Hacker News Reader

Comment by fernly | Hacker News Reader

Superficially impressive but what is the actual use case of the present state of the art? It makes 10-second demos, fine. But can a producer get a second shot of the same scene and the same characters, with visual continuity? Or a third, etc? In other words, can it be used to create a coherent movie --even a 60-second commercial -- with multiple shots having continuity of faces, backgrounds, and lighting?

This quote suggests not: "maintaining complete consistency throughout complex scenes or those with complex motion, remains a challenge."

View on HN

B-roll for YouTube videos.

This is still early. It's only going to get better.

Fun. Fun! I find it a lot of fun to have a computer spit out pixels based on silly ideas I have. It is very amusing to me

You blend them and extend the videos and then you connect enough for a 2 min short

That's what I think the tech at this stage cannot do. You make two clips from the same prompt with a minor change, e.g.

> a thief threatens a man with a gun, demanding his money, then fires the gun (etc add details)

> the thief runs away, while his victim slowly collapses on the sidewalk (etc same details)

Would you get the same characters, wearing the identical clothing, the same lighting and identical background details? You need all these elements to be the same, that's what filmmakers call "continuity". I doubt that Veo or any of the generators would actually produce continuity.

Dank memes.

> "what is the actual use case of the art?"

Not much. Low quality over-saturated advertising? Short films made by untalented lazy filmmakers?

When text prompts are the only source, creativity is absent. No craft, no art. Audiences won't gravitate towards fake crap that oozes out of AI vending machines, unrefined, artistically uncontrolled.

Imagine visiting a restaurant because you heard the chef is good. You enjoy your meal but later discover the chef has a "food generator" where he prompts the food into existence. Would you go back to that restaurant?

There's one exception. Video-to-video and image-to-video, where your own original artwork, photos, drawings and videos are the source of the generated output. Even then, it's like outsourcing production to an unpredictable third party. Good luck getting lighting and details exactly right.

I see the role of this AI gen stuff as background filler, such as populating set details or distant environments via green screen.

> Imagine visiting a restaurant because you heard the chef is good. You enjoy your meal but later discover the chef has a "food generator" where he prompts the food into existence. Would you go back to that restaurant?

That's an obvious yes from me. I liked it, and not only that, but I can reasonably assume it will be consistently good in the future, something lot's of places can't do.

So you'd forgive the deception (there's no "chef" only a button pusher) and revisit the restaurant even though you could easily generate the food yourself.

You don't care about the absence of a lifetime of hard work behind your meal, or the efforts of small business owners inspired by good food and passion in the kitchen. All that matters to you is that your taste buds were satisfied?

Interesting. Perhaps we can divide the world into those who'd happily dine at "Skynet Gourmet", and those who'd seek a real restaurant.

I think it's more complex than that. At least to me food in particular is nothing special, I truly eat just for substance, so if it doesn't taste bad, I'm happy.

I still believe that there's place for creative work, I just don't see why something created by something other than a human is inherently bad.

short video creation tools, its a huge market

Misinformation

Reply on news.ycombinator.com