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

Veo 2: Our video generation model

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 342 posts

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#321

Post by 110 »

eddd-ddde wrote: post #290
ttul wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this will be a thing one day, where photos are digitally watermarked by the camera sensor in a non-repudiable manner.

This is a losing battle. You can always just record an AI video with your camera. Done, now you have a real video.

Potential solutions:

1. AI video watermarks that carry over even if a video of the AI video is taken

2. Cameras that can see AI video watermarks and put an AI video watermark on the videos of any AI videos they take

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#322

Post by ferguu_ »

bsenftner wrote: post #312
ferguu_ wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why must the deception take place? Evolution is natural, The development of AI generated videos takes teams of people, years of effort and millions of pounds. Why should those that are more easily deceived be culled? Do you believe that the future of technology is weeding out the weak? Do you believe the future of humanity is the existence of only those that can use the technologies we develop? You might very wel…

Deception takes places because deception takes place, because it can. I'm not the gatekeeper of it, I'm just acknowledging it and some of the secondary effects that will occur due to these inevitable technologies. I don't believe the future is anything other than a hope. That hope will require those future individuals to be very discriminating of their surroundings to survive, all surroundings includes all the societ…

I can't disagree with you there. It's a shame I can't. The future is a scary place to be.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#323

Post by dbbk »

0xcb0 wrote: post #206

Imho is stunning, yet what is happening there is super dangerous. These videos will and may be too realistic. Our society is not prepared for this kind of reality "bending" media. These hyperrealistic videos will be the reason for hate and murder. Evil actors will use it to influence elections on a global scale. Create cults around virtual characters. Deny the rules of physics and human reason. And yet, there is no w…

I still don't really know why we're doing this. What is the upside? Democratising Hollywood? At the expense of... enormous catastrophic disinformation and media manipulation.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#324

Post by dbbk »

onel wrote: post #319
0xcb0 wrote: post #206

Imho is stunning, yet what is happening there is super dangerous. These videos will and may be too realistic. Our society is not prepared for this kind of reality "bending" media. These hyperrealistic videos will be the reason for hate and murder. Evil actors will use it to influence elections on a global scale. Create cults around virtual characters. Deny the rules of physics and human reason. And yet, there is no w…

The same things could be said when everyone could print their own newspapers or books. How would people distinguish between fake and real news? I think we will need the same healthy media diet.

There wasn't even a healthy media diet before generative AI given the amount of 'fake news' in 2016 and 2020.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#325

Post by PittleyDunkin »

skeledrew wrote: post #73
vouaobrasil wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PS: anything you write on HN can already have been written by AI, pretty soon you may as well quit producing any content at all. No one will care whether you wrote it. People theoretically would care, but the internet has already set up producing things to be pseudo-anonymous, so we have forgotten the value of actually having a human being behind content. That's why AI is so successful, and it's a damn shame.

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?

> 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?

What would be the point of paying for AI content if nobody did anything to produce it? Just take that shit!

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#326

Post by PittleyDunkin »

theshackleford wrote: post #166
turnsout wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People are already good at picking out AI text, and AI video is even easier. 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.

> 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.

Bold of you to assume any effort is placed into content when the entire point of using AI in the first place is to avoid this.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#327

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

golol wrote: post #198
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a company trains an AI model on something, and then that company sells access to the ai model, the company, not the ai model, is the being violating copyright. If Jimmy makes an android in his garage and gives it free will, then it trains itself on youtube, i doubt anyone would have an issue.

If OpenAI training on youtube videos violates copyright then so does Google training on them.

In what possible way is that true? Not that I like it, but google has its creators sign away the rights to their material for uses like this. Nobody signs a contract with openai when they make their youtube videos.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#329

Post by dheera »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #327
golol wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If OpenAI training on youtube videos violates copyright then so does Google training on them.

In what possible way is that true? Not that I like it, but google has its creators sign away the rights to their material for uses like this. Nobody signs a contract with openai when they make their youtube videos.

When you sign away full rights to one company, that one company can give rights to another company (for money or not).

They could also just acquire that other company.

From the creator's standpoint, signing away rights to one company is as good as gone.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#330

Post by ks2048 »

eddd-ddde wrote: post #290
ttul wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this will be a thing one day, where photos are digitally watermarked by the camera sensor in a non-repudiable manner.

This is a losing battle. You can always just record an AI video with your camera. Done, now you have a real video.

I agree is probably a losing battle, but maybe worth fighting. If the metadata is also encrypted, you can also verify the time and place it was recorded. Of course, this requires closed/locked hardware and still possible to spoof. Not ideal, but some assurances are better than a future of can't trust anything.
Post reply on HN