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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#191

Post by vouaobrasil »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #171
vouaobrasil wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a difference between replacing usage and replacing the exact art and the people who make it. Yes, the camera influenced painting, but it did not destroy it. AI attempts to destroy natural human expression.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#192

Post by Bloedcoins »

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

At least companies are behind it which can actually put the money were its needed and compensate it.

At least microsoft and google are on a co2 neutral race.

And all of these clusters doing something can also do research and partially do.

Its valid critisism, but we need to stop co2 production on a lot of other industries before we do that for datacenters. Datacenters save a lot more co2 (just think about not having to drive to a bank to do bank business).

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#193

Post by IanCal »

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.

But what they're describing is a case where someone with the storytelling ability but not the money or technical skills could create something that looks solid.

You're imagining "pls write film" but the case of being able to film something and then adjust and tweak it, easily change backdrops etc could lead to much higher polish on creations from smaller producers.

Would the green mile be any less hard hitting if the lights flickering were caused by an AI alteration to a scene? If the mouse was created purely by a machine?

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#194

Post by Bloedcoins »

voidUpdate wrote: post #30

Some of these look really obviously bad, like the guy spinning the fire and the girl running along the beach. And it completely failed at the bubbles

I have not had the same feeling as you and i do look at ai art for quite. awhile.

Are you still impressed though?

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#195

Post by spacebanana7 »

Bloedcoins wrote: post #188
spacebanana7 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'still' We have not had the ability to create interesting ai porn vids yet. How would we? Meta just showed movie gen. But i'm pretty sure the short images of moving woman very subtle might gotten the one or other of. Just wait a little bit until you can really create wat you are looking for.

HN doesn't feel like right place to share links, but have a look at what's available on fanvue.

I'm not sure exactly what models the account owners use, but I think it's a mix of Stable diffusion video touched up with adobe tooling.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#196

Post by consteval »

schmidtleonard wrote: post #165
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…

> "AI generated" I just instantly find it un-interesting artistically How familiar are you with what is possible and how much human effort goes towards achieving it? https://civitai.com/images Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering -- these all went through a phase of being panned as "not real art" before they were accepted, but they were all eventually accepted and they all turned out to have their own type of…

I would say the difference here is with these:

> Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering

You still make these. You sit down and form the art.

When you use AI you don't make anything, you ask someone else to make it, i.e. you've commissioned it. It doesn't really matter if I sit down for a portrait and describe in excruciating detail what I want, I'm still not a painter.

It doesn't even matter, in my eyes, how good or how shit the art is. It can be the best art ever, but the only reason art, as a whole, has value is because of the human aspect.

Picasso famously said he spent his childhood learning how to paint professionally, and then spent the rest of his life learning how to paint like a child. And I think that really encapsulates the meaning of art. It's not so much about the end product, it's about the author's intention to get there. Anybody can paint like a child, very few have the inclination and inspiration to think of that.

You can see this a lot in contemporary art. People say it looks really easy. Sure, it looks easy now, because you've already seen it and didn't come up with it. The coming up with it part is the art, not the thing.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#197

Post by ActionHank »

mywacaday wrote: post #54
cs702 wrote: post #35

Impressive. It's only going to get better, faster, cheaper, easier.[a] Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to ask the machines: "Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the likeness of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role." Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to have immersive VR experiences that are crafted to each person. Sooner than anyone could have expected, we won…

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 doubt it and if we were no one would be earning money anymore and wouldn't have cash to pay for the cost to run these services.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#198

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

schmidtleonard wrote: post #165
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…

> "AI generated" I just instantly find it un-interesting artistically How familiar are you with what is possible and how much human effort goes towards achieving it? https://civitai.com/images Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering -- these all went through a phase of being panned as "not real art" before they were accepted, but they were all eventually accepted and they all turned out to have their own type of…

I'll be blunt, all of those images look comically generic and extremely "AI".

> Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering

Those are not the same as AI. Using AI is akin to standing beside a great pianist and whispering into his ear that you want "something sad and slow" and then waiting for him to play your request. You might continue to give him prompts but you're just doing that. In time, you might be called a "collaborator" but your involvement begins at bare minimum and you have to justify that you're more involved --- the pianist doesn't, the pianist is making the music.

You could record the song and do more to the recording, or improv along with your own instrument. But just taking the raw output again and again is simply getting a response to your prompt again and again.

The prompt themselves are actually more artistic as they venture into surrealist poetry and prose, but the images are almost always much less interesting artistically than the prompts would suggest.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#199

Post by kkielhofner »

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

> burning GPUs and pushing CO2 in the atmosphere

My startup develops AI for the nuclear power industry to drive process, documentation, and regulatory efficiency. We like to say "AI needs nuclear and nuclear needs AI".

Big tech has finally realized/gone public that casually saying things like "we're building our next 1GW datacenter" is uhh, problematic[0].

For some time now there has been significant interest/activity in wiring up entire datacenters to nuclear reactors (existing Gen 2, SMRs, etc):

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-huang-says-nuclear-pow...

https://www.ans.org/news/article-5842/amazon-buys-nuclearpow...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-signs-groundbreaking-en...

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/10/oracle-is-designing-a-data-c...

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4913714-google-ceo-eye...

[0] - https://www.npr.org/2024/07/12/g-s1-9545/ai-brings-soaring-e...

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#200

Post by ActionHank »

lairv wrote: post #80
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'm not sure, I see a common pattern with autonomous vehicle, text to image, llms: the last 10% are hard to achieve

Yet VCs are sold that last 10% and an additional 10% on top. No idea why they keep throwing their money into the fire.
Post reply on HN