I know people have been scared by new technology since technology, but I’ve never before fallen into that camp until now. I have to admit, this really does frighten me.
Boo!
What’s wild to me is how Yann LeCun doesn’t seem to see this as an issue at all. Many other leading researchers (Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Frank Hutter, etc.) signed that letter on the threats of AI and LeCun just posts on Twitter and talks about how we’ll just “not build” potentially harmful AI. Really makes me lose trust in anything else he says.
There with you. This is really worrying to me. This technology is advancing way faster than were adjusting to it. I haven’t even gotten over how amazing GPT2.5 is but most people already seem to be taking it for granted. We didn’t have anything even close to this just few years prior
Only the third most confusing entry in the Kingdom Hearts series
Lol And KH4 is gonna be about Sora being in the real world. This storyline is getting out of hand.
The folks with access to this must be looking at some absolutely fantastic porn right now!
Oh its going to be fantastic all right.
Fantastical chimera monster porn, at least for the beginning.
‘obama giving birth’, ‘adam sandler with big feet’, ‘five nights at freddy’s but everyone’s horny’
possibilities are endless
I don’t think they would make a model like this uncensored.
Honestly, let’s make it mainstream. Get it to a point where it’s more profitable to mass produce Ai porn than exploit young women from god knows where.
This is so much better than all text-to-video models currently available. I’m looking forward to read the paper but I’m afraid they won’t say much about how they did this. Even if the examples are cherry picked, this is mind blowing!
I’m looking forward to reading the paper
You mean the 100 page technical report
Just get ChatGPT to summarize it. Big brain time.
Full circle.
Eventually, the internet will just be AI criticizing itself to create a better version of itself…
Hang on…
How do you know you’re not AI?
Doo^doo doodoo doo^doo doodoo doo^doo doodoo
Can I get sora to create a video from the summary?
Looking forward to the day I can just copy paste the Silmarillion into a program and have it spit out a 20 hour long movie.
I was thinking exactly this but with the Bible. Not because I like the Bible but because I’d love to see how AI interprets one of the most important books in human history.
But yeha, the Silmarillion is basically a Bible from another universe.
Which is why christians are scared of them. It will open people’s eyes to how anyone can write a fairytale. And so much better ones, too.
Besides the few glitched ones I wouldn’t be able to tell they were generated. I didn’t expect it this quick.
At least we can remake the last three star wars movies with a decent story line.
If you read Japanese, it’s really obvious the Tokyo one is AI; the signage largely makes no sense, has incorrect characters, has weird mixing of characters, etc.
Someone wrote a decent story line for those??
Back to ChatGPT for that.
There are tons of books. Afaik the main storyline was an extragalactic invasion by a super evil swarm. Also explains why the emperor build so many ships.
There has been books out for years that Disney just didn’t bother with. They can’t be worse than what we got.
The mammoth one is uncanny valley for me.
This is still so bizarre to me. I’ve worked on 3D rendering engines trying to create realistic lighting and even the most advanced 3D games are pretty artificial. And now all of a sudden this stuff is just BAM super realistic. Not just that, but as a game designer you could create an entire game by writing text and some logic.
In my experience as a game designer, the code that LLMs spit out is pretty shit. It won’t even compile half the time, and when it does, it won’t do what you want without significant changes.
The correct usage of LLMs in coding imo is for a single use case at a time, building up to what you need from scratch. It requires skill both in talking to AI for it to give you what you want, knowing how to build up to it, reading the code it spits out so that you know when it goes south and the skill of actually knowing how to build the bigger picture software from little pieces but if you are an intermediate dev who is stuck on something it is a great help.
That or for rubber ducky debugging, it s also great in that
That sounds like more effort than just… writing the code.
It s situationally useful
Chatgpt once insisted my JSON was actually YAML
Technically it is, but I agree that is imprecise and nobody would say so IRL. Unless they are being a pedantic nerd, like I am right now.
Keep in mind that this isn’t creating 3d Billy volumes at all. While immensely impressive, the thing being created by this architecture is a series of 2d frames.
Welcome to the club my friend… Expert after expert is having this experience as AI develops in the past couple years and we discover that the job can be automated way more than we thought.
First it was the customer service chat agents. Then it was the writers. Then it was the programmers. Then it was the graphic design artists. Now it’s the animators.
Another programmer here. The bottleneck in most jobs isn’t in getting boilerplate out, which is where AI excels, it’s in that first and/or last 10-20%, alongside dictating what patterns are suitable for your problem, what proprietary tooling you’ll need to use, what API’s you’re hitting and what has changed in recent weeks/months.
What AI is achieving is impressive, but as someone that works in AI, I think that we’re seeing a two-fold problem: we’re seeing a limit of what these models can accomplish with their training data, and we’re seeing employers hedge their bets on weaker output with AI over specialist workers.
The former is a great problem, because this tooling could be adjusted to make workers lives far easier/faster, in the same way that many tools have done so already. The latter is a huge problem, as in many skilled worker industries we’ve seen waves of layoffs, and years of enshitification resulting in poorer products.
The latter is also where I think we’ll see a huge change in culture. IMO, we’ll see existing companies bet it all and die from supporting AI over people, and a new wave of companies focus on putting output of a certain standard to take on larger companies.
This is a really balanced take, thank you
Writer here, absolutely not having this experience. Generative AI tools are bad at writing, but people generally have a pretty low bar for what they think is good enough.
These things are great if you care about tech demos and not quality of output. If you actually need the end result to be good though, you’re gonna be waiting a while.
If you actually need the end result to be good though, you’re gonna be waiting a while.
I agree with everything you said, but it seems in the context of AI development “a while” is like, a few years.
That remains to be seen. We have yet to see one of these things actually get good at anything, so we don’t know how hard that last part is to do. I don’t think we can assume there will be continuous linear progress. Maybe it’ll take one year, maybe it’ll take 10, maybe it’ll just never reach that point.
Yeah a real problem here is how you get an AI which doesn’t understand what it is doing to create something complete and still coherent. These clips are cool and all, and so are the tiny essays put out by LLMs, but what you see is literally all you are getting; there are no thoughts, ideas or abstract concepts underlying any of it. There is no meaning or narrative to be found which connects one scene or paragraph to another. It’s a puzzle laid out by an idiot following generic instructions.
That which created the woman walking down that street doesn’t know what either of those things are, and so it can simply not use those concepts to create a coherent narrative. That job still falls onto the human instructing the AI, and nothing suggests that we are anywhere close to replacing that human glue.
Current AI can not conceptualise – much less realise – ideas, and so they can not be creative or create art by any sensible definition. That isn’t to say that what is produced using AI can’t be posed as, mistaken for, or used to make art. I’d like to see more of that last part and less of the former two, personally.
Still waiting on the programmer part. In a nutshell AI being say 90% perfect means you have 90% working code IE 10% broken code. Images and video (but not sound) is way easier cause human eyes kinda just suck. Couple of the videos they’ve released pass even at a pretty long glance. You only notice funny businesses once you look closer.
I can’t imagine that digital artists/animators have reason to worry. At the upper end, animated movies will simply get flashier, eating up all the productivity gains. In live action, more effects will be pure CGI. At the bottom end, we may see productions hiring VFX artists, just as naturally as they hire makeup artists now.
When something becomes cheaper, people buy more of it, until their demand is satisfied. With food, we are well past that point. I don’t think we are anywhere near that point with visual effects.
It seems to me that AI won’t completely replace jobs (but will do in 10-20 years). But will reduce demand because oversaturation + ultraproductivity with AI. Moreover, AI will continue to improve. A work of a team of 30 people will be done with just 3 people.
Yeah. And it’s not just how good the images look it’s also the creativity. Everyone tries to downplay this but I’ve read texts and those videos and just from the prompts there is a “creative spark” there. It’s not very bright spark lol but it’s there.
I should get into this stuff but I feel old lol. I imagine you could generate interesting levels with obstacles and riddles and “story beats” too.
Because sometimes the generator just replicates bits of its training data wholesale. The “creative spark” isn’t its own, it’s from a human artist left uncredited and uncompensated.
Artists are “inspired” by existing art or things they see in real life all the time. So that they can replicate art doesn’t mean they can’t generate art. It’s a non sequitur. But I’m sure people are going to keep insisting on this so lets not argue back and forth on this :D
Would be good if openai could focus on things that are useful to humanity rather than trying to just do what we can do already, but with less jobs.
We already knew how to farm before John Deere; should we have focused away from agricultural industrialization in order to preserve jobs?
looks at the immense harm that agricultural industrialization has had on the climate, the environment and society
Apparently yes.
Working less is a great ideal for humanity.
Americans have this thing that their job defines them but we worked less than we did before, let’s keep going.
Except the gains technology and automation bring are rarely evenly distributed in society. Just compare how productive a worker is today and how much we make compared to 50 years ago.
We make a lot more. Improvements are good.
You think people should be taxed more, vote for politicians trying to tax rich people more.
1 Generally people want to work, people don’t want to be exploited by capitolists for a capitolist society where they barely make rent humans are generally workers. 2. This isn’t working less, this isn’t productivity improvement. This is less humanity in art and all just so employers don’t need to spend money on workers.
Nothing is stopping anyone working for works sake. Personal I think that’s a waste of time but people are free to do what they want.
Yes it is. It’s the same as the printing press, or the electric switchboard, computers, cars, containerisation, 3d rendering verse drawing. Work used to be done by humans now the labour had been replaced to make something better quality, for a lower price with less workers.
Removing the artist is not “replacing the labor like the printing press”.
Why pursue any of the arts if they do not benefit humanity?
Because they look good enough for the web stories or RP I make
Ai generated images are not art.
Yes and no.
Currently you could say that ai is just efficiently guessing what we would want to see from pixel to pixel.
An artist may tune their style to be more similar to the art that they sold before in hopes of repeat buyers.
An AI looks at countless images and seeks out patterns which it refines. It mimics things and duplicates patterns.
An artists spends countless hours absorbed in the art of others to learn styles. Frequently they may mimic other works and iterate off of existing ideas.
Fan art, tracing, compositing - these are all things understood in the art community. If someone makes fan art of someone else’s character does that invalidate their work as art?
AI invokes a reaction because it’s getting “close.” AI is receiving a lot of the same criticism that digital artists got for not using traditional mediums back in that technology’s infancy.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. What defines art? Everything is relative. At present? AI is a tool. A bit unpolished and raw but so was CGI in the movie industry. Look how quickly that evolved.
AI could well be a tool for creating art in the future but as of yet it is not a tool I have ever seen to create anything I would consider art. Well, certainly not good art. Admittedly, every time I’ve been aware that it’s been used at all it’s because there are obvious AI errors present which make things look shit.
Without question. Early tablets and digital art couldn’t hold a candle to traditional mediums. Even if the same artist created content for both. The tools are certainly rough… but considering how young the technology is, and how far it has already come, I think we may soon arrive at a point where people may have issues distinguishing between the two.
Either way it’s a fun topic to discuss. It’s deeply interesting to see the variety of responses to it.
If nature carves a stone to look pretty, that’s not art.
If a human carves a stone to look pretty, that’s art. It has care and detail, it has something about humanity in it as it has a human behind it and everything that shaped them, shaped that stone.
It’s that simple. Ai can not make art no more than the wind can.
I understand where you are coming from but to be fair the wind isn’t using art as a reference. This is why I suggested it was a complex issue… and provided the examples that I did. There are quite a few similarities between ai models producing art and artists. Surely there are differences - but objectively speaking they do have quite a few similarities.
Art is specific to the beholder. Does what is before you evoke an emotional response? Was it produced for that purpose? If you provided paint and paper to an ape - would it be considered art? What about a child who has no concept of art?
From a non image perspective: music is art. Is a mashup music? What about other sample heavy music? Some people might argue that x genre isn’t really music.
Back to prompt driven ai generated art: what if someone spent 70 hours tuning and modifying a prompt until the art fit their vision? 200 hours? What if they lacked the ability to draw or paint?
I genuinely don’t believe this is a black and white issue. I do understand the implications of what ai tools have to the workforce - but that is a separate topic.
If the wind blows, cut up pieces of art magazines around and then land in a pile. That isn’t art. It’s just cut-up pieces of someone else’s art.
If a person cuts up a magazine and pieces the parts together with intention and meaning. That can be art.
Art is not “I like this visially”, art is not “you did this well.” Art is human expression.
If the wind blows, cut up pieces of art magazines around and then land in a pile. That isn’t art. It’s just cut-up pieces of someone else’s art.
I can’t really agree with this example. I think you’re suggesting the AI is completely independent of human expression and is completely random in its application of its training data (the cut up pieces I suppose?)
Generative AI is driven by a human prompt (description) and refined by further prompts which pushes the result in the direction of the prompters vision.
If a person cuts up a magazine and pieces the parts together with intention and meaning. That can be art.
This is in essence what is occuring above. I view this process as someone being provided a chisel and a block of stone:
The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.
-Michelangelo
As I suggested above AI is a tool that makes accessing art and expression available to anyone. The Ai is the chisel. They cut the stone with words… It isn’t just random clipart being thrown around either: The ‘stone’ is the culmination of all of the art the model has ‘seen.’ It has taken that data and found the patterns that different styles contain. You might describe this as the distillation of human expression into something new.
The source is art - human expression The prompt gives it form - human expression Further prompts drive the form to fit the users vision - human expression
There is intent and meaning.
Is it art in the traditional sense? Perhaps not in the same vein as ink and canvas but … I believe, while it is certainly rough and unrefined, it can still be considered a tool to create art.
Good luck keeping up that attitude as AI is advancing at this pace. You already can’t tell them apart from human created images and and it’ll just keep getting better. Stop kidding yourself.
Art is not about how believable it is. It’s not a gauge of believability that an ai made this or not. There is no Turing test for art.
Ah yes, this definitely won’t have any negative ramifications.
/s
I wonder if in the 1800s people saw the first photograph and thought… “well, that’s the end of painters.” Others probably said “look! it’s so shitty it can’t even reproduce colors!!!”.
What it was the end of was talentless painters who were just copying what they saw. Painting stopped being for service and started being for art. That is where software development is going.
I have worked with hundreds of software developers in the last 20 years, half of them were copy pasters who got into software because they tricked people into thinking it was magic. In the future we will still code, just don’t bother with the thing the Prompt Engineer can do in 5 seconds.
What it was the end of was talentless painters who were just copying what they saw. Painting stopped being for service and started being for art. That is where software development is going.
I think a better way of saying this are people who were just doing it for a job, not because of a lot of talent or passion for painting.
But doing something just because it is a job is what a lot of people have to do to survive. Not everyone can have a profession that they love and have a passion for.
That’s where the problem comes in when it comes to these generative AI.
I think that’s a bad analogy because of the whole being able to think part.
I’ll be interested in seeing what (if anything) humans will be able to do better.
The quality is really superior to what was shown with Lumiere. Even if this is cherry picking it seems miles above the competiton
The second one is easy as you don’t need coherence between reflected and non-reflected stuff: Only the reflection is visible. The second one has lots of inconsistencies: I works kinda well if the reflected thing and reflection are close together in the image, it does tend to copy over uniformly-coloured tall lights, but OTOH it also invents completely new things.
Do people notice? Well, it depends. People do notice screen-space reflections being off in traditional rendering pipelines, not always, but it happens and those AI reflections are the same kind of “mostly there in most situations but let’s cheap out to make it computationally feasible” type of deal: Ultimately processing information, tracking influence of one piece of data throughout the whole scene, comes with a minimum amount of required computational complexity and neither AI nor SSR do it.
Yeah we won’t be needing proper raytracing with this kind of tech it’s mind blowing
After seeing the horrific stuff my demented friends have made dall-e barf out I’m excited and afraid at the same time.
The example videos are both impressive (insofar that they exist) and dreadful. Two-legged horses everywhere, lots of random half-human-half-horse hybrids, walls change materials constantly, etc.
It really feels like all this does is generate 60 DALL-E images per second and little else.
For the limitations visual AI tends to have, this is still better than what I’ve seen. Objects and subjects seem pretty stable from Frame to Frame, even if those objects are quite nightmarish
I think “will Smith eating spaghetti” was only like a year ago
This would work very well with a text adventure game, though. A lot of them are already set in fantasy worlds with cosmic horrors everywhere, so this would fit well to animate what’s happening in the game
I mean, it took a couple months for AI to mostly figure out that hand situation. Video is, I’d assume, a different beast, but I can’t imagine it won’t improve almost as fast.
If this goes well, future video compression might take a massive leap. Imagine downloading 2 hours movies with just 20kb file size because it just a bunch of prompts under the hood.
This would be the most GPU intensive compression algorithm of all time :)
And the largest ever decoder since it’ll need the whole model to work. I’m not particularly knowledgeable on AI but I’ll assume this will occupy hundreds of gigabytes, correct me if I’m wrong there. In comparison, libdav1d, an av1 decoder, weighs less than 2 MB.
If you randomize the seed it’ll be a different render of the movie every time.
" but you haven’t seen the ultimate limited edition fan version action cut of the directors cut"
Sounds like you already saw Madame Web
Looks good but still has the ai hallmarks, rotating legs, f’ed up gait… impressive though and it’s going be wild to see what results from this latest pox on the tubes.
