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

Meta Movie Gen

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#541

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

layer8 wrote: post #447
benabbott wrote: post #395

Things are about to get weird. We can't control this at any level: At the level of image/video synthesis: Some leading companies have suggested they put watermarks in the content they create. Nice thought, but open source will always be an option, and people will always be able to build un-watermarked tools. At the level of law: You could attempt to pass a law banning image/video generation entirely, or those without…

Just stop taking any video you see at face value? People managed without videos before video cameras were available, and the written word was never reliable to start with. Maybe the future won’t be that different?

So this is basically a regression to a 19th-century level in terms of being able to trust and understand reporting on the world beyond our own front door. People managed before photographic and video evidence was a thing; you could use eyewitness reports from trusted friends and news on the official telegraphs, to the extent that those were trustworthy. But it's certainly still a big step backward from the 20th century, that brief window of time where it was much easier to record physical evidence of an event than to fake it.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#542

Post by afh1 »

altairprime wrote: post #439
turblety wrote: post #127

Why do these video generation ones never become usable to the public. Is it just they had to create millions of videos and cherry pick only a handful of decent generations? Or is it just so expensive there's no business model for it? My mind instantly assumes it a money thing and they're just wanting to charge millions for it, therefore out of reach for the general public. But then with Meta's whole stance on open ai…

At “the public” Internet scale, if a hundred million people click Generate, imagine if Meta ends up paying a million dollars instantaneously. - How many clicks of Generate are budgeted for? - How many clicks should each user’s quota be? - How much advertising revenue will be earned per click? - Why should they give away a million dollars? Right now, AI costs for this are so high that offering this feature ‘for free’…

Just release the model and anyone can run locally, there is no cost except for the end user. Meta has the cash flow to do this if they wanted.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#543

Post by salmonet »

chaos_emergent wrote: post #540
qwery wrote: post #529

What can you even say about this stuff? It's another incremental improvement, good job Mark. These new video clips of yours are certainly something. I don't know how you do it. Round of applause for Mark! I will now review some of the standout clips. That alien thing in the water is horrifying. The background fish look pretty convincing, except for the really flamboyant one in the dark. I guess I should be impressed…

it's totally wild that your first response is shitting on flaws rather than having your jaw drop at machines producing coherent videos from text. This is _the worst that machines will ever be at this task_, and most of the improvements that need to be made are a matter of engineering ingenuity, which can be translated to research dollars.

This is Hacker News. That comment was way more positive than I expected for something like this and so I assumed this must be pretty awesome

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#544

Post by wantsanagent »

vunderba wrote: post #497
jcims wrote: post #103

One thing I've noticed with the set of music generation tools (eg Udio, Suno) is that there's a sort of profound attachment to songs that you create. I've never made music the old fashioned way so I'm guessing the same could be true for that as well, but there are songs I've made on Udio that I personally think are amazing but nobody else really responds to. Conversely I can see similar levels of pride and attachment…

One thing I've noticed with the set of music generation tools (eg Udio, Suno) is that there's a sort of profound attachment to songs that you create. With all due respect, how could there be when at the click of a button you can generate entire songs? You didn't come up with the chord progression, the structure, the melodic motifs, or the lyrics. My attachment to my works is directly proportional to the amount of eff…

Imagine you've had an idea bouncing around in your head, or even an emotion, for a long time and you've never been able to express it. Then one day you push a button and a piece of art captures what you've been feeling perfectly.

It's not the craft that drives attachment in this case but the emotional resonance of something that you think should exist finally existing.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#546

Post by afh1 »

greybox wrote: post #511

At what point did someone look at this and think: "Ah yes, this will be good for humanity right now" ?

Seems to have great potential in the VFX industry, for one thing.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#547

Post by szundi »

jetrink wrote: post #450
lopis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you that's not enough. These are high quality videos. Once they get uploaded to social media, compression mostly makes imperfections go away. And it's been shown that when people are not expecting AI content, they are much less likely to realize they are looking at AI. I would 100% believe most of these videos were real if caught off guard.

A friend who lives in North Carolina sent me a video of the raging floodwaters in his state- at least that's what the superimposed text claimed it was. When I looked closer, it was clearly an Indian city filled with Indian people and Indian cars. He hadn't noticed anything except the flood water. It reminded me of that famous selective attention test video[1]. I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it, but it's a…

probably people will soon develop a habit of verifying every detail in videos of interest haha

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#548

Post by Nadya »

schmidtleonard wrote: post #230
beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be blunt, all of those images look comically generic and extremely "AI". > Photography, digital painting, 3D rendering Those are not the same as AI. Using AI is akin to standing beside a great pianist and whispering into his ear that you want "something sad and slow" and then waiting for him to play your request. You might continue to give him prompts but you're just doing that. In time, you might be called a "c…

> I'll be blunt, all of those images look comically generic and extremely "AI". Ok, now I know you're watching through hate goggles. Fortunately, not everyone will bring those to the party. > Using AI is akin... [goes on to describe a clueless iterative prompting process that wouldn't get within a mile of the front page] You've really outed yourself here. If you think it's all just iterative prompting, you are about…

My litmus test is to simply lie. It weeds out the people hating AI simply because they know or think it is AI. If you link directly to an AI site they're already going to say they hate it or that it all "looks like AI slop". You won't get anywhere trying to meet them at a middle ground because they simply aren't interested in any kind of a middle ground.

> https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/zq91wm/anons_dis...

Which is exactly the opposite of what the artists claim to want. But god is it hilarious following the anti-AI artists on Twitter who end up having to apologize for liking an AI-generated artwork pretty much as a daily occurrence. I just grab my popcorn and enjoy the show.

Every passing day the technologies making all of this possible get a little bit better and every single day continues to be the worst it will ever be. They'll point to today's imperfections or flaws as evidence of something being AI-generated and those imperfections will be trained out with fine tuning or LoRA models until there is no longer any way to tell.

E: A lot of them also don't realize that besides text-to-image there is image-to-image for more control over composition as well as ControlNet for controlling poses. More LoRA models than you can imagine for controlling the style. Their imagination is limited to strictly text-to-image prompts with no human input afterwards.

AI is a tool not much different than Photoshop was back when "digital artists aren't real artists" was the argument. And in case anyone has forgotten: "You can't Ctrl+Z real art".

Ask any fractal artists the names they were called for "adjusting a few settings" in Apophysis.

E2:

We need more tests such as this. The vast majority of people can't identify AI nearly as well as they think they can identify AI - even people familiar with AI who "know what to look for".

https://www.tidio.com/blog/ai-test/

Artworks (3/4) | Photos (6/7) | Texts (3/4) | Memes (2/2)

Fun excerpt by the way:

> Respondents who felt confident about their answers had worse results than those who weren’t so sure

> Survey respondents who believed they answered most questions correctly had worse results than those with doubts. Over 78% of respondents who thought their score is very likely to be high got less than half of the answers right. In comparison, those who were most pessimistic did significantly better, with the majority of them scoring above the average.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#549

Post by afh1 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #541
layer8 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop taking any video you see at face value? People managed without videos before video cameras were available, and the written word was never reliable to start with. Maybe the future won’t be that different?

So this is basically a regression to a 19th-century level in terms of being able to trust and understand reporting on the world beyond our own front door. People managed before photographic and video evidence was a thing; you could use eyewitness reports from trusted friends and news on the official telegraphs, to the extent that those were trustworthy. But it's certainly still a big step backward from the 20th centu…

Photographic evidence has been subject to manipulation before computers were even a thing, more so after Photoshop became widely available. There has always been forensics for that, which will continue to evolve.

I think the issue with trust is rooted elsewhere - in social relations, politics, and not in AI generated content.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#550

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

elwell wrote: post #465
benabbott wrote: post #395

Things are about to get weird. We can't control this at any level: At the level of image/video synthesis: Some leading companies have suggested they put watermarks in the content they create. Nice thought, but open source will always be an option, and people will always be able to build un-watermarked tools. At the level of law: You could attempt to pass a law banning image/video generation entirely, or those without…

> IMPOSSIBLE to build an AI detector that works longterm return Math.random() This should increase in accuracy over time.

It turns out that "return 'AI'" is a better strategy when the probability is above 50%: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/msJA6B9ZjiiZxT6EZ/lawful-unc...
Post reply on HN