Convincing Human Thread Title Not Generated by AI

[Saturnome]

I feel safe from this force-feed algoritmic AI slop on the old internet, places like here. I wish forums never went away in style. I don't get much AI dumped in front of my eyes so far, but I'm leaving social media in a few days, there's no hope for this stuff, and, inspired by younger people bringing back personal websites, I've drawn and coded my own last month (just add a .com to my pseudonym) and I hope to make it my home in this hellscape. A smaller, more personal internet is where it's at.

[Matt]

Maybe a cat.

If you rescue a white tiger kitten from a sewer grate, be sure to keep us up to date on it with a series of 5-7 second videos.

[colinr0380]

Whilst changing your accent from Australian to American at a whim.

(I just keep wondering what Werner Herzog would make of that video, since it is like Grizzly Man meets Lo and Behold!)

The one bright side of this, as with my plastic surgery comment earlier, is that if there are unreal videos of cute cats being 'saved' that may at least remove the motivation for the disturbing reported trend (though I have not gone searching in order to confirm the truth behind these rumours or not) of animals being neglected so that they can then be 'rescued' for content. Anyway, for now at least I have my fall back of the Daily Dose of Pets channel, a recent animal dedicated spin off of the main Daily Dose of Internet channel, to at least provide an initial content filter for these random videos.

[Lowry_Sam]

The New Yorker interviews author of The Thinking Machine, FT's business book of the year.

What to look forward to? AI filters that monitor & augment what you're watching while you're watching it and robots to clean your toilet & do your dishes, hopefully with a different brush.

[Lowry_Sam]

if there are unreal videos of cute cats being 'saved' that may at least remove the motivation for the disturbing reported trend

saving animals is the bread & butter of pet/animal Youtube channels.

(I just keep wondering what Werner Herzog would make of that video, since it is like Grizzly Man meets Lo and Behold!)

But you don't need AI to make these videos, they already exist & are among the most popular Youtube pet channels: I Am Puma.

[Lemmy Caution]

ICE has launched a $100 million effort to attract new recruits that includes sending geo-targeted advertisements directly to the phones of people located near Mixed Martial Arts fights, NASCAR races, and gun shows. The advertisements use futuristic imagery of war and video games, along with slogans about “defending the homeland” against “invaders.”

Besides the eye-popping sum and the questionable approach, I wasn't aware tech could easily vacuum up everybody's phone # in a given area and then exploit it. Or rather, I knew the data was being recorded, but I thought it was reasonably safeguarded by telecoms, available to police with warrants. I wonder what tech device scans and records all phone signals in a given range, and its size/cost. And how soon this will be ubiquitous and annoying.

[tenia]

Isn't that just geolocalised ads through phones pinging near certain antennas ?

[Lemmy Caution]

Telecom providers are selling user location data to marketers?
I would have expected privacy laws to block that.

[hearthesilence]

[Never Cursed]

Curious if anyone else has been seeing the output of Seedance (owned by ByteDance, former owners of TikTok) on social media. It produces "video" based on text and image prompts, and is mostly being used to make copyright-infringing mash-up garbage "proof of concepts." This clip particularly impressed me with the sheer number of violations of continuity, physics, and basic common sense present that demonstrate how little the people using it actually know about filmmaking

[willoneill]

I’ve seen quite few of these clips, all accompanied by comments saying “Hollywood is dead” or some variation, but I have yet to see anything a) narratively substantial, or b) that couldn’t have been done already with cgi (but obviously at a greater cost). So I’ve yet to be convinced that AI will replace human screenwriters/directors/actors, but I also won’t be encouraging my children to get into the computer effects/animation business.

[The Curious Sofa]

People keep pointing out the flaws of AI, but I'm alarmed at how quickly it is evolving. I'd never say never about what it will be capable of.

[Finch]

Between that and climate change, I'm almost glad I only have 18 years until retirement and 30-40 years before I die. I honestly find much of what the future might hold terrifying.

[Beloved Aunt]

I don't know, I'd have to assume AI will never make the final leap to successfully and completely simulating what a human consciousness really looks like. I just don't think that's something you can program.

[Beloved Aunt]

At least, they'd have to program all sorts of minute mind-body interactions etc. etc., and I don't really see anyone doing that.

[Lowry_Sam]

This clip particularly impressed me with the sheer number of violations of continuity, physics, and basic common sense present that demonstrate how little the people using it actually know about filmmaking

For someone who finds the proliferation of action movies to be indistinguishable from one another, I would need an explanation as I don’t see anything different between this and any random action movie trailer that I have the misfortune of having to sit through before the movie I wanted to see. It seems to me that there was a period when the use of effects was creative (The City of Lost Children & Pan’s Labyrinth come to mind most), however in an age where it seems every thing needs to be cranked up to 11, It all just becomes a migraine-inducing blur after a while.

People keep pointing out the flaws of AI, but I'm alarmed at how quickly it is evolving. I'd never say never about what it will be capable of.

Is AI actually evolving (itself) or are humans making more accurate algorithms? I am less concerned about the technology itself and more concerned about the diminishing capacity of humans to think critically and evaluate what they see and hear with some semblance of intelligence.

[Matt]

I am less concerned about the technology itself and more concerned about the diminishing capacity of humans to think critically and evaluate what they see and hear with some semblance of intelligence.

Even among extremely intelligent college students, media and information literacy has been in the toilet for about 20 years (since the dawn of Facebook/Twitter/YouTube and the Wild West days of Wikipedia when it was highly unreliable). The ability to look at something, question it, and verify it is vanishingly rare. And one only needs to browse Facebook for a minute to see how even the worst AI slop is readily swallowed by its users.

Most AI image generators are still pretty bad (backwards heads, smeary faces, too many fingers, etc.), but Google's Nano Banana Pro image generator and Veo video generator can already generate things that look indiscernible from reality.

The good news is that I don't think many people are really interested in consuming AI-generated entertainment. Pictures and short videos can be fun, meme-like content, but there's already a huge backlash against AI-generated music on Spotify for example.

[hearthesilence]

Curious if anyone else has been seeing the output of Seedance (owned by ByteDance, former owners of TikTok) on social media. It produces "video" based on text and image prompts, and is mostly being used to make copyright-infringing mash-up garbage "proof of concepts." This clip particularly impressed me with the sheer number of violations of continuity, physics, and basic common sense present that demonstrate how little the people using it actually know about filmmaking

I was going to say, it looked pretty shitty to me, but shitty in a way that reminded me of the garbage old schoolmates of mine continue to watch to this day, so my immediate snarky but honest reaction was "if you aspire to shit, you have something to worry about."

As it turns out, it appears that the video was a con job cooked up to oversell AI's capabilities. Hacks can breathe a sigh of relief.

[Never Cursed]

Curious if anyone else has been seeing the output of Seedance (owned by ByteDance, former owners of TikTok) on social media. It produces "video" based on text and image prompts, and is mostly being used to make copyright-infringing mash-up garbage "proof of concepts." This clip particularly impressed me with the sheer number of violations of continuity, physics, and basic common sense present that demonstrate how little the people using it actually know about filmmaking

I was going to say, it looked pretty shitty to me, but shitty in a way that reminded me of the garbage old schoolmates of mine continue to watch to this day, so my immediate snarky but honest reaction was "if you aspire to shit, you have something to worry about."

As it turns out, it appears that the video was a con job cooked up to oversell AI's capabilities. Hacks can breathe a sigh of relief.

Click the link, I specifically posted a different video than the one in that AV Club article

[hearthesilence]

Curious if anyone else has been seeing the output of Seedance (owned by ByteDance, former owners of TikTok) on social media. It produces "video" based on text and image prompts, and is mostly being used to make copyright-infringing mash-up garbage "proof of concepts." This clip particularly impressed me with the sheer number of violations of continuity, physics, and basic common sense present that demonstrate how little the people using it actually know about filmmaking

I was going to say, it looked pretty shitty to me, but shitty in a way that reminded me of the garbage old schoolmates of mine continue to watch to this day, so my immediate snarky but honest reaction was "if you aspire to shit, you have something to worry about."

As it turns out, it appears that the video was a con job cooked up to oversell AI's capabilities. Hacks can breathe a sigh of relief.

Click the link, I specifically posted a different video than the one in that AV Club article

But the findings should still apply, shouldn't they? It's pointing out that the company shot a large stockpile of footage featuring two people engaged in a choreographed fight in front of a green screen, and this is likely serving as the foundation for everything we're seeing, from the figures themselves (shape and motion) to the shot composition.

[Never Cursed]

I was going to say, it looked pretty shitty to me, but shitty in a way that reminded me of the garbage old schoolmates of mine continue to watch to this day, so my immediate snarky but honest reaction was "if you aspire to shit, you have something to worry about."

As it turns out, it appears that the video was a con job cooked up to oversell AI's capabilities. Hacks can breathe a sigh of relief.

Click the link, I specifically posted a different video than the one in that AV Club article

But the findings should still apply, shouldn't they? It's pointing out that the company shot a large stockpile of footage featuring two people engaged in a choreographed fight in front of a green screen, and this is likely serving as the foundation for everything we're seeing, from the figures themselves (shape and motion) to the shot composition.

Not really, because everything I had an issue with was found in what the AI did to the choreographed fight footage rather than that it was pre-shot choreographed fight footage. Watch the video and note how this house has 3 separate living rooms on the same floor, or the same TV is broken something like 3 separate times, or how one of the actors is slammed into empty space that materializes into a wall, or how there appears to be a nuclear bomb (or overamped studio lights) going off outside the "house," or how bricks and plaster dust fly out of nowhere, etc., etc. The point being that the AI took footage that made sense in the individual chunks in which it was shot and turned it into a single piece of footage that makes no sense.

[The Curious Sofa]

People keep pointing out the flaws of AI, but I'm alarmed at how quickly it is evolving. I'd never say never about what it will be capable of.

Is AI actually evolving (itself) or are humans making more accurate algorithms? I am less concerned about the technology itself and more concerned about the diminishing capacity of humans to think critically and evaluate what they see and hear with some semblance of intelligence.

It's a combination of both, at this point. I share your concern about critical thinking, but I agree with Matt that this boat has sailed long ago.

[MichaelB]

For someone who finds the proliferation of action movies to be indistinguishable from one another, I would need an explanation as I don’t see anything different between this and any random action movie trailer that I have the misfortune of having to sit through before the movie I wanted to see. It seems to me that there was a period when the use of effects was creative (The City of Lost Children & Pan’s Labyrinth come to mind most), however in an age where it seems every thing needs to be cranked up to 11, It all just becomes a migraine-inducing blur after a while.

Superhero films literally put me to sleep. I had to see a fair number when chaperoning the kids, and almost invariably I'd start to nod off (and wouldn't be minded to fight it) about an hour in, and I'd then wake up for the climax in which a load of CGI-enhanced people that I didn't care about would be throwing things at each other. Honourable exception: that animated Spider-Verse film, which was a genuinely pleasant surprise.

And when I saw Mad Max: Fury Road I remember thinking that it was such a refreshing change to see a 21st-century action movie made by someone who knew exactly where to put the camera and exactly where to move it to, and how quickly, and where the spatial arrangement was always completely clear even when the mayhem was at its most OTT.

[HJackson]

Click the link, I specifically posted a different video than the one in that AV Club article

But the findings should still apply, shouldn't they? It's pointing out that the company shot a large stockpile of footage featuring two people engaged in a choreographed fight in front of a green screen, and this is likely serving as the foundation for everything we're seeing, from the figures themselves (shape and motion) to the shot composition.

Not really, because everything I had an issue with was found in what the AI did to the choreographed fight footage rather than that it was pre-shot choreographed fight footage. Watch the video and note how this house has 3 separate living rooms on the same floor, or the same TV is broken something like 3 separate times, or how one of the actors is slammed into empty space that materializes into a wall, or how there appears to be a nuclear bomb (or overamped studio lights) going off outside the "house," or how bricks and plaster dust fly out of nowhere, etc., etc. The point being that the AI took footage that made sense in the individual chunks in which it was shot and turned it into a single piece of footage that makes no sense.

I think you're kind of talking past each other. The video is dogshit for all the reasons you rightly point out. It's just also being pointed out that the superficially impressive part of the video (ie the continuous choreography) is also faked - just like the Mechanical Turk was back in the eighteenth century, just like Amazon's "pick up your stuff and walk out" shops were, just like the recent "AI coded" C compiler from Anthropic was.

[Drucker]

Did anyone else comb through this substack post by Citrini, a research firm? Apparently, the contents were part of the reason American stocks fell yesterday. I read through it a bunch and my main takeaway is that all the hype around "agentic" and the possibilities of disruption made possible by AI will absolutely positively never come to pass.

For context here: I spend too much time reading Linkedin and work in upper management at exactly the kind of white collar job which is discussed in this article.

I just cannot believe how deluded a certain class of white collar professionals seem to be that because LLMs make coding easier that it the ramifications would be that SaaS companies would go bankrupt and therefore disrupt all white collar work. I am bombarded with Linkedin posts by executives that brag about what their "agents" are doing while they sleep. I could write a hundred songs in an hour, it doesn't mean any of them would be good. It would just be output for outputs sake. It's simply preposterous to presuppose that companies would all choose to build discrete SaaS functions in house to save a few million dollars a year. The impact would be thousands of duplicative functions, and person at company A would no longer know how to use any of the software at company B, and so on. It would be significantly less efficient, and whatever cost savings that occurs on software licenses would be offset by the decline in labor productivity.

I gotta figure out how to short whatever the concept of what these people are selling is.