Before AI, each video on this channel would have taken a large team with a Hollywood budget to create. In a few more years, one person may be able to turn their creative vision into a full-length movie.
No, but there's some stuff that are really creative. Ironically I think the reason I'm more positive about it is because I only encounter AI generated (non-text media) ~ once a week / 2 weeks.
But modern AI could create images which are basically indistinguishable from a real Monet if you are not an expert. So the fact that you like Monet's pictures, but not Monet-like AI pictures, shows that part of what you like is the fact that an image is made by a specific human instead of being generated by a diffusion model.
I dunno, look at these [0] I think they're quite nice! But I can imagine getting bombarded with them all day can eventually turn someone off. (I assume I'd feel the same if I saw 100 Monet's every day for 3 years)
The value will shift to search or curation - if the cost to produce drops to nil, then the value will be in finding good content amongst a flood of sameness.
Those videos look like some teenager thoughtlessly applying an aftereffects filter(whatever) to 1000 short selfie videos. On What planet would this require a Hollywood budget and years? Who are you shilling for exactly? Do you really believe what you write.
Things are cool because they are unique, very hard to create, and require creativity. When those things become cheap commodities, they are no longer cool.
Exactly. Pushing a photo through a Van Gogh filter doesn't get near what a real Van Gogh expresses. It's in a temporal context, communicates something about the person and their thoughts about reality. Their artistic choices matter, because they can't just put out 10 different variations, instead they have to pick one. And then we can think about why that one was chosen.
The same could be said about software, and it's safe to say that open-source software making complex workflows easier and more efficient is a net good.
Making better tools is better for everyone: the median usage of those tools downstream is a separate issue.
Indeed. Art is partially evaluated by how impressive it is. That's why posting AI images on social media won't yield a lot of likes anymore. People have gotten used to images being easy to create, so they aren't seen as valuable anymore. The same will be true for videos.
AI pictures today are much less impressive than Dall-E 2 pictures were a few years ago, despite the fact that the models are much better nowadays. Currently AI videos can still be impressive, but this will quickly become a thing of the past.
Then people will move from trying to create art to creating "content". That is, non-artistic slop. Advertisements. Porn. Meme jokes. Click bait. Rage bait. Propaganda. Etc.
I would argue that we just get pickier and more sensitive to slop. When everyone can make a movie, the standard for a good movie will be higher. Many current Hollywood films wouldn’t make the cut. But maybe some kid in Nigeria makes the greatest film of all time.
Hard to interpret that comment as anything but racist. Chinua Achebe is widely considered one of the greatest modern novelists. He was 28 when he wrote Things Fall Apart.
Perhaps learn the meaning of the phrase "by commonly accepted measures" before you accuse someone of racism. I'm pretty sure hardly anyone knows about Chinua Achebe, so your definition of "widely" must be quite wide.
Things Fall Apart has sold over 20 million copies and has been translated into more than 50 languages. It is a staple of literature curriculums in schools and universities across the globe. That isn't a "wide" definition of widely known; it's the standard one.
Then you have Chimamanda Adichie, who has sold millions of copies and won several awards, including the BBC National Short Story Award, widely described as "one of the most prestigious awards for a single short story"
Then another Nigerian writer, Wole Soyinka, won the Nobel fucking Prize in Literature in 1986. Or is that measure not good enough for you, your highness ?
Not only do you come across as racist, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Congratulations.
These examples seem highly cherry-picked. If you look at bestseller lists, or writers who average people actually know, the results are in fact very different. Your accusation ("racist") is defamatory.
Calling a Nobel Prize winner, among others 'cherry-picked' in an argument about literary greats where you asked for 'commonly accepted measures' is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever read, so congratulations again.
You were thoroughly proven wrong so now your new standard for literary greatness is "writers that average people know" ? (which is really just code for 'writers I know', because millions do know those writers, I wasn't sharing some secret). I guess that means we can throw out Faulkner, Joyce, and Woolf in favor of whoever's currently at the top of the airport bookstore list.
It's not "defamatory" to point out that your argument, which began with a dismissive generalization about an entire country, was based on profound ignorance (the kind that wouldn't have taken anything more than a basic google search to remedy). You were corrected with facts. Instead of going, 'I stand corrected, sorry', you're doubling down. It just makes you look worse, and stupid.
This is the most basic racist playbook happening in real time, and you're the star. If you genuinely think you aren't then you need to take a long, good look at yourself.
I wasn't claiming they had ownership of that aesthetic, and that sort of gets into philosophical questions about whether one can own such a thing anyways. I like the style and I'm glad they have the tools to bring it into clarity from the abstract.
Advertising: you (her) wearing new clothing before purchase, hair/glasses/makeup, make overs; guys after 3 months of gym membership, you driving the new car, you in this specific new home... etc, etc... I'm surprised this is not already everywhere, but people are too occupied making nsfw and fantasy violence clips.
Targeted advertising has become just manipulation. I don't know if personalized advertisement videos for everyone promoting a fake world that doesn't exist is really a benefit for the world...
If course it's not a benefit, but it's an advertising angle that will work very well with a class of gullible consumers, and that is enough to justify it being plastered everywhere. I don't write these rules, I just notice them.
Democracy? Strengthened! Nothing says “informed electorate” like not knowing if a politician actually said they support nazism or if it was just a hyper-realistic AI puppet.
Trust in media? Soaring! Why believe your eyes or ears when you can doubt everything equally?
Journalism? Thriving! Reporters now get to spend their days playing forensic video detective instead of, you know, reporting news.
Social harmony? Better than ever! Nothing brings people together like shared paranoia and the collective shrug of “I guess truth is dead now.”
lol i wonder if this will create a market for PKI at the image sensor level so that videos will be cryptographically signed and baked into the actual video stream with steganography.
I imagine it's incredibly useful for prototyping movies, tv, commercials before going to the final version. CGI will probably get way cheaper too with some hybrid approach.
Obviously this will get used for a lot of evil or bad as well
I feel like that's missing the point of pre-vis anyway, its purpose is to lay down key details with precision but without regard for fidelity (e.g. https://youtu.be/KMMeHPGV5VE), a system with high fidelity but very loose control is the exact opposite of what they want.
... how dare you, sir. That is entirely unacceptable and you will be reported to the ministry of proper living!
Regardless of the slop, some people will learn to use it well. You have stuff like NeuralViz - quite the sight! - and other creators will follow suit, and figure out how to use the new tools to produce content that's worth engaging with. Bigfoot vlogs and dinosaur chase scenes, all that stuff is mostly just fun.
People like to play. Let them play. This stuff looks fun, and beats Sora 1 by a long shot.
People are doing cool things with it. Here’s one example:
https://www.tiktok.com/@dreamrelicc
Before AI, each video on this channel would have taken a large team with a Hollywood budget to create. In a few more years, one person may be able to turn their creative vision into a full-length movie.
I speak for everyone when I say we don't need these videos at all and would be better off without them
I disagree, so not everyone, I guess!
This is absolutely horrible.
People need to be exposed to what is real. Not more artificial stuff.
I think this is the point at which humanity will finally puke and reject this crap.
Just because a small segment of people like it doesnt mean the mass majority will.
I personally love Monet, he's not for everyone, I know, but I'm sure you can find some art you appreciate
You probably don't personally love AI generated impressionist content.
No, but there's some stuff that are really creative. Ironically I think the reason I'm more positive about it is because I only encounter AI generated (non-text media) ~ once a week / 2 weeks.
But modern AI could create images which are basically indistinguishable from a real Monet if you are not an expert. So the fact that you like Monet's pictures, but not Monet-like AI pictures, shows that part of what you like is the fact that an image is made by a specific human instead of being generated by a diffusion model.
I dunno, look at these [0] I think they're quite nice! But I can imagine getting bombarded with them all day can eventually turn someone off. (I assume I'd feel the same if I saw 100 Monet's every day for 3 years)
[0] https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-ton-of-ai-images-ive-mad...
Maybe your real is good. For most people on Earth, real isn't that great.
What are the benefits of those videos?
What are the benefits of producing any video?
What are the benefits of this comment?
Challenging the value of AI generated "art"
Then the purpose of those videos is to challenge the value of non AI generated "art"
(half sarcastic, but you could make the argument that most art has no benefit besides to the person that made the art)
Nice! I enjoyed this sub thread. I'm not sure what I conclude but I enjoyed thinking about this.
> In a few more years, one person may be able to turn their creative vision into a full-length movie.
Yes, but at the same time the value of video production will quickly drop to 0. Or to whatever it costs to generate that video in terms of tokens.
The value will shift to search or curation - if the cost to produce drops to nil, then the value will be in finding good content amongst a flood of sameness.
Those videos look like some teenager thoughtlessly applying an aftereffects filter(whatever) to 1000 short selfie videos. On What planet would this require a Hollywood budget and years? Who are you shilling for exactly? Do you really believe what you write.
> People are doing cool things with it
Things are cool because they are unique, very hard to create, and require creativity. When those things become cheap commodities, they are no longer cool.
Exactly. Pushing a photo through a Van Gogh filter doesn't get near what a real Van Gogh expresses. It's in a temporal context, communicates something about the person and their thoughts about reality. Their artistic choices matter, because they can't just put out 10 different variations, instead they have to pick one. And then we can think about why that one was chosen.
The same could be said about software, and it's safe to say that open-source software making complex workflows easier and more efficient is a net good.
Making better tools is better for everyone: the median usage of those tools downstream is a separate issue.
If you're comparing how art is evaluated to how software is evaluated then it sounds like you only understand one or the other.
Indeed. Art is partially evaluated by how impressive it is. That's why posting AI images on social media won't yield a lot of likes anymore. People have gotten used to images being easy to create, so they aren't seen as valuable anymore. The same will be true for videos.
AI pictures today are much less impressive than Dall-E 2 pictures were a few years ago, despite the fact that the models are much better nowadays. Currently AI videos can still be impressive, but this will quickly become a thing of the past.
Then people will move from trying to create art to creating "content". That is, non-artistic slop. Advertisements. Porn. Meme jokes. Click bait. Rage bait. Propaganda. Etc.
I would argue that we just get pickier and more sensitive to slop. When everyone can make a movie, the standard for a good movie will be higher. Many current Hollywood films wouldn’t make the cut. But maybe some kid in Nigeria makes the greatest film of all time.
By that logic, some kid in Nigeria could have written the greatest book of all time. At least by commonly accepted measures, that didn't happen.
Hard to interpret that comment as anything but racist. Chinua Achebe is widely considered one of the greatest modern novelists. He was 28 when he wrote Things Fall Apart.
Perhaps learn the meaning of the phrase "by commonly accepted measures" before you accuse someone of racism. I'm pretty sure hardly anyone knows about Chinua Achebe, so your definition of "widely" must be quite wide.
Things Fall Apart has sold over 20 million copies and has been translated into more than 50 languages. It is a staple of literature curriculums in schools and universities across the globe. That isn't a "wide" definition of widely known; it's the standard one.
Then you have Chimamanda Adichie, who has sold millions of copies and won several awards, including the BBC National Short Story Award, widely described as "one of the most prestigious awards for a single short story"
Then another Nigerian writer, Wole Soyinka, won the Nobel fucking Prize in Literature in 1986. Or is that measure not good enough for you, your highness ?
Not only do you come across as racist, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Congratulations.
These examples seem highly cherry-picked. If you look at bestseller lists, or writers who average people actually know, the results are in fact very different. Your accusation ("racist") is defamatory.
Calling a Nobel Prize winner, among others 'cherry-picked' in an argument about literary greats where you asked for 'commonly accepted measures' is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever read, so congratulations again.
You were thoroughly proven wrong so now your new standard for literary greatness is "writers that average people know" ? (which is really just code for 'writers I know', because millions do know those writers, I wasn't sharing some secret). I guess that means we can throw out Faulkner, Joyce, and Woolf in favor of whoever's currently at the top of the airport bookstore list.
It's not "defamatory" to point out that your argument, which began with a dismissive generalization about an entire country, was based on profound ignorance (the kind that wouldn't have taken anything more than a basic google search to remedy). You were corrected with facts. Instead of going, 'I stand corrected, sorry', you're doubling down. It just makes you look worse, and stupid.
This is the most basic racist playbook happening in real time, and you're the star. If you genuinely think you aren't then you need to take a long, good look at yourself.
I love the aesthetic in this person's videos, I just wish it wasn't on tiktok :(
The problem is, it isn't their aesthetic, it's a resynthesis of the aesthetic of someone else's work.
I wasn't claiming they had ownership of that aesthetic, and that sort of gets into philosophical questions about whether one can own such a thing anyways. I like the style and I'm glad they have the tools to bring it into clarity from the abstract.
This is terrible
It's fun: maybe not for everyone, but there's clearly sufficient interest in it.
Whether said fun is "worth" the social and economic costs is a separate issue.
Advertising: you (her) wearing new clothing before purchase, hair/glasses/makeup, make overs; guys after 3 months of gym membership, you driving the new car, you in this specific new home... etc, etc... I'm surprised this is not already everywhere, but people are too occupied making nsfw and fantasy violence clips.
Targeted advertising has become just manipulation. I don't know if personalized advertisement videos for everyone promoting a fake world that doesn't exist is really a benefit for the world...
If course it's not a benefit, but it's an advertising angle that will work very well with a class of gullible consumers, and that is enough to justify it being plastered everywhere. I don't write these rules, I just notice them.
Democracy? Strengthened! Nothing says “informed electorate” like not knowing if a politician actually said they support nazism or if it was just a hyper-realistic AI puppet.
Trust in media? Soaring! Why believe your eyes or ears when you can doubt everything equally?
Journalism? Thriving! Reporters now get to spend their days playing forensic video detective instead of, you know, reporting news.
Social harmony? Better than ever! Nothing brings people together like shared paranoia and the collective shrug of “I guess truth is dead now.”
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong?
lol i wonder if this will create a market for PKI at the image sensor level so that videos will be cryptographically signed and baked into the actual video stream with steganography.
I imagine it's incredibly useful for prototyping movies, tv, commercials before going to the final version. CGI will probably get way cheaper too with some hybrid approach.
Obviously this will get used for a lot of evil or bad as well
can you imagine a billion dollar company promoting their new pre-vis app?
I feel like that's missing the point of pre-vis anyway, its purpose is to lay down key details with precision but without regard for fidelity (e.g. https://youtu.be/KMMeHPGV5VE), a system with high fidelity but very loose control is the exact opposite of what they want.
Fun.
... how dare you, sir. That is entirely unacceptable and you will be reported to the ministry of proper living!
Regardless of the slop, some people will learn to use it well. You have stuff like NeuralViz - quite the sight! - and other creators will follow suit, and figure out how to use the new tools to produce content that's worth engaging with. Bigfoot vlogs and dinosaur chase scenes, all that stuff is mostly just fun.
People like to play. Let them play. This stuff looks fun, and beats Sora 1 by a long shot.
Hopefully it catalyzes
I can have an idea and see a video of something like my idea pretty quickly.
What are the benefits of what you do? Does anyone know?
- Political propaganda
- Scamming people at scale
- Nonconsensual pornography
- Juicing engagement metrics for fading social media sites
- The ongoing destruction of truth as a concept in our increasingly atomized and divided world
I think the last one takes the cake.