921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Meta probably doesn't want people generating porn (and worse) with their models or derivations of their models, for obvious reputational reasons.
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…
Came here to say this... These companies all want patted on the back for how cool their video models are but we're still waiting on Sora since like last year. More and more publish these "look at us" papers but don't publish the models or even give us access to them. They do exist, Luma AI DreamMachine is pretty cool. As well as Kling, Minimax, etc. But they aren't anything like Sora or this appear to be. They work b…
My kids both have creative hearts, and they are terrified that A.I. will prevent them from earning a living through creativity. Very recently, I've had an alternate thought. We've spent decades improving the technology of entertainment, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars in the process. When A.I. can generate any entertainment you can imagine, we might start finding this kind of entertainment boring. Maybe, at…
Consider another angle. I follow a lot of the new AI gen crowd on Twitter. This community is made up of a lot of creative industry people. One guy who worked in commercials shared a recent job he was on for a name brand. They had a soundstage, actors, sound people, makeup, lighting, etc. setup for 3 days for the shoot. Something like 25 people working for 3 days. But behind that was about 3 months of effort if one in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Insisting on the bare minimum human involvement as a feature is just a non starter for me if something is presented as art You can make the guidance as superficial or detailed as you like. Input detailed descriptions, use real images as reference, you can spend a minute or a day on it. If you prompt "cute dog" you should expect generic outputs. If you write half a screen with detailed instructions, you can expect i…
It's still very different. What you describe is exactly what an art director does, which is creative and difficult— there's a good reason many commercial artists end their careers as art directors but none start there. Anybody that says making things that look good and interesting using generative AI is easy or doesn't require genuine creativity is just being a naysayer. However, at most, the art director is credited…
I was, in fact, a paste-up man in the early 1990s, slapping together copy and ads for a magazine. As such, I was a ping-pong ball in the battle between account management and creative arts - each of them wanted to be the originator of the big and clever ideas. (This is pretty widespread in the industry, and was even a recurring theme in "Mad Men.")
The takeaway here is, people like to be creative. People need to be creative. There will always be an implacable drive to create, one which DALL-E can never satisfy. Gen AI is the artificial sweetener that might temporarily satisfy those cravings, but ultimately artists want to create something from nothing. There's some hope to be found in that, amid the tsunami of AI slop.
These are not movies, these are clips. The stock photo/clip industry is surely worried about this, and probably will sue because 100% these models were trained on their work. If this technology ever makes movies, it'll be exactly like all the texts, images and music these models create: an average of everything ever created, so incredibly mediocre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your mention of Stalin is I think stronger as an argument that there’s been a significant change. Those fakes took lots of time by skilled humans and were notoriously obvious - what made them effective was the crushing political power preventing them from receiving critical analysis in public. Similarly, while Photoshop made it easier it happened at a time where technical advances made the problem harder because ever…
The glass half-full in me feels that the advantage to this is that in a few years the average person will know better than to trust anything that could be faked like that, instead of the old situation where someone who was willing to put in that effort could actually trick a lot of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% agree, the background replace that puts the guy into a stadium would be fully usable as a cut in a movie/tv show, and the background is believable enough that no one would bat an eye. If you use it properly, I expect a quality uplift on indie films/shorts. Your limit is your creativity
I personally expect a decrease in quality. Without limits people tend to get less creative. Sure, there is some balance here in that tools also enable new things to be done which are not possible without tools but working around limits has often inspired some of the most creative works.
We humans are so excessively dependent on vision input and with entertaining through visuals, too. But more and more all those visuals become meaningless to me and it all just feels like fast-food-junk to me. As any pre-schooler will be able to produce anything (watch out parents) imaginable in seconds doesn't make it better to me or is of any real value. Ok, i needed to edit it again to add: maybe this IS the value…
Yeah I agree, I never understood the appeal of photography, it's so easy, you don't need to paint for hours to produce something original, you just need to buy a camera and click on a button. That's it. And people pay for that, I don't get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So expensive? It has never been cheaper to create movies thanks to digital cameras and non-linear editors, digital audio workstations, etc. You are no longer encumbered by the costs of film, development, renting an edit bay, requiring an audio editing studio to mix audio and maintain a tape library of special effects or hire foley artists, no need for an optical printer to layer visual effects, etc. You already can p…
Sure, the cost of making Clerks has dropped, but not the cost of making Dune.