51–60 of 570 posts
Have they reveled anything similar to Claude Code yet? I sure hope they are saving that for I/O next month... this video/photo reveals are too gimmicky for my liking, alas I'm probably biased because I don't really have a use for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or replace cutscenes in video games, or short videos on ads on mobile (already small and people are barely paying attention) Nowadays when I randomly open a news website to read some article, at the bottom of the page all the generic "hack to lose your belly" or "doctors recommend weird japanese device" or "how seniors can fly business class", I've been noticing lately 1/3rd of the images seem to be AI generated...
Warning: browsing the Web without an ad blocker is hazardous to your mental health. If you regularly see ads permeating most web pages, and don't know how to avoid that, you may need to see a specialist.
I simply don't think it's fair to cheat service providers when we don't like their service. You have a choice, and that choice is to not use that service at all. They're providing it under the terms that it is ad-supported. If you don't want to support it, but you still want to use it, then you're cheating someone. That is dishonest and unethical.
Its something that is only obvious when it is obvious. And the more obvious examples you see, the more non-obvious examples slip by.
Like most AI image or video generation tools, they produce results that look good at first glance, but the more you watch, the more flaws and sloppiness you notice, and they really lack storytelling
They don't have to be as good as the best film production team - they just need to be better than the average/B-grade ones to gain adoption. With the media & entertainment hungry world which is about to get worse with the unempoyed/underemployed tiktok generation needing "content", something like this has to have a play.
A lot of content is like this - you just need an approximation to sell an idea, not a perfect reproduction. Makes way more sense to have AI generate you a quick image for a sight gag than to have someone spend all day trying to comp it by hand. And as AI imagery gets more exposure in these sort of scenarios, more people will be accustomed to it, and they'll be more forgiving of its faults.
The bar for "good enough" is gonna get a lot lower as the cost of producing it comes way down with AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Soon, you should be able to put in a screenplay and a cast, and get a movie out. This "fixes" Hollywood's biggest "issues". No more highly paid actors demanding 50 million to appear in your movie, no more pretentious movie stars causing dramas and controversies, no more workers' unions or strikes, but all gains being funneled directly to shareholders. The VFX industry being turned into a gig meatgrinder was already…
Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects. (Maybe by established Hollywood studios, maybe not). Then the first fully non-human (but human-like) actors will be created and gain popularity. The IP of those characters will be more valuable than the humans they replaced. They will be derided by old people as "Mickey Mouse" AI actors. The SAG will be beside themselves. Younger…
Very few actors have an appearance or a voice worth a lot in licenses. That's like the top 1% of actors, if that.
I think if done right, humans could also end up getting emotionally attached to 100% AI generated characters, not just famous celebrities.
After doing some testing, Imagen 4 doesn't score any higher than Imagen 3 on my comparison chart, approximately ~60% prompt adherence accuracy. https://genai-showdown.specr.net
Of course they had to name a film making proprietary tool with the name of an award winning film made using open-source tools released less than a year ago...
"Flow" is one of the most generic names in tech. I can think of 10+ products called that off the top of my head.
Have they reveled anything similar to Claude Code yet? I sure hope they are saving that for I/O next month... this video/photo reveals are too gimmicky for my liking, alas I'm probably biased because I don't really have a use for them.
https://jules.google/ posted here today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44034918
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects. (Maybe by established Hollywood studios, maybe not). Then the first fully non-human (but human-like) actors will be created and gain popularity. The IP of those characters will be more valuable than the humans they replaced. They will be derided by old people as "Mickey Mouse" AI actors. The SAG will be beside themselves. Younger…
>Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects Very few actors have an appearance or a voice worth a lot in licenses. That's like the top 1% of actors, if that. I think if done right, humans could also end up getting emotionally attached to 100% AI generated characters, not just famous celebrities.
So the appearance licenses for these 1% are valuable in Stage 1 of the takeover.
The rest are just forgotten collateral damage. Hollywood is full of 'em.