We still need to see those demos in action though. That's the big IF where everyone is thinking about
Sure but "Also the the sora videos are proven to be modified ads" is demonstrably false, for the demos OpenAI shared and the artist made ones.
Readit Newshttps://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-sora-demohttps://old.reddit.com/r/vfx/comments/1cuj360/turns_out_that...
here is the link. The balloon video had heavy editing involved.
Oh, so not the actual demo videos OpenAI shared on their website and twitter.
Also the the sora videos are proven to be modified ads. We still need to see how it perform first
> Also the the sora videos are proven to be modified ads
Can't find anything about that, you got a link?
MrNeon commented on Midjourney web experience is now open to everyone midjourney.com/... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
MJ coomers? The same MJ that bans accounts for coomer content?
Not sure that will change just because of a new frontend.
None of these are impressive in the least. Anything I have heard from Udio is basically trash. It is the AI art equivalent of synthetic cats and pretty face shots. Who cares.
What is ultimately going to be undefeated is training your own model.
> What is ultimately going to be undefeated is training your own model.
From scratch?
MrNeon commented on VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution videogigagan.github.io/... · Posted by u/CharlesW
Is anyone else concerned at the societal effects of technology like this? In one of the examples they show a young girl. In the upscale example it's quite clearly hallucinating makeup and lipstick. I'm quite worried about tools like this perpetuating social norms even further.
Seems to be stock footage, is it surprising makeup would be involved?
MrNeon commented on OpenAI says it can clone a voice from just 15 seconds of audio engadget.com/openai-says-... · Posted by u/notRobot
It's insane that this protection exists for "prominent figures" but nobody else. The same damage that can be done to prominent figures can be done to regular people, they acknowledge the damage can be done, and yet they're still rolling this out? The more OpenAI does the more it's clear they don't give a single damn about the consequences of their technology.
It is very obvious that the amount and type of damage is not the same if you clone any random person's voice or clone a political leader's voice.
It is not the same damage.
MrNeon commented on OpenAI: 'The New York Times Paid Someone to Hack Us' torrentfreak.com/openai-t... · Posted by u/nickthegreek
"Hack" is defined as "using deceptive prompts" which is a very misleading use of the word - using creative prompts is absolutely how people use ChatGPT, even if it isn't "expected behaviour". There is zero evidence that AI isn't leaky and that there will always be a way of returning the original corpus. Even if it takes a thousand tries, that means one out of thousand users would get it. This is probably the only good point in their rebuttal: that NYT "had to feed the tool portions of the very articles they sought to elicit verbatim passages".
That being said, this is probably the first case that will determine the future of AI so staking a strong, extreme rebuttal is how the system should work, and the courts will decide the truth. It's going to be very interesting to see how this case progresses.
Preemptive Edit: "Truth" might not be the best word, but rather how this should be seen in context of copyright law. It's very unclear how AI will legally be allowed to operate since corpuses commonly include copyrighted material - this is a question, due to how US law is structured, that HAS to be litigated in court for a clear answer. Just because you don't like OpenAIs argument, and I don't, this is how the legal system is designed to work.
Edit 2: I feel many people are missing the point here (which I buried in the second paragraph, my bad) - This isn't some catty PR fight between NYT and OpenAI - this is the first major case about how LLMs/deep learning/etc fits in relation to copyright. This isn't about what is morally right, this is about do LLMs violate copyright law. NYT has made a strong case that it does violate copyright. OpenAI has some good and bad arguments (IMO 1 very good argument and the rest weak or bad) but they should be throwing their best arguments at the wall since that is how law works in the US. This won't be the last, but this is probably the first important case in the future of LLMs.
> Even if it takes a thousand tries, that means one out of thousand users would get it.
If they use that particular prompt that primes the model for regurgitation.
It's not one in a thousand of regular queries.
MrNeon commented on Deleting and destroying finished movies rogerebert.com/mzs/coyote... · Posted by u/cialowicz
your facts: billionaires not sitting on billions. My facts: homelesness exists.
Also moving money from your left hand to your right is not circulation. It should "trickle down". Wonder where I heard this.
It is clear you're arguing from an emotional, not logical, standpoint where facts don't matter.
1 - The error is so blatantly large
2 - There is a graph without error right next to it
3 - The errors are not there in the system card and the presentation page