hmmm... Maybe it's because I knew it was testing me, but I noticed it right away and counted the right count. I could see it being pretty shocking if I hadn't, but I honestly can't imagine how I'd miss that.
> hmmm... Maybe it's because I knew it was testing me, but I noticed it right away and counted the right count. > I could see it being pretty shocking if I hadn't, but I honestly can't imagine how I'd miss that. The point of the video wasn't to count correctly, but to see the gorilla
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…
I'd guess 1 in 10 model demos turn out to be useful product, at best. This and Sora are particularly annoying, though, for how they put together these huge flashy showcases like they're announcing some kind of product launch and then... nothing. Apparently there's value in just flexing your AI-making muscle now and then.
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.
It has, but it used to take a lot more skill to manipulate a photo than to take a photo, and convincing video manipulation was even harder. I'm also skeptical that forensics will be able to keep up, because of the basic principle of antagonistic training -- any technique forensics can use can be applied back into improving the pipeline that generates the image, defeating the forensic tool. That certainly wasn't the case in the 20th century.
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…
link a song you prompted that you personally think is amazing
The porntential is immense. Seriously though. This is the company that is betting hard on VR goggles. And these are engines that can produce real time dreams, 3d, photographic quality, obedient to our commands. No 3d models needed, no physics simulations, no ray tracing, no prebuilt environments and avatars. All simply dreamed up in real time, as requested by the user in natural language. It might be one of the most…
Or a multi billion dollar fluke like the Metaverse. Time will tell.
When the comments range from "it's the demise of the world" to "it doesn't look quite right" (and everything in-between) you get a sense of just how early we are into this decade's "big new tech thing".
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.
AI mentioned above is not at the level of capturing and expressing ideas or emotions beyond "a sad rock song about a breakup". Try guiding it to express any clearly formed musical idea.
Author's attachment is to a large degree based on the false notion that they somehow contributed to the creation process.
The generic, frigid, un-interesting "product" that is produced by said AI is why no one other than the prompter is moved by the result.
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.
What remaining institutions still command any trust?
... Most of them?
Do you read the news at all? If you can't trust any of them, then why even bother?