Open-Sora does pretty good video generation on consumer GPUs
backprop.co
backprop.co
Adding the word 'just' doesnt make it any easier. Something I've noticed is that people who have never done something themselves and are telling someone to do an difficult task, will use:
"Just"
in-front of it.
This is particularly relevant in tech.
Here's their example gallery: https://hpcaitech.github.io/Open-Sora/
Compared to the outputs from other models run on consumer grade GPUs, I'd say those are very good.
Looking better than other things that are also bad is sort interesting in that it represents progress in some direction, but it isn't very interesting to people outside of the topic.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/yes-v...
In practice it's less "abolishing intellectual property" and more "transmuting everyone else's IP into their own IP so they can be the ultimate IP landlords".
But how ML is at least currently developing, other megacorporations and universities are only a year or so behind OpenAI etc, and publishing their weights and models. Of course disregarding training set IP because otherwise keeping up would be impossible.
If the media and advertising megacorporations manage to get a ban on training on IP material, Micr.. OpenAI would be a huge benefactor, as they could afford some weird licensing deal on everybody's data and the actual open efforts would be extinguished.
Luckily US hegemony is fading and many other powers DGAF anymore what a US judge says. Or a WTO judge, because USA kind of destroyed WTO themselves already.
Ideally there would other ways than economical to facilitate production of intellectual goods. Ownership economies are exceptionally bad in non-scarce resources.
There are some alternative and less destructive ways to handle the economy already in place. Academic institutions generally don't claim or enforce IP (paywalls are more a corporate than academic thing). Many library systems pay authors (notably not the publishers) for each loan from public funds. Open source software is funded via services (and increasingly with ads, which is not necessarily great).
State enforced monopoly on ideas or lumps of matter isn't the only way of structuring the economy. Alternatives haven't been discussed in 30 or so years, so it's understandable that many have hard time even conceptualizing such.
Arguably "first come, first serve" policy on names per domain is a good one and serves to reduce confusion.
Yes, they should lose the "property" if they do so, but in practice they lose it decades too late if even then.
Also trademarks being sellable means that at any moment the product with a trademark can have nothing to do with the original holder, partly defeating the rationale.
Right now, AI is taking people's original works and rehashing them in a way that directly competes with the original work. Some AI firms (e.g. perplexity) just have their LLMs paraphrase the work lightly.
This is a problem because it drives original work out of business. Even setting aside matters of originality, artistic value, and AI being vapid slop:
Gen-AI is and will remain a derivative work that is reliant on original human-made work
ChatGPT is not going to do investigative journalism. If we let AI push all journalists into bankruptcy, the news just becomes an endless sewer of PR statements recycled into AI slop.
If you don't want Google's woke "diverse nazis" to push real news into bankruptcy, copyright is needed to stop them.
> Right now, AI is taking people's original works and rehashing them in a way that directly competes with the original work.
Good. Taking people's original works and rehashing them in direct competition fosters, not harms, cultural flourishing.
Everything political is rooted in morality, and while it is easy to point out political challenges on the topic, intellectual property is ethically an unambiguously good concept.
While I don’t think all IP should be abolished, I think in general there is too much of it, protected for too long, and society would be better off getting rid of patents and dramatically downsizing copyright to at most a few decades of protection.
(And yes I have thought a lot on this matter. The evidence behind patents being overall beneficial is weak, and there is no effective societal argument for the current copyright terms.)
"The Most Powerful Idea in the World" basically makes the case that intellectual property is what enabled the Industrial Revolution. I won't try to summarize or defend the entire thing here, but I think it makes a very compelling case that the notion of "owning ideas as property" was the thing that made Britain unique (among other factors of course) and led to runaway technological explosion. It points out how in earlier times, inventors were literally killed for coming up with better methods that threatened some established system. So there is a big difference between art and technology there, and while I think debating the merits of copyright as it pertains to art is valid (and 100% agree it's overdone in our current system), I'm not convinced the current issues are serious enough to undermine the entire concept of intellectual property.
It was also created at a time when copying work was almost as hard and expensive as creating it.
Politics and economics don't have anything to do with morality. It's about power. The moral fairytailes are there to justify whatever the state of affairs are. When these change, new fairytales justifying them will be adopted.
If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?
You can argue it from political necessity.
Some kind of property rights are necessary for the operation of any social group. Even in a communist society you can't have the air force stealing land from the navy, or the transport department taking electricity from hospitals, or neighbours taking each others food allocations.
There needs to be some kind of organised transfer of property or you get chaos.
Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property. Access to e.g. the moon and earth's orbits and international waters and polar regions have systems of allocation, but they are not property.
I should not be coerced to give output of my labor (whether physical or mental) to others based on some burocrat’s allocation system or my neighbor’s wishes. That would be immoral.
I should not be coerced not to enter a piece of land just because somebody made a contract with somebody who killed or evicted by force the people (and other animals) who previously inhabited the land. That would be immoral, right?
Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.
I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.
> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.
I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must. Essentially anything that's both important and "stealable" needs to be protected by property rights of some kind.
Regardless of how your food and water come into your possession (trade, charity, gov allocation), it's necessary that some of it remains in your possession for you to consume.
> I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.
Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?
Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?
> I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must.
Why do some things must? Because it leads to more desirable consequences than other options, or because it is some metaphysical truth you're somehow privy to?
The first kind of argument is fine, the latter is just blunt rhetorics. I don't see why the former should be spoiled with the latter.
> Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?
Yes for both. I’ve not formalised it but I suspect we can a draw a line from philosophy -> game theory -> evolutionary dynamics -> socially stable systems of “rights”
Also, I don't believe ownership rights like we have currently lead to stable societies. This is kind of core of Marx's critique of capitalism.
But we do have clear systems of who gets power, through what means, and what they can do with it. The various classes of society have a relatively peaceful system of competing with one another.
I’m writing from a British perspective but it largely applies to most developed countries.
From a Finnish perspective, where ownership rights are somewhat lesser, the British system's trajectory didn't seem particularly stable when I lived there 2019-2020, and looks even less so now.
Britain never seems stable at first glance. Read a newspaper from 5, 50, 150 or 250 years ago and they'll all be lamenting economic uncertainty, geopolitical dilemmas and social injustice. Yet in that time no revolutions have killed more than 1% of the population, long term economic growth has averaged couple percentage points annually and nobody has successfully invaded the Islands.
"God given" means "natural". [Natural rights does not require a god](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...)
And if your argument ("... god given ... atheist ... etc.) can be copy-pasted into a valid defence of arbitrary evil (I like to use Hitler for a concrete example, but avoid it in public because some subset of people erroneously thinks that is an automatic fallacy), then it is trivial in the sense that it doesn't add anything to the discussion, regardless of your opinion or pov.
They were literally just invented few hundred years ago. And have even changed since then (owning another human being was somehow a natural/god given right). Humans have organized (and keep on organizing) without any such conception for at least tens of thousands of years, but suddenly its natural?
Who is the absolute arbiter of "evil"? USA of course holds itself as a force for good, and e.g. islamism as evil. Islamists do the opposite. Very rarely anybody thinks themselves as evil, but readily point out evil in others.
This is in no way to support islamism, or USA. Just that morality is just mostly an arbtrary justification for whatever somebody wants to or doesn't want to get done.
We can discuss the merits and shortcomings of e.g. ownership based on its societal consequences just fine without conjuring metaphysics.
And without any form of copyright it would have gone "hey $RECORD_COMPANY here's this cool jingle I made" and they'd say "yeah we think so too, we'll use that and compensate you $0."
Way better.
It maybe wrong how it is now, but it exists for a reason.
Same with patents.
Even now they can fight in court until smaller opponents go bankrupt but without any IP they wouldn't even have to fight.
Remember when Amazon copied successful products on their marketplace? That would be the norm and you could even blame or sue them.
Intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights is often harmful for consumers. In music, academia and mechanical engineering it's clearly been harmful in slowing the spread of innovation. It sucks to wait 20 years for a new excellent new dishwasher tray shape.
If we lived in an economic system where people don't starve or lose their house when they don't have a job then I wouldn't care. Until then, OpenAI and its ilk are looters.
I think the AI industry is motivating this for themselves with the idea that this does (at least partially) lead us to that world.
> there are no text or logos in the video
Though actually I imagine GH would just close the repo before it comes to that, because it looks like a pretty clear case.
I guess it's also possible OpenAI doesn't care about this.
The hyphen is erroneous here: 'morph-y' would be pronounced like 'morph why', and has the structure of a compound modifier without making any sense as one.
I'm assuming that you don't mean that the microcontroller reminds you of an upper body appendage, and are instead referring to a well-known instruction set architecture. If that's the case, I'd recommend 'ARMy'. But you're correct about the ambiguity where the word form you want to use collides with another pre-existing word. In that situation, you'll naturally need a different solution.
> Language is meant to convey meaning, and you understood the meaning I was trying to convey, so what's the issue?
That's precisely it. Language is meant to convey meaning: and the more complex and abstract the meaning we mean to convey, the more precise we need to be in our use of language. Deviating too much from well-established conventions makes ambiguity or miscommunication more likely. Conversely, to your point, blindly adhering to conventions where that would increase ambiguity also impedes communication.
In this case, the erroneous hyphen didn't completely erase your intended meeting, but it did make the sentence slower to parse.
Indeed, sometimes I'll use the -y construction when I'm inventing an adjective from a noun like this, especially if omitting it looks "wrong" to me because it's an invented word (not sure if I would've for "morphy" but whatever).
I don't know if you're a native speaker and there's some kind of cultural or generational gap here where some of us are more/less particular about this than others or if you're a non-native speaker trying to be helpful but underestimating the flexibility of casual written English.
Words conjoined with hyphens are always pronounced separately in normal usage -- the only exception I can think of is the special use case of hyphens representing continuations of a single word across a line break.
> Indeed, sometimes I'll use the -y construction when I'm inventing an adjective from a noun like this, especially if omitting it looks "wrong" to me because it's an invented word (not sure if I would've for "morphy" but whatever).
It's an "invented word" with or without the hyphen. But the standard way of "inventing" word forms in English is to apply suffixes directly to the root word without hyphens.
Using an interstitial hyphen as metadata to indicate one's own squeamishness about using a novel word form seems very strange to me. (The typical convention for this is to enclose the novel word in quotation marks, calling attention to the word itself in addition to invoking its meaning.)
> I don't know if you're a native speaker and there's some kind of cultural or generational gap here where some of us are more/less particular about this than others or if you're a non-native speaker trying to be helpful but underestimating the flexibility of casual written English.
I am very much a native speaker, and it's precisely for that reason that I find this nonstandard use of hyphenation jarring and disruptive of reading comprehension.
In case you still feel like you're more of an authority on whether this is acceptable in colloquial English than me (a Canadian native Engish speaker), OP (who - I peeked at their profile - appears to be a British native English speaker), or an American professor of English:
I also noticed, while scrolling through Rex's archives, that the Times itself had used the "-y" in the crossword. See the cited clue on 36A on June 18 [1], which describes something as "sting-y" - not to be confused with "stingy". Good enough for The Gray Lady, good enough for me.
At this point, I think - if it's still causing you to struggle with reading comprehension - you need to accept that it's a construct in common usage and spend some time practicing until you start to feel comfortable with it. Sorry, I know it's inconsistent; English is known for having quite a few quirks that you just need to get used to.
[0] https://rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/2024/06/strong-as-ox-in-s...
[1] https://rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/2024/06/extremely-damaged...
More AI slop for everyone.
This is going to make filmmaking cheap and accessible to a broad audience, and that's nothing short of a miracle.
I typically do each year's 48 hour film project with a team of 8 or more people. This year I did it with myself and an editor, and it was amazing - no 6 AM trip to the prop house, no lifting heavy props from the top shelf, no signing location release forms, no sweltering lights. I didn't have to put on makeup or do blocking for hours. (I used mocap, rotoscoping, and compositing.)
I've been using AI diffusion canvases to design - something I'd previously found entirely intimidating and unapproachable. I'm having so much fun and enjoyment with this.
I don't see the world the same way, and I don't get this negativity.
(it makes me mad that similar arguments are often brought when discussing mobile phones' walled garden policies)
well, they kinda do, but here's the thing
when you're old, all the tech that's out will be alien to you
I'm not even middle aged, I'm a tech enthusiast, and nonetheless it is happening to me already. new UI and new tools all happening too fast to keep up
we should be trying to do something about this for ourselves, not just for our mothers
Having said that, it's pretty impressive.
Has nothing to do with AI directly.
If this is indeed the "future of making movies," I dunno, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have no interest in watching anything made this way. Sorry. If you don't care enough about your project to do something besides AI prompts, I don't think you have anything to say that I need to hear.
I'm still burned out on "regular" CG in movies. I'd be much more excited about a (hypothetical) return to practical effects than a push even further into computer imagery.
I kept watching, noticing small bits here and there, subtle things, but there was not much CGI compared to almost any other action movie I've seen in the last several years, especially not much of any obvious full green screen sets and fly-by-wire wuxia heroism BS.
If I was very optimistic, I'd hope that people would question more what they see and hear and read to due to widespread of "Gen AI tools".
In reality that will most likely not happen, but yeah, one can hope.
And on job loss: Jobs come and go, nobody cared much about carriage drivers when cars took off...
With AI, the demand for that skillset is diminishing as is the need for people at all.
We're heading towards a Solaria situation, where the rich genuinely might no longer need to employ the masses, or sell them products. What would you do if you had a magic box that met all your needs? Pay a consultant? Hire a gardener? Call a maid? Request an escort? Why.
If we wanted to replace humans we'd have to fully figure out how the human brain works first, for now no one knows how the human brain truly works so how can we claim AI will replace all humans?
In my opinion, AGI is just an acronym pushed by people who have something to gain from mass hysteria, FOMO, and making people feel like "the end is near", AKA, AI influencers and founders who want investors to give them money.
Of course, this doesn't mean everyone who believes in AGI is one of the two, most were probably just fed this narrative and it sounded believable so they just went with it.
These are my two cents, sorry for the wall of text :P, but I just had to say something about what I perceive as an "AI bubble" that generates mass panic for most in order to benefit a few
In what quantity though? In Willy Wonka, when Charlie's dad got laid off at the toothbrush factory and was later rehired as the sole toothbrush automation inspector, what happened to his colleagues? Bigger and better things? Unlikely, unless their kids also suddenly inherited chocolate factories.
It's a decimation of the workforce, and we're still climbing the population curve.
Because that magic box is… magic, fantasy.
... with hammers