porn is always the leading spear of technology. It's something to keep an eye on (no pun intended) to understand how society will accept/integrate generated content.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#180

Post by consteval »

dyauspitr wrote: post #95
keiferski wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds gimmicky and worth watching once or twice, then forgetting about. Worthwhile art will continue to be created from a specific person's/group's vision, not an algorithmically generated sum of personal preferences.

You’ll never be able to tell them apart.

It depends on how shallow your understanding of media is.

I'm sure this can be used to create entertaining movies that are fun and wacky. I don't think it can create impactful movies.

Post reply on HN