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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#261

Post by wrsh07 »

adamc wrote: post #245
parsimo2010 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get "The Green Mile" from this, because it's a tool. You get "The Green Mile" with artistic vision. The tool has to be told what to do. But now a director can shoot a film with actors who don't match the physical description of a character in a story, and then correct their race/gender/figure/whatever with AI. That probably means they save money on casting. A director can shoot a scene inside a blank set an…

This is the best answer I've seen, but I think what was demonstrated is miles away from this. A lot would need to be able to be specified (and honored) from the prompts, far more than any examples have demonstrated. I'm not against tools for directors, but the thing is, directors tell actors things and get results. Directors hire cinematographers and work with them to get the shots they want. Etc. How does that happe…

I think it starts simple. Have you ever been watching a movie or tv show, and it shows the people walking up to the helicopter or Lamborghini and then cut to "they've arrived at their destination no transportation in sight"?

It will start out with more believable green screen backgrounds and b roll. Used judiciously, it will improve immersion and cost Have you ever noticed that explosions look good? Even in hobby films? At some point it became easy to add a surprisingly good looking explosion in post. The same thing will happen here, but for an increasing amount of stuff.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#262

Post by blululu »

Mistletoe wrote: post #213
lairv wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If we judge from AI writing, we can extrapolate what an AI movie would be like. I cannot imagine reading an AI book. It would look and smell like a book but nothing of value or new insight would be inside. Michael Bay might be very interested.

You look back at old movies, and on a technical level they really aren’t as good as contemporary trash productions. But they knew how to weave the camera and a script into something amazing back then even if they didn’t have resolve and aftereffects to polish every shot. A good script writer, editor and cinematographer have a huge impact on the quality of a movie. But these roles are only a small portion of the operating budget of a movie. Filming every single scene is an exhausting undertaking and this constitutes the bulk of a movie production’s budget. If you can get good quality footage without leaving your garage then you can have a small team make a great movie. Maybe not the extent where you simply click a button but to the level that you would launch straight to a streaming service.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#263

Post by chankstein38 »

dpcan wrote: post #111

You know it’s going to happen: “I want a funny road trip movie staring Jim Carey and Chris Farley, based in Europe, in the fall, where they have to rescue their mom played by Lucille ball from making the mistake of marrying a character played by an older Steve Martin.” 10 minutes later your movie is generated. If you like it, you save it, share it, etc. You have a queue of movies shared by your friends that they like…

My girlfriend and I already sometimes use Suno like this for music. Just generate a bunch of songs under a specific genre (our favorite right now is nordic folk, dubstep) and just listen through. If we want to learn about or remember something, we make a Suno song about it. The songs are almost all bangers too so it's not even a chore to listen through!

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#264

Post by polishdude20 »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #128
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…

I think the main point is that art is interesting precisely because it can transmit human experience. It's communication from another human being. AI "media" completely lacks that. It's more of an expression of the machine-soul, which is tempting us to continue its development until it takes over.

For me, art is more interesting, moving, soul connecting the more it is made by less and less people. Art by one person gives me a unique perspective to the artists mind. AI generated art is the opposite of being created by one person. It's an amalgamation of millions or billions of people's input. To me that's uninteresting, not novel and not mind-expanding at all.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#265

Post by adamc »

cjenkins wrote: post #212
adamc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking back on history I think this will lead to meaningful art (and tons and tons of absolute garbage!). The printing press led to publishing works being reachable by more people so we got tons of garbage but we also got those few individual geniuses that previously wouldn't have been able to get their works out. I see similarities in indie video/PC games recently too. Once the tech got to the point that an individ…

The printing press enabled the artistic visions of single individuals (the writers) to find a wide audience.

To do something similar, this has to allow the director (or whomever is prompting the AI) to control all meaningful choices so that they get more or less the movie the intend. That seems far away from what is demonstrated.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#266

Post by keiferski »

sionisrecur wrote: post #253
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.

Isn't a specific person's vision basically their personal preferences?

Not really. A vision implies a particular kind of project, presumably created by someone with expertise and some well-thought through ideas about what it ought to be. Personal preferences just mean that someone likes X qualities.

To use a real-world example: if the Renaissance-era patrons had merely written down their preferences and had work made to match those preferences, it's highly unlikely that you'd have gotten the Mona Lisa or David.

Which is to say that, there will definitely be some interesting and compelling art made with AI tools. But it will be made by a specific person with an artistic vision in mind, and not merely an algorithm checking boxes.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#267

Post by cubefox »

sionisrecur wrote: post #257
chucky_z wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VFX artists cannot sleep well, they're already being displaced with AI or being forced to use it to massively increase their output. Here's an example thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/vfx/comments/1e4zdj7/in_the_climate... I am not trying to be negative, however it is the reality that ML/LLM has eliminated entire industries. Medical transcription for example is essentially gone.

I don't see it as that much of a problem. It's like washing machines taking away people's job of washing clothes, what are they gonna do with their time now? Maybe something more productive.

We really have a problem once there are no more jobs left for us humans, and only the people who own capital (stocks, real estate etc) will be able to earn money from dividends.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#268

Post by consteval »

schmidtleonard wrote: post #251
consteval wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goo…

> You still make these. You sit down and form the art. When you use a camera you don't make anything. You press a button and the camera makes it. You haven't even described it. When you use photoshop you don't make anything. You press buttons and the software just draws the pixels for you. It doesn't make you a painter. When you use 3D rendering software you don't make anything. You tell the computer about the scene…

Sorry, I don't think it's the same because making physical specifications via modifying pixels, or 3D art, or forming a shot is something you do.

It's the difference between making a house with wood and making a house by telling someone to make a house. One is making a house, one isn't.

The problem with AI is that it's natural language. So there's no skill there, you're describing something, you're commissioning it. When I do photoshop, I'm not describing anything, I'm modifying pixels. When I do 3D modeling, I'm not describing anything, I'm doing modeling.

You can say that those more formal specifications is the same as a description. But it's not. Because then why aren't the business folks programmers? Why aren't the people who come up with the requirements software engineers? Why are YOU the engineer and not them?

Because you made it formally, they just described it. So you're the engineer, they're the business analysts.

Also, as a side note, it's not at all reductive to say people who use AI just describe what they want. That is literally, actually, what they do. There's no more secret sauce than that - that is where the process begins and ends. If that makes it seem really uninspired then that's a clue, not an indicator that my reasoning is broken.

You can get into prompt engineering and whatever, I don't care. You can be a prompt engineer then, but not an artist. To me it seems plainly obvious nobody has any trouble applying this to everyone else, but suddenly when it's AI it's like everyone's prior human experience evaporates and they're saying novel things.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#269

Post by psychoslave »

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

I don’t know, for a car the last 10% has a direct relation with "people die" that is obvious to everyone. With the movie made in anyone basement, the risks are far less likely to create such a vivid perception of dramatic end result.

Not that cyber-bullying and usurpation schemes escalating a whole new level being less of a concern in the aftermaths, to be clear.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#270

Post by smusamashah »

I was looking for that landslide effect (as seen even in Sora and Kling) where land seems moving very disproportionally to everything else. It makes me motion sick. I have not seen those Sora demo videos a second time for that reason.

These are smooth, consistent, no landslide (except sloth floating in water, the stones on right are moving at much higher rate than the dock coming closer), no things appearing out of nowhere. Editing seems not as high quality (the candle to bubble example).

To me, these didn't induce nausea while being very high quality makes it best among current video generators.

Post reply on HN