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

331–340 of 342 posts

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#331

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

dheera wrote: post #329
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did openai make a deal with google to train on youtube?

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#332

Post by 15155 »

Kelteseth wrote: post #262
ImHereToVote wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

Nonsense like: - People were 'forced' into vaccinations - Covid 19 was a testing ground for the next global pandemic so that "they" can control us - Climate change is a hoax/Renewables are our doom - Everything our government does is to create a totalitarian state next. - Putin is actually the victim, it is all NATO fault and their imperialism

> People were 'forced' into vaccinations

"Take this novel vaccine primarily for someone else's benefit or lose your job: it's your choice, you totally aren't being 'forced.'"

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#333

Post by fernly »

m3kw9 wrote: post #187
fernly wrote: post #152

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…

You blend them and extend the videos and then you connect enough for a 2 min short

That's what I think the tech at this stage cannot do. You make two clips from the same prompt with a minor change, e.g.

> a thief threatens a man with a gun, demanding his money, then fires the gun (etc add details)

> the thief runs away, while his victim slowly collapses on the sidewalk (etc same details)

Would you get the same characters, wearing the identical clothing, the same lighting and identical background details? You need all these elements to be the same, that's what filmmakers call "continuity". I doubt that Veo or any of the generators would actually produce continuity.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#334

Post by Kelteseth »

15155 wrote: post #332
Kelteseth wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense like: - People were 'forced' into vaccinations - Covid 19 was a testing ground for the next global pandemic so that "they" can control us - Climate change is a hoax/Renewables are our doom - Everything our government does is to create a totalitarian state next. - Putin is actually the victim, it is all NATO fault and their imperialism

> People were 'forced' into vaccinations "Take this novel vaccine primarily for someone else's benefit or lose your job: it's your choice, you totally aren't being 'forced.'"

For people like nurses, yes. That just a normal job requirement.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#335

Post by bratwurst3000 »

ferguu_ wrote: post #270
jnwatson wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ship sailed shortly after the invention of photography. Photos were altered for political purposes during the US Civil War. Now, we have entire TV shows shot on green screen in virtual sets. Replacing all the actors is just the next logical step.

That's exactly what I mean, all of those methods take some human effort, there is a human involved in the process. Now we face a reality that it might take no human effort to do... well, anything. Which is terrifying to me. I do believe that humans are restless, and even when there is no longer any point to create, and it is far easier to dictate, we still will, just because we are too driven not to.

you know that there is still offline artforms like concerts theaters opera installations etc so i wouldn see it that negative. and we have nearly 100years of music and film we can enjoy. so maybe video is a dying artform for human to act in but there is so much more.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#336

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #164
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says they've talked to Google about it at all? I can't speak to OpenAI but ByteDance isn't waiting for permission.

ByteDance has their own unlimited supply of videos...

That hasn't stopped them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41756209

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#337

Post by 15155 »

Kelteseth wrote: post #334
15155 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People were 'forced' into vaccinations "Take this novel vaccine primarily for someone else's benefit or lose your job: it's your choice, you totally aren't being 'forced.'"

For people like nurses, yes. That just a normal job requirement.

How about remote software engineers who often equally befell this issue?

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#338

Post by theshackleford »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #326
theshackleford wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

I mean, i've seen people using it in that way yes. These are normally the same people I saw copying and pasting the first google result they found for any search as an answer to their customers/co-workers etc. qOr to whom you would say "Do not send this to the customer, this is my explanation to you, use your own words, this is just a high level blah blah" and then five minutes later you see your response word for word having gone out to a customer with zero modification or review for appropriateness.

I equally see a very different kind of usage, where its just another tool used for speeding up portions of work, but not being produced to complete a work in totality.

Like sadly yes, i've now see sales members with rando chrome extensions that just attach AI to everything and they just let it do whatever the fuck it wants, which makes me want to cry...but again, these people were already effectively doing that, they are just doing it faster than ever.

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#339

Post by skeledrew »

turnsout wrote: post #83
skeledrew wrote: post #73

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…

You'll be surprised by how many already mistake AI generated content for human creation[0], when the tech is still so young. And it cuts both ways since people also mistake human creations for AI content [1]. I see no reason why it won't eventually get to the point where they're fully indistinguishable, given AI is continually being trained to be better. Bits are bits, whether arranged by man or AI.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1 [1] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/06/this-photo-got-3rd-in-an-...

Re: Veo 2: Our video generation model

#340

Post by skeledrew »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #85
skeledrew wrote: post #73

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?

The fact that anyone would ask this question is incredible! It's so we can in a fraction of those cases, develop real relationships to others behind the content! The whole point of sharing is to develop connections with real people. If all you want to do is consume independently of that, you are effectively a soulless machine.

A few may be interested in developing a relationship. The vast majority though is only interested in consuming content and moving on. I fail to see how that preference makes one a "soulless machine". But maybe I'm already a lost cause shrugs.
Post reply on HN