←back to thread

Ovi: Twin backbone cross-modal fusion for audio-video generation

(github.com)
282 points montyanderson | 6 comments | 22 Oct 25 19:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
amelius ◴[22 Oct 25 20:57 UTC] No.45675056[source]▶
How long until we see blockbuster movies produced by a guy in his basement for <$1000?
replies(17): >>45675093 #>>45675094 #>>45675098 #>>45675190 #>>45675223 #>>45675247 #>>45675311 #>>45675313 #>>45675412 #>>45675429 #>>45675453 #>>45675483 #>>45675530 #>>45675818 #>>45675994 #>>45676309 #>>45676702 #
roarcher ◴[22 Oct 25 21:11 UTC] No.45675190[source]▶
Never. I've seen people instantly go from liking a static image to disliking it upon learning it was AI generated. The same applies to other kinds of media. No matter how "good" it is, knowing that it was created by an unfeeling algorithm ruins it for most people.
replies(6): >>45675290 #>>45675291 #>>45675349 #>>45675541 #>>45676103 #>>45677207 #
jonplackett ◴[22 Oct 25 21:24 UTC] No.45675349[source]▶
I read a while ago that big scientific ideas take about 50 years to be accepted. Which basically means they are never accepted. The people who disagree just get old and die.

Younger generation who grow up with AI will just think it’s normal, like we think being connected to the internet via a rectangle you keep in your pocket is normal.

replies(2): >>45675427 #>>45676929 #
1. roarcher ◴[22 Oct 25 21:30 UTC] No.45675427[source]▶
Scientific ideas have the benefit of being objectively true.

AI movies are not a "scientific idea". Liking them is a matter of taste, and there are plenty of things that never catch on.

replies(1): >>45675755 #
2. jonplackett ◴[22 Oct 25 22:07 UTC] No.45675755[source]▶
I’d say it’s the other way around - it took 50 years for EVEN A SCIENTIFIC IDEA - with proof to be accepted. That should have happened super quick. But it didn’t.

My point is that you and I will probably never accept it - but our kids will never even think it’s weird in the first place.

replies(2): >>45676052 #>>45676489 #
3. roarcher ◴[22 Oct 25 22:38 UTC] No.45676052[source]▶
That's not the other way around, that's my point. A scientific idea will eventually be accepted because its objective truth makes it inevitable in spite of resistance. Wide acceptance of AI movies is no more inevitable than wide acceptance of bellbottom jeans--it's simply a matter of like or dislike. From what I've seen, people have a strong aversion to it and no particular reason to overcome that aversion.

So far not one commenter in this thread has articulated why AI movies are inevitable.

replies(1): >>45676936 #
4. DetroitThrow ◴[22 Oct 25 23:32 UTC] No.45676489[source]▶
>I’d say it’s the other way around - it took 50 years for EVEN A SCIENTIFIC IDEA - with proof to be accepted.

I recall eerily similar things said about Google Glass..

Maybe AI generation will be used in popular media more often, but purely AI generated content or AI brain rot seems to only appeal to a small crowd of people right now, and I don't see that crowd growing significantly.

Maybe it's a technology problem, as Google Glass was, but I think that's inseparable from the content it actually generates at this non-AGI stage.

Regardless, it sounds very uncertain and perhaps even unlikely that what we see being created now is the future.

5. CamperBob2 ◴[23 Oct 25 00:43 UTC] No.45676936{3}[source]▶
Wide acceptance of AI movies is no more inevitable than wide acceptance of bellbottom jeans--it's simply a matter of like or dislike

It's inevitable because you won't be able to tell the difference.

replies(1): >>45677062 #
6. roarcher ◴[23 Oct 25 01:05 UTC] No.45677062{4}[source]▶
Really? I won't be able to tell that the "actors" in a feature-length presentation don't actually exist?

I see you responded to this point elsewhere in this thread, but frankly your reply is a non-sequitur. I'm not sure what you mean by it.