I don't believe, movie makers are out of buisness any time soon. They will have to incorporate it though. So far this can make convincing background scenery.
It seems bizarre to think the gee whiz factor in a new commercial creative product makes critiquing its output out-of-bounds. This isn't a university research team: they're charging money for this. Most people have to determine if something is useful before they pay for it.
My son was learning how to play keyboard and he started practicing based on metronome. At some point, I was thinking, why is he learning it at all? We can program which key to be pressed at what point in time, and then a software can play itself! Why bother?
Then it hit me! Musicians could automate all the instruments with incredible accuracy since a long time. But they never do that. For some reason, they still want a person behind the piano / guitar / drums.
Outside of that, people just want to know what it feels like to be able to play their favorite song on guitar and to go skiing etc.
Being perfect at everything would be honestly boring as shit.
This is true for literally every hobby people do for fun. I am learning ceramics. Everything I've ever made could be bought in a shop for a 100th of the cost, and would be 100 times "better". But I enjoy making the pot, and it's worth more to me than some factory item.
Sona will allow a new hobby, and lots will have fun with it. Pros will still need to fo Pro things. Not everything has to be viewed through the lens of money.
I play the piano, and even though MIDI exists, I still derive a lot of enjoyment from playing an acoustic instrument.
On the other hand you've probably heard of an iPod, which I think I could describe as a device dedicated to give false sense of an ever-present musician, so to speak.
So, "they" in "they still want a person behind the piano" is not just limited to hobbyists and enthusiasts. People wants people behind an instrument, for some reason. People pays for others' suffering, not for a thing's peculiarity.
What do you judge was the ratio of automated music (recordings played back) to live music played in the last year?
But I take it, maybe I'm not so familiar with world music, I was talking more about Indian music. While the music is recorded and mixed across several tracks electronically, I think most of it is played (or sang) originally by a person.
In the US atleast there's the occasional acoustic song that becomes a hit, but rock music is obviously on its way to slowly becoming jazz status. It and country are really the last genres where live traditional instruments are common during live performances. Pop, Hip Hop, and EDM basically all are put together as being nearly computer perfect.
All the great producers can play instruments, and that's often times the best way to get a section out initially. But what you hear on Spotify is more and more meticulously put together note by note on a computer after the fact.
Live instruments on stage are now often for spectacle or worse a gimmick, and it's not the song people came to love. I think the future will have people like Lionclad[1] in it pushing what it means to perform live, but I expect them to become fewer and fewer as music just gets more complex to produce overall.
You aren't better because you prefer live music, you just have a preference. Music wasn't better some arbitrary number of years ago, you just have a preference.
Nobody said one form is objectively better, just that there is a form that is becoming more popular.
But to state my opinion, I can't imagine something more boring than thinking the best of music, performance, TV, or media in general was done best and created in the past.
> But to state my opinion, I can't imagine something more boring than thinking the best of music, performance, TV, or media in general was done best and created in the past.
And to state my opinion, art isn't about "the best" or any sort of progress, it's about the way we humans experience the world, something I consider to be a timeless preoccupation, which is why a song from 2024 can be equally touching as a ballad from the 14th century.
This actually happened on a recent hit, too -- Dua Lipa's Break My Heart. They originally had a drum machine, but then brought in Chad Smith to actually play the drums for it.
Edit: I'm not claiming this was new or unusual, just providing a recent example.
Also way before that back in the early 80’a Depeche Mode displayed the recorded drumb-reel onstage so everyone knew what it was, but when the got big enough they also transitioned into an epic live show with guitars and live drum a as well as synth-hooked drums devices they could bag on in addition to keyboards.
We are human. We want humans. Same reason I want a hipster barista to pour my coffee when a machine could do it just as well.
I've wondered about this for a long time too, why on earth is anyone still able to be a barista, it turns out, people actually like the community around cafes and often that means interacting with the staff on a personal level.
Some of my best friends have been barista's I've gone to over several years.
A recorded studio version, I can also listen to at home. But a full band performing in this very moment is a different experience to me.
(That being said, a realtime AI-based bandmate could be interesting...)
I wonder if something is lost in the recording process that just cannot be replicated? A live instrument is something that you can actually feel the sound of IMO, I've never felt the same with recorded music even though I of course enjoy it.
I wonder if when we get older we just get kind of "bored" (sadly) and it doesn't mean as much to us as it probably should.
Hilariously, nearly every electronic artist I can think of, stands in front of a crowd and "plays "live" by twisting dials etc, so I think it's fairly accurate.
Carl Cox, Tycho, Aphex Twin, Chemical Brothers, Underworld, to name a few.
I stand by my original point. There are plenty of people who really do not care if there is a human somewhere "performing" the music or not. And that's totally fine.
An ML model could probably do a good job at selecting tunes of a particular genre that fit into a pre-defined "journey" that the promoter is trying to construct, so I could see a role for "AI DJs" in the future, especially for low budget parties during unpopular timeslots like first day of a festival while people are still arriving and the crew is still setting up. Some of that is already done by just chucking a smart playlist on shuffle. But then you also have up-and-comer or hobbyist DJs who will play for free in those slots, so maybe there's not really a need for a smarter computer to take over the job.
This whole thread started from the question of why a human should do something when a machine can do it better. And the answer is simple: because humans like to do stuff. It is not because humans doing stuff adds some kind of hand-wavey X factor that other humans intrinsically prefer.
You've never been to a rave, huh? For that matter, there's a lot of pop artists that use sequencers and dispense with the traditional band on stage.
Ability to create live experiences can still be a motivating factor for musicians (aside from the love of learning). Yet, when AI does the song-writing far more effectively, then will the musician ignore this?
It's like Brave New World. Musicians who don't use these AI tools for song-writing will be like a tribe outside modern world. That's a tough future to prepare for. We won't know whether a song was actually the experience and emotions of a person or not.
Steam shovels and modern excavators didn't remove our need for shovels or more importantly, the know-how to properly apply these tools. Naturally, most people use a shovel before they operate an excavator.
Human ingenuity always finds a need for value creation. Greater abundance creates new opportunities.
Take the inverse position. Should we go back to reading by candlelight to increase employment in candle making?
No, electric lighting allowed peopled to become productive during night hours. A market was created for electricity producers, which allowed additional products which consume electricity to be marketed. Technological increases in productivity cascade into all areas of life, increasing our living standards.
A more interesting, if not controversial line of inquiry might start with: If technology is constantly advancing human productivity, why do modern economies consistently experience price inflation?
Of course, this change is dislocating for the particular people whose toil disappeared. They need support to retrain to new occupations.
The alternative is to cling to a past where everyone - on average - is poorer, less healthy, and works in more dangerous jobs.
Clearly if there are ways out of being displaced, please share them
There are subtle and deliberate deviations in timing and elements like vibrato when a human plays the same song on an instrument twice, which is partly why (aside from recording tech) people prefer live or human musicians.
Think about how precise and exacting a computer can be. It can play the same notes in a MIDI editor with exact timing, always playing note B after 18 seconds of playing note A. Human musicians can't always be that precise in timing, but we seem to prefer how human musicians sound with all of the variations they make. We seem to dislike the precise mechanical repetition of music playback on a computer comparatively.
I think the same point generalises into a general dislike on the part of humans of sensory repetition. We want variety. (Compare the first and second grass pictures at [0] and you will probably find that the second which has more "dirt" and variety looks better.) "Semantic satiation" seems to be a specific case of the same tendency.
I'm not saying that's something a computer can't achieve eventually but it's something that will need to be done before machines can replace musicians.
Also keep an eye on teeth and high contrast text. Anything small and prone to distortion in low resolution video and images used to train this stuff.
The people behind her all walk at the same pace and seem like floating. The moving reflections, on the other hand, are impressive make-believe.
And by solved, I mean they'll create convincing clips that'll be hard for people to dismiss unless they're really looking closely. I think it's only a matter of time until fake video clips lead to real life outrage and violence. This tech is going to be militarized before we know it.
I showed these demos to my partner yesterday and she was upset about how real AI has become, how little we will be able to trust what we see in the future. Authoritative sources will be more valuable, but they themselves may struggle to publish only the facts and none of the fiction.
Here's one possible military / political use:
The commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Viktor Sokolov, is widely believed to have been killed by a missile strike on 22 September 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Sokolov_(naval_officer)
Russian authorities refute his death and have released proof of life footage, which may be doctored or taken before his death. Authoritative source Wikipedia is not much help in establishing truth here, because without proof of death they must default to toeing the official line.
I predict that in the coming months Sokolov (who just yesterday was removed from his post) will re-emerge in the video realm, and go on to have a glorious career. Resurrecting dead heroes is a perfect use of this tech, for states where feeding people lies is preferable to arming them with the truth.
Sokolov may even go on to be the next Russian President.
I think this way of thinking is distracted. No type of media has ever been a source of truth in itself. Videos have been edited convincingly for a long time, and people can lie about their context or cut them in a way that flips their meaning.
Text is the easiest media to lie on, you can freely just make stuff up as you go, yet we don't say "we cannot trust written text anymore".
Well yeah duh, you can trust no type of media just because it is formatted in a certain way. We arrive at the truth by using multiple sources and judging the sources' track records of the past. AI is not going to change how sourcing works. It might be easier to fool people who have no media literacy, but those people have always been a problem for society.
You are right but the thing with this is the speed and ease with which you can generate something completely fake.
> Well yeah duh, you can trust no type of media just because it is formatted in a certain way
Maybe you wouldn't, but the layperson probably would.
> We arrive at the truth by using multiple sources and judging the sources' track records of the past
Again, this is something that the ideal person would, not the average layperson. Almost nobody would go through all that to decide if they want to believe something or not. Presenting them a video of this sometjing would've been a surefire way to force them to believe it though, at least before Sora.
> people have always been a problem for society
Unrelated, but I think this attitude is by far the bigger "problem for society". It encourages us to look down on some people even when we do not know their circumstances or reasons, all for an extremely trivial matter. It encourages gatekeeping and hostility, and I think that kind of attitude is at least as detrimental to society as people with no media literacy.
But even then, as nowadays, people didn't trust the medium absolutely. The possibility of forgery was real, as it has been with the video, even before generative AI.
'pics or it didn't happen' has been a thing (possibly) until very recently for good reason.
I really find this constant back and forth exhausting. It's always the same conversation: '(gen)AI makes it easy to create lots of fake news and disinformation etc.' --> 'but we've always been able to do that. have you not guys not heard of photoshop?' --> 'yes, but not on this scale this quickly. can you not see the difference?'
Anyway, my original point was simply to say that a lot of people have (rightly or wrongly) indeed taken photographic evidence seriously, even in the age of photographic manipulation (which as you point out, pretty much coincides with the age of photography itself).
Why have you been trusting videos? The only difference is that the cost will decrease.
Haven't you seen Holywood movies? CGI has been convincing enough for a decade. Just add some compression and shaky mobile cam and it would be impossible to tell the difference on anything.
Every piece of information should have "how do you know?" question attached.
We've been living in a post-truth society for a while now. Thanks to "the algorithm" interacting with basic human behavior, you can find something somewhere that will tell you anything is true. You'll even find a community of people who'll be more than happy to feed your personal echo chamber -- downvoting & blocking any objections and upvoting and encouraging anything that feeds the beast.
And this doesn't just apply to "dumb people" or "the others", it applies to the very people reading this forum right now. You and me and everybody here lives in their safe, sound truth bubble. Don't like what people tell you? Just find somebody or something that will assure you that whatever it is you think, you are thinking the truth. No, everybody is the asshole who is wrong. Fuck those pond scum spreaders of "misinformation".
It could be a blog, it could be some AI generated video, it could even be "esteemed" newspapers like the New York Times or NPR. Everybody thinks their truth is the correct one and thanks to the selective power of the internet, we can all believe whatever truth we want. And honestly, at this point, I am suspecting there might not be any kind of ground truth. It's bullshit all the way down.
we need ground truths for these things to actually function. how else can things work together?
People already know that video cannot be taken at face value. Lord of the rings didn't make anyone belive orcs really exist.
Which is a huge deal. It’s absurd to brush that off.
> People already know that video cannot be taken at face value.
No, no they do not. People don’t even know to not take photos at face value, let alone video.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/26/that-viral...
If anything, making it cheap enough that people have to dismiss video footage might soften the impact. It is interesting how the internet is making it much harder for the mass media to peddle unchallenged lies or slanted perspectives. This tech might counter-intuitively make it harder again.
It's still an issue with traditional mass media. See basically any political environment where the Murdoch media empire is active. The long tail of (I hate myself for this terminology, but hey, it's HN) 'legacy humans' still vote and have a very real affect on society.
The only winning move is to not watch.
Riots happen due to out of context video clips. Violence happens due to people seeing grainy phone videos and acting on it immediately. We're reaching a point where these videos can be automatically generated instantly by anyone. If you can't see the difference between anyone with a grudge generating a video that looks realistic enough, and something that requires hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of employees to attain similar quality, then you're simply lying.
Denise Richards hard sharp knees in '97
--
these infant tech are already insanely good... just wait and rahter try to focus on the "what should I be betting on in 5 years from now?
I suggest 'invisibility cloaks' (ghosts in machines?)
We were not even able to just create random videos by just text promoting a few years back and now this.
The progress is crazy.
Why do you dismiss this?
The progress doesn't slow down right now at all.
This is probably one of the most exciting developments in the world besides the Internet.
And Geminis news regarding the 1 million token window shows were we are going.
This will impact a lot of people faster than a lot of people realize
AI won't make artistic decisions that wow an audience.
AI won't teach you something about the human condition.
AI will only enable higher quarterly profits from layoffs until GPU costs catch up.
What the fuck is the point of AI automating away jobs when the only people who benefit are the already enormously wealthy? AI won't be providing time to relax for the average worker, it will induce starvation. Anything to prevent will be stopped via lobbying to ensure taxes don't rise.
Seriously, what is the point? What is the point? What the fuck is there to live for when art and humanities is undermined by the MBA class and all you fucking have is 3 gig jobs to prevent starvation?
We are not very good in providing anything reasonable today because capitalism is still way to strong and manual laber still way to necessary.
Nonetheless look at my country Germany: we are a social state. Plenty of people get 'free' money and it works.
The other good thing: there are plenty of people who know what good is (good art etc) but are not able to draw. The can also express themselves. AI as a tool.
If we as society discover that there will be no really new music or art happening I don't know what we will do.
Plenty of people are well entertained with crap anyway.
It's not ML fault that we don't have UBI, it's voters' faults.
My benchmark is the following: imagine if someone 5 years ago told you that in 5 years we could do this, you would think they were crazy.
This is weird to me considering how much better this is than the SOTA still images 2 years ago. Even though there's weirdo artefacts in several of their example videos (indeed including migrating fingers), that stuff will be super easy to clean up, just as it is now for stills. And it's not going to stop improving.
"The camera follows behind a white vintage SUV with a black roof": The letters clearly wobble inconsistently.
"A drone camera circles around a beautiful historic church built on a rocky outcropping along the Amalfi Coast": The woman in the white dress in the bottom left suddenly splits into multiple people like she was a single cell microbe multiplying.
Edit: sorry, it’s not the first diffusion transformer. That would be [2]
[1] https://openai.com/research/video-generation-models-as-world...
I would expect any subscription to use this service when it comes out to be very expensive. At some point I have to imagine the GPU/CPU horsepower needed will outweigh the monetary costs that could be recovered. Storage costs too. Its much easier to tinker with generating text or static images in that regard.
Of note: NVDA's quarterly results come out next week.
So... I think OP's point stands. (impressive, surpasses human/algorithmic animation thus far).
You're also right. There are "tells." But, a tell isn't a tell until we've seen it a few times.
Jaron Lanier makes a point about novel technology. The first gramophone users thought it sounded identical to live orchestra. When very early films depicting a train coming towards a camera, and people fell out of their chairs... Blurry black and white, super slow frame rate projected on a bedsheet.
Early 3d animation was mindblowing in the 90s. Now it seems like a marionette show. Well... I suppose there was a time when marionette shows were not campy. They probably looked magic.
It seems we need some experience before we internalize the tells and it starts to look fake. My own eye for CG images seems to improving faster then the quality. We're all learning to recognize GPT generated text. I'm sure these motion captures will look more fake to us soon.
That said... the fact that we're having this discussion proves that what we have here is "novel." We're looking at a breakthrough in motion/animation.
Also, I'm not sure "real" is necessary. For games or film what we need is rich and believable, not real.
Once you have seen a few you can tell instantly. They all move at 2 keyframes per second, that makes all movements seem alien and everything in an image moves strangely in sync. The dog moves in slow motion since they need more keyframes etc. That street some looks like they move in slow motion and others not.
People will quickly learn to notice those issues, they aren't even subtle once you are aware of them, not to mention the disappearing things etc.
And that wouldn't be very easy to fix, they need to train it on keyframes because training frame by frame is too much.
But that should make this really easy for others to replicate. You just train on keyframes and then train a model to fill in between keyframes, and you get this. It has some limitations as we see with movement keeping the same pace in every video, but there are a lot of cool results from it anyway.
Luckily, I think he'll retire sooner than later, and maybe it will get better then.
Given the momentum in this space, I think you will have get very uncomfortable super quick about any of the shortcomings of any particular model.
Don't get me wrong, it is impressive. But I think many people will be very uncomfortable with such motion very quickly. Same story as the fingers before.