AI clearly has no fucking idea what "knees" are. Real fuzzy understanding of "battling" "sail" and "cup" here A book with prismatic pages The whole thing with AI is "do we get points for vibes?" and if you're a booster, the answer is "of course!" but if you actually need to use it for something it's fucking bullshit. Take their goddamn superbowl ad: "generate storyboard images for the dragon scene in my script..." sure thing. Here's a bunch of bullshit images that aren't even the same aspect ratio, don't tell a story, are in no way sequential and reflect a child's understanding of 'storyboard!' I know storyboard artists. I know the best goddamn storyboard artists in the fucking world. Here's what storyboards look like. They're like boards... that tell a story! What's funny as fuck is that a really talented storyboard artist had to draw a storyboard for an ad that not only illustrated (poorly) that an AI could do their job, it spent $7m to do so. But since Joe Football has no fucking idea what a storyboard is, it's pretty easy to convince him that an AI will do his storyboards.Prompt: Animated scene features a close-up of a short fluffy monster kneeling beside a melting red candle.
Photorealistic closeup video of two pirate ships battling each other as they sail inside a cup of coffee.
A young man at his 20s is sitting on a piece of cloud in the sky, reading a book.
This technology is in its infancy and it can make videos from short text prompts and you think its going to look anything like this in 10 years? You could make a strong case against YouTube in 1995. It's not going to make storyboards, it's going to churn out movies and commercials by the millions and they might be individualized for each viewer.
To the contrary - LLMs for entertainment date back to 2016. "we're just getting started" has been the plea of AI since Robert Mercer unleashed Markov bots on the stock market in 1996 or so. "Youtube in 1995" is eight full years before Google opened an unlimited data spigot for people to upload video; OpenAI was founded in 2015 and nine years later, Altman's out here asking for 10% of global GDP to continue. Also, what do you think is the point of movies and commercials? Do you think people experience them in a vacuum? Or does shared experience factor into it? We have fuckall enough to talk about around the water cooler anymore but at least we all watched the same Squid Game. "Hey MK we made this dick pill ad just for you" is about as creepy a thing as a company can do; we're already wrapped around the wheel with paranoia that Facebook is listening to our phones how are we gonna do when it starts talking back? Coca Cola runs their 90s vintage polar bears while Pepsi individually targets every single Facebook user with an unsupervised, unmonitored AI commercial based on their cookies. Who do you think sells more cola? And who do you think gets more complaints and reports from the undiluted nightmare fuel polluted into the timeline?
Pretty sure the phase of comically bad AI-generated shit will be the best thing we ever do with it. This tech will only improve. Kill it now.
I am not so sure. There are almost certainly some algorithmic workarounds that will dramatically improve outputs. You could probably even program a separate AI instance to generate slightly different prompts, which are then fed separately into the video generation prompt, until you get something you like. Then re-train the video AI on its previous videos humans have decided are "good". I think we still have a few years before we're in big trouble, but I seriously doubt the institutional/establishment ability to respond to this will be more effective than the reactionaries who have already proven their penchant for immediately spinning any public perception to their benefit, whether or not that perception is based in reality.
You are arguing that if you take the stochastic mean of "mediocre" enough times you will arrive at "excellence" and that's simply bad math. Mixing and remixing and remixing and retraining is all the AI companies have been doing for five years and they're still giving us story prompts like this and going "IS YOUR MIND NOT BLOWN" I spent 15 years in an industry where gadgets were developed to do the work 80% as good as a human. The end result was that gadget was invariably given to the 100% human. Even now, every AI dipshit techbro out there is coming around to "you need to study prompt training" as in "if you want to keep your job you need to figure out how to trick a markov bot into giving you useful information." I have no idea how long it took OpenAI to turn "a petri dish with a bamboo forest gorwing within it that has tiny red pandas running around" into that miniature horrorshow. What I do know is that the next step, in the real world, is a producer goes "great, now give them four legs" and the prompt honing continues. The next thing that happens is the producer goes "I liked the old red, bring it back" and now you're fukt because "red" was not a prompt before which means we don't get to cumulatively hack at this thing, we get to start over. If you're working with a Maya jockey? He's five, six hours into your thing and dollars to donuts, his pandas are quadrupeds. And when you give him notes? They do not obliterate the content you had before. When you're working with humans, you don't have a "pick which of these four interpretations of your idea are the least ghastly" you have a logical progression to completion. And I think it's extremely naiive of everyone to assume that the whole world will decide two-legged pandas are good enough.There are almost certainly some algorithmic workarounds that will dramatically improve outputs. You could probably even program a separate AI instance to generate slightly different prompts, which are then fed separately into the video generation prompt, until you get something you like. Then re-train the video AI on its previous videos humans have decided are "good".
