391–400 of 1001 posts
As there was no mention of an API for either Sora or o1 Pro, I think this launch further marks OpenAI’s transition from an infrastructure company to a product company.
A little worried how young children watching these videos may develop inaccurate impressions of physics in nature. For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? The sailing ship - are those water movements correct? The sinking of the elephant int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For instance, that ladybug looks pretty natural, but there's a little glitch in there that an unwitting observer, who's never seen a ladybug move before, may mistake as being normal. And maybe it is! And maybe it isn't? Well, none of the existing animation movies follow exact laws of physics.
Animation doesn't follow exact laws of physics, but the specific ways they don't follow physics have very deliberate intent behind them. There's a pretty clear difference between the coyote running off a cliff and taking 2 seconds to start falling, and a character awkwardly floating over the ground because an AI model got confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now expand that to movies and games and you can get why this whole generative-AI bubble is going to pop. What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. In other words, a corollary to your corollary is, "Fortunately, you don't need them to be, because no one cares about low-order bits…
> What will save it is that, no matter how picky you are as a creator, your audience will never know what exactly was that you dreamed up, so any half-decent approximation will work. Part of the problem is the "half decent approximations" tend towards a clichéd average, the audience won't know that the cool cyberpunk cityscape you generated isn't exactly what you had in mind, but they will know that it looks like eve…
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-ar...
In other words, someone willing to tweak the prompt and press the button enough times to say "yeah, that one, that's really good" is going to have a result which cannot in fact be reliably binned as AI-generated.
1. Anything on the internet can be fake
2. Trust is interpersonal, and trusting content should be predicated first and foremost on trusting its source to not deceive you
This is imperfect but also the best people ever really do in the general case, and just orders of magnitude better than most people are currently doing
The issue isn't models like this, it's that people are eating a ton of information but have been strongly encouraged to be credulous, and a lion's share of that training is directly coming from the tech grift industrial complex
I wouldn't even say this is the most compelling kind of tool for plausible-looking disinformation out there by a long shot for the record, but without actually examining why people are gullible there is no technology that's going to make people accepting fiction as fact substantially worse, or better, really. Scams target people on the order of their life savings every day and there are robust technologies and protocols for vetting communications, but people have to know to use them, care to use them, and be able to use them, for that to matter at all
The most impressive part is the temporal consistency in the demo videos. He flower one is the best looking.
That cat skateboarding off the path cut out just when it was getting interesting. Many of these likely fall apart just split seconds after
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It saddens me. Innovations in AI 'art' generation (music, audio, photo) have been a net negative to society and are already actively harming the Internet and our media sphere. Like I said in another comment, LLMs are cool and useful, but who in the hell asked for AI art? It's good enough to fool people and break the fragile trust relationship we had with online content, but is also extremely shit and carries no meani…
I think AI "art" can be as useful as the text generators, i.e. only within certain limits of dull and stupid stuff that needs to exist but has little to no value. For example, you need to generate a landing page for your boring company: text, images, videos and the overall design (as well as code!) can be and should be generated because... who cares about your boring company's landing page, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just sad, and why people have a derogative stance towards generative AI: "half-decent" approximation removes all personality from the output, leading to a bunch of slop on the internet.
It does indeed, but then many of those people don't notice they're already consuming half-decent, personality-less slop, because that's what human artists make too, when churning out commercial art for peanuts and on tight deadlines. It's less obvious because people project personality onto the content they see, because they implicitly assume the artist cared , and had some vision in mind. Cheap shit doesn't look lik…
People can generally see the lack of artistic intent when consuming entertainment.
Every day that passes I grow fonder of Google's decision to delay or otherwise keep a lot of this under the wraps. The other day I was scrolling down on YouTube shorts and a couple videos invoked an uncanny valley response from me (I think it was a clip of an unrealistically large snake covering some hut) which was somehow fascinating and strange and captivating, and then scrolling down a few more, again I saw someth…
My prediction is that next year they will catch up a bit and will not be shy about releasing new technology. They will remain behind in LLMs but at least will more deeply envelope their own existing products, thus creating a narrative of improved innovation and profit potential. They will publicly acknowledge perceived risks and say they have teams ensuring it will be okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your eye sees just about every frame of a film… People may not think they care, but obviously they do. That’s why marvel movies do better than DC ones. People absolutely care about details in their media.
Fair point, particularly given the example. My conclusion wrt. Marvel vs. DC is that DC productions care much less about details, in exactly the way I find off-putting. Not all details matter, some do. And, it's better to not show the details at all, than to be inconsistent in them. Like, idk., don't identify a bomb as a specific type of existing air-fuel ordnance and then act about it as if it was a goddamn tactical…
This is a key observation, unfortunately generally solving for what details matter is extremely difficult.
I don’t think video generation models help with that problem, since you have even less control of details than you do with film.
At least before post.