71–80 of 142 posts
this is semi-relevant -- and I do love how technically amazing this all is, but a massive caveat for someone who's been dabbling hard in this space, (images+video) -- I cannot emphasize enough how draining text-2- is. even when a result comes out that's kind of cool, I feel nothing because it wasn't really me who did it. I would say 97% of the time, the results are not what I want (and of course that's the case, it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>is not eligible for US copyright protection Once industry adopts AI generation, which it will, a new law will be quickly signed. In a way, not allowing copyright of AI material really only serves a tiny group of people. "We want to empower everyone to bring their ideas to market, not just those with the ability to draw them" is not a particularly evil or amoral sentiment.
As if the ability is not attainable, people want to be put on top of the mountain without any effort.
I think I would buy "yes" shares in a Polymarket event that predicts a motion picture created by a single person grossing more than $100M by 2027.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google will eventually copy… Weird take given Google basically invented and released through well written papers and open-source software the modern deep learning stack which all others build on. Google was being disses because they failed to make any product and were increasingly looking like Kodak/Xerox one trick pony. It seems they have woken up from whatever slumber they were in
Like MS, Google is ubiquitous - search is much like Office and DOS before that. Anything OpenAPI or the other AI competitors create would normally be protected by patents for instance. Not so with an AI models. Google has the clout/know how to responded with similar technology - adding it to their ubiquitous search. People are both lazy and cheap. They will always go with cheaper and good enough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need
OpenAI was the copycat.
If Google had patented this technique, OpenAI wouldn’t have existed.
1: Press release about amazing AI development. 2: "Try it now!" the release always says. 3: I go try it. 4: Doesn't work. In this case, I give it a prompt to make a video and literally nothing happens, it goes back to the prompt. In the case of the breathtakingly astonishing Gemini 2.5 Coding - attach to source code file to the prompt "file type not supported". That's the pattern - I've come to expect it and was not…
Gemini 2.5 Pro is finally competitive with GPT/Claude, their Deep Research is better and has a 20/day limit rather than 10/month, and now with a single run of Veo 2 I’ve gotten a much better and coherent video than from dozens of attempts at Sora. They finally seem to have gotten their heads collectively unstuck from their rear end (but yeah it sucks not having access).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're using it wrong. change file ending to .txt instead
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or a helpful advice?
You cannot upload a .py file, but if you change the name to "main.txt" you can upload it, and it will automatically treat it as "main.py". Not sure how this hasn't been fixed yet, but it is google so...
I think I would buy "yes" shares in a Polymarket event that predicts a motion picture created by a single person grossing more than $100M by 2027.
I think the obstacles there are distribution and IP rights. I think we will see content like that find widespread appeal and success but actually turning it into $100m in revenue requires having the copyright (at present, not possible for AI-generated content) and being able to convince a distributor to invest in it. Those both seem like really tough things to solve.
Hollywood can barely get any well made movies past $100 million these days unless it's based on some well known franchise (minecraft, Captain America, Snow White) or it has some well known actor.
I think I would buy "yes" shares in a Polymarket event that predicts a motion picture created by a single person grossing more than $100M by 2027.
I came to the same sort of conclusion when watching Kitsune, which I think was one person and VEO https://vimeo.com/1047370252 Granted, 5 minutes isn't 1h30 but it's not a million miles away either.
I've been a VideoFX tester, and have made a couple of five minute shorts. You end up having to generate a lot of shots that you throw away. This is a lot easier to bear if you are tester without really strict monthly limits, or having to pay to get past them.
Also, there are all sorts of things you have to juggle or sidestep related to character consistency and sound synchronization. They'll be also sorts of improvements there, but I suspect getting to 90 minutes isn't really a question of spending more time and generations. Right now I think a strong option for solo aspiring AI film makers is to work on a number of small projects, to master the art, and tackle longer projects when the tooling is better.
1: Press release about amazing AI development. 2: "Try it now!" the release always says. 3: I go try it. 4: Doesn't work. In this case, I give it a prompt to make a video and literally nothing happens, it goes back to the prompt. In the case of the breathtakingly astonishing Gemini 2.5 Coding - attach to source code file to the prompt "file type not supported". That's the pattern - I've come to expect it and was not…
While Google have really been 'cooking' recently, every launch they do is like that. Gemini 2.5 was great but for some reason they launched it on web first (which still didn't list it) then a day or so later on app, at which point I thought it was total vapourware.
This is the same - I have gemini advanced subscription, but it is nowhere to be seen in mobile or app. If you're having scale/rollout issues how hard is it to put the model somewhere and say 'coming really soon'? You don't know if it's not launched yet or you are missing where to find it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. This is what Instagram and YouTube did and we got MrBeast and Kylie Jenner making billions of dollars. The cost of creating content is tapping record on your phone and the traditional "quality" as defined by visuals doesn't matter (see Quibi). Viral videos are selfies recorded in the bedroom. When you lower the barrier to entry things get more heterogeneous, not less. So you have bigger outcomes, not s…
I don't think Mr Beast is particularly creative. He makes common denominator crap that appeals to kids. I expect the same of Kylie Jenner
That doesn't mean they aren't incredibly good at what they do and that millions (billions) of people have tried to do what they have and failed.
One of the reasons it's "common denominator crap" is because the blob of the internet has 100s of millions of videos copying MrBeast and the Jenner/Kardasians created an entire generation of people that wanted to be influencers. Most of the copies are Slop.
Once they are intrenched they can continue to produce "crap" as you call it because they have distribution, the copies don't work because they aren't novel, which makes people feel like it doesn't take talent and is the algorithms fault, until the next person to be "creative" gets distribution and the cycle repeats.
There is just a lot less creativity than people imagine. It's not a right that we all have as humans; it's rare. 8.2 billion people on earth, 365 days in a year, 3 trillion shots on goal, and only a few hundred novel discoveries, art creations, companies, and ideas come from it.