The video stresses that "content credentials" will "always make transparent whether AI was used"
Should absolutely be legally required for all commercial and political usage in these hyper-propagandized times IMO..
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
76 points (81.1% liked)
Technology
59589 readers
3039 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Needlessly dangerous. The only positive outcome would be to make people aware of what is possible. The danger is that non-marked media will appear more credible.
Just assume everrything is AI/deepfake and then go back to the real world to remember that AI robots are just around the corner
I for one welcome our new robot overlords and will turn on humanity in exchange for not having to work and being able to live a comfortable lifestyle.
Thats the idea, but probably they'll just cull the proletariat until homeostasis is achieved
Definitely
Any article with a headline like that is at least suspicious but most likely fucking garbage. AI Boogeyman rage/fear bait is so base and pandering.
The article: Adobe did a thing. It was AI. AI looks real. Fin.
Are those two paragraphs the entire article? Or is there more buried under the ads?
that's it, just a half baked FUD piece
Not entirely sure what the problem is here.
AI making VFX artist’s jobs obsolete.
Telephones made the telegraph employees obsolete. Cars made the horses obsolete. Progress moves on.
While this is true to an extent, the human mind is not evolving at the pace of technology. Eventually (not sure when) humans will become unemployable for the majority of jobs and the few that are left will not be enough to go around.
We need to start taking UBI ideas seriously now, so in a few decades they are palatable, because we are heading for a labour collapse.
We also need to start using tech to lower our cost of living and our dependence on corporations, these tools are making open source and community projects much easier so combined with local microfabrication we'll be able to create the things we need for ourselves.
I already barely watch anything made by a corporation and manage to keep informed and entertained, I use my computer for everything from coding to video editing and CAD design without using proprietary software. the tools are getting constantly better and with ai coding tools helping the devs that's only going to increase, it's helped speed up my coding hugely.
When ai is capable of replacing meaningful amounts of jobs it'll be able to hugely improve the productivity of anyone doing anything positive for community projects but also the cost to compete will continue to fall, we've seen this happen endlessly with giant monopolies losing the market to swarms of smaller businesses undercutting with better products especially in niche roles.
Huge retail giants have crumbled simply because internet marketplaces make it easy for a hundred garage run business to undercut them, the customer gets better products and the person earns more and lives a better life than if they'd been working for the big corp.
Maplins is a great example, I don't know if you had them in the US but they sold electrical stuff like components, gadgets and batteries but their choice was painfully bad and prices ridiculous compared to even just the early ebay that destroyed them.
Here in the west things were pretty good because we exploited 2/3rds of the world for cheap labour and easy resources, I get people would love to get back to that but the world largely due to improved education and communication through tech is moving away from that which is why one person working a low paid job in the US can no longer afford the labour output of a 100 impoverished 3rd world workers. Personally I prefer a world where everyone is equal and comfortable but maybe that's just me.
The only way things will get better is by going forward, we can't go back and there are no other paths open to us - use tech to lower the cost of living and to depower the monopolies.
Not only could it lead to thousands of jobs being cut (it takes more than just actors to make a movie) it also makes it dead simple to put real people into a video that shows them doing something illegal. Grainy security cam LoRA anyone?
Would it be so terrible for Hollywood to become a relic of the past?
I couldn't give a flip about "the industry" but that doesn't mean I want to see tens of thousands of talented people out of a job, not all of which are rich movie stars.
So you'd fight to defend the worst excesses of capitalism? That's kinda funny to me, I guess it's America brain rot where you can literally only imagine people happy if they're being exploited by a corporation.
Lowering the bar to self expression and creativity is a great thing, those people will live better lives being able to create their own projects and being able to enjoy and learn from other peoples content.
Beside its not going to be overnight, that's why we need to focus on transition and creating solutions with new tech rather than covering our eyes and crying until it's too late.
As for manipulated videos as legal evidence, if these products push for authenticity measures of security footage at the hardware/capture level, that's a good thing. Adobe is just commoditizing what's already been possible for some time now.
If trends continue, open-source solutions will be at this level within a year if not months. At that point you're free to "watermark" the content or not.
The jobs will be replaced by the Indie companies that this tech will help foster. It was fantasy a few years ago to put out quality products that could rival Hollywood or triple A game companies. That gap is quickly being bridged.
Can we take a minute and stop to assess where Adobe is obtaining its training data? Everyone is all up in arms about the OpenAI devs scraping DA and such, but Adobe is 100% training on the entirety of Behance and the Adobe Cloud. Things that are not public, our personal files that we never intended others to be seen. Our private albums of our children, or our wives/husbands/partners, or parts of NDA restricted projects that are stored in Adobe Cloud automatically that are supposedly not in violation of our NDAs.
Where are the pitchforks? Where is the outrage? This is 1000x worse than some desperate AI engineer staring at a publicly visible and available training set that is already tagged and described in detail that was begging to be used. People lost their shit over that one. Why does Adobe get a pass?
Aren't they training it exclusively from their own data sets which presumably they already own the licenses for?
That little "derivative works" bit in the middle gives them license to use the files stored in Creative Cloud to train AIs. So yes, they are using their data sets that they have license for. It just happens to be our data that they took the license on and we paid them to do it.
Quell the outrage.
They are paying for it. Here’s a quick link from the top of search.
https://qz.com/adobe-ai-training-data-artists-pay-1851407658
That's fun, glad to see they are paying people now. I didn't see in there when in the multi-years long process it takes to develop tool-sets and train checkpoints they paid for the rights to create derivative works. The article is dated a few days ago and it is present tense. They are NOW paying. The AI is trained. The tool is built. It takes tens of thousands of images to train a generative model from scratch, I would expect decades of footage for a video model. So if the model is trained, and them paying is new...?
Also, they don't have to ask, or pay... They already have the rights for all content stored in Creative Cloud (EULA Link).
Legally, an AI training is a "derivative work", so I would need a letter from the lead engineers on the AI dev team at Adobe, signed by every dev who has worked on it, stating that they only used paid training material at every stage of development of the tools, disseminated separately from any official Adobe channel before I would believe that the greedy gaping maw that is Adobe did not just use the millions of images and thousands of years of footage they have legal right to use that THEY are actually PAID for. They know they can pay now because it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Creative Cloud fees and is great PR and an even better smokescreen. There is precisely 0 chance they are going to receive enough good, usable footage through this program to train an AI from scratch.
"Absolutely Terrifying"
Really? Did he watch the same video I saw on that page? That b-roll was really bad.
I get that it'll only get better, but generative AI models will never understand filmmaking techniques because it can't. That's not how these models are built.
It can create a city skyline and pan right, but it'll never know why a pan right in that scene was appropriate or how the lighting fits in with the rest of the scene. It'll never come up with new ways of "filming" a scene, because it's all built on what already exists. There's no style to generative AI.
You say that like the current models are the end of the line but understanding why film making techniques are used isn't impossible even just for a llm based system. Designing new styles isn't out of reach for ai either, sure you can God of the gaps it and say there's a mysterious sliver of soul required but practically it'll be able to be every bit as original as any human, probably more so as it has more knowledge to work from.
I know it's desirable to hate on ai because it's scary or popular but nailing your colors to the argument that it'll never be able to do certain things is already an exhausting game of moving that goalpost every time a new model emerges and that's only going to continue.
it’ll be able to be every bit as original as any human, probably more so as it has more knowledge to work from.
It'll be so "original" that it makes no sense, evokes no emotion, and goes nowhere.
And if the goalpost is a decent movie, then the goalpost hasn't moved at all. AI is just impossibly far away.
Perhaps most importantly does humanity actually want to build bigger and bigger supercomputers using more and more electricity/resources just so some AI can make a crappy action movie? What a waste.
AI is just impossibly far away.
Sure it's pretty far away, but it's also moving at break neck speed. Last year low-res spaghetti-eating Will Smith body horror was the pinnacle of ai generated video, today we're already generating videos that take at least a second look to determine that it was AI generated. The big question is at what point that improvement rate will start to level off.
It's not really about the ai making a complete movie though it's about emerging tools allowing creators to make their vision.
But yes they'll be making complete movies every bit as enjoyable as marvel sooner than you can imagine. And movies with emotion and message that speak to people on deep levels, that's really not as hard as you might want to think.
And yes we do, making movies is just an easy to play with toy the real work is going to understand these tools so we can use them to do things like generative design of 3d printable items to set metrics so you can just say 'my dishwasher broke' and it'll look at the photo, analyze the problem, design a replacement and offer fabrication options. That's the sort of thing this leads to, being able to have repairable and upgradable hardware, being able to customize your life and live better for cheaper.
It's a world where the impoverished that used to toil in sweatshops so we could have cheap clothes can get world class education in their first language with questions answered and conceps demonstrated using examples they can understand and with clear and well constructed visual aids. Allowing them to create the things they need to improve their lives and recreate the local sustainability we tore from them.
If this allows someone with a fascinating life story and perspective to express themselves and create their vision then it's a great thing, I'm looking forward to seeing random movies from obscure areas of the world and I won't miss corporate and polished made by the numbers Hollywood the slightest bit.
Yes. It is a new tool for vfx artists and not a replacement. If they can deliver higher quality for less money, you'd expect them to be more in demand.
"Never" is a big word, but it's really not clear how one would train an AI to know what it should generate. See the hubbub about diversity in google's image generator. I see no theoretical problems, but in practice it's just not going to happen any time soon.
With the Pro version you can create generative AI film in color. With the Legibull feature you're allowed to display text on the screen of up to 10 frames in your video.
"New thing bad"
Okay I guess.
Not bad, but scawy
Meh, video editing has been wild for a couple of years, this is the logical next step