91–100 of 134 posts
I was forwarded a message just moments ago by my mother, a 5 second Facebook video, clearly AI generated - and I suspect Open Sora. More AI slop for everyone.
(it makes me mad that similar arguments are often brought when discussing mobile phones' walled garden policies)
"pretty good" is definitely one point of view... all those videos look very blobby and morph-y
If you want to make an adjective out of an English noun, just add a 'y' directly to the end of it, e.g. 'morphy'. The hyphen is erroneous here: 'morph-y' would be pronounced like 'morph why', and has the structure of a compound modifier without making any sense as one.
Having said that, it's pretty impressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to make an adjective out of an English noun, just add a 'y' directly to the end of it, e.g. 'morphy'. The hyphen is erroneous here: 'morph-y' would be pronounced like 'morph why', and has the structure of a compound modifier without making any sense as one.
I'm a native English (Canadian) speaker and, given this context, would never pronounce "morph-y" as "morph why" (if that pronunciation was intended I'd capitalize the Y and probably not hyphenate it, "Morph Y"). Indeed, sometimes I'll use the -y construction when I'm inventing an adjective from a noun like this, especially if omitting it looks "wrong" to me because it's an invented word (not sure if I would've for "m…
Words conjoined with hyphens are always pronounced separately in normal usage -- the only exception I can think of is the special use case of hyphens representing continuations of a single word across a line break.
> Indeed, sometimes I'll use the -y construction when I'm inventing an adjective from a noun like this, especially if omitting it looks "wrong" to me because it's an invented word (not sure if I would've for "morphy" but whatever).
It's an "invented word" with or without the hyphen. But the standard way of "inventing" word forms in English is to apply suffixes directly to the root word without hyphens.
Using an interstitial hyphen as metadata to indicate one's own squeamishness about using a novel word form seems very strange to me. (The typical convention for this is to enclose the novel word in quotation marks, calling attention to the word itself in addition to invoking its meaning.)
> I don't know if you're a native speaker and there's some kind of cultural or generational gap here where some of us are more/less particular about this than others or if you're a non-native speaker trying to be helpful but underestimating the flexibility of casual written English.
I am very much a native speaker, and it's precisely for that reason that I find this nonstandard use of hyphenation jarring and disruptive of reading comprehension.
I was forwarded a message just moments ago by my mother, a 5 second Facebook video, clearly AI generated - and I suspect Open Sora. More AI slop for everyone.
At some point we should stop treating our mothers as infants. It doesnt matter that they didn't grow up with the internet, they should adapt , despite their age. It has happened before and will happen again. (it makes me mad that similar arguments are often brought when discussing mobile phones' walled garden policies)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is not and most likely will not be a "magic box that meets all your needs" in at least 1000 years unless something insane happens, AI does function approximation, when you scale it up it can do amazing things but you still need human creativity, you still need engineers because it can only output data not act on real-world stuff, you still need data that is generated by humans, you still need to train every model…
Many of the day-to-day tasks that keeps people regularly employed are not creative tasks, but repetitive and predictable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have thought on the matter for millions of seconds. Politics and economics don't have anything to do with morality. It's about power. The moral fairytailes are there to justify whatever the state of affairs are. When these change, new fairytales justifying them will be adopted. If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?
Examine your definitions of politics and morality. Morality encompasses all actions made by actors with (presumed) free will. "God given" means "natural". [Natural rights does not require a god]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... ) And if your argument ("... god given ... atheist ... etc.) can be copy-pasted into a valid defence of arbitrary evil (I like to use Hitler for a concrete exam…
They were literally just invented few hundred years ago. And have even changed since then (owning another human being was somehow a natural/god given right). Humans have organized (and keep on organizing) without any such conception for at least tens of thousands of years, but suddenly its natural?
Who is the absolute arbiter of "evil"? USA of course holds itself as a force for good, and e.g. islamism as evil. Islamists do the opposite. Very rarely anybody thinks themselves as evil, but readily point out evil in others.
This is in no way to support islamism, or USA. Just that morality is just mostly an arbtrary justification for whatever somebody wants to or doesn't want to get done.
We can discuss the merits and shortcomings of e.g. ownership based on its societal consequences just fine without conjuring metaphysics.
If this is indeed the "future of making movies," I dunno, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have no interest in watching anything made this way. Sorry. If you don't care enough about your project to do something besides AI prompts, I don't think you have anything to say that I need to hear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of the day-to-day tasks that keeps people regularly employed are not creative tasks, but repetitive and predictable.
Sure, repetitive tasks may get replaced in the short time depending on the complexity, but, the way I see it, there will always be a human need, new jobs of higher complexity and creativity will be created, and maybe there will be less jobs overall, but predictable jobs being replaced always happen with new advances in technology, whether that's a good thing or not :)
In what quantity though? In Willy Wonka, when Charlie's dad got laid off at the toothbrush factory and was later rehired as the sole toothbrush automation inspector, what happened to his colleagues? Bigger and better things? Unlikely, unless their kids also suddenly inherited chocolate factories.
It's a decimation of the workforce, and we're still climbing the population curve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like it's being developed by a Chinese group. What's OpenAI going to do, sue them in a Chinese court?
Take down their GIT Repository with perfectly valid DMCA Notice, I guess?