AI Generated Video

So they managed to create an AI capable of generating videos off of the back of diffusion models. This means that one can create a shockingly detailed and smooth video with nothing but a text prompt. It is nowhere near photorealistic at the moment, but given the rate that AI has recently been able to advance in the realm of image generation, I think that we can expect this stuff to get exponentially better in the next few years, especially given its greater variety of uses. We have had deep-fakes for a while now, but they rely on being overlayered on existing footage. This technology allows for new footage to be generated, almost as if from thin air. It will be really interesting to see if this tech could be combined with deep-fake technology to falsify the appearance of specific individuals that the AI's dataset does not posses sufficient information to replicate by default for one reason or another. https://imagen.research.google/video/ https://imagen.research.google/video/paper.pdf

Bump. I cannot wait until AI video generation becomes widespread. Production of all sorts of media will become cheap and accessible to anybody, a renaissance for art and a thriving remix generation. When it hits programming as a quasi-7th generation programming method. H AI L

The thing about ai generated anything is that it is almost always a rehash of training data. It is entirely likely that almost all of these videos were almost verbatim in the training set.

>>64945 I don't even know why we call it AI. It's essentially a marketing buzzword. If it didn't exist we would call it something boring like video mixing software which would get down to what it actually is doing. What it does is barely intelligent. And people really do stress the definition of AI. You hear something like "ai can make art". Well no, it splices existing pieces people made. Same with language when we talk about these text generating models. It's just there's so much sentences that you can make a somewhat predict what should be writen next to a certain prompt. If you ask these models a valid sentence but an rather obscure one or outside of their data sets, they don't say that they don't know or ask you to elaborate, which would mean understanding of language. They just fumble their way awkardly by picking similar things to reply with that make no sense. Usually when you say this you get to hear from ai folks that people do just that too. But not really. There is countless examples from history of people inventing new ways of doing things like images. They might have been based of existing things, but they are truly novel and revolutionary to a large extent. A good way to think about it is that our world isn't the same as it was just 300 years ago. But if we put an AI 300 years ago in the past and fed it every data we could back then. It wouldn't in 300 years have come up with the present. It would just repeat what was in fashion 300 years ago. You just wouldn't see a car ever be generated from that model. Which actually makes me wonder too what the point of this AI is. Do we really need to be drowned in derrivative work? Aren't there enough images and videos online to see? In my eyes it's lot of work on essentially non existing problem. I wouldn't mind if what we call AI was used for something good and useful for society. Which it sometimes is. But it seems to me that solving actual problems isn't as profitable and/or desirable as essentially entertainment

>>64946 >Usually when you say this you get to hear from ai folks that people do just that too. >But if we put an AI 300 years ago in the past and fed it every data we could back then. It wouldn't in 300 years have come up with the present. It would just repeat what was in fashion 300 years ago. That's just to say AI is about as smart as most NPCs

>>64946 This is accurate, but I think there are lots of uses of "AI" as it exists. For example, recently i was shown a chinese photo editing app that allowed users to select different parts of the face and change them. Stuff that would have taken hours/days to do well in photoshop can now be done with zero knowledge on your smartphone. The real benefit of "AI" isn't making new stuff... it's identifying components of existing stuff and modifying them in a coherent way.

>>64944 And society will also be further pushed to the edge of collapse because we won't be easily able to be sure if what we see in the media is trustworthy. Even the most basic benign tidbits of news will be fakeable.

>>64954 Not like AI is needed to fake anything audiovisual when you're talking about well funded entities. *shrugs* Maybe it'll inspire more people to rely on literature for awareness and ignore the reality tv politics show.

>>64953 >This is accurate, but I think there are lots of uses of "AI" as it exists. I don't disagree with that and I'm fine with these models being used. I'm just sceptical about means for which they would be used. >For example, recently i was shown a chinese photo editing app that allowed users to select different parts of the face and change them. Stuff that would have taken hours/days to do well in photoshop can now be done with zero knowledge on your smartphone. This is a bad use already. Because we really won't be better off when people can edit their looks like crazy. Lot of people, especially women but recently men too, are really insecure about their looks because of unrealistic images they see online. I don't really think making editing easy helps that in any way. And it's not just ugly people who are insecure. I've used to know a really beautiful woman and she was insecure to the core. You wouldn't believe how much really. When she was 20 she already was talking about plastic surgery in case any wrinkle would show even though she could be a model easily. And I think this kind of extends to more things. Like recently there was this talk about art. But we don't need millions of art pieces generated. Art is something that gets it's value from originality and quality. And while AI can frequently shoot out quality, it has issues with originality. Which wouldn't be bad if not for the scale it generates on. I think DALL-E was out for few months already and apparently it generated few millions of images. So even if you make a truly original work, it wouldn't be seen since there's million of AI pieces making it essentially invisible. Although if you don't value art it might not matter to you. But this extends to everything. Image this with design. And design is important since last thing a pilot would want to be in is a badly desgined cockpit. There's lot of bad design around, but you can argue with one bad design and replace it with something better. Try making arguments about bad design if millions of designs are generated and supported by people who believe AI is this super intelligence that can't be wrong. And there really are lot of AI believers around. Just go read any piece or watch any video about these things and there's talk about how AI will replace humans with everything in few short years. It's borderline becoming a religion and a dogma and that's bad. If not for the reasons above which, I have an other reason. Steam engine is a good idea but because of our ignorance and neglect we allowed such things to happen as children working in coal mines, polution of seas causing mass death to anything that lived in them, and workdays where the workers started and ended their day at such times that they might as well have not seen the sun. We have fumbled on these things and made them better over centuries. Although it wasn't pretty seeing how many workers revolts there needed to be just for humane work conditions. And environment to this day is being ruined. But alright, we did improve few things. But none of it was really necessary. It was just us thinking short term which caused us trouble. Now imagine all the issues "AI" might bring when we use that kind of short term thinking again. Which is already worrysome, but what worries me is the belief it has about replacing people. That turns it from just a tragedy to a self fulfilling tragedy. I can imagine a future where people have even less job security. Where bad ideas can't be argued with because they came from the "all knowing" AI and how dare you speak against it, and culture has devolved into easy to digest porn images morphed to your taste. So what I am asking is not really to not use it. But more a mature use of it. Like using AI to detect various medical conditions would be a good use. Or there was news few years back how AI models were used to predict protein folding. That's a fine use of these things, provided we never see them as the final and all knowing solution.

>>64957 >Where bad ideas can't be argued with because they came from the "all knowing" AI and how dare you speak against it Scariest thing is that this already happened in the netherlands. Parents in the netherlands could get money from the government if they had a low income. The belastingdienst (tax organ of the government) would analyze people for fraud using a computer program. The result of this was that the computer program started advising that parents with dual citizenship should not get any money anymore and have to payback what they had received. This wasn't the only reason and i'm doing a bad job of explaining it. Apparently there's a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_childcare_benefits_scandal

>>64944 >Take anime fan fiction >train AI on the original series >automatically generated anime fan series Better yet, instead of using fan fiction use AI to generate the script based on user defined tags or browsing data. Algorithmically personalized automatically generated entertainment! I love living in the future. This is so much better than flying cars and cyborgs and all the other science-fiction stuff I used to consume when I was a kid.

I don't like where AI is going.

>>64946 >I don't even know why we call it AI. Not sure if you really don't know or if that's just how you phrased it, but here's why: methods like neural networks were researched with the goal of creating actual AI. So while they are not actually AI, they are AI-inspired. That and marketing as you said. But yeah, calling it AI is very misleading, especially in pop science and news articles for people who don't know much about the topic.

In this short presentation an AI lays out its plan to automate the entire world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VXJ_-117M

congratulations, video evidence is now dead expect thousands of idea guys pitching DRM-eqsue solutions like watermarking inside the AI as well as real cameras, to "solve" this

>>64962 all law is already algorithmic. all those clauses are branches. naturally, it has the same problem with "AI" of having blatantly retarded outcomes. the underlying problem here is called "statism". and also why the hell do you need my tax money to have a child. having a child is the most useless waste of time imaginable. i've never even understood it, i've always assumed it was a last ditch attempt for people who failed at life to attempt to accomplish something. which would be a believable line of reasoning for the average petty person now because we've had so many children, we can't even have properly working lights in houses (LED alpha quality crap which like LCDs, will probably never match up to their predecessors outside one category [efficiency, sharpness in the case of LCD]).

>>64992 same lainon STEM furries will one day destroy humanity and it will appear as if we brought it upon ourselves as a punishment soykafs getting real scary in the next few years i wonder what evil implications FAGMAN can do with this >>64991 heh based i wonder if they can de-poz cartoon network with this hell they even did it once with little mermaid

>>64957 >Because we really won't be better off when people can edit their looks like crazy. The editing wasn't the interesting part, it was that the program could accurately detect areas of the face and what transformation would lead to the desired effect (most of the time). AI-based motion capture, face articulation detection, etc. are also things that are currently used to great effect in the entertainment industry, and not just to create a mountain of schlock to make teenage girls insecure. >But more a mature use of it. Like using AI to detect various medical conditions would be a good use. I have colleagues who work on that kind of thing, and I also used to work on an adjacent field. Unlike with the entertainment industry and "business analytics", the algorithm actually has to be reliable so you can't just treat it like a plug-n-play black box like they do in industries where nobody dies if you fuarrrk up. Some places (typically oldschool automotive manufacturers and the like) take that seriously and hire qualified people, other places just assume any off-the-shelf code will work and hire a single C++ guy to plug it in. A similar thing is happening in other fields of science. Since some previously quite arcane techniques like finite elements and persistent homology have gotten high quality free software releases, a lot of commercial engineers just throw software at the problem without doing the (often very subtle) analysis to ensure that they're going to get sensible answers. At best, this leads to lots of wasted effort as they empirically rediscover basic mathematical facts that they would know if they had read theory.

Just a random tangent but why is the AI code 'black box' issue as big as an issue as claimed? Couldn't you just get AI to explain its own code? In regards to art, every reason that is brought up of why AI may destroy art seems to me like a reason why it won't, at least not in our lifetimes. Even in human error there's a consistency with soul, and people value things made by people intrinsically. The big picture is it's disruptive like any great advancement, but to say its harmful seems too hasty a conclusion. If it lowers accessibility to where everybody has their own illustrations, video content, and music then industry moves to value quality more. If literally everything digital is subject to being a fake, then people will seek the more substantial. This will be another (significant) piece of proof that collectively our interaction with technology is in over our heads when it comes to stability of our philosophy and interaction with the world, and force us to try and keep up and revise our relationship with it. As individuals we will as the years go on be further lost in the fractal complexity of innovation, and will either become nothing or everything in our futile grapple to understand and control it. Unavoidably both. Pandora's box was opened long before this and will not be shut. Keep your feet on the ground because in the clouds its hyperreality. I personally think beneficial technology peaked in the early 2000s as I like some stability, but still that was probably a naive illusion.

>>65012 >all law is already algorithmic Oh no it's not. A lot of on the spectrum code monkeys and silicon valley libertarian technology types hold that opinion and they either get quickly shut down by their legal departments or completely obliterated in courts. My dude we don't even have a working logic of rules even though a bunch of unfathomably brilliant European law theorists and logicians have been trying to figure it out for over a hundred years at this point. Just no, law is not an algorithm and law is not a code, it's a chaotic and fuzzy domain that's closer to theater than it is to mathematics.

>>65024 >why is the AI code 'black box' issue as big as an issue as claimed? It is worth separating "the code" or "the algorithm" from "the weights". The code implements an algorithm, which produces and uses some weights to create the result you want. Weights are the result of training, using code written by humans that implements an algorithm that was thought up by humans. We know pretty well why and how these algorithms work. Typically when people talk about "the black box issue" they mean that it is, usually, practically impossible to say why exactly the weights are the way they are. They just happen to fit the data just right. There is a lot of work in the academic sphere to fix this problem, but it's probably not a solvable problem, but it's also (IMO) not as big of a problem as people make it out to be. >>65018 was talking about a different problem, which is ignorant people using the algorithm/code without understanding it. This leads to situations where people try to apply some machine learning algorithm to a problem that it is not suited for (so: the produced weights are garbage). This is very widespread and I suspect it is already leading to massive business failures, and may lead to loss of life.

>>65024 >If it lowers accessibility to where everybody has their own illustrations, video content, and music then industry moves to value quality more. Problem is what matters is what consumers value, not industry. Supply goes way up, demand stays the same, what happens to price? It may not destroy art, but it seems pretty clear that the total amount of money flowing towards commercial art is going to be less and with more people competing for it. Not to say this means the end of art, what you're saying is generally right, and I think AI is going to open new avenues of human expression that haven't yet been fully explored. But the economy can't keep up and will be standing in the way.

>>65018 >AI-based motion capture, face articulation detection, etc. are also things that are currently used to great effect in the entertainment industry, and not just to create a mountain of schlock to make teenage girls insecure. I mean, one one hand I would say it's still entertainment and a good question would be why do we want that? Not because entertainment is bad by itself, but in recent years everything is entertainment, and it's frequently predatory and derrivative entertainment. Like do we really need even more movies that are rehashes of previous ones? Because that's recently what entertainment industry is. Just look how many nostalgic movies and games are coming out these days. Like this work could have been put somewhere better. I guess one counter example would be it gives the average person tools to make stuff and maybe thereby allowing more innovative things to come out. But issue I have with this is that these thing work on unpaid work of others. None of these AI would work if we didn't have millions of data from everyone. And all that data was essentially just picked without any payment or questioning which makes sure people who put in work will be struggling more in the future. A simple example would be. In the past being a musician could pay somewhat well. So you were safe to explore and come up with something new. Then the web came and made music free. Which meant you had to be at the top of charts to earn something meaningful and be safe. Now with AI you will have to fight millions of repetitions of existing music and you won't be paid anything to explore music on your own. With that, these tools are also very centralized. Because no one else really has the power to gather and compute that much data to train these models. So really the so called democratization essentially is more like shifting the production power to an other elite than anything resembling tools that are made for everyone.

>>65041 > In the past being a musician could pay somewhat well. So you were safe to explore and come up with something new. I would argue that in fact being a musician *didn't* used to pay very well unless you were signed with a major record label, which would severely constrain your available musical expression. Meanwhile, the modern music landscape is full of tons of strange experimental sounds, often made by people who just have whatever quirk it is that makes people do music. Literally anyone can put out a record now, with practically no resources. Not so in the bad old days! Heck the same could be said of animation. Animation has always been a pauper's career, but some people do it anyway because they just have to. The internet allowed people to put it up online and share it. This is objectively good and the lack of money in it has not changed.

>>65045 anything involving recorded music is extremely modern.

>>65041 It's not the same thing with musicians because it's the recording process and distribution that changed, while we are still talking about art created by living people. The technology used in creation and the media forms used to distribute a product do have an effect on the creations themselves in a McLuhan-ish way but that's complex enough to warrant a separate thread (more one man bands, less live drums). You might compare it to automatic pianos in movie theatres during the silent era putting human players out of work, which there was a movement against by the way (I can't find the friggin' poster from the campaign quickly enough to post), but do you still have to buy the music? In that case at least the composer got a royalty, I don't know. >>65045 >being a musician *didn't* used to pay very well Exactly. At least now you can sell t-shirts and stickers more easily though, even do custom work for fans.

Musicians make the vast majority of their money via touring and it has basically always been like this. You can be an indie band or you can be Drake or Taylor Swift, the real money is in live performances. And swag. >65051 The commercial recording industry is over 130 years old and before selling recorded music artists would sell sheet music and that's been a thing since at least the 18th century, possibly longer.

>>65045 >I would argue that in fact being a musician *didn't* used to pay very well unless you were signed with a major record label Any kind of art is difficult to live off from. But you could get some side jobs playing music in various places before there was easy recording of music everywhere. People like music and if you don't have a machine which can play it, you have to hire people to do it. Just few decades ago it was common to buy records to get music too. Nowdays a musician has to rely on next to non-existent supply of cash from spotify. >which would severely constrain your available musical expression. I actually don't feel this is true. I had this pointed to me and it has kinda haunted me for a year. But where is genre defining music nowdays? If you look at the charts nowdays, lot of music is very 80s or y2k inspired. I'm not saying it's bad because I enjoy lot of it. But it is retro. It's very weird to see modern music that could have been made 10 years ago and no one would notice the time gap. And if you look back, you didn't have that. Can you imagine disco being popular in the 60s? Or imagine playing something like The Prodigy in the 80s. These things feel like they came from some completely different universe to me. Actually when you take a notice. Lot of things are very, very retro nowdays. Indie gaming which was supposed to be this break from publishers and ushering of creativity actually mostly produced new entries in retro genres. Now obviously there's an issue here and that is on one hand I wouldn't really want to pay for records (although I actually do buy stuff from artist I like) again just to listen to them or discover new music. Neither would I want all these big publishers, record companies and what not to be back. On the other hand, people who make this stuff need to be paid. Both to sustain themselves and just because I believe no one should produce value unpaid for someone. As this is an unsolved problem I can't give an exact solution, but what needs to happen is that people's data needs to be monetized in some fair way. >>65063 It's not the same thing, but my focus was more on that what is happening is that it's harder and harder to get paid well to produce stuff. And in that scenario it's kinda the same thing. Because the AI doesn't really create. It just mashes things together people made. And really what AI will do is just make it even more harder to come up with anything new. Both by oversaturation and also labor theft. And in some cases it might not matter much. But I would say lot of things that we value and even make society possible exist because we have way to pay people for it and have ways to filter the glut. And I can actually point to some things that are in this valley of falling to death by saturation. Journalism is an easy pick since it doesn't exist anymore. You can find someone, somewhere, who has written something that agrees with any position you may hold. That article was probably coppied thousand times by other people with minor changes too. And how can you even show what is written in it is false? The only way would be to become a journalist yourself, and if you become one, chances are whatever you write will get lost in the glut

>>65403 >Nowdays a musician has to rely on next to non-existent supply of cash from spotify Artists for a long time have earned royalties from airplay and in a lot of countries if you own a bar or café you have to pay dues to a musician's union or you're not allowed to play any music. If Spotify is the main go-to now and isn't paying a fair amount, why do people still comply with it? I mean as artists or consumers? I read an interview with Blixa Bargeld in the 90s where he said in the future (as in now) music will be the same as water or gas, another utility in your house. He wasn't far off. If the payouts aren't fair it's because there is no resistance and/or no alternative method to listen to music. It will stay this way until people organize against it, if ever that happens. Ditto for Amazon publishing unknown authors. These writers say 20 years ago they would never have gotten a book deal so they are grateful for this opportunity but they seem to miss what's most relevant. It's the internet itself, the technology which enables this. Amazon just hogs the market because people let them. >>65130 Well... a lot of indie musicians don't make money touring either. They might make enough for gas and food but they might not and they are definitely sleeping on people's floors and in the van or under the stars from night to night. It depends on the country but a lot of bands treat it as a working vacation where they get to travel and see friends. They have to save up for months in advance and their ledger at the end might be in the negative.

I remember when Vocaloid was supposed replace human singers. In reality Vocaloid producers ditched software the first chance they got and paired with or started bands with actual singers.

>>65405 >If the payouts aren't fair it's because there is no resistance and/or no alternative method to listen to music. It will stay this way until people organize against it, if ever that happens. Weirdly I think DRM-free, FLAC encoded files from bandcamp (or similar sites) is the only reasonable future where musicians can get decent pay and listeners can have a decent listening experience for relatively cheap. Reality is, people are going to either steal your music or listen to the radio no matter what, but at least it gets your stuff out there and maybe one in a hundred people actually buys your digital album for $10, and you get $6. Compare to spotify, where everyone pays on the order of pennies to listen to listen to your music and you get barely any of that, or record deals, where the record company owns your ass. >if you own a bar or café you have to pay dues to a musician's union or you're not allowed to play any music. That's actually a good idea, if we make the unrealistic assumption that the union isn't corrupt as hell.

This channel has some amazing videos created using Stable Diffusion https://www.youtube.com/@aiplague/videos They're not fully AI-generated, but rather, it's AI rotoscoping. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ttZ48gUio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAhlYEzRd0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4S1bp0Klgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko5gCUTGg4Y

>>65405 >If Spotify is the main go-to now and isn't paying a fair amount, why do people still comply with it? I am pretty sure it's because it's just a baked in belief that stuff on the internet should be free in some shape or form. The way we set internet up seems to give this mentality of everything costing nothing, but also gives competition because of the huge size you have. And that kinda promotes something like the evolutionary tactic of a fly. You get bombarded with bullshit that's barely worth anything, but in the same way flies survive because of their numbers, some of this content will stick. So it drives up quantity over quality to a huge degree while also promoting inequality. Since really only very few people will be seen in a huge sea. And I think AI is really an extension of this. It just has this scary talk of intelligence attached to it for marketing purposes, but it's a bit more advanced version of what the web is doing. The issue is like I said before, in lot of spaces where this kind of structure is applied, you get dead by saturation. It's just an overdose of the getting spammed with the past which gives you no room to grow. >I read an interview with Blixa Bargeld in the 90s where he said in the future (as in now) music will be the same as water or gas, another utility in your house. He wasn't far off. No, he wasn't far off. But people had a way different image of the internet back then. It was supposed to be this crazy new place booming with creativity and wonders. And It's obvious why people thought that. Like if you connect the whole world together with nearly all of human knowledge you should expect to start some new age. But that didn't happen. I think I have an ideas why that didn't happen, but it would be a lot to write so I'll skip this for now. But I think that's a bit an issue too. Since we speak of modern technology with the language of past technological dreams. And these two can be very different. The web is once again a good example. Since it promised decentralization and education of people. But things are way more centralized today then decades ago, and I also get a feeling poeple actually became more dumb since the web destroyed context. You can't build off your knowledge on the web. It's all made easy to digest and over simplistic to keep you engaged. If you wanted to learn about something in the past you got a book which introduced you slowly to the author views and knowledge about a subject for a good period of time. At least 20 minutes to few hours that allows for nuance and depth. On the web you get short pieces all unrelated to each other which is like a written form of shouting. If you think I have a valid point to make here, then I want you to ask how, in the same way web shaped the world to it's image, how does AI want to shape the world? >If the payouts aren't fair it's because there is no resistance and/or no alternative method to listen to music. It will stay this way until people organize against it, if ever that happens. Everytime I hear the argument "it's just the way things are" one thought comes into my mind. Why do we treat that as being good? I know it's a human tendency, but it's so bizzare if you escape from it or look at historical examples. People thought that throwing waste down their windows was fine. Nowdays we see how strange it is for the obvious sickness risks. I kinda get the same feeling right here. Like you just point at madness but if people lived in madness long enough it just seems normal.