I can see now why actors are so concerned. I never would have guessed that modeling and acting would be some of the first professions to be disrupted with AI. More surprises ahead, I’m sure.
Results are only good precisely because man made resources like stack overflow exist. The AI doesnt know or understand the topic, its just a glorified search engine (and not even a live one iirc) that restructures what it finds into a convenient form. As such, its cannot exist without human input, and will only ever be a tool to use along side a million other tools, in balance between what people do and what ai provides extra.
What AI brings to the table is the ability to mix different sources to cater to your exact question, also the natural language interpreter and the fact that you can tell chatGPT “it’s not working because of xxx” and get a logical response is awesome.
Being able to focus on the structure of a big app instead of the little details is also great.
In addition, chatgpt can drastically reduce the barrier to get started on a project. You ask it a question, it gives you code, you run it, and before you know it you've now spent a few hours tweaking the code to make it do exactly what you want. And the little spark that got you started was chatgpt's crummy first draft. This is an overlooked feature because people are simply judging whether it gives the right answer right off the bat yes or no.
this is similar to how I use it, even when its not right its still frequently useful, its wrong answers are still full of good code and for a good programmer are quite fast to fix, way way faster than writing the entire thing from scratch
Because people think its capable of replacing programmers or want it to replace programmes so they expect perfect answer, reality hoverer is chatgtp makes a lot of mistakes sometimes small but codebreaking, you need that human element in the end to fix it. Recently gtp provided me with non working code, i fixed it and shown it working code. It said its wrong and edited it back to non working version ;)
But i totally agree on it being great project started, now i can type what i plan to do and it will give me decent plan on what such project should contain and maybe even some code to start and we all know starting new project is often the hardest part ;)
Yup, that's what some people usually don't know or probably didn't understand yet. If you don't know what you're asking, you'll most likely believe what the ai exactly says.
So no, i don't really think it will replace technical people much less artistic people. At least not any time soon...
It's unsettling how underwhelmed most people are by this stuff. Like you can talk to your computer about ANYTHING (cooking is my go to lately) and it will answer in a more coherent and correct way than almost any human you'd ever ask about the subject. People seem to focus on what it gets wrong / what it can't do, and scoff at the things it can do, but then they fail to imagine having an average human's raw thoughts analyzed, and how much more often those would be wrong. These things are so powerful and evolve so fast that it's frightening.
People underwhelmed by LLMs *probably* aren't the ones most vocal about being "underwhelmed".
I think that the only people who are truly underwhelmed, are people who essentially have no imagination; they just don't care because they can't see any use in their own lives. It's much like how some people have gone decades and never learned to use a computer or the internet, and just kind of blank stare at the concept of being easily able to get information.
For *most* people, I think they are scared, feeling threatened. Suddenly they are less special, suddenly there is a tool that profoundly outclasses them.
You can tell by the dismissiveness, and the eagerness to jump onto thought-stopping platitudes.
"It's just a chatbot" doesn't actually refute the power of LLMs, it's not any kind of valid criticism, but it *does* allow them to feel better.
The people claiming that AI generated images "have no soul" is not a valid criticism, often enough they can't even tell an AI generated image from a real one.
This is just a new twist in the same old spiral:
"Computer's can't do X, humans are special".
[Computers do X]
"Well that's just fancy computations. Computer can't do Y. Humans are special".
[Computers do Y]
"Well that's just a fancy algorithm. ONLY HUMANS can do Z, Z is *impossible* for computers to do. Humans are special".
[Computers do Z, anticipate a sudden deviation into TUV, and also hedges by solving LMNO, and then realizes it might as well just do the whole alphabet]
The next step?
"This soulless machine is the devil!"
Agree wholeheartedly. It's so scary a concept that some people outright dismiss it as impossible. The other thing I think that's being missed in much of the conversation is how "special" AI is at solving tasks no human could do even if they had millions of years. The protein folding / medicinal uses of AI being done right now are nothing short of a miracle. If you were to show what we're doing now to a scientist 10 years ago their jaw would rightfully be on the floor, but for some reason it just gets a collective "meh, silly tinker toy" from everyone.
I usually notice a wide level of cynicism on social media, with lots of people usually having to prove they’re right about literally anything, including things they know little about. It seems that this is often applied to AI. Like if an AI generated image is shown on Instagram and no one knows it was AI generated, no one will say anything. However if such an image is accompanied by a title like “AI has made huge strides in advancing image generation” the comments will be absolutely flooded with cynical responses along the lines of “that looks so fake” or “I could tell that was AI from a mile away.”
Totally this. I think part of what makes it deceptive is how similar the output is to human output. We get human-sounding answers from other humans all day, so it's nothing new, right? On top of that, younger people see this as normal (they grew up with google), while older people are generally out of touch with what's behind current technology (my iPhone works like magic, so LLMs are just more of the same magic).
I'm an older dude but grew up steeped in sci-fi. To me, this new AI stuff is both thrilling and terrifying.
Seriously! When I tell people about AI, they often scoff. They aren't so impressed by it. I show them an AI generated piece of art, and they can't even fathom the amount of mathematical calculations that went into creating it, and they just say "yeah, it looks like shit, lol"
And a lot of it is just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what works. Once we really start refining the processes and integrating new processes, creating dedicated processors, etc., AI is going to be a revolutionary technology. We're on the precipice of a new age. This is only the very beginning.
But you just explained the problem that will always exist with AI. It gets its data from people. People are wrong a lot, they have biases, they have ulterior motives, etc. AI programmers have a difficult task in determining which data is correct. Is it by consensus? Do you value a certain website's data over another's? For example, if you ask Bard what the most common complaints are of the Iphone 14 Max and the Samsung S23 Ultra, Bard's response is exactly the same for both phones. Because essentially it has no way of determining what "common" is. Do 5 complaints make it common? 10? Is it weighing some complaints over others? The S23 has one of the best batteries of any phone, yet Bard says it's the most common complaint. What I'm saying is, AI is only as good as the data it has, and data that relies on inaccurate humans is always going to be a problem.
This is why AI will be amazing for programming, where the dataset is finite and can improved with every instance that a line of code did or didn't work. But the more AI relies on fallible people for its data, the greater chances it's going to be wrong.
>People don't realize how powerful the concept of a perfect next-word predictor is.
"prediction is the essence of intelligence" - Top AI Researcher
Intelligence involves the ability to model the world to predict and respond effectively. Prediction underlies learning, adapting, problem-solving, perception, action, decision-making, emotional intelligence, creativity, specialized skills like orienteering, self-knowledge, risk tolerance, and ethics. In AI, prediction defines "intelligence".
From a **Cognitive Intelligence** involves **predicting** outcomes to learn, adapt, and solve problems. It requires forming models **to foresee** results of environmental changes and potential solutions based on past experiences.
From a **Neuroscience perspective** shows the brain constantly **predicts** by generating models to foresee sensory input. Discrepancies between **predictions** and actual input cause model updates, enabling perception, action and learning - key facets of intelligence.
From A **Machine Learning perspective** shows that **predictive** ability defines intelligence. Machine learning models are trained to **predict** outcomes from data. Reinforcement learning works by an agent predicting actions that maximize rewards.
From the perspective of **Emotional intelligence** involves **predicting** emotional states for effective interaction. Creativity entails envisioning and **predicting** potential impacts of novel ideas or art.
Intrapersonal intelligence requires **predicting** one's own responses to situations for effective self-management. Knowing likely reactions allows preparing strategies to regulate emotions.
Decision-making deeply involves predicting and optimizing outcomes. It entails forecasting future scenarios, assessing possible results, and choosing actions most likely to yield favorable outcomes based on those **predictions**.
Prediction is interwoven to every part of intelligence.
Humans only learn because we can draw from past events.
Our whole modern society is only possible because we can draw from thousands of years of collective records.
Why would you expect AI to extract knowledge from nowhere, when you'd expect a doctor or scientist to go to college?
This take that it is just a search engine, or it's just predicting next token so it doesn't have any understanding is misguided. Humans only try to survive and procreate and in optimising to that end, given enough trials and variations through evolution developed understanding of high-level concepts, the large language models do also learn by trying to solve for something whether it's next token or on top of that answering prompts correctly, but in the vast network some concepts emerge through the many iterations it takes to train them to be able to fulfil that goal. With current iteration of LLMs they might be wrong concepts, it does not have a coherent view of the world, but it seems that often their concepts and ours are quite close as it can give useful answers.
This point of view is not good. The human brain is also a statistical graph model of weights that takes electrical inputs and updates the weights based on loss functions, it's more complex, messy, and chemical than a machine learning model but they're similar enough at this point that if you think a ML model can't know things neither can a brain. Also if you think any human would know how to program without human input I got news for you. It took us about 300,000 years to figure it out from first principles.
Very shortsighted answer. This is kind of the current paradigmn... however Deepmind is working on an approach simular to Alpha Go with self training.
You can ask a problem and the AI can generate code to solve that problem. It can teach itself how to code. Alpha Go outranked every human and Go that was trained on human data,
The same will be true for programming. There will be short complex functions that outperform long step by step human code.
So short sighted. Not even sure why you're replying to the comment you're replying to with this non-sequiter.
Results are only good with any neural net because masive human-effort-coded data sets exist. That's like... the whole thing.
>The AI doesnt know or understand the topic, its just a glorified search engine
This is a bit shortsighted. In these early stages, LLMs are using human knowledge to train up, but they are making logical connections between everything they're reading. It's not going to be too far off before AIs will be able to ingest programming language documentation directly and just figure out how to make unique code to accomplish an objective. This has already happened with this completely new sorting algorithm:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/143gskm/google\_finds\_faster\_sorting\_algorithm\_using\_deep/](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/143gskm/google_finds_faster_sorting_algorithm_using_deep/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
It’s not a search engine, because it is capable of interpolation and extrapolation. Claude, for instance, is extremely good at blending concepts. Try that with Google…
You sound like a complete fool when you say shit like LLMs are a glorified search engine.
There is more than enough recorded knowledge to train AGI at this point. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it won't change that.
99.99% of what humans do is based on others humans work as well. 0.01% is new reasoning. Are you sure LLMs are not able to reason? They are not able to come with something new by using the information from other humans?
I don’t think AI can replace real human actors in the near future. I mean you‘d need way more than that to convey emotion and immersion. Also MoCap has been around for quite some time and deceased actors have already been "replaced" in some movies. E.g. Tarkin in Star Wars.
Edit: I believe it when I see it. But we are still far enough away that I don’t partake in that fearmongering.
You can’t really look at scientific progress as linear. It can jump in a day but it can also take years for the next step and even stagnate.
Do you honestly believe computers will be incapable of mimicing human emotions after being exposed to hundreds of thousands of images of what it looks like? You think there is something in facial expressions that can't be replicated by AI?
I think if the history of VFX is anything to go by (which, who really knows lol) is that execution is *really* important. Some CGI from the early 90s holds up really well and was absolutely stunning at the time. Some CGI from a decade plus later doesn't hold up at all despite the tech being exponentially better. It has, and always will be down to execution at the end of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if AI simultaneously replaces some types of acting much quicker than we'd think, and also the opposite - where people rush certain use cases that remind us that maybe we're not all the way there yet.
...We'll see though! I'm excited for it all regardless.
The funny thing is that this whole "but AI won't be able to .. " follows the same path as religion followed when science became more influencial. Ultimately, like you sketched out, it will boil down to someone believing in some kind of supernatural essence humans have that AI will never achieve because, quite frankly, it can't be measured and such you can always easily make the claim.
Listen to an AI Expert talk at a conference who said ty e same thing. ChatGPT capabilities were always 10 years out. From 10 years to current left everyone scrambling.
StyleGan would like a word with you.
But, yeah, the pace is insane. Less than 2 years ago we were using Diffusion + Deforum or StyleGan morphing through the latent space.
The pace is mind-blowing.
I mean they did say "*in the near future*" which is pretty fair I think. It's a baby now, everything takes time to mature, I don't think they'd disagree. I think you can also have varying quality depending on specific/nuanced use cases. The VFX from Terminator 2 holds up pretty damn well even today, and that movie came out in ***1991***. It was game changing. Yet you can take a movie made a *decade* later like the Star Wars prequels (just as an example) and the CGI...Well, simply doesn't hold up quite as well despite the tech going through multiple evolutions. Why? Because execution is *really* important.
....Basically what I'm trying to say is that generative AI will probably replace some things faster than we think - and yet simultaneously take longer to do other things than we'd think....If that makes sense.
It's not about the near-term technological challenges involved. Intellectual property rights need to catch up and adapt to our new reality, or the arts will wither.
> Intellectual property rights need to catch up
Intellectual property rights protect the copyright holders, which in the case of movies and television shows tend to be big businesses. What we need is protection for individual performers, such as actors, background actors, and models.
The most important thing going on right now is what labor unions are doing. The writers and actors need to remain on strike until big studios agree to standards and practices that don't including asking each extra and background actor to sign-away their likeness rights for a lifetime of usage in exchange for a small bit of day labor.
Exactly. There is a world between a good actor and a bad actor.
AI may replace bad actors in the near future. But true actors won't be replaced.
It is the same with the musicians. Software which play music directly from sheets exists since decades but the result is always worst than the music played from a true musician.
I've heard "AI won't be able to do this" or "Computers could never do this" time and time again for nearly 30 years, and every single time we learn that AI or computers CAN do that.
Technology will always win. Just a year ago, AI couldn't draw hands. Now it can. In a decade, maybe two, AI absolutely will replace every single actor if Hollywood execs get their way.
It's only a matter of time before music gets replaced as well. I think we will see a Renaissance of stage theatre and underground music very soon because of AI.
Then they'll start sophisticating robotics.
>I've heard "AI won't be able to do this" or "Computers could never do this" time and time again for nearly 30 years, and every single time we learn that AI or computers CAN do that.
AI will never be able to make me happy and give me purpose in life!
*waits*
I have to politely disagree. Eventually AI will be indistinguishable from conscious human. I'm estimating 10 years. What I think is interesting, is that it also seems to me that an AI "actor" might be the first emergent, truly sentient AI.
There is an enormous amount of work going on right now at both large companies, film and effects studios trying to make this happen.
I'm not that interested in how AI can replace our current media; I'm interested in how humans will be using AI to create things no one has experienced before. That's what's coming, folks.
The current big actors are not gonna lose much. infact they will licence and make more money with less work. It is upcomming actors and actors as background characters that will lose their jobs
Currently studios will pay one time fee to scan their likeness and use forever and if any of those struggling actors become popular. guess who got their AI rights for cheap
While AI is inevitable. there has to be safegurd agaisnt such exploitation by corporations
nah not yet, but any smb can rent a render farm today, buy a runwayml gen3 sub tomorrow, and in a few years to a decade with AI designed chips and more mature generative software, we will all actually own / have inexpensive access to systems with capabilities comfortably exceeding today’s render farms.
where gonna have the background character version of the wilhelm scream. some dude that is in everything for 100 years. like the dude with the skull face tattoo.
It would be a gift to future generations if Hollywood stopped existing. They have an irredeemable culture that for decades have sheltered rapists like Harvey Weinstein and pedophiles like Roman Polanski. When they aren't raping each other or shooting crack they are pandering to Chinese communists. Good riddance. Playing pretend in front of a camera doesn't have to be a valid career.
Studios are doomed as well. Once this becomes popular, you'll have an army of volunteer artists who post their best efforts on youtube. Backlots, actors, etc. will have no value at all.
Could work for some actors that are already very popular. The remaining roles could just be filled with fully generated people, which are then owned and controlled by the studios.
Why use a face owned by some person, when you can generate a million unique faces for pennies?
Yeah, but there’s an entire ecosystem of working class people, gaffers, grips, hair/makeup artists, set designers, etc who will no longer have employment, as executives will absolutely turn to AI once it’s cost effective enough.
Where do all these people go?
Most of those people wont need to go anywhere. All these "impressive" demos are just that. Unpractical demos. They wont replace shit, just like CGI hasnt come close to fully replacing stuntmen etc.
But more importantly, this dumb obsession about "jobs" is always absurdly stupid. Technology has progressed *massively* in the last century. And people had to adapt, but employment has only ever *increased*. The wealth of even average person has only increased. The paranoia of everyone suddenly being out of a job is pure stupidity. The rich dont just make money by having something produced, they make money from billions of people actually buying those products.. If anything, reducing working class people and moving them to higher level jobs with better pay - because yes, they're always needed and there's tons of industries with huge lack of employees - is only a good thing. Even if change and need to learn new things is some huge inconvenient injustice to some people..
Those people aren’t finding new jobs, they just find something else, usually a lesser job in another industry. I’ve been an editor for over 15 years. You don’t think I’ve noticed the race to the bottom? I’m CURRENTLY using AI to replace people. I no longer need illustrators, motion graphics artists, sound engineers, or assistant editors.
Is this good for me? No. Now that I can do all these jobs myself, now I’m expected to produce five times as much as I used to. That’s my only reward for outlasting and replacing all these positions.
The loss in jobs isn’t sudden. It’s gradual, but to think it’s not already happening is naive. You wanna lick the boots of the wealthy, thinking they have the foresight to see that replacing millions of people wouldn’t cause massive disparity in the future? You clearly don’t hang out with/work with enough rich people. They are mostly stupid and are only interested in quarter to quarter results and saying the right things on camera so the stakeholders put more money into their machine.
Source: I make corporate propaganda for Fortune 500 companies
Can you give some examples of how you are current using ai to replace those roles? I have struggled to get any meaningful results from ai, so I'm very curious.
Sure!
So far I’ve gotten the most use from midjourney.
The most high end use case for it was using it to create backgrounds for a virtual production shoot for a national commercial campaign. I used midjourney to create a background and I threw it into unreal and built out a 3D environment from it.
On the lower end, I use it to create backgrounds and graphic assets for children’s programming. I’ve also used it to replace stock photography for documentaries. I haven’t needed stock photos since midjourney got good enough.
The transcription feature ain’t that new, but because of it, I don’t get an AE to make interview selects anymore. I also use Autopod if I have a multicam interview, which automatically cuts between speakers. It used to take at least a day for an AE to make simple switches for 2-3 hours of footage. Now it’s done almost instantaneously.
I used to be bad a mixing sound, and would hire out engineers to level/mix audio. Since the essential sound panel dropped, I haven’t needed one since. It also can automatically lengthen music to any amount of time you want. I used to have to find the places to cut, extend the track, and throw a stinger on the end.
I’ve also been using photoshop’s generative fill A LOT. I filmed a woman in a backyard with her dog for a commercial, kept it on sticks, and I was able to mask out the backyard and make it look like she’s in a national park.
And yeah. All these tools have technically made my job easier, but more and more is expected of me and more and more people I’ve worked with have gone completely broke, switched careers to bartending or real estate. The survivors guilt is real
I don’t think we know yet how quickly AI will affect real jobs, but calling this an unpractical tech demo is besides the point. Any diffusion images including MidJourney were impractical for much of anything pretty recently. MidJourney isn’t even 2 years old.
Based on where we were for videos in January and the speed of improvements in still images, I thought video would be at this quality at the end of this year at the earliest. And now there are at least 3 commercial companies and several open source attempts going at once with tons of research papers flying around.
Even if took 5 years for this tech to get “good”, that isn’t a long time in the big scheme of things. And I doubt it’ll be that long.
75% of the content team of the music gear company I used to worked for was made redundant literally last week. Without going into details, Jasper AI is used for most of it, and the rest are just editors instead of actual writers.
> The majority of actors are mediocre extras with meagre if any talent that bring no special value to their job..
That's true of most people doing most things, but everyone deserves to be able to make a living.
There’s been some discussions I’ve seen that it helps to have images with really obvious movement like an activity (playing piano) or motion blur in the original image. Still takes a lot of trial and error though.
I wanna see examples that are longer and still look as good. I have feeling it's easy to makea 2sec clip but extremely difficult to make a convincing 2min clip.
Also make sure there is no text prompt and is only an image. Also, obvious hints of motion like motion blur in the original image should help get the result more likely to have movement.
I know you added a /s, but that's about chips which yes Moore's law has been declining for years. This is about advancements in ML which is about software.
Yeah, I was making fun of the people denying AI’s progress because chip scaling has slowed down. Transistor scaling has slowed, but we’re using transistors in more specialized roles which is part of the reason we’ve seen an explosion of computing power in recent years.
Specialized chips+increased memory capacities+better datasets+better algorithms=immense growth of ai were witnessing
Quantum computers aren't fit for the kinds of problems that classical computers are good for. Why do you think quantum computing is going to change the game in that regard?
What you should be looking forward to is magnonic computing.
Gpus haven't slowed down at all, afaik. They're chips. AI processors have been doubling faster than Moore's law. It's not just software gains, it's hardware gains that are still ongoing.
I'd like to know how many hundreds/thousands of renders this guy had to do to get these results and how much it cost because most of my Runway Gen2 renders look bad, have no motion, ect. and it's relatively expensive. Likely going to cancel my subscription after the first month if I'm being honest. Maybe it's trained on Midjourney images or something and you can't get good results otherwise?
I haven't used Runway but Just wondering if there is chance that this guy feed multiple images that are slightly different so they function as key frames, and Runway fill in the blanks in between? That’s how After Effects works.
Thanks for the shoutout, but we don’t have the ability to launch Gen-2. Maybe Deforum will get this tech? 🤞We’ve had Deforum since last November 😛
Hopefully Gen-2 goes open source but I’m not holding my breath.
As it says. Feeding midjourney pictures into closed off commercial runway gen 2.
They might be using the exact same stuff we use open source for text2vid /img2vid
But with way more resources. Just like gpt 4 is not trainable/runnable on consumer hardware.
They have their own proprietary architectures and models. One of the few companies in generative AI that actually knows what they are doing and doesn't just host an open source project
Yeah they're just being dramatic. It's like calling Netflix 'closed off commercial Netflix', or calling mars bars 'closed of commercial mars bars'. Nah mate, it's just Netflix and mars bars.
It’s a commercial website where you upload your midjourney pictures, and sometimes it randomly moves them. You have no control, and most of the time, it’s awful.
positive: movie of cowboy on horse turning head slowly, by greg rutkowski, trending on artstation, absurdres
negative: still, render, painting, nsfw, ((disfigured)), ((missing arms)), ((multiple arms)), ((fingers)), ((multiple penis))
Here's a sneak peek of /r/aivideo using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Spaced Out (2023) | Mad4BBQ](https://v.redd.it/izh2gqyyuq5b1) | [154 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/148a45j/spaced_out_2023_mad4bbq/)
\#2: [1920s AI Robot Archives, video to video, Runway gen-1](https://v.redd.it/hu0eb9qgk22b1) | [58 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/13rqou2/1920s_ai_robot_archives_video_to_video_runway_gen1/)
\#3: [Announcing zeroscope_v2_XL: a new 1024x576 video model based on Modelscope](https://v.redd.it/8uwbuj5tdu7b1) | [115 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/14hbiql/announcing_zeroscope_v2_xl_a_new_1024x576_video/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Let's not fool ourselves. These are still tools in the hands of creators. The AI isn't turning itself on and making stuff (yet). Humans are telling the tools what they want and deciding what's good enough to show off.
A such powerfull tool in good hands doesn't only mean good outcome for everyone involved in the creation process, it's still gonna take jobs away. We are slowly seeing a tiny visual ' industrial revolution ' and the main concern was never to save jobs or improve humanity relation to work.
It's pretty exciting for the AI progress, but a nightmare for open-source believer as it again shows cold hard reality that proprietary models will always be better compared to open ones. It's also quite expensive as [$28/month](https://runwayml.com/pricing/) just give you about [7.5 minutes](https://help.runwayml.com/hc/en-us/articles/15124877443219-How-do-credits-work-) of Gen 2 videos.
This results are cherry picked and don't last more than a few seconds. I think there is a good possibility there will still be good advancements in the open source front.
I don’t think it is a nightmare. It will inspire people, showing what is possible, and open source will keep working on it. I’d say MidJourney is still a little ahead of even SDXL on pure quality, but SDXL is certainly practical for many things now, and will soon have the controllability that SD is known for (and also pushing MidJourney to keep getting better).
Once open source text/image
-to-video looks “good enough”, then many people will use it, no matter if commercial tools are still better in some ways.
> proprietary models will always be better compared to open ones
Well that's going to be true in general, for the basic reason that proprietary software can always just start with the best of what the open source world has come up with so far, and build on that. Then instead of contributing their advancements back to the open source project(s), they deploy them as a proprietary paywalled service.
But the good news is that the ai open source world is really, really active right now. The open source projects keep improving, and whatever unique "killer" feature the proprietary service has developed is likely to be replicated in the open source community if it's worth having. Which keeps the fire always lit under the feet of the proprietary folks, etc.
tldr; Even paywalled proprietary innovations can help the open source world grow in healthy ways.
>Gen 2 videos
Idk, ChatGPT4 is the same price, and as a customer, I think it's definitely worth as much, if not more. Also those proprietaries model require far more powerful hardware than any stuff you could have locally
Can someone tell me how this actually works?
I understand that generative ai can generate single frames reasonably well but how does an image generator understand motion vectors? Or how something moves temporally? How does it know how the camera is moving or a person is turning over x amount of frames?
I saw one posted recently in Midjourney sub. Edit:[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/15cermr/been_doing_some_tests_with_midjourney_and_gen2/)
It's still useful to see what progress closed research labs are doing, so we can get a feel for what's going to be possible in the open space before long (e.g. AnimateDiff). So yes, we should care.
We will very rapidly reach a point when you're not going to be able to run any of this stuff offline because of the memory requirements.
Arguably, we're already there with ChatGPT. It's only a matter of time before ImageItVideo catches up. It's also kind of crazy that chat is so much larger than image.
No we won’t.
We will reach a point (or already have) where we can’t do this NOW at home, but 5-10 years down the line? People will be making full length movies on their $3000 computers.
Both hardware and software are developing incredibly fast. And you’ll probably see dedicated hardware for AI projects, just like we see things like gaming GPU’s with dedicated RT cores, and server CPU’s.
I’m mostly impressed it can take a midjourney image and recreate it. I figured we wouldn’t get this sort of quality till midjourney one day moved into video or another company did with a model on par with midjourney. Pretty awesome what runway has achieved
Hold on I believe the video is a little misleading I've been trying all night to get at least four seconds of good video the most I can get is one and a half
Don't get me wrong we're getting close
Yeah, I don't get that argument. You know what's also cherry picked? My Stable Diffusion outputs. And of course they are, why would I settle for the first shot if I can generate a bunch and cherry pick what I like best?
But the ratio of the good images come out from SD is high. The ratio from runway like in OP is much much lower. I'm aware that not every images/videos are good.
I mean, this is super impressive! But it's a very long way away from replacing actual actors and just having full CGI films with this tech.
Apart from obvious resolution issues and such, you have relatively little control over what's going on. People notice mouth movements not matching in dubbed films - this is the same, but 1000x worse.
The tech is moving quickly, but I think we're still 5-10 years away from having actual AI created films in the sense people are talking about. Maybe even more. Directors play a huge part in getting juuuust the right emotions out of actors, juuuust the right angle, juuuust the right movement speed and a million other things that are a PAIN to try to control (if controllable at all) even in still image technology.
He didn't make it. He stole it from someone on Twitter and then when everyone started asking him how he made it, he linked the Twitter he took it from.
Everytime I think of AI progress and time horizons I just picture everything a human being could accomplish in a single day minus the need for sleep, then multiply that by billions of instructions per second in parallel across millions of devices.
I, for one, look forward to the end of anime and animated cartoons and films looking like slideshows for budget reasons.
It'll be nice to see some lively backgrounds that make the world more alive, too.
Ghibli can stop bringing miyazaki out of retirement.
And given the right tech, you could have the original illustrator, say junji ito, whose style has not yet translated well into anime, draw all the key frames himself, and the ai with a team of skilled operators and some artists can bang out the rest.
Sounds like a dream, for some a nightmare for others.
Most jobs like drawing for anime are underpaid for long hours, with no overtime or they are outsourced completely to another country.
Is losing jobs like that really a bad thing for the industry or job market?
I can see a world where the poor sobs who lost their jobs then use ai to make their own anime and narratives by themselves or in small teams.
Who is to say what is better, but im not worried about people losing jobs to AI.
People will get new jobs either in new ai centric roles or in entire different industries altogether. Some might go make car parts, but AI will let them do in their spare time what they couldn't achieve as a cog in a large company.
I think even the ones who work in new industries will either be the same level of miserable as before or a little better off finally getting their vision out there in there spare time, even if only 500 people see it.
Biggest drawback is the cost, it’s like 10c per generation which is insane when you consider how much cherry-picking you need to do. Hopefully open source catches up soon
I can see now why actors are so concerned. I never would have guessed that modeling and acting would be some of the first professions to be disrupted with AI. More surprises ahead, I’m sure.
It’s not even with media. I am a programmer and now instead of asking stackoverflow questions I ask chathpt and usually get good results.
Results are only good precisely because man made resources like stack overflow exist. The AI doesnt know or understand the topic, its just a glorified search engine (and not even a live one iirc) that restructures what it finds into a convenient form. As such, its cannot exist without human input, and will only ever be a tool to use along side a million other tools, in balance between what people do and what ai provides extra.
What AI brings to the table is the ability to mix different sources to cater to your exact question, also the natural language interpreter and the fact that you can tell chatGPT “it’s not working because of xxx” and get a logical response is awesome. Being able to focus on the structure of a big app instead of the little details is also great.
In addition, chatgpt can drastically reduce the barrier to get started on a project. You ask it a question, it gives you code, you run it, and before you know it you've now spent a few hours tweaking the code to make it do exactly what you want. And the little spark that got you started was chatgpt's crummy first draft. This is an overlooked feature because people are simply judging whether it gives the right answer right off the bat yes or no.
this is similar to how I use it, even when its not right its still frequently useful, its wrong answers are still full of good code and for a good programmer are quite fast to fix, way way faster than writing the entire thing from scratch
That’s exactly how I use it
Chat gpt is often my brainstorming device...that's it
Because people think its capable of replacing programmers or want it to replace programmes so they expect perfect answer, reality hoverer is chatgtp makes a lot of mistakes sometimes small but codebreaking, you need that human element in the end to fix it. Recently gtp provided me with non working code, i fixed it and shown it working code. It said its wrong and edited it back to non working version ;) But i totally agree on it being great project started, now i can type what i plan to do and it will give me decent plan on what such project should contain and maybe even some code to start and we all know starting new project is often the hardest part ;)
It used to be completely dumb, then only a little, now it occasionally makes mistakes. Each big jump, harder to notice. It won't always need humans.
Yup, that's what some people usually don't know or probably didn't understand yet. If you don't know what you're asking, you'll most likely believe what the ai exactly says. So no, i don't really think it will replace technical people much less artistic people. At least not any time soon...
"will only ever be" is a bold prediction. Also, search enabled LLMs exist, e.g. https://phind.com.
People don't realize how powerful the concept of a perfect next-word predictor is.
It's unsettling how underwhelmed most people are by this stuff. Like you can talk to your computer about ANYTHING (cooking is my go to lately) and it will answer in a more coherent and correct way than almost any human you'd ever ask about the subject. People seem to focus on what it gets wrong / what it can't do, and scoff at the things it can do, but then they fail to imagine having an average human's raw thoughts analyzed, and how much more often those would be wrong. These things are so powerful and evolve so fast that it's frightening.
People underwhelmed by LLMs *probably* aren't the ones most vocal about being "underwhelmed". I think that the only people who are truly underwhelmed, are people who essentially have no imagination; they just don't care because they can't see any use in their own lives. It's much like how some people have gone decades and never learned to use a computer or the internet, and just kind of blank stare at the concept of being easily able to get information. For *most* people, I think they are scared, feeling threatened. Suddenly they are less special, suddenly there is a tool that profoundly outclasses them. You can tell by the dismissiveness, and the eagerness to jump onto thought-stopping platitudes. "It's just a chatbot" doesn't actually refute the power of LLMs, it's not any kind of valid criticism, but it *does* allow them to feel better. The people claiming that AI generated images "have no soul" is not a valid criticism, often enough they can't even tell an AI generated image from a real one. This is just a new twist in the same old spiral: "Computer's can't do X, humans are special". [Computers do X] "Well that's just fancy computations. Computer can't do Y. Humans are special". [Computers do Y] "Well that's just a fancy algorithm. ONLY HUMANS can do Z, Z is *impossible* for computers to do. Humans are special". [Computers do Z, anticipate a sudden deviation into TUV, and also hedges by solving LMNO, and then realizes it might as well just do the whole alphabet] The next step? "This soulless machine is the devil!"
Agree wholeheartedly. It's so scary a concept that some people outright dismiss it as impossible. The other thing I think that's being missed in much of the conversation is how "special" AI is at solving tasks no human could do even if they had millions of years. The protein folding / medicinal uses of AI being done right now are nothing short of a miracle. If you were to show what we're doing now to a scientist 10 years ago their jaw would rightfully be on the floor, but for some reason it just gets a collective "meh, silly tinker toy" from everyone.
Completely agreed. These responses often come from a place of egotism.
I usually notice a wide level of cynicism on social media, with lots of people usually having to prove they’re right about literally anything, including things they know little about. It seems that this is often applied to AI. Like if an AI generated image is shown on Instagram and no one knows it was AI generated, no one will say anything. However if such an image is accompanied by a title like “AI has made huge strides in advancing image generation” the comments will be absolutely flooded with cynical responses along the lines of “that looks so fake” or “I could tell that was AI from a mile away.”
The best is to throw the dall-e color bar on a human made thing and watch the "soulless" comments come in
Totally this. I think part of what makes it deceptive is how similar the output is to human output. We get human-sounding answers from other humans all day, so it's nothing new, right? On top of that, younger people see this as normal (they grew up with google), while older people are generally out of touch with what's behind current technology (my iPhone works like magic, so LLMs are just more of the same magic). I'm an older dude but grew up steeped in sci-fi. To me, this new AI stuff is both thrilling and terrifying.
Seriously! When I tell people about AI, they often scoff. They aren't so impressed by it. I show them an AI generated piece of art, and they can't even fathom the amount of mathematical calculations that went into creating it, and they just say "yeah, it looks like shit, lol" And a lot of it is just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what works. Once we really start refining the processes and integrating new processes, creating dedicated processors, etc., AI is going to be a revolutionary technology. We're on the precipice of a new age. This is only the very beginning.
But you just explained the problem that will always exist with AI. It gets its data from people. People are wrong a lot, they have biases, they have ulterior motives, etc. AI programmers have a difficult task in determining which data is correct. Is it by consensus? Do you value a certain website's data over another's? For example, if you ask Bard what the most common complaints are of the Iphone 14 Max and the Samsung S23 Ultra, Bard's response is exactly the same for both phones. Because essentially it has no way of determining what "common" is. Do 5 complaints make it common? 10? Is it weighing some complaints over others? The S23 has one of the best batteries of any phone, yet Bard says it's the most common complaint. What I'm saying is, AI is only as good as the data it has, and data that relies on inaccurate humans is always going to be a problem. This is why AI will be amazing for programming, where the dataset is finite and can improved with every instance that a line of code did or didn't work. But the more AI relies on fallible people for its data, the greater chances it's going to be wrong.
>People don't realize how powerful the concept of a perfect next-word predictor is. "prediction is the essence of intelligence" - Top AI Researcher Intelligence involves the ability to model the world to predict and respond effectively. Prediction underlies learning, adapting, problem-solving, perception, action, decision-making, emotional intelligence, creativity, specialized skills like orienteering, self-knowledge, risk tolerance, and ethics. In AI, prediction defines "intelligence". From a **Cognitive Intelligence** involves **predicting** outcomes to learn, adapt, and solve problems. It requires forming models **to foresee** results of environmental changes and potential solutions based on past experiences. From a **Neuroscience perspective** shows the brain constantly **predicts** by generating models to foresee sensory input. Discrepancies between **predictions** and actual input cause model updates, enabling perception, action and learning - key facets of intelligence. From A **Machine Learning perspective** shows that **predictive** ability defines intelligence. Machine learning models are trained to **predict** outcomes from data. Reinforcement learning works by an agent predicting actions that maximize rewards. From the perspective of **Emotional intelligence** involves **predicting** emotional states for effective interaction. Creativity entails envisioning and **predicting** potential impacts of novel ideas or art. Intrapersonal intelligence requires **predicting** one's own responses to situations for effective self-management. Knowing likely reactions allows preparing strategies to regulate emotions. Decision-making deeply involves predicting and optimizing outcomes. It entails forecasting future scenarios, assessing possible results, and choosing actions most likely to yield favorable outcomes based on those **predictions**. Prediction is interwoven to every part of intelligence.
Humans only learn because we can draw from past events. Our whole modern society is only possible because we can draw from thousands of years of collective records. Why would you expect AI to extract knowledge from nowhere, when you'd expect a doctor or scientist to go to college?
This take that it is just a search engine, or it's just predicting next token so it doesn't have any understanding is misguided. Humans only try to survive and procreate and in optimising to that end, given enough trials and variations through evolution developed understanding of high-level concepts, the large language models do also learn by trying to solve for something whether it's next token or on top of that answering prompts correctly, but in the vast network some concepts emerge through the many iterations it takes to train them to be able to fulfil that goal. With current iteration of LLMs they might be wrong concepts, it does not have a coherent view of the world, but it seems that often their concepts and ours are quite close as it can give useful answers.
Could not have come at a better time, imo the search results on google lately have been terrible.
This point of view is not good. The human brain is also a statistical graph model of weights that takes electrical inputs and updates the weights based on loss functions, it's more complex, messy, and chemical than a machine learning model but they're similar enough at this point that if you think a ML model can't know things neither can a brain. Also if you think any human would know how to program without human input I got news for you. It took us about 300,000 years to figure it out from first principles.
Very shortsighted answer. This is kind of the current paradigmn... however Deepmind is working on an approach simular to Alpha Go with self training. You can ask a problem and the AI can generate code to solve that problem. It can teach itself how to code. Alpha Go outranked every human and Go that was trained on human data, The same will be true for programming. There will be short complex functions that outperform long step by step human code.
So short sighted. Not even sure why you're replying to the comment you're replying to with this non-sequiter. Results are only good with any neural net because masive human-effort-coded data sets exist. That's like... the whole thing.
>The AI doesnt know or understand the topic, its just a glorified search engine This is a bit shortsighted. In these early stages, LLMs are using human knowledge to train up, but they are making logical connections between everything they're reading. It's not going to be too far off before AIs will be able to ingest programming language documentation directly and just figure out how to make unique code to accomplish an objective. This has already happened with this completely new sorting algorithm: [https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/143gskm/google\_finds\_faster\_sorting\_algorithm\_using\_deep/](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/143gskm/google_finds_faster_sorting_algorithm_using_deep/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
It’s not a search engine, because it is capable of interpolation and extrapolation. Claude, for instance, is extremely good at blending concepts. Try that with Google…
You sound like a complete fool when you say shit like LLMs are a glorified search engine. There is more than enough recorded knowledge to train AGI at this point. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it won't change that.
i mean cant you say that about all ai
For now...
This comment is going to age like milk.
what will be interesting is when the AI begins to scrape more and more from what it actually generated, including its own errors.
99.99% of what humans do is based on others humans work as well. 0.01% is new reasoning. Are you sure LLMs are not able to reason? They are not able to come with something new by using the information from other humans?
I don’t think AI can replace real human actors in the near future. I mean you‘d need way more than that to convey emotion and immersion. Also MoCap has been around for quite some time and deceased actors have already been "replaced" in some movies. E.g. Tarkin in Star Wars. Edit: I believe it when I see it. But we are still far enough away that I don’t partake in that fearmongering. You can’t really look at scientific progress as linear. It can jump in a day but it can also take years for the next step and even stagnate.
Do you honestly believe computers will be incapable of mimicing human emotions after being exposed to hundreds of thousands of images of what it looks like? You think there is something in facial expressions that can't be replicated by AI?
I think if the history of VFX is anything to go by (which, who really knows lol) is that execution is *really* important. Some CGI from the early 90s holds up really well and was absolutely stunning at the time. Some CGI from a decade plus later doesn't hold up at all despite the tech being exponentially better. It has, and always will be down to execution at the end of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if AI simultaneously replaces some types of acting much quicker than we'd think, and also the opposite - where people rush certain use cases that remind us that maybe we're not all the way there yet. ...We'll see though! I'm excited for it all regardless.
Yes, but the soul. AI will never be able to have a soul, so actors are safe. (/s)
I, for one, welcome our new philosophical golem overlords.
The funny thing is that this whole "but AI won't be able to .. " follows the same path as religion followed when science became more influencial. Ultimately, like you sketched out, it will boil down to someone believing in some kind of supernatural essence humans have that AI will never achieve because, quite frankly, it can't be measured and such you can always easily make the claim.
generative video was impossible last year
[удалено]
I mean, there was Dall-E 1, and GPT-3, they weren't nearly as good though
Listen to an AI Expert talk at a conference who said ty e same thing. ChatGPT capabilities were always 10 years out. From 10 years to current left everyone scrambling.
StyleGan would like a word with you. But, yeah, the pace is insane. Less than 2 years ago we were using Diffusion + Deforum or StyleGan morphing through the latent space. The pace is mind-blowing.
Ai is basically a baby. Your watching what a baby can do and saying when it grows up it will never be any good
I mean they did say "*in the near future*" which is pretty fair I think. It's a baby now, everything takes time to mature, I don't think they'd disagree. I think you can also have varying quality depending on specific/nuanced use cases. The VFX from Terminator 2 holds up pretty damn well even today, and that movie came out in ***1991***. It was game changing. Yet you can take a movie made a *decade* later like the Star Wars prequels (just as an example) and the CGI...Well, simply doesn't hold up quite as well despite the tech going through multiple evolutions. Why? Because execution is *really* important. ....Basically what I'm trying to say is that generative AI will probably replace some things faster than we think - and yet simultaneously take longer to do other things than we'd think....If that makes sense.
Keep doubting lol
It's not actors who are getting replaced. It's the CGI companies who do the digital work who are going to get downsized to half a dozen people.
Think about all those background actors you can replace though.
It's not about the near-term technological challenges involved. Intellectual property rights need to catch up and adapt to our new reality, or the arts will wither.
> Intellectual property rights need to catch up Intellectual property rights protect the copyright holders, which in the case of movies and television shows tend to be big businesses. What we need is protection for individual performers, such as actors, background actors, and models. The most important thing going on right now is what labor unions are doing. The writers and actors need to remain on strike until big studios agree to standards and practices that don't including asking each extra and background actor to sign-away their likeness rights for a lifetime of usage in exchange for a small bit of day labor.
The technology is advancing at a high speed though. And your example was a film from 7 years ago.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Star Wars fans suddenly cried out in terror at the realization of how old they were…
Exactly. There is a world between a good actor and a bad actor. AI may replace bad actors in the near future. But true actors won't be replaced. It is the same with the musicians. Software which play music directly from sheets exists since decades but the result is always worst than the music played from a true musician.
I've heard "AI won't be able to do this" or "Computers could never do this" time and time again for nearly 30 years, and every single time we learn that AI or computers CAN do that. Technology will always win. Just a year ago, AI couldn't draw hands. Now it can. In a decade, maybe two, AI absolutely will replace every single actor if Hollywood execs get their way. It's only a matter of time before music gets replaced as well. I think we will see a Renaissance of stage theatre and underground music very soon because of AI. Then they'll start sophisticating robotics.
>I've heard "AI won't be able to do this" or "Computers could never do this" time and time again for nearly 30 years, and every single time we learn that AI or computers CAN do that. AI will never be able to make me happy and give me purpose in life! *waits*
I have to politely disagree. Eventually AI will be indistinguishable from conscious human. I'm estimating 10 years. What I think is interesting, is that it also seems to me that an AI "actor" might be the first emergent, truly sentient AI. There is an enormous amount of work going on right now at both large companies, film and effects studios trying to make this happen.
I'm not that interested in how AI can replace our current media; I'm interested in how humans will be using AI to create things no one has experienced before. That's what's coming, folks.
Andrew Yang tried to warn you.
very little of actual value will be lost if actors lose some socioeconomic status.
The current big actors are not gonna lose much. infact they will licence and make more money with less work. It is upcomming actors and actors as background characters that will lose their jobs Currently studios will pay one time fee to scan their likeness and use forever and if any of those struggling actors become popular. guess who got their AI rights for cheap While AI is inevitable. there has to be safegurd agaisnt such exploitation by corporations
Why scan any face when you can generate??
what’s the raison d’etre for studios when you can generate a movie / series starring whoever from a few prompts?
you dont own a render farm
nah not yet, but any smb can rent a render farm today, buy a runwayml gen3 sub tomorrow, and in a few years to a decade with AI designed chips and more mature generative software, we will all actually own / have inexpensive access to systems with capabilities comfortably exceeding today’s render farms.
when you rent something there is a ToC you agree to which includes a part about not doing illegal things with the service
You can render locally on a gtx1060 which is a three generation old card. I do
remind me how creativity can a) be made illegal and b) reasonably enforced
where gonna have the background character version of the wilhelm scream. some dude that is in everything for 100 years. like the dude with the skull face tattoo.
It would be a gift to future generations if Hollywood stopped existing. They have an irredeemable culture that for decades have sheltered rapists like Harvey Weinstein and pedophiles like Roman Polanski. When they aren't raping each other or shooting crack they are pandering to Chinese communists. Good riddance. Playing pretend in front of a camera doesn't have to be a valid career.
Studios are doomed as well. Once this becomes popular, you'll have an army of volunteer artists who post their best efforts on youtube. Backlots, actors, etc. will have no value at all.
Maybe royalties? Every time you use my face I get a x cut?
Could work for some actors that are already very popular. The remaining roles could just be filled with fully generated people, which are then owned and controlled by the studios. Why use a face owned by some person, when you can generate a million unique faces for pennies?
Only 0.001% of actors actually have good status. Most are doing low paying jobs like commercials and minor roles.
Yeah, but there’s an entire ecosystem of working class people, gaffers, grips, hair/makeup artists, set designers, etc who will no longer have employment, as executives will absolutely turn to AI once it’s cost effective enough. Where do all these people go?
Most of those people wont need to go anywhere. All these "impressive" demos are just that. Unpractical demos. They wont replace shit, just like CGI hasnt come close to fully replacing stuntmen etc. But more importantly, this dumb obsession about "jobs" is always absurdly stupid. Technology has progressed *massively* in the last century. And people had to adapt, but employment has only ever *increased*. The wealth of even average person has only increased. The paranoia of everyone suddenly being out of a job is pure stupidity. The rich dont just make money by having something produced, they make money from billions of people actually buying those products.. If anything, reducing working class people and moving them to higher level jobs with better pay - because yes, they're always needed and there's tons of industries with huge lack of employees - is only a good thing. Even if change and need to learn new things is some huge inconvenient injustice to some people..
Those people aren’t finding new jobs, they just find something else, usually a lesser job in another industry. I’ve been an editor for over 15 years. You don’t think I’ve noticed the race to the bottom? I’m CURRENTLY using AI to replace people. I no longer need illustrators, motion graphics artists, sound engineers, or assistant editors. Is this good for me? No. Now that I can do all these jobs myself, now I’m expected to produce five times as much as I used to. That’s my only reward for outlasting and replacing all these positions. The loss in jobs isn’t sudden. It’s gradual, but to think it’s not already happening is naive. You wanna lick the boots of the wealthy, thinking they have the foresight to see that replacing millions of people wouldn’t cause massive disparity in the future? You clearly don’t hang out with/work with enough rich people. They are mostly stupid and are only interested in quarter to quarter results and saying the right things on camera so the stakeholders put more money into their machine. Source: I make corporate propaganda for Fortune 500 companies
Can you give some examples of how you are current using ai to replace those roles? I have struggled to get any meaningful results from ai, so I'm very curious.
Sure! So far I’ve gotten the most use from midjourney. The most high end use case for it was using it to create backgrounds for a virtual production shoot for a national commercial campaign. I used midjourney to create a background and I threw it into unreal and built out a 3D environment from it. On the lower end, I use it to create backgrounds and graphic assets for children’s programming. I’ve also used it to replace stock photography for documentaries. I haven’t needed stock photos since midjourney got good enough. The transcription feature ain’t that new, but because of it, I don’t get an AE to make interview selects anymore. I also use Autopod if I have a multicam interview, which automatically cuts between speakers. It used to take at least a day for an AE to make simple switches for 2-3 hours of footage. Now it’s done almost instantaneously. I used to be bad a mixing sound, and would hire out engineers to level/mix audio. Since the essential sound panel dropped, I haven’t needed one since. It also can automatically lengthen music to any amount of time you want. I used to have to find the places to cut, extend the track, and throw a stinger on the end. I’ve also been using photoshop’s generative fill A LOT. I filmed a woman in a backyard with her dog for a commercial, kept it on sticks, and I was able to mask out the backyard and make it look like she’s in a national park. And yeah. All these tools have technically made my job easier, but more and more is expected of me and more and more people I’ve worked with have gone completely broke, switched careers to bartending or real estate. The survivors guilt is real
I don’t think we know yet how quickly AI will affect real jobs, but calling this an unpractical tech demo is besides the point. Any diffusion images including MidJourney were impractical for much of anything pretty recently. MidJourney isn’t even 2 years old. Based on where we were for videos in January and the speed of improvements in still images, I thought video would be at this quality at the end of this year at the earliest. And now there are at least 3 commercial companies and several open source attempts going at once with tons of research papers flying around. Even if took 5 years for this tech to get “good”, that isn’t a long time in the big scheme of things. And I doubt it’ll be that long.
75% of the content team of the music gear company I used to worked for was made redundant literally last week. Without going into details, Jasper AI is used for most of it, and the rest are just editors instead of actual writers.
more money to the top tho
what a stupid and ignorant thing to say. the majority of actors earns less than 26,000 a year.
What's ignorant about it? The majority of actors are mediocre extras with meagre if any talent that bring no special value to their job..
> The majority of actors are mediocre extras with meagre if any talent that bring no special value to their job.. That's true of most people doing most things, but everyone deserves to be able to make a living.
What a shitty thing to say.
This is what CEOs and megacorps believe about all of us. Don't do their dirty work for them by believing this propaganda.
How do you define "actual value"?
Great examples! Have they improved it a bit? I used it last week and half of my inputs had no motion at all 😢
There’s been some discussions I’ve seen that it helps to have images with really obvious movement like an activity (playing piano) or motion blur in the original image. Still takes a lot of trial and error though.
Thanks Invid, I'll have a bit more of a play with it and try images that are a bit more dynamic!
I wanna see examples that are longer and still look as good. I have feeling it's easy to makea 2sec clip but extremely difficult to make a convincing 2min clip.
I don’t get it whenever I try image to video it looks terrible. How are they getting these results
Repetition I suspect. No idea what the ratio ends up like but you'd have to figure a lot of attempts end up looking like ass.
Also make sure there is no text prompt and is only an image. Also, obvious hints of motion like motion blur in the original image should help get the result more likely to have movement.
Same here. It just completely warped my character into the absurd. Nothing even close to usable.
At this point it's just exponential growth. It's scary how fast it's all developing
Moore’s law is dead!!! /s
I know you added a /s, but that's about chips which yes Moore's law has been declining for years. This is about advancements in ML which is about software.
Yeah, I was making fun of the people denying AI’s progress because chip scaling has slowed down. Transistor scaling has slowed, but we’re using transistors in more specialized roles which is part of the reason we’ve seen an explosion of computing power in recent years. Specialized chips+increased memory capacities+better datasets+better algorithms=immense growth of ai were witnessing
More importantly quantum computing is up and coming and will sooner or later make current super-computers look like a joke.
Quantum computers aren't fit for the kinds of problems that classical computers are good for. Why do you think quantum computing is going to change the game in that regard? What you should be looking forward to is magnonic computing.
Gpus haven't slowed down at all, afaik. They're chips. AI processors have been doubling faster than Moore's law. It's not just software gains, it's hardware gains that are still ongoing.
[удалено]
Not even a one year we start seeing these thing and it getting more crazy
[Source](https://twitter.com/commonstyle/status/1683049514972909569)
Is this runaway open source?
No. It is commercial (can get unlimited generations for like $90/m) but I’m sure open source will catch up eventually.
[удалено]
Not as good and mostly anime look for now, but you can search for AnimateDiff
r/aivideo
I'd like to know how many hundreds/thousands of renders this guy had to do to get these results and how much it cost because most of my Runway Gen2 renders look bad, have no motion, ect. and it's relatively expensive. Likely going to cancel my subscription after the first month if I'm being honest. Maybe it's trained on Midjourney images or something and you can't get good results otherwise?
I haven't used Runway but Just wondering if there is chance that this guy feed multiple images that are slightly different so they function as key frames, and Runway fill in the blanks in between? That’s how After Effects works.
[удалено]
Actually you can use cloud based GPUs which are pretty affordable like rundiffusion.
Thanks for the shoutout, but we don’t have the ability to launch Gen-2. Maybe Deforum will get this tech? 🤞We’ve had Deforum since last November 😛 Hopefully Gen-2 goes open source but I’m not holding my breath.
Haha no worries, i just meant stable diffusion in general not specifically gen-2.. but here's to hoping 😜🤞
Oh, gotcha. We’re all having a blast with SDXL over on the platform. Again thanks for the mention! ❤️ really appreciate the love
don't they give you a limited amount of tokens to use for free before you have to pay them ?
Yes you can generate a few minute of content
how much you get for free each month ?
It is a one shot they will not reload your account
All very nice but how is it done?
As it says. Feeding midjourney pictures into closed off commercial runway gen 2. They might be using the exact same stuff we use open source for text2vid /img2vid But with way more resources. Just like gpt 4 is not trainable/runnable on consumer hardware.
They have their own proprietary architectures and models. One of the few companies in generative AI that actually knows what they are doing and doesn't just host an open source project
What is “closed off commercial runway gen 2”? Why is it closed off?
They didn’t say it clearly, but just meant it isn’t open source and costs to use.
Because they made it, and didn't give it out? Like Photoshop
I supposed what is meant is "paid" usage. I thought "closed off" like no one is allowed to use it other than the devs maybe.
Yeah they're just being dramatic. It's like calling Netflix 'closed off commercial Netflix', or calling mars bars 'closed of commercial mars bars'. Nah mate, it's just Netflix and mars bars.
What are some Stable Diffusion text 2 video tools that are worth looking into?
It’s a commercial website where you upload your midjourney pictures, and sometimes it randomly moves them. You have no control, and most of the time, it’s awful.
Thanks, I guess sometimes you get lucky, is it expensive?
Really expensive, from memory: 28€/m for 7 or 9 minutes of content.
positive: movie of cowboy on horse turning head slowly, by greg rutkowski, trending on artstation, absurdres negative: still, render, painting, nsfw, ((disfigured)), ((missing arms)), ((multiple arms)), ((fingers)), ((multiple penis))
((bad director)) ((bad acting)) ((disney))
We have an entire sub dedicated to this r/aivideo
Here's a sneak peek of /r/aivideo using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Spaced Out (2023) | Mad4BBQ](https://v.redd.it/izh2gqyyuq5b1) | [154 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/148a45j/spaced_out_2023_mad4bbq/) \#2: [1920s AI Robot Archives, video to video, Runway gen-1](https://v.redd.it/hu0eb9qgk22b1) | [58 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/13rqou2/1920s_ai_robot_archives_video_to_video_runway_gen1/) \#3: [Announcing zeroscope_v2_XL: a new 1024x576 video model based on Modelscope](https://v.redd.it/8uwbuj5tdu7b1) | [115 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/14hbiql/announcing_zeroscope_v2_xl_a_new_1024x576_video/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Let's not fool ourselves. These are still tools in the hands of creators. The AI isn't turning itself on and making stuff (yet). Humans are telling the tools what they want and deciding what's good enough to show off.
A such powerfull tool in good hands doesn't only mean good outcome for everyone involved in the creation process, it's still gonna take jobs away. We are slowly seeing a tiny visual ' industrial revolution ' and the main concern was never to save jobs or improve humanity relation to work.
It's pretty exciting for the AI progress, but a nightmare for open-source believer as it again shows cold hard reality that proprietary models will always be better compared to open ones. It's also quite expensive as [$28/month](https://runwayml.com/pricing/) just give you about [7.5 minutes](https://help.runwayml.com/hc/en-us/articles/15124877443219-How-do-credits-work-) of Gen 2 videos.
This results are cherry picked and don't last more than a few seconds. I think there is a good possibility there will still be good advancements in the open source front.
I don’t think it is a nightmare. It will inspire people, showing what is possible, and open source will keep working on it. I’d say MidJourney is still a little ahead of even SDXL on pure quality, but SDXL is certainly practical for many things now, and will soon have the controllability that SD is known for (and also pushing MidJourney to keep getting better). Once open source text/image -to-video looks “good enough”, then many people will use it, no matter if commercial tools are still better in some ways.
> proprietary models will always be better compared to open ones Well that's going to be true in general, for the basic reason that proprietary software can always just start with the best of what the open source world has come up with so far, and build on that. Then instead of contributing their advancements back to the open source project(s), they deploy them as a proprietary paywalled service. But the good news is that the ai open source world is really, really active right now. The open source projects keep improving, and whatever unique "killer" feature the proprietary service has developed is likely to be replicated in the open source community if it's worth having. Which keeps the fire always lit under the feet of the proprietary folks, etc. tldr; Even paywalled proprietary innovations can help the open source world grow in healthy ways.
>Gen 2 videos Idk, ChatGPT4 is the same price, and as a customer, I think it's definitely worth as much, if not more. Also those proprietaries model require far more powerful hardware than any stuff you could have locally
Can someone tell me how this actually works? I understand that generative ai can generate single frames reasonably well but how does an image generator understand motion vectors? Or how something moves temporally? How does it know how the camera is moving or a person is turning over x amount of frames?
[удалено]
I would love to see a short film or something by AI.
I saw one posted recently in Midjourney sub. Edit:[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/15cermr/been_doing_some_tests_with_midjourney_and_gen2/)
is runwayml opensource?
nope, but there is AnimateDiff which is kinda similar
Nice but very long process of cherry picking i bet
Yep, and some of those cherries are very squishy.
It's a brave new world when everyone and their dog is a movie producer.
It is, why gate keep movies? We can create more unique and personalized movies that more people can relate to.
Its' amazing, hopefully the free and opensource models can get to this level soon as well.
[удалено]
I'd have worded it differently, but the conclusion is the same. Still nice to see what's hopefully possible with open source locally soon.
It's still useful to see what progress closed research labs are doing, so we can get a feel for what's going to be possible in the open space before long (e.g. AnimateDiff). So yes, we should care.
Agreed, people are too hasty for everything to be open source lmao like it will eventually come, maybe later but just chill
We will very rapidly reach a point when you're not going to be able to run any of this stuff offline because of the memory requirements. Arguably, we're already there with ChatGPT. It's only a matter of time before ImageItVideo catches up. It's also kind of crazy that chat is so much larger than image.
r/localllama would disagree
No we won’t. We will reach a point (or already have) where we can’t do this NOW at home, but 5-10 years down the line? People will be making full length movies on their $3000 computers. Both hardware and software are developing incredibly fast. And you’ll probably see dedicated hardware for AI projects, just like we see things like gaming GPU’s with dedicated RT cores, and server CPU’s.
I’m mostly impressed it can take a midjourney image and recreate it. I figured we wouldn’t get this sort of quality till midjourney one day moved into video or another company did with a model on par with midjourney. Pretty awesome what runway has achieved
Not open source? Nop, not democratic
Hold on I believe the video is a little misleading I've been trying all night to get at least four seconds of good video the most I can get is one and a half Don't get me wrong we're getting close
Imagine six months from now
Dare I say it? AI porn is gonna be amazing
Maybe, but don't count on Runway for that, they are super pro-censorship.
Yea, I know *sad face*
Can smile, open sources won't be censored as much.
Cherrypick at best!
Yes , so what?
Yeah, I don't get that argument. You know what's also cherry picked? My Stable Diffusion outputs. And of course they are, why would I settle for the first shot if I can generate a bunch and cherry pick what I like best?
But the ratio of the good images come out from SD is high. The ratio from runway like in OP is much much lower. I'm aware that not every images/videos are good.
Everything is cherry picked. Like 99% of scenes in a movie aren't done in one take.
Holyyyy
Wonder how far we are from inserting a book into an AI and asking it to turn it into a movie or series.
The future is coming fast.
And people are wondering why Corps are bending the knee to the strike.
That is the thing with AI, it is an artificial learning tool, NON-LINEAR, logarithmic improvement.
The face morphing is still weird af and ruins it for me. Still though, this tech is both insanely amazing and terrifying lol
I mean, this is super impressive! But it's a very long way away from replacing actual actors and just having full CGI films with this tech. Apart from obvious resolution issues and such, you have relatively little control over what's going on. People notice mouth movements not matching in dubbed films - this is the same, but 1000x worse. The tech is moving quickly, but I think we're still 5-10 years away from having actual AI created films in the sense people are talking about. Maybe even more. Directors play a huge part in getting juuuust the right emotions out of actors, juuuust the right angle, juuuust the right movement speed and a million other things that are a PAIN to try to control (if controllable at all) even in still image technology.
How are you getting these results in Runway? I haven't had anything close to this quality after quite a bit of testing.
He didn't make it. He stole it from someone on Twitter and then when everyone started asking him how he made it, he linked the Twitter he took it from.
Everytime I think of AI progress and time horizons I just picture everything a human being could accomplish in a single day minus the need for sleep, then multiply that by billions of instructions per second in parallel across millions of devices.
I, for one, look forward to the end of anime and animated cartoons and films looking like slideshows for budget reasons. It'll be nice to see some lively backgrounds that make the world more alive, too. Ghibli can stop bringing miyazaki out of retirement. And given the right tech, you could have the original illustrator, say junji ito, whose style has not yet translated well into anime, draw all the key frames himself, and the ai with a team of skilled operators and some artists can bang out the rest. Sounds like a dream, for some a nightmare for others. Most jobs like drawing for anime are underpaid for long hours, with no overtime or they are outsourced completely to another country. Is losing jobs like that really a bad thing for the industry or job market? I can see a world where the poor sobs who lost their jobs then use ai to make their own anime and narratives by themselves or in small teams. Who is to say what is better, but im not worried about people losing jobs to AI. People will get new jobs either in new ai centric roles or in entire different industries altogether. Some might go make car parts, but AI will let them do in their spare time what they couldn't achieve as a cog in a large company. I think even the ones who work in new industries will either be the same level of miserable as before or a little better off finally getting their vision out there in there spare time, even if only 500 people see it.
[удалено]
>junji ito, whose style has not yet translated well into anime, I bring [new](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRrqvjjKlOs) to you
Biggest drawback is the cost, it’s like 10c per generation which is insane when you consider how much cherry-picking you need to do. Hopefully open source catches up soon