The folks with access to this must be looking at some absolutely fantastic porn right now!
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.
I don’t think they would make a model like this uncensored.
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
shit is going too far, as excited expected, and governments give a fuck about societies. Only in the EU, there are a few human-like movements.
YouTube is about to get flooded by the weirdest meme videos. We thought it was bad already, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
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.
Can I get sora to create a video from the summary?
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
The demo looks pretty good, yes - but I won’t believe it 'till I try it!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sora is capable of creating “complex scenes with multiple characters, specific types of motion, and accurate details of the subject and background,” according to OpenAI’s introductory blog post.
The company also notes that the model can understand how objects “exist in the physical world,” as well as “accurately interpret props and generate compelling characters that express vibrant emotions.”
Many have some telltale signs of AI — like a suspiciously moving floor in a video of a museum — and OpenAI says the model “may struggle with accurately simulating the physics of a complex scene,” but the results are overall pretty impressive.
A couple of years ago, it was text-to-image generators like Midjourney that were at the forefront of models’ ability to turn words into images.
But recently, video has begun to improve at a remarkable pace: companies like Runway and Pika have shown impressive text-to-video models of their own, and Google’s Lumiere figures to be one of OpenAI’s primary competitors in this space, too.
It notes that the existing model might not accurately simulate the physics of a complex scene and may not properly interpret certain instances of cause and effect.
The original article contains 395 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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.
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
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.
The cat video is funny, the cat has 5 legs :D
Seeing the 5 legged cat was the moment I started to believe this stuff really was AI generated.
I’m really impressed by the demo, but yes, let’s see how well it works when it’s made public.
People who don’t think AI will take a lot of jobs may have to rethink…
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.
Why pursue any of the arts if they do not benefit humanity?
Ai generated images are not 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.
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.
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.
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.
Because they look good enough for the web stories or RP I make
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.
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”.
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.
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.
If the natural state of technology is that there aren’t enough jobs to sustain an economy, then our economic system is broken, and trying to preserve obsolete jobs is just preserving the broken status quo that primarily benefits the rich. Over time I’m thinking more and more that instead of trying to prop up an outdated economic system we should just let it fail, and then we have no choice but to rethink it.
Oh yes yes I’m sure that we will totally rethink our economic systems that’s absolutely what will happen and it will totally result in the utopia you’re dreaming of. I’m sure that will happen I’m sure it’s not just the ultra wealthy noting how they can make even more profit whilst everyone else suffers can’t be that I’m sure the government will do something we all have faith in that we know it’s obvious that will happen
You think pushing the status quo is going to result in change? The sweet spot for the rich is to have everyone struggle while they enrich themselves, but not struggle so hard that it leads to an upheaval. We’ve tried patching up a broken system and it doesn’t fix anything, it just slows the decline. I think an upheaval is the only answer, dunno when we’ll hit the breaking point, but it will happen, it’s inevitable. For the economy to fundamentally change it will require it becoming completely impossible to survive in the existing economy, otherwise nobody would want to risk a fundamental rethink of how things work.
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.
This can only be bad for artists and if you are happy about it you are a fascist
Imagine VR giving an AI generated world. It would be a Ready Player One in irl.
I recently played a game where people found immortality and each individual just lived in their own personal virtual reality for thousands of years. It’s kinda creepy seeing the recent advances in technology today lining up to that, minus the immortality part.
What game was that?
The compute power it would take to do that in realtime at the framerates required for VR to be comfortable would be absolutely beyond insane. But at the rate hardware improves and the breakneck speed these AI models are developing maybe it’s not as far off as I think.
An Ai generated VR world would be a single map environment generated in the same way you wait at loading screens when a game starts or you move to an entirely new map.
A text to 3D game asset Ai wouldn’t regenerate a new 3D world on every frame in the same way you wouldn’t ask AI to draw a picture of an orange cat and then ask it to draw another picture of an orange cat shifted one pixel to the left if you wanted the cat moved a pixel. The result would be totally different picture.
I think we’re talking about different kinds of implementations.
One being an ai generated ‘video’ that is interactive, generating new frames continuously to simulate a 3d space that you can move around in. That seems pretty hard to accomplish for the reasons you’re describing. These models are not particularly stable or consistent between frames. The software does not have an understanding of the physical rules, just how a scene might look based on it’s training data.
Another and probably more plausible approach is likely to come from the same frame generation technology in use today with things like DLSS and FSR. I’m imagining a sort of post-processing that can draw details on top of traditional 3d geometry. You could classically render a simple scene and allow ai to draw on top of the geometry to sort of fake higher levels of detail. This is already possible, but it seems reasonable to imagine that these tools could get more creative and turn a simple blocky undetailed 3d model into a photo-realistic object. Still insanely computationally expensive but grounding the AI with classic rendering could be really interesting.
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!
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
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.
Shit posting 2.0 is here fellas
