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

Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

imagen.research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 500 posts

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#491

Post by TuringTest »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #472
TuringTest wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should trust faked quotes attributed to celebrities or ethnic groups in Twitter or Whatsapp, yet these fakes have ruined political campaigns and led to mass killings. Society doesn't adapt in the way you suggest by people disregarding what you think is irrelevant.

> Society doesn't adapt in the way you suggest by people disregarding what you think is irrelevant. It's not what I think, it's what has been proven in the 32 years since photoshop was invented. What killings are you talking about that were caused by the existence of image manipulation?

You are looking at this with a Western perspective. Yet not everybody connecting to the internet has had access to computers for 30 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45449938

> "A SIM card was about $200 [before the changes]," she says. "In 2013, they opened up access to other telecom companies and the SIM cards dropped to $2. Suddenly it became incredibly accessible."

> "People were immediately buying internet accessible smart phones and they wouldn't leave the shop unless the Facebook app had been downloaded onto their phones," Mearns says. Thet Swei Win believes that because the bulk of the population had little prior internet experience, they were especially vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation.

This means that large amounts of people are not internet-savvy enough to spot fakes and know not to trust them.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#492

Post by trention »

bheadmaster wrote: post #490
trention wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logical fallacies don't necessarily equal stupidity though sometimes they do. A bunch of arguments about why AI would be bad have already been advanced. For the economic one, refer to Martin Ford. For the existential one, refer to Bostrom.

Induction is not a logical fallacy, it's a basis for empiricism.

It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#493

Post by bheadmaster »

trention wrote: post #492
bheadmaster wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induction is not a logical fallacy, it's a basis for empiricism.

It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.

> read your Hume

No.

Either discuss this with me or don't. Don't summon your sacred scrolls to do the arguing for you.

> It is a logical fallacy

Instead of just parroting my stance in response, I'll try to elaborate some more. Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all.

Logic itself cannot bring you knowledge about the world, as the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit. All knowledge is based on induction, even your knowledge that induction is fallible. Saying induction is a "logical fallacy" doesn't even make sense, since the purpose of induction is not to perform logical operations.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#494

Post by trention »

bheadmaster wrote: post #493
trention wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.

> read your Hume No. Either discuss this with me or don't. Don't summon your sacred scrolls to do the arguing for you. > It is a logical fallacy Instead of just parroting my stance in response, I'll try to elaborate some more. Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. Logic itself cannot bring you knowledge about the world, as the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit. All knowledge is…

>Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all.

I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit".

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#495

Post by bravura »

EmilyHughes wrote: post #438
bravura wrote: post #423

I agree with many of the arguments in this thread: that model-gatekeeping while publishing approaches seems insincere and just seems like it's daring bad actors to replicate. However, a common refrain is that AI is like tools like hammers or knives and can be used for good or misused for evil. The potential for weaponizing AI is much much more so than a hammer or a knife. And it's greater than 3D-printing (of guns),…

Yeah man, great take. Should we drop a nuke on a city or open source DALL-E ? Seems about equally destructive.

Yeah, okay, that's too far.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#496

Post by benreesman »

bheadmaster wrote: post #483
trention wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good. They should start teaching the problem of induction in schools, evidently it's needed.

That's a really convoluted way of saying what amounts to "you're dumb". How about you present a counterargument - why would advanced AI be predominantly bad? Unless, of course, your only counterargument is the classic philosophical statement of "we can't know nuffin".

It is more than a little snarky, but a certain amount of snark is kind of the toll you pay for having PhDs in everything from high-energy physics to behavioral economics on an Internet thread.

Basically no one who sticks around on here is “dumb”, I don’t know you but I have a Bayesian prior that you’re probably pretty fucking smart, and GP was being a bit of a smartass, C’est la vie.

I completely agree with your game plan of “let’s get a more substantial conversation going here”. It’s the right move.

I think that we probably should, as a society, do a serious audit of the public school system curriculum to see if it still makes sense in light of the insane rate of change in the facts of life over the last century :)

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#497

Post by bheadmaster »

trention wrote: post #494
bheadmaster wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> read your Hume No. Either discuss this with me or don't. Don't summon your sacred scrolls to do the arguing for you. > It is a logical fallacy Instead of just parroting my stance in response, I'll try to elaborate some more. Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. Logic itself cannot bring you knowledge about the world, as the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit. All knowledge is…

>Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit".

> I'll do whatever I want

What a juvenile attitude. I wasn't giving you orders, I was presenting my standards of communication. You can do whatever the hell you want, but don't expect other people to tolerate your obnoxiousness.

You seem to get off on insulting people. I do not get off on being insulted, so I will refrain from further communication with you. Goodbye.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#498

Post by [deleted] »

benreesman wrote: post #496
bheadmaster wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really convoluted way of saying what amounts to "you're dumb". How about you present a counterargument - why would advanced AI be predominantly bad? Unless, of course, your only counterargument is the classic philosophical statement of "we can't know nuffin".

It is more than a little snarky, but a certain amount of snark is kind of the toll you pay for having PhDs in everything from high-energy physics to behavioral economics on an Internet thread. Basically no one who sticks around on here is “dumb”, I don’t know you but I have a Bayesian prior that you’re probably pretty fucking smart, and GP was being a bit of a smartass, C’est la vie. I completely agree with your game…

[deleted]

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#499

Post by nuancebydefault »

sbierwagen wrote: post #296
atty wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). We’re not at that point yet, but these things are getting better fast, so it’s only a matter of time. The problem is that there’s no way to mitigate those risks except to keep the model behind an inference-only API, or not release it at all - as soon a…

>There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images And the risk behind that is...? If you drill down with such claims the core is always "someone might use this to lie online" and the proposed solution every single time is: more surveillance. End anonymity. Have a Facebook account required to use the internet. Real name and…

> Have a facebook account required

ROFL what a weird thing for any HN commenter to say

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#500

Post by sswam »

dagmx wrote: post #115

I’ll be honest, as someone who worked in the film industry for a decade, this thread is depressing. It’s not the technology, it’s all the people in these comments who have never worked in the industry clamouring for its demise. One could brush it off as tech heads being over exuberant, but it’s the lack of understanding of how much fine control goes into each and every shot of a film that is depressing. If I, as a cr…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN