Sora: Creating video from text

I disagree, just look at the legs of the woman in the first video. First she seems to be limping, than the legs rotate. The mammoth are totally uncanny for me as its both running and walking at the same time.

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.

When others create text to video systems (eg. Lumiere from Google) they publish the research (eg. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12945.pdf). Open AI is all about commercialization. I don't like their attitude

> Motion-capture works fine because that's real motion

Except in games where they mo-cap at a frame rate less than what it will be rendered at and just interpolate between mo-cap samples, which makes snappy movements turn into smooth movements and motions end up in the uncanny valley.

It's especially noticeable when a character is talking and makes a "P" sound. In a "P", your lips basically "pop" open. But if the motion is smoothed out, it gives the lips the look of making an "mm" sound. The lips of someone saying "post" looks like "most".

At 30 fps, it's unnoticeable. At 144 fps, it's jarring once you see it and can't unsee it.

Out of all the examples, the wooly mammoths one actually feels like CGI the most to me, the other ones are much more believable than this one.

Huh, strong disagree. I've seen realistic CGI motion many times and I don't consider this to feel realistic at all.

I’m a bit thrown off by the fact the mammoths are steaming, is that normal for mammoths ?

You might just be subject to confirmation bias here. Perhaps there were scenes and entities you didn't realize were CGI due to high quality animation, and thus didn't account for them in your assessment.

Regarding CGI, I think it has became so good that you don’t know it’s CGI. Look at the dog in Guardians of the Galaxy 3. There’s a whole series on YouTube called “no cgi is really just invisible cgi” that I recommend watching.

And as with cgi, models like SORA will get better until you can’t tell reality apart. It's not there Yet, but an immense astonishingly breakthrough.

Maybe it's my anthropocentric brain, but the animals move realistically while the people still look quite off.

It's still an unbelievable achievement though. I love the paper seahorse whose tail is made (realistically) using the paper folds.

Serious: Can one just pipe an SRT (subtitle file) and then tell it to compare its version to the mp4 and then be able to command it to zoom, enhance, edit, and basically use it to remould content. I think this sounds great!

It's possible that through sheer volume of training, the neural network essentially has a 3D engine going on, or at least picked up enough of the rules of light and shape and physics to look the same as unreal or unity

> I've quite simply never seen convincing computer-generated motion before

I’m fairly sure you have seen it many times, it was just so convincing that you didn’t realize it was CGI. It’s a fundamentally biased way to sample it, as you won’t see examples of well executed stuff.

I'm not sure I feel the same way about the mammoths - and the billowing snow makes no sense as someone who grew up in a snowy area. If the snow was powder maybe but that's not what's depicted on the ground.

Pixar is computer generated motion, no?

Nah this still has the problem with connecting surfaces that never seems to look right in any CGI. It's actually interesting that it doesn't look right here as well considering they are completely different techniques.

It's been trained on videos exclusively. Then GPT-4 interprets your prompt for it.

Just setup a family password last week...Now it seems every member of the family will have to become their own certificate authority and carry an MFA device.

"Worried About AI Voice Clone Scams? Create a Family Password" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/worried-about-ai-voice...

Don't think of them as "computer-generated" any more than your phone's heavily processed pictures are "computer-generated", or JWST's false color, IR-to-visible pictures are "computer-generated".

This article makes a convincing argument: https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/a-camera-not-an-engine

Wouldn't having a good understanding of physics mean you know that a women doesn't slide down the road when she walks? Wouldn't it know that a woolly mammoth doesn't emit profuse amounts steam when walking on frozen snow? Wouldn't the model know that legs are solid objects in which other object cannot pass through?

Maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but the above and all the weird spatial errors, like miniaturization of people make me think you're wrong.

Clearly the model is an achievement and doing something interesting to produce these videos, and they are pretty cool, but understanding physics seems like quite a stretch?

I also don't really get the excitement about the girl on the train in Tokyo:

In the Tokyo one, the model is smart enough to figure out that on a train, the reflection would be of a passenger, and the passenger has Asian traits since this is Tokyo

I don't know a lot about how this model works personally, but I'm guessing in the training data the vast majority of people riding trains in Tokyo featured asian people in them, assuming this model works on statistics like all of the other models I've seen recently from Open AI, then why is it interesting the girl in the reflection was Asian? Did you not expect that?

> very good... understanding of the physics of objects and relationships between them

I am always torn here. A real physics engine has a better "understanding" but I suspect that word applies to neither Sora nor a physics engine: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

An understanding of physics would entail asking this generative network to invert gravity, change the density or energy output of something, or atypically reduce a coefficient of friction partway through a video. Perhaps Sora can handle these, but I suspect it is mimicking the usual world rather than understanding physics in any strong sense.

None of which is to say their accomplishment isn't impressive. Only that "understand" merits particularly careful use these days.

Facebook released something in that direction today https://ai.meta.com/blog/v-jepa-yann-lecun-ai-model-video-jo...

This seems to be completely in line with the previous "AI is good when it's not news" type of work:

Non-news: Dog bites a man.

News: Man bites a dog.

Non-news: "People riding Tokyo train" - completely ordinary, tons of similar content.

News: "Archaeologists dust off a plastic chair" - bizarre, (virtually) no similar content exists.

I found the one about the people in Lagos pretty funny. The camera does about a 360deg spin in total, in the beginning there are markets, then suddenly there are skyscrapers in the background. So there's only very limited object permanence.

> A beautiful homemade video showing the people of Lagos, Nigeria in the year 2056. Shot with a mobile phone camera.

> https://cdn.openai.com/sora/videos/lagos.mp4

It doesn't understand physics.

It just computes next frame based on current one and what it learned before, it's a plausible continuation.

In the same way, ChatGPT struggles with math without code interpreter, Sora won't have accurate physics without a physics engine and rendering 3d objects.

Now it's just a "what is the next frame of this 2D image" model plus some textual context.

> In the Tokyo one, the model is smart enough to figure out that on a train, the reflection would be of a passenger, and the passenger has Asian traits since this is Tokyo.

How is this any more accurate than saying that the model has mostly seen Asian people in footage of Tokyo, and thus it is most likely to generate Asian-features for a video labelled "Tokyo"? Similarly, how many videos looking out a train window do you think it's seen where there was not a reflection of a person in the window when it's dark?

I'm hoping to see progress towards consistent characters, objects, scenes etc. So much of what I'd want to do creatively hinges on needing persisting characters who don't change appearance/clothing/accessories from usage to usage. Or creating a "set" for a scene to take place in repeatedly.

I know with stable diffusion there's things like lora and controlnet, but they are clunky. We still seem to have a long way to go towards scene and story composition.

Once we do, it will be a game changer for redefining how we think about things like movies and television when you can effectively have them created on demand.

Let's hold our breath. Those are specifically crafted hand-picked good videos, where there wasn't any requirement but "write a generic prompt and pick something that looks good", with no particular requirements. Which is very different from the actual process where you have a very specific idea and want the machine to make it happen.

DALL-E presentation also looked cool and everyone was stoked about it. Now that we know of its limitations and oddities? YMMV, but I'd say not so much - Stable Diffusion is still the go-to solution. I strongly suspect the same thing with Sora.

I'm almost speechless. I've been keeping an eye on the text-to-video models, and if these example videos are truly indicative of the model, this is an order of magnitude better than anything currently available.

In particular, looking at the video titled "Borneo wildlife on the Kinabatangan River" (number 7 in the third group), the accurate parallax of the tree stood out to me. I'm so curious to learn how this is working.

[Direct link to the video: https://player.vimeo.com/video/913130937?h=469b1c8a45]

Agreed. It's amazing how much of a head start OpenAI appears to have over everyone else. Even Microsoft who has access to everything OpenAI is doing. Only Microsoft could be given the keys to the kingdom and still not figure out how to open any doors with them.

Yes, but I am stuck in their (American) view of what is consider appropriate. Not what is legal, but what they determine to be OK to produce.

Good luck generating anything similar to an 80s action movie. The violence and light nudity will prevent you from generating anything.

Where is the training material for this coming from? The only resource I can think of that's broad enough for a general purpose video model is YouTube, but I can't imagine Google would allow a third party to scrape all of YT without putting up a fight.

It's very good. Unclear how far ahead of Lumiere it is (https://lumiere-video.github.io/) or if its more of a difference in prompting/setttings.

Must be intimidating to be on the Pika team at the moment...

All those startups have been squeezed in the middle. Pika, Runway, etc might as well open source their models.

Or Meta will do it for them.

It is incredible indeed, but I remember there was a humongous gap between the demoed pictures for DALL-E and what most prompts would generate.

Don't get overly excited until you can actually use the technology.

I know it's Runway (and has all manner of those dream-like AI artifacts) but I like what this person is doing with just a bunch 4 second clips and an awesome soundtrack:

https://youtu.be/JClloSKh_dk

https://youtu.be/upCyXbTWKvQ

I agree in terms of raw generation, but runway especially is creating fantastic tooling too.

Yup, it's been even several months! ;) But now we finally have another quantum leap in AI.

Honest question: of what possible use could Sora be for Hollywood?

The results are amazing, but if the current crop of text-to-image tools is any guide, it will be easy to create things that look cool but essentially impossible to create something that meets detailed specific criteria. If you want your actor to look and behave consistently across multiple episodes of a series, if you want it to precisely follow a detailed script, if you want continuity, if you want characters and objects to exhibit consistent behavior over the long term – I don't see how Sora can do anything for you, and I wouldn't expect that to change for at least a few years.

(I am entirely open to the idea that other generative AI tools could have an impact on Hollywood. The linked Hollywood Reporter article states that "Visual effects and other postproduction work stands particularly vulnerable". I don't know much about that, I can easily believe it would be true, but I don't think they're talking about text-to-video tools like Sora.)

Probably a bad time to be an actor.

Amazing time to be a wannabe director or producer or similar creative visionary.

Bad time to be high up in a hierarchical/gatekeeping/capital-constrained biz like Hollywood.

Amazing time to be an aspirant that would otherwise not have access to resources, capital, tools in order to bring their ideas to fruition.

On balance I think the ‘20s are going to be a great decade for creativity and the arts.

The idea that this destroys the industry is overblown, because the film industry has already been dying since 2000's.

Hollywood is already destroyed. It is not the powerful entity it once was.

In terms of attention and time of entertainment, Youtube has already surpassed them.

This will create a multitude more YouTube creators that do not care about getting this right or making a living out of it. It will just take our attention all the same, away from the traditional Hollywood.

Yes there will still be great films and franchises, the industry is shrinking.

This is similar with Journalism saying that AI will destroy it. Well there was nothing to destroy because the a bunch of traditional newspapers already closed shop even before AI came.

They shouldn’t be worried so soon. This will be used to pump out shitty hero movies more quickly, but there will always be demand for a masterpiece after the hype cools down.

This is like a chef worrying going out of business because of fast food.

Without a change in copyright law, I doubt it. The current policy of the USCO is that the products of AI based on prompts like this are not human authored and can't be copywritten. No one is going to release AI created stuff that someone else can reproduce because its public domain.

There are definitely artifacts. Go to the 9th video in the first batch, the one of the guy sitting on a cloud reading a book. Watch the book; the pages are flapping in the wind in an extremely strange way.

Yep, I noticed it immediately too. Yet it is subtle in reality. I'm not that good to spot imperfections on picture but on the video I immediately felt something was not quite right.

Tangent to feeling numb to it - will it hinder children developing the understanding of physics, object permanence, etc. that our brains have?

I noticed at the beginning that cars are driving on the right side of the road, but in Japan they drive on the left. The AI misses little details like that.

(I'm also not sure they've ever had a couple inches of snow on the ground while the cherry blossoms are in bloom in Tokyo, but I guess it's possible.)

These artefacts go down with more compute. In four years when they attack it again with 100x compute and better algorithms I think it'll be virtually flawless.

I had to go back several times to 0:14 to see if it was really unusual. I get it of course, but probably watching 20 times I would have never noticed it.

Yep! Glad I wasn't the only one that saw that. I have a feeling THEY didn't see it or they wouldn't have showcased it.

They swap multiple times lol. Not to mention it almost always looks like the feet are slightly sliding on the ground with every step.

I mean there are some impressive things there, but it looks like there's a long ways to go yet.

They shouldn't have played it into the close up of the face. The face is so dead and static looking.

Curious about what current SotA is on physics-infusing generation. Anyone have paper links?

OpenAi has a few details:

>> The current model has weaknesses. It may struggle with accurately simulating the physics of a complex scene, and may not understand specific instances of cause and effect. For example, a person might take a bite out of a cookie, but afterward, the cookie may not have a bite mark.

>> Similar to GPT models, Sora uses a transformer architecture, unlocking superior scaling performance.

>> We represent videos and images as collections of smaller units of data called patches, each of which is akin to a token in GPT. By unifying how we represent data, we can train diffusion transformers on a wider range of visual data than was possible before, spanning different durations, resolutions and aspect ratios.

>> Sora builds on past research in DALL·E and GPT models. It uses the recaptioning technique from DALL·E 3, which involves generating highly descriptive captions for the visual training data. As a result, the model is able to follow the user’s text instructions in the generated video more faithfully.

The implied facts that it understands physics of simple scenes and any instances of cause and effect are impressive!

Although I assume that's been SotA-possible for awhile, and I just hadn't heard?

I saw similar artifacts in dalle-1 a lot (as if the image was pasted onto geometry). Definitely wouldn't surprise me if they use synthetic rasterized data to in the training, which could totally create artifacts like this.

The model is essentially doing nothing but dreaming.

I suspect that anything that looks like familiar 3D-rendering limitations is probably a result of the training dataset simply containing a lot of actual 3D-rendered content.

We can't tell a model to dream everything except extra fingers, false perspective, and 3D-rendering compromises.

It's possible it was pre-trained on 3D renderings first, because it's easy to get almost infinite synthetic data that way, and after that they continued the training on real videos.

Maybe it was trained on a bunch of 3d Google Earth videos.

Doesn't look flat to me.

Edit: Here[0] I highlighted a groove in the bushes moving with perfect perspective

[0] https://ibb.co/Y7WFW39

My vote is yes - some sort of intermediate representation is involved. It just seems unbelievable that it's end-to-end with 2D frames...

The water is on par with Avatar. Looks perfect

Wow, yeah I didn't notice it at first, but looking at the rocks in the background is actually nauseating

It looks perfect to me. That's exactly how the area looks in person.

I strongly believe that AI will have massive impact on the film industry however it won't be because of a blackbox, text to video tool like Sora. VFX artists and studios still want a high level of control over the end product and unless it's very simple to tweak small details like the blur of an object in the background, or the particle physics of an explosion, then they wouldn't use it. What Hollywood needs are AI tools that can integrate with their existing workflows. I think Adobe is doing a pretty good job at this.

I think it's fair to be impressed with Sora as the next stage of AI video, yet not be too surprised or consider it some insurmountable leap from the public pieces we've seen of AI video up to this point. We've always been just a couple papers away, seeking a good consistency modelling step - now we've got it. Amazing and viscerally chilling - seeing the net effect - but let's not be intimidated so easily or prop these guys up as gods just for being a bit ahead of the obviously-accelerating curve. Anyone tracking this stuff had a very strong prediction of good AI video within a year - two max. This was a context size increase and overall impressive quality pass reaching a new milestone, but the bones were there.

Do you feel the same way about modern movies? CGI is so ubiquitous and accessible, that most movies use some form of it. It's actually news when a filmmaker _doesn't_ use CGI (e.g. Nolan).

These advancements are just the next step in that evolution. The tech used in movies will be commoditized, and you'll see Hollywood-style production in YouTube videos.

I'm not sure why you think theater will become _more_ popular because of this. It has remained popular throughout the years, as technology comes and goes. People can enjoy both video and theater, no?

I agree, seeing real human actors on stage will always be popular for some consumers. Same for local live musicians.

That said, I helped a friend who makes low budget, edgy and cool films last week. I showed him what I knew about driving Pika.art and he picked it up quickly. He is very excited about the possibility of being able to write more stories and turn them into films.

I think there is plenty of demand for all kinds of entertainment. It is sad that so many creative people in Hollywood and other content creation centers will lose jobs. I think the very best people will be employed, but often partnered with AIs. Off topic, but I have been a paid AI practitioner since 1982, and the breakthroughs of deep learning, transformers, and LLMs are stunning.

I actually suspect one of the new most popular mediums will be actors on a theatre stage doing live performances to a live AI CGI video being rendered behind them - similar to musicians in a live orchestra. It would bring together the nostalgia and wonder of human acting and performance art, while still smoothing and enhancing their live performance into the quality levels and wonder we've come to expect from movie theatre experiences. This will be technologically doable soon.

Imagine movies generated in real-time just for you, with the faces you know, places you know and what not!

The vinyl narrative is so whack.

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

At its peak, Inflation adjusted Vinyl Sales was $1.4billion in 1979. Then forward to the lowest sales in 2009 at $3.4million. So Vinyl has been so popular it grew to $8.5m by 2021.

That is just nostalgia, not cultural change pushed by the dystopia of AI.

[dead]

It doesn't need to replace the whole movie

You could use it for stuff like wide shots, close ups, random CG shots, rapid cut shots, stuff where you just cut to it once and don't need multiple angles

To me it seem most useful for advertising where a lot of times they only show something once, like a montage

It generates up to 1 minute videos which is like what all the kids are watching on TikTok and YouTube Shorts, right? And most ads are shorter than 1 minute.

You wait a year and they'll figure it out.

It also seems hard to control exactly what you get. Like you'd want a specific pan, focus etc. to realize your vision. The examples here look good, but they aren't very specific.

But it was the same with Dall-E and others in the beginning, and there's now lots of ways to control image generators. Same will probably happen here. This was a huge leap just in how coherent the frames are.

What came to mind is what is right around the corner: you create segments and stitch them together.

"ok, continue from the context on the last scene. Great. Ok, move the bookshelf. I want that cat to be more furry. Cool. Save this as scene 34."

As clip sizes grow and context can be inferred from a previous scene, and a library of scenes can be made, boom, you can now create full feature length films, easy enough that elementary school kids will be able to craft up their imaginations.

You could use it to storyboard right now. Continuity of characters/wardrobe, etc. is not that important in storyboarding.

Family Guy is built on out of context clips.

It could also fill it for background videos in scenes, instead of getting real content they’d have to pay for, or making their own. The gangster movie Kevin was playing in Home Alone was specifically shot for that movie, from what I remember.

> You write a text prompt, get a scene, and then everything is gone—the characters, props, rooms, buildings, environments, etc. won’t carry over to the next prompt.

Sure, you can't use the text-to-video frontend for that purpose. But if you've got a t2v model as good as Sora clearly is, you've got the infrastructure for a lot more, as the ecosystem around the open-source models in the space has shown. The same techniques that allow character, object, etc., consistency in text-to-image models can be applied to text-to-video models.

It's pretty obvious they just need to add the ability to prompt it with an image saying "continue in this style and make the character..."

Nah just fine-tune the model to a specific set of characters or aesthetic. It's not hard, already done with SDXL LoRAs. You can definitely generate a whole movie from just a storyboard.. if not now, then in maybe five yrs.

Explicit video clips? 4chan is gonna have a field day with this.

lots and lots and lots of b-roll and stock footage is about to get cheaper.

Also, using this kind of footage is the bread and butter for a lot of marketers for their content.

Imagine never having to pay stock footage companies

What? You're serious?

Script => Video baseline. Take a frame of any character/prop/room/etc you want to remain consistent, and one shitty photoshop and it's part of the new scene.

Incredibly overstating. That is an incredible lack of imagination buddy. Or even just basic craftsmanship.

tiktok

The real advancement is the consistency of character, scene, and movement!

There needs to be an updated CLIP-like model in the open-source community. The model is almost three years old now and is still the backbone of a lot of multimodal models. It's not a sexy problem to take on since it isn't especially useful in and of itself, but so many downstream foundation models (LLaVA, etc.) would benefit immensely from it. Is there anything out there that I'm just not aware of, other than SigLIP?

I agree.

I think one part of the problem is using English (or whatever natural language) for the prompts/training. Too much inherent ambiguity. I’m interested to see what tools (like control nets with SD) are developed to overcome this.

If I understand trial law correctly, the rules of evidence already prohibit introducing a video at trial without proving where it came from (for example, testimony from a security guard that a given video came from a given security camera).

But social media has no rules of evidence. Already I see AI-generated images as illustrations on many conspiracy theory posts. People's resistance to believing images and videos from sketchy sources is going to have to increase very fast (especially for images and videos that they agree with).

Wow. If I saw this clip a year ago I wouldn't think, "The image generator fucked up," I'd just think that a CG effects artist deliberately tweaked an existing real-world video.

I would be willing to bet $10,000 that the average person's life will not be changed in any significant way by this technology in the next 10 years. Will there be some VFX disruption in Hollywood and games? Sure, maybe some. It's not a cure for cancer. It's not AGI. It's not earth shattering. It is fun and interesting though.

Totally agree with you.

Most of the responses in this thread remind me of why I don't typically go into the comment section of these announcements. It's way too easy to fall into the trap set by the doomsday-predicting armchair experts, who make it sound like we're on the brink of some apocalypse. But anyone attempting to predict the future right now is wasting time at best, or intentionally fear mongering at worst.

Sure, for all we know, OpenAI might just drop the AGI bomb on us one day. But wasting time worrying about all the "what ifs" doesn't help anyone.

Like you said, there is so much work out there to be done, _even if_ AGI has been achieved. Not to get sidetracked from your original comment, but I've seen AGI repeatedly mentioned in this thread. It's really all just noise until proven otherwise.

Build, adapt, and learn. So much opportunity is out there.

> since it is trained to simulate the real world

Is it though? Or is this just marketing?

I think you are reading too far into this. The title of the technical paper is “ Video generation models as world simulators”.

This is “just” a transformer that takes in a sequence of noisy image (video frame) tokens + prompt, and produces a sequence of less noisy video tokens. Repeat until noise gone.

The point they’re making, which is totally valid, is that in order for such a model to produce videos with realistic physics, the underlying model is forced to learn a model of physics (a “world simulation”).

  “Our results suggest that scaling video generation models is a promising path towards building general purpose simulators of the physical world.”

What I want is an AI trained to simulate the human body, allowing scientists to perform artificial human trials on all kind of medicines. Cutting trial times from years to months.

> "understand... the real world"

doing a lot of heavy lifting in this statement

Movie making is going to become fine-tuning these foundational video models. For example, if you want Brad Pitt in your movie you'll need to use his data to fine-tune his character.

What is latent space if not a representation of the real world?

One of things I've loved about HN was the quality of comments. Whether broad or arcane, you had experts the world over who would tear the topic apart with data and a healthy dose of cynicism. I frequently learned more from the debate and critique than I did from the "news" itself.

I don't know what is it about AI and current state of tech, but the discourse as of late has really taken a nosedive. I'm not saying that any of this conjecture won't happen, but the acceleration towards fervor and fear mongering on the subject is bordering on religiosity - seriously, it makes crypto bros look good.

And yeah -- looks like some cool new tech from OpenAI, and excited when I can actually dig in. Would also love it if I could hire their marketing department.

"Proof" for thousands of years was whatever was written down, and that was even easier to forge.

There was a brief time (maybe 100 years at the most) where photos and videos were practically proof of something happening; that is coming to an end now, but that's just a regression to the mean, not new territory.

This changes nothing about "proof" (i.e. "evidence", here). Authenticity is determined by trust in the source institution(s), independent verification, chains of evidence, etc. Belief is about people, not technology. Always was, always will be. Fraud is older than Photoshop, than the first impersonation, than perhaps civilization. The sky is not falling here. Always remember: fidelity and belief aren't synonyms.

> All "proof" we have can be contested or fabricated.

This has been the case for a while now already, it's better that we just rip off the bandaid and everyone should become a skeptic. Standards for evidence will need to rise.

That's interesting. It made me think of a potential feature for upcoming cameras that essentially cryptographically sign their videos. If this became a real issue in the future, I could see Apple introducing it in a new model. "Now you can show you really did take that trip to Paris. When you send a message to a friend that contains a video that you shot on iPhone, they will see it in a gold bubble."

Weird hallucination artifacts are still giving it all away. Look closely at the train and viaduct rendering, and you can't unsee windows morphing into each other.

The key word there is "someone". The only way forward is to care a lot more about our sources. Trust is about to become really valuable.

This is what lots of folks said about image generation. Which is now in many ways “solved”. And society has easily adapted to it. The same will happen with video generation.

The reality is that people are a lot more resourceful / smarter than a lot of us think. And the ones who aren’t have been fooled long before this tech came around.

I guess you can't read Japanese.

all the news you see has zero proof unless you see it, you just have to have a sense if it's real based on a concensus or trust worthness of a reporter/outlet.

The UA war is real, most likley, but i havent' seen it with my own eyes, nor did most people, but maybe they have relatives/friends saying it, and they are not likely to lie. Stuff like that.

If you want an honest answer you should tell the parents to vote for politicians prepared to launch missile strikes on data centers to secure their child's future.

People who are worried purely about employment here are completely missing the larger risks.

Realistically his child is going to be unemployable and will therefore either starve or be dependant on some kind of government UBI policy. However UBI is completely unworkable in an AI world because it assumes that AI companies won't just relocate where they don't need to pay tax, and that us as citizens will have any power over the democratic process in a world where we're economically and physically worthless.

Assuming UBI happens and the child doesn't starve to death, if the government alter decides to cut UBI payments after receiving large bribes from AI companies what would people do? They can't strike, so I guess they'll need to try to overthrow the government in a world with AI surveillance tech and policing.

Realistically humans in the future are going to have no power, and worse still in a world of UBI the less people there leaching from the government means the more resources there are for those with power. The more you can kill the more you earn.

And I'm just focusing on how we deal with the unemployment risks here. There's also the risk that AI will be used to create biological weapons. The risk of us creating a rogue superintelligent AGI. The risk of horrific AI applications like mind-reading.

Assuming this parent loves their child they should be doing everything in their power to demand progress in AI is halted before it's too late.

Humans seems to always find a way to make it work, so I’d tell them to enjoy their younger years and be curious. Lots of beauty in this world and even with a shit ton of ugly stuff, we somehow make it work and keep advancing forward.

He will be in the same boat as the rest of us. In 12 years I expect the current crop of AI capabilities will have hit maturity. We will all collectively have to figure out how life+AI looks like, just as we have done with life+iPhones.

It's not his choice. It's the choice of the ruling class as to whether they will share the wealth or live in walled gardens and leave the rest of us in squalor outside the city walls.

There's no evidence to suggest what you say is true, so I would tell them to simply go to college or trade school for what they are interested in, then take a deep breath, go outside, and realize that literally nothing has changed except that a few people can create visual mockups more quickly.

AI still can't drive reliably. AI isn't sure if something is correct or not. AI still doesn't really understand anything. You could replace AI with computers in your sentence and it would probably be a very real worry that people shared in 1990. Theres always been technology that people are afraid will drastically change things, but ultimately people adapt and the world is usually better off.

He should become a massage therapist or a Circus performer would be solid advice.

Yeah, these all made me feel incredibly nauseous. I was trying to figure out what aspect of the motion was triggering this (bad parallax?) but couldn't. The results are impressive but it's still amazing to me how little defects like this can trigger our sense of not just uncanniness but actual sickness.

I do. My hypothesis is that there isn't really good bokeh yet in the videos, and our brains get motion sick trying to decide what to focus on. I.e. too much movement and *too much detail* spread out throughout the frame. Add motion to that and you have a recipe for nausea (at least for now)

I think I feel a bit of queasiness but more from the fact that I'm looking at what I recognize as actual humans, and I'm making judgements about what kinds of people they are as I do with any other human, but it's actually not a human. It's not a person that exists.

Yes, I felt seriously nauseous. I feel like I just took off early gen VR goggles. Still feeling gross after 30 minutes.

I think part of it might be the slow motion / high frame rate effect. I get this too sometimes with the Apple TV backgrounds.

Perfect fit for VR.

The more I use them, the more I get a sense of something fundamental that's missing, and the less I worry about losing my job. It's hard to describe, I need to think harder about what that feeling is.

Many financiers are willing to trade quality with cost reduction.

They absolutely sat on this and waited until a competitor announced something, so they could suck the air out of the room.

Not to mention, the Gemini 1.5 Pro announcement was almost all technical talk whereas Sora is light on text and heavy on demonstration.

I'm actually worried about the future of Google at this point. They really seem to be struggling under their own weight.

What was released during the first time?

I too noticed the coincidence. Not to be a conspiracy theorist but part of me wonders if they share this information with each other, or if OpenAI has advancements like these sitting in the chamber and they are willing wait a few weeks before they release them to maximize the impact of the timing.

And this was made over 3 years ago : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM

Now, we can make anyone eat spaghetti with this AGI model.

Extremely meme quality video made by a kid though.

You do know that video wasnt like... state of the art video generation a year ago? It's an intentionally silly meme video

> OpenAI demonstrating the size of their moat. How many multi-million-dollar funded startups did this just absolutely obsolete?

For posterity since the term has been misused lately, having a very good product isn't a moat in the business sense. There's nothing stopping a competitor from creating a similar product (even if it's difficult), and there's nothing currently stopping OpenAI's users from switching from using Sora to a sufficient competitor if it exists.

Sora is more akin to a company like Apple/Google a decade ago using their vast resources to do what a third-party does, but better (e.g. the Sherlocked incident: https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-co...).

"How many multi-million-dollar funded startups did this just absolutely obsolete?"

The play with AI isn't to build the tools to help businesses make money, the play is to directly build the businesses that makes the money.

In practice this means, don't focus your business model on building the AI to make text to video happen. Your business model should be an AI studio, if the tech you need doesn't exist, build it.... but if you get beat by someone with more GPU's and more data, cool use the better models. Your business model should focus on using the capability not building it. It's proving quite hard to beat someone with more GPU's, more data, more brain power.

I predict, this "AI" content generation will eat itself at last. It will outcompete the low-effort "content" industry as is. Then inevitably completely devalue this sort of "product". Because it will never get to 100% of the real thing, the "AI" content craze will ultimately implode.

I bet we won't get AGI as a progression of this very technology. The impression of "usefulness" will end when "AI" is starting to drink its own Koolaid on a large scale (copilot lol), and when everyone starts using it as super inefficient business interface. Overfitted mediocre mediocrity, on steroids.

Hopefully, this sobriety happens before the economy collapses, as a consequence of all dem bullshit jobs cleansed.

$7T is more than the budget of the US federal government, a third of the NASDAQ, or 2,3x AAPL market cap. Sam getting his 7T is not actually possible.

OpenAI's moat is (a) talent (b) access to compute (c) no fear of using whatever data they can get.

On the other hand, I think these moats will be destroyed as soon as anyone finds a drastically more efficient (compute- and data-wise) way to train LLMs. Biology would suggest that it doesn't take $100 million worth of GPUs and exaflops of compute to achieve the intelligence of a human.

(Of course it is possible that at that point, OpenAI may then be able to achieve something far superior to human intelligence, but there is a LOT of $$$ out there that only needs human levels of intelligence.)

> 100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out with Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars or podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad at them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser, etc.

This is the stuff of Brave New World. It's happening to us in real time.

> Sam is probably going to get his $7T if he keeps this up, and when he does everybody else will be locked out forever.

I would be extremely surprised if he could get past the market cap of all current corporations as an investment. That doesn't mean "no, never"[0], but I would be extremely surprised.

$7T in one go would be 6.7% of global GDP, and is approximately the combined GDP of Japan and Canada.

> These videos are crazy. Highly suggest anybody who was playing with Dall-E a couple of years ago, and being mindblown by "an astronaut riding a horse in space" or whatever go back and look at the images they were creating then, and compare that to this.

Indeed, though I will moderate that by analogy: it's been just over 30 years since DOOM was released, and that was followed by a large number of breathless announcements about how each game had "amazing photorealistic graphics that beat everything else" while forgetting that the same people had said the same things about all the other games released since DOOM.

Don't get me wrong: these clips are amazing. They may not be perfect, but it took me a few loops to notice the errors.

I'm sure there are people with better eyes for details than me, who will spot more errors, spot them sooner, and keep noticing them long after GenAI seems perfect to me.

But I also expect that, just as 3D games' journalism spent a long time convinced the products were perfect when they weren't, so too will GenAI journalism spend a long time convinced the products are perfect before they actually are.

[0] a sufficiently capable AI is an economic power in its own right. I previously guessed, and even with it's flaws would continue to guess, that the initial ChatGPT model was about as economically valuable to each user as an industrial placement student, and when I was one of those I was earning £1k/month (about £1.7k/month when adjusted for inflation).

> 100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out with Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars or podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad at them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser, etc.

I think immersive games will also be a big application. Games AI will also benefit from being more strategically intelligent and from being able to negotiate, in a human-like fashion, with human and other AI players. The latter will not only make games better, it will also improve the intelligence of AIs.

That's an interesting take - podcasts have become a replacement for companionship and conversation.

I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not sure the dystopian conclusion is the main one I'd draw.

Improving your ability to connect with and enjoy/learn from people all around the world is one of the main value props of the internet, and tech like this just deepens that potential. Will some people take this to an unhealthy degree that pulls them too far out of reality? Yes. But others will use it to level up their abilities, enrich their lives, create beautiful things, and reduce loneliness.

seems like a significant chunk of the population may opt in to the Matrix voluntarily.

on another note I find it funny they released this right after Google announced their new model. Bad luck for Google or did OpenAI just decide to move up their announcement date to steal their thunder?

I think there are people for whom the fundamental assumption that someone will want "more" of stuff they already like does not hold, and that while those people are a minority, recent developments in the media landscape toward a constant stream of increasingly similarity-curated media has caused them to increasingly disengage from media consumption

That said, those people are by definition less relevant to internet consumption metrics

This is very impressive

But VFX isn't that big of a market by itself: Global visual effects (VFX) market size was US$ 10.0 Billion in 2023

I hate that this is true.

Even with 7 trillion, he is still going to need a national grid that can supply the power for the compute.

There is a lot that has to planned and put in place now to get there.

As for people that have opted out of life. We would have a better world if we started encouraging more dreamers/doers like out of the movie Tomorrowland.

>100% they would pay a lot of money to be able to hang out with Joe Rogan, or some only fans person, and those pornstars or podcasts hosts will never disagree with them, never get mad at them, never get bored of them, never thing they're a loser, etc.

All of these things are against the terms of service and attempting them may result in a ban.

We say 7T$ as if it’s nothing, am I the only one shocked by the sum we are talking about?

This is close to what BlackRock is managing!

Looks like they have made large progress in hand generation. They still look like claws a bit but you didn’t have to add a workaround for the query to render correctly and I had to zoom in to verify . When I was watching it the first time I didn’t even notice hand issues.

It's going to take a while to make this realtime as you suggest. The lower the latency, the more $$$ it costs (exponentially).

it wouldn't be too difficult to make a tiktok like app that created tailored prompts for sora based on the user and tracking data. Question is whether it is profitable

Hopefully, the line between the real world and virtual world gets stronger once again.

This comment just hit the charts of the black mirror scoreboard

He never mentioned $7T.

Srsly.

We were not able to handle applications of preexisting tools for steering public sentiment, limited to static text and puppet account generation etc.

We are not handling the current generation of text and image generation, or, deepfake style transfer, or, voice cloning, etc ad nauseum.

We will not be able to handle this.

GOOD. TIMES. AHEAD.

but oh that Spatial Video NeRF generated pr0n with biometric feedback autotuning and a million token memory for what. I. like.

You realize how easy it is to do that with actors, right?

I feel the opposite. I've been overwhelmed with a sense of my mortality, that I need to care for my body better, in order to live as long as possible into this age. I feel like I won the lottery of birth date to be able to see this. I get your perspective, and I have no doubt the wealth gap will widen painfully, but I'm also optimistic about humanity's ability to work it out.

It allows the technical possibility for a post-truth reality, where it's impossible to tell what's true and what isn't. Every piece of information fed through your machine and smartphone. That's the scariest part to me. We need to get ahead of that, because certain interests will be fabricating things with it.

As jobs go, well, we're a long ways from full automation but this represents some serious growing pains that will decimate certain jobs and replace them with few. Not sure what the reaction will be on the consumption side, revulsion or enthusiasm. The "handcrafted" market will still be there but then you wouldn't really know if any AI was used. In a long enough timeline we can hand-wave this away with UBI/negative tax.

But ah, the most at-risk workers are the professional services, white-collar upper-middle class types, even engineers but to a lesser extent. So I wonder what kind of upheaval that would cause.

For me, it's my kid. He's just turned three. He had just turned two when GPT4 was announced.

Going back generations, my grandparents' lives were virtually identical to my great grandparents'. My parents grew up with radio, but they were adults by the time TV changed their world. All three generations got the bulk of their information from books and newsprint.

I grew up together with computers. I remember riding that exponential wave of tech like a surfer. From Commodore 64 to a laptop with 64GB of memory, a million-to-one ratio. Tetris to Doom Eternal. Dialup modem to gigabit... in a mobile device that fits in my pocket.

All of this took decades, but now changes like this happen in months.

I keep thinking that "this tech will change my kid's childhood", but what "this" is, is already outdated and being replaced in a blink of an eye, and he hasn't even reached that point yet where he'd notice!

When image generators were first released... what... a year ago... I thought: Wow! One day, when my kid is a little older, I'll be able to use this to create illustrations for stories we make up as we go along! Won't that be great!

I still haven't gotten around to that yet, he's still too young to appreciate that, and anyway, with this Sora I'll be able to create video instead by the time he's old enough!

I keep trying to imagine what his life will be like when he grows up to be a teenager, but realistically I'm having a hard time predicting what will already be outdated by the time he's four.

I think my thoughts went in a similarly sinister direction, when I saw it. I couldn't quiet grasp it.

My mood wasn't euphoric, to say the least.

The compute and innovations behind it should be owned by the planet, not by a handful of billionaires. It is far too powerful to be controlled by such a small group of humans, who decide what is "safe" and what isn't.

It took billions of years for all of our ancestors to enable this technology, and now a handful claim it for themselves. The GPUs to run these models cost $20,000+ each, and only the ultra-rich can afford to have that compute.

Compute power needs to be radically redistributed and equalized across the board. This is too much power.

I think of it like: The only reason humans still drive cars is we have yet to find a good enough way of replacing ourselves with something more effective. It's merely an implementation detail of "getting from A to B" that would be disrupted if a true autonomous solution was discovered. Many would want to optimize away drunk drivers and road rage if it were possible in some faraway future. So something like a steering wheel could be seen like a compromise of sorts, until the next big thing makes them obsolete.

That, and the state of missing a technology in a period of time is irreplaceable once it's been discovered. Nobody can live in an era without social media anymore, barring a global-scale catastrophic reset. So I believe it's important to consider what technology is not yet totally pervasive, for example by realizing there is still a steering wheel for you to grip in your car.

And in my mind, the sinister feeling stems from the fact that all it takes to irreversibly shift society like that is enough smart people with honest intentions but little foresight of what will happen in a few decades as a result of proliferating all this. The problems that result stop being in anyone's control, "throwing it over the wall" so to speak, and instead become yet another fact of life that could weigh us down (mostly I think of the ubiquity of social media and how it has changed human interaction). And it all stems from just a few engineering type people getting overexcited about cool possibilities they can grasp at, not considering there are billions of people unlike them who may have other ideas.

The Congress and Until the End of the World lay out some possible outcomes of tech like this.

Specifically the dream fed back to the brain in an endless loop of personalization until individuals no longer share the same world.

I felt the same thing when I saw LLMs writing code for the first time

yes this is both exciting and scary.

I have felt the same since Stable Diffusion came out.

The thing is, things have value in society partly because human efforts were involved in its making. It's not just about the end result; people still go to concert on top of listening to studio recordings for example, and people still watch humans play chess even though it's clear that good enough algorithms can beat the best humans easily. Technology like these which takes away too much immediate effort (hours needed to create the product) and long term effort (decades of training) are inherently absent of underlying value that I spoke of. Of course, if a person is only interested in consumption, it matters not how the "thing" is created.

Much of the sense of doom I have comes from the inherent erosion of this human effort element in the creative process. Whether we like it or not, the availability of mass produced content naturally threatens crafts themselves. After all, nobody wants to spend a few decades on their skills only to have their creation compared to an AI generated image produced in a few seconds.

I understand there are a lot of hypes around these technology to "humanity" but I have yet to see it. It just feels like more power consolidation to billionaires (especially when done as ClosedAI). There are artists who have tried to incorporate these but they have always felt the need to willingly not label their work as AI-generated or AI-assisted to sell (but still leaves in enough details for keen observers to tell it's AI touched).

As a whole, it just feels wrong. The most optimistic (and reasonable) take I have seen is "Just wait and see". It might feel like a non-argument, but it's the only realistic take between the hyped up techbros and the doomer cult (admittedly, I might belong to the latter group).

I think one of the most worrying thing for me is that regardless of how this plays out, this technology has only added more complexity to our society. That people are divided into camps about how they feel about the technology is simply a symptom about how much uncertainty there is in the future. This last bit will be a personal quarrel, but I personally lose any last desire to have children seeing the AI advancement. It's not right creating sentient life in an age where every year people have to play lottery to see whether technological advancement has deemed their life long effort unworthy.

Feeling anything else other than concern is unpopular only on this website where most believe the entire world is cute like the nerds hanging out at the office's game room.

Nothing good is coming out of this. I don't give a shit if you believe this is Luddism.

I disagree, Gemini 1.5 is still impressive (if true) with the 10 million context size!

Did they have this ready to go to upstage whatever Google would release? Or just coincidental both things announced today?

I'm pretty sure everyone saw Google as a directionless pile of money, there's a reason killedbygoogle exists.

There's not really too much to talk about Gemini 1.5 as it's an iteration and there's not much to test around the new context length.

The Sora demos are more interesting.

The fact that SamA just seems to go off the cuff on twitter pretty frequently is such a breath of fresh air.

Gargantuan achievements in two different spaces. 10 million tokens means insane things. Things like feeding the entire codebase of a massive site and saying make a copy of this with these changes.

This is a really silly take isn't it?

I mean, why would this make google look bad?

Gemini is catching up, so OpenAI needs a new venue to market itself to the investors. It is doing a soft pivoting if you ask me, now GPT4 is like not that special anymore.

it's not old news and it's actually way more impressive

it's just that people want to root for OpenAI more because hype

> Sora serves as a foundation for models that can understand and simulate the real world, a capability we believe will be an important milestone for achieving AGI.

For models to interact with real-world objects, they first need to understand those objects. These videos demonstrate just how advanced that awareness is. The goal is not to generate videos. Of course, they could and likely will build products on this capability, but the long-term goal is bigger.

That's exactly what we have now with YouTube.

How else is the next generation of talented creatives cultivated, if not out of the pool of the millions of untalented typists?

If a model can generate it, it can understand it.

They can probably reverse engineer this to build a multi-modal GPT that is fed video and understands what is going on. That's how you get "smart" robots. Active scene understanding via the video modality + conversational capabilities via the text/audio modality.

This vast amount of human talent and computational power could be channeled into fighting disease and death.

There’s an ongoing thread on Twitter where Sam takes suggestions from replies and shares the output. E.g. https://x.com/sama/status/1758200420344955288?s=46&t=VQo1eLU...

Totally agree, they can pay a lot of monkeys at typewriters,

but also? https://openai.com/sora?video=big-sur

made me literally say, out loud, "doesnt-matter-had-sex"

I imagine it's not long before we see hyper-targeted commercials where the actors look like us, live in our city, etc.

You could have ChatGPT create unlimited simulated forum threads about news articles, but here you are on Hacker News

One understated aspect of AI Seinfeld is that it took many steps to differentiate it from the actual Seinfeld and create its own identity, such as the 144p visual filter and the random microwave. Those tweaks added to its charm.

If someone tried to do AI Seinfeld again in 2024, many would criticze it for not being realistic enough now that the tools to do so are now available.

I'm not sure there would be much demand for purely custom/individualized episodes beyond the novelty and maybe for fun with a group of friends. Most of the reason people watch TV or movies is for the shared experience that you can discuss with others. It could definitely drive down production costs though, hopefully HBO uses it to eventually redo Game of Thrones post season 4

If this sounds interesting I’d highly recommend this short story by Ken Liu

https://future-sf.com/fiction/1700/

That would not work because that's now how people work. People watch/play media to connect to others. How can you talk about anything to anyone or have any shared culture when other people will never see what you see?

Movies, books, games, are a collective culture, not an individualist one. I don't know about you, but when I like an experience, I want to share it with others.

> Imagine if every episode of a TV show was unique to the viewer.

This is the bit I don't think will happen, at least in big quantities. Half the fun of watching a popular series is being able to discuss it with epople afterwards!

I am thinking of Stargate SG-1 Season 11. And remaking Game of Thrones after Season 5

Speedrunning Black Mirror

Actors had a strike in part over this recently.

I wonder if there is anything in the recent Hollywood strikes that will prevent the studios from dong that?

We haven't seen that happen for books. Perhaps humans crave human spirit?

She's also wearing a different jacket at the end of the video. Continuity is not maintained when the video zooms back out to a wider shot after the close-up on her face. See, e.g., no zipper on end jacket and obvious zipper on jacket earlier in the video, or placement of the silver "buttons" and general structure of the lapels.

The background details are particularly "slippery" in these videos. E.g., in the initial video of walking along a snowy street in Japan, characters on the left just sort of merge into/out of existence. It's impressive locally, but the global structure and ability to paint in finer-grained details in a physically plausible way fails similarly to current image gen models, but more noticeably with the added temporal dimension.

And the cat that wakes up the woman in bed, has three front paws! And that woman seems to be wearing the blanket as though they were pyjamas. Still, it's usually very hard to notice the inconsistencies -- just like the subtle inconsistencies we might see in our dreams.

The construction scene has people appearing out of thin air, changing jacket colors, and in general weird things happening

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, whose existence and names we will never know or acknowledge.

The way these models are creative is the same way humans are.

The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the influences and inspirations that they had.

Just as cameras made many artists redundant, so too will every other new tool, and not just artist but pretty much every job.

But there are still people that weave baskets, and people are prepared to pay the premium to get a product that was 'hand-made'.

While receiving the credit that you are deserved is nice and fair. The world doesn't work that way.

Your argument is similar to the classic hand vs. power tools argument in crafting, which eventually boils down to "did you mine the ore and forge the tools yourself?" Nowadays the argument is about CNC vs. hand crafting.

This is just a point in our overall evolution. It's an exciting time. We are here to learn and adapt.

Humans can still be creative all they want. There's still the stamp of "created by a human" that will never go away. You can choose to respect it or ignore it.

Yeah we all thought machines would automate menial labour allowing us to focus on creativity and passion. Looks like it’s the exact opposite.

I disagree. I think this is going to empower creatives like never before. Filmmaking currently takes a huge amount of time and money. Countless would be filmmakers are relegated to making 30 second tiktoks because that's all they can afford to do. This could change all that.

Today, only a highly privileged slice of the population can make a living making art. Nearly everyone who enjoys making art can't make a living off of it, and even the vast majority of people trying to do it full time still can't make ends meet (hence the cliche of the starving artist). But everyone can make art as a hobby if they'd like, that's what almost all artists do, and that will continue to be true as AI advances.

So I don't see AI art as changing careers much. Even if AI fully replaces human artists, all that means is the 0.1% of people who make a career off their art will have to join the rest of us 99.9% who only do art for the fun of it.

Haven't we always attributed creations to people, to motivate our own egos to pursue higher achievements in the name if "glory"? With vision of wealth attributed to fame? Forgive me for being cynical here, but this is how I always viewed the world. Names are... just this, names. Things we use to communicate some ideas/phenomena, but are irrelevant in scope of endless evolution. And can function just aswell with some other "identifier" attached to it.

I have come to terms with the fact, that I'm just a spit of sand, just as irrelevant to my own creation, as I am to the cells and bacteria that create me.

As said every time this "why are we automating creativity when menial jobs exist?" response comes up:

1) Errors in art programs messing up is less worrisome than a physical robot. One going wrong makes extra fingers in a picture, the other potentially maims or kills you.

2) Moravec's Paradox. Reasoning requires little computation versus sensorimotor and perception.

3) Despite 1 and 2, we are constantly automating menial jobs!

This reads a little hysterical to me. It's just a new medium of expression. Who knows, maybe the lack of genuine artistic merit, if there is such a thing, would lead more people to watch Jim Jarmusch flicks.

I used to have the same view. Watching "Everything is a Remix" [1] helped me broaden my perspective.

[1] https://youtu.be/nJPERZDfyWc

Think of your favorite musicians. How many of them give attribution to where each musical idea came from?

The concept of art as exclusive property is very new. Throughout history, artists have built on one another’s works with no attribution or provenance. It’s really just the past 100 years — Disney, specifically - that have created the cultural mindset that the first person to express something owns it forever and everyone else has to pay them for the privilege of building that next work.

BTW I’m old enough to remember people decrying the rise of desktop publishing (“WYSIWYG”) as the automation of creativity.

I share your disdain for the geriatric political class, but I strongly disagree that this is a situation that needs to be managed. I say we let the arts return to the free for all they were for the fist 80,000 years or whatever.

> This is both amazing and saddening to me. All our cultural legacy is being fed into a monstrous machine that gives no attribution to the original content with which it was fed, and so the creative industry seems to be in great danger.

It is the same as what every human being is doing. We consume and we create. Sometimes creations are very good, but most of the time they are just mediocre. If the machines can create better average results, it will be due to the genius of the humans who invented those machines.

So we can be happy, that we have such beings among us and should cherish, that we will have better content to consume in the future. When you look at the world, you will see, that there are still plenty of problems to be solved for humans.

In the same way the "organic" movement took over food, and we want to feel human skill and touch in what we are consuming, I think we will see a similar swing in media.

People invest in stories. They also invest in other people. This is why people love seeing Tom Cruise over and over again in movies. Or why I'm going to go see the next Scorsese movie.

Reality television is designed to be addicting, and engaging, and it is very successful at that. I get pulled into The storylines whenever I watch. But I quickly turn it off. I don't watch it not because it is not enjoyable, but because I realize it is a cotton candy: empty trash that is not worth my time.

Artists are already often criticized for being "corporate." I think we'll see a similar effect for AI generated content. The hoi polloi and normies will slurp it up.

The true fans and passionate ones who give a shit aren't going to be fooled.

Edit: for length

Proactively splitting up the menial tasks so that everyone is doing a little bit, inasmuch as they are able to, for a few hours a day, a few days a week, and getting paid a full-living wage for it seems like the way to go. Or, everyone pulls a Xiu Xiang from Rainbows End and goes back to high school.

The main obstacle to this is the pride and ego of the people who've "made it" up until now. Let go. Let society have nice things, even if you have to reinvent yourself. I don't think that creativity is endangered; art, uh, finds a way.

They manage it by meeting with Sam Altman while he runs around in incredibly expensive suits and tells them he will open an office in their country so they will all benefit.

Let's go beyond the philosophical. Which sources would you expect the "woman walks through Tokyo" video to attribute?

I didn't go to film school or had any training in creative arts. I love the fact that I will have an outlet for creative expression where my text can generate image, video and sound. I can iterate over them, experiment with visualizations, and get better without technical barriers. Generative AI is making everyone an artist as well as a coder

A part of the book Look to Windward by Ian M. Banks wrote of this. How the machine minds could comfortably write opera's greater than any man, but still humans would go to the theatre, just to appreciate it, but the impact was recognised in society. Of course that world was based on post-scarcity whilst we are not.

Automatizing creativity, some claim, is an endeavor akin to catching smoke with bare hands—futile, if not utterly fanciful. Yet, I can't help but ponder over the peculiar ballet of human ingenuity and mechanical precision. Consider for a moment, this strange juncture we find ourselves at, a place where the tools crafted by our own hands begin to sketch the outlines of what could very well be new breeds of creativity.

Let's muse on the notion that creativity, as we've known and cherished it, can be bottled up and dispensed by machines, up to a certain whimsical point. Beyond that? We stumble upon creations like these, novel tools that beckon us, the flesh-and-blood creators, to mold unforeseen "creativities." It's one spectacle to mechanize the known realms of artistic endeavor, quite another to boldly claim that machines shall inherit the mantle of creativity, henceforth dictating the contours of all future artistic landscapes.

History, that grand tapestry, is peppered with instances where the mechanical muses have dared to tread upon the sacred grounds of creativity. Take photography, for instance, a marvel of the 19th century that promised to capture reality with an accuracy that scoffed at the painter's brush. Or consider the digital revolution, which flung open the doors to realms of visual and auditory experiences previously consigned to the realm of dreams. The synthesizer, not merely an instrument but a portal, has ushered us into a new era of musical exploration, challenging the supremacy of the acoustic tradition.

Each of these milestones, while distinctly modern, echoes the age-old dance between creator and tool, where each step forward is both a continuation and a departure from the past. In this light, the question isn't whether creativity can be automated, but rather how our definition of creativity evolves as we, hand in hand with our mechanical counterparts, stride into the unknown.

Yes and no; I mean there are still painters around and we still appreciate their skill in the world of photographs. Sometimes it's only marginally about the finished product, but also about the work to make it.

The creators just don't care humans haha. I don't know why people still learning communications, writing, art or any other crafts. everything will be displaced by next AI.

take shakespeare, he borrowed from so many and yet most people don’t know

a few examples

Plutarch's Lives

Holinshed's Chronicles

Ovid's Metamorphoses

good artist copy, great artist steal

so on and worth

i, for one, welcome these creative machines slurping all that was created!

We have been on this path for centuries. Compare the symphonies of 200 years ago with our current music or painting. We humans prefer quantity over quality.

> the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to manage the situation.

OK, well, you walked right into this one:

You must know the answer: How do you manage it?

Machines can reliably beat humans at chess. Has that stopped anyone from playing? Has it stopped anyone from watching chess tournaments?

This is a similar problem manuscript duplicating workers in the Ottoman realm. The printing machines would take their job, but they resisted and lobbied against it in the courts of the sultan. They succeeded in delaying the adoption of printing for some time for the detriment of the people. Unfortunately, this has been the history of man and technology destroying something for the better or worse.

Some twisted the story as if the underlying issue was the religion but economic concerns were the real reason.

Have you ever danced or even just enjoyed listening to Daft Punk?

I think turning human creativity into industry was huge mistake.

I welcome its fall.

> Creativity being automated while humans are forced to perform menial tasks for minimum wage doesn't seem like a great future and the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to manage the situation.

May I introduce you to the entire history of humanity between 7 millennia before the invention of writing to approximately 50 years after the invention of communism? :P

More seriously: yes, we have no clue how to manage the situation. The best guess right now is UBI, which looks cool, but then at a first glance so does communism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Time for, ironically because humans are surprisingly bad at this, a creative idea for how to manage all this.

Wish I could go back in time and tell myself to not bother learning how to do any of this stuff the old fashioned way.

Why is the machine monstrous?

I feel like a lot of that frustration comes from seeing "arts and culture" as the pinnacle of anything when maybe it's just an overvalued side-effect of human wiring to avoid boredom.

Imho. it's just really hard to reason that average non-educational entertainment has a positive net effect on global society.

Seeing it this way makes it way less surprising that "art" and "creative entertainment" is one of the first things that gets hit by automation.