>tip it over

Now we can do all the crimes.

Did anyone manage to grab the full google doc before it got deleted?

The DOD receives a blank check once a year.

Anything we have now, they had ten years ago.

(I guess downvoting me makes it untrue.)

Altman is selling a product, Yudkowsky is not.

This is an important distinction to remember for all genuine discussion.

Why is everyone pretending like deepfakes are an epidemic all of a sudden? We've had this tech for five years and the world has yet to catch on fire.

So what? Baseball players could be disproportionately gay, but thinking baseball is stupid wouldn't make you homophobic.

>Anti-furry sentiment is basically homophobia for zoomers and millennials

Lmao gtfoh

I've never understood the appeal of this.

I'm sure there's a larger application that will be realized down the line, but it feels like we've been seeing the same fake 3D photos for the last five years.

You'll soon hear how people making their own content is literally white supremacy, so just be ready for that.

The moment you hand the keys to creation to the masses, people will be able to make whatever they want - entirely devoid of subversive political messaging.

>AI art will, for the foreseeable future, be derived from human art and be a synthesis of artwork that is already in existence. But it also means that art for arts sake (art that is done by artists to make a statement, to communicate emotion, to FEEL) will become a luxury item even more so than it is now.

Peak delusion.

Artificial intelligence, at least at its current state, is a lot like nukes.

The only secret was that it's possible. Nothing stops the non-elites from banding together and doing it themselves.

One thing AI has over nukes however is that it's easier to procure computational power than fissile material, at least mildly.

The answer is no, and you need to find somewhere else to cope about your shit looks.

If you're worried about robots killing you, them being bipedal is hardly your biggest concern.

There's a distinction to be made here.

We can already make 90 minute videos from a prompt, which is feature length. Would you consider this a movie? Probably not.

The trick isn't just making long videos from a prompt, it's a multi-faceted issue.

The first thing to consider, which is already seeing significant ground being made in the most recent video models, is coherence. Try to use Stable Diffusion's img2img feature on a video cut into a sequence of images. It will be nearly unwatchable simply due to all the inconsistencies across the result footage.

The second thing is the actual size of the video. Right now it's tricky to make anything larger than a postage stamp, thanks largely to the sheer amount of compute needed to do so. Fortunately, upscaling tech is also progressing rapidly, so there might be several avenues through which this problem is solved.

Thirdly, you have to consider the fact that movies aren't just visual. In order to make proper films, you'll need to be able to generate audio as well (speech, sound effects, and the accompanying musical score).

Finally, the aforementioned building blocks of your film will all need to be perfectly generated. Any oddities in the speech patterns or sudden visual decoherence will completely wreck the viewing experience.

All of this, and frankly a good bit more, is what is going to make it far trickier to make movies than the more enthusiastic here believe.

That said, my prediction would most likely be that we'll start to see the first individually made feature length films (albeit with some coherence issues in either the visual or audio departments) by mid to late 2025. By the end of this decade, the technology will have been perfected and will enable anyone to make any movie / tv show they want.

Alternatively, I'm being far too conservative in my estimate, but it's always better to be positively surprised than negatively so.