Meet Sora

[NoBanStan]

Those of us in the techie world have probably already seen this, but for the rest, Open AI is releasing a text-to-video product called Sora. https://openai.com/sora

To put it simply: Imagine just telling a chat box to make you a video of a cat fighting a dog over a banana. A few moments later, presto! you have that video available to you.

Personally, I'm trying to view it from the side of light. We could get some very cool stuff like sci-fi movies with "actors" that aren't spouting their political beliefs, etc, etc. However, we all know that it'll be used for more nefarious purposes. "Black Mirror" type stuff, among others.

Remember, this is AI video in its infancy. So as you scroll through these videos, you'll probably be impressed by the realism... until you pay closer attention. Things disappearing or having no weight. The process not understanding how mass works or collision when objects touch. other times something sprouts a new limb or simply disappears once it's out of primary focus.

So regardless of what you think.. we're entering a really wild time...

[Chucktshoes]

It’s time for the Butlerian Jihad. 

[Jamie Jackson]

I am not technologically savvy by any stretch. But my son and I were discussing the exponential development, and potential unintended consequences of such, just a few weeks ago.

He sent me a link to a Youtube vid by Marques Brownlee just this morning on Sora.

Mr. Brownlee did a great job on this apolitical video. It's pretty incredible, remarkable actually, how much it's developed in so short of a time period.

Of course I think back to the 1997 movie "Wag the Dog". But reality is so far beyond that now.

And since my son and I often reference "Terminator" and SkyNet he ended his email with:

"Not yet, not for about 40 years."

-- Kyle Reese, 1984

 

Damn 

 

ETA: Didn't know if I could link the vid directly.

It's titled :  "AI Generated Videos Just Changed Forever"

 

 

Edited February 16 by Jamie Jackson

[NoBanStan]

12 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

It’s time for the Butlerian Jihad. 

No! just No! Dune... *shudders*
I tried to read the first one... it was SOOOO slow. so i switched to the audio book... even the narrator was slow.

ITS EVEN PLOT THAT YOU HAVE TO STAB SOMEONE SLOW!!

[Erich]

When they finally release it to the public, I  can’t wait to see what people are going to be making Taylor Swift do. 

If anyone followed the pic gen thread on arfcom, you know what I mean.

Edited February 16 by Erich

[NoBanStan]

42 minutes ago, Erich said:

When they finally release it to the public, I  can’t wait to see what people are going to be making Taylor Swift do. 

If anyone followed the pic gen thread on arfcom, you know what I mean.

Not a fan of her music, her politics, HER in general. But she doesn't deserve that and ARFCOM shouldn't allow it either. Bet if that was their kid they would sing a different tune.

No offense man, but that's just wrong in my book

Edited February 17 by NoBanStan

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

No! just No! Dune... *shudders*
I tried to read the first one... it was SOOOO slow. so i switched to the audio book... even the narrator was slow.

ITS EVEN PLOT THAT YOU HAVE TO STAB SOMEONE SLOW!!

I’m less that half joking here. I’ve become increasingly convinced that when it comes to the internet, the juice is not worth the squeeze.  
 

Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

-The Orange Catholic Bible

[Erich]

3 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

Not a fan of her music, her politics, HER in general. But she doesn't deserve that and ARFCOM shouldn't allow it either. Bet if that was their kid they would sing a different tune.

No offense man, but that's just wrong in my book

It really wasn’t the exercise in misogyny that you’re casting it as. 

The point of those posts in that thread was how the controls and censorship in AI platforms can be defeated. Exactly what I was alluding to.

Think you are running with it a bit seriously and missed the point. I’d suggest take the comment in the spirit it was intended maybe. It was a joke.

Not sure on the moral superiority play. I’d bet no one forced you to look at that stuff to end up offended and blowing it out of proportion. Your choosing censorship over free will is not a choice I’d make either.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chucktshoes]

3 minutes ago, Erich said:

It really wasn’t the exercise in misogyny that you’re casting it as. 

The point of those posts in that thread was how the controls and censorship in AI platforms can be defeated. Exactly what I was alluding to.

Think you are running with it a bit seriously and missed the point. I’d suggest take the comment in the spirit it was intended maybe. It was a joke.

Not sure on the moral superiority play. I’d bet no one forced you to look at that stuff to end up offended and blowing it out of proportion. Your choosing censorship over free will is not a choice I’d make either.

 

 

 

 

 

I’m actually with NBS here. The ability to use AI to create sexualized images of folks isn’t so much an exercise in misogyny as an affront to human dignity. It’s immaterial to whether the subject is male or female, creating p*rn of someone without their consent is wrong. Full stop. 

[NoBanStan]

25 minutes ago, Erich said:

It really wasn’t the exercise in misogyny that you’re casting it as. 

The point of those posts in that thread was how the controls and censorship in AI platforms can be defeated. Exactly what I was alluding to.

Think you are running with it a bit seriously and missed the point. I’d suggest take the comment in the spirit it was intended maybe. It was a joke.

Not sure on the moral superiority play. I’d bet no one forced you to look at that stuff to end up offended and blowing it out of proportion. Your choosing censorship over free will is not a choice I’d make either.

Please read your initial comment and tell me it doesn't say "I can't wait for them to make more fake Taylor Swift porn". I heard about it, but I didn't look it up because it's exactly what it says. It's fake.

If you said that about some girl that does porn, I wouldn't have batted an eye because she signed up for it. So it's not about moral superiority, it's just common decency. Tell you what, let's get pictures of your wife/mother/daughter and let's make some porn out of them to share around. Would your feelings change? Serious question man.

[Erich]

18 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m actually with NBS here. The ability to use AI to create sexualized images of folks isn’t so much an exercise in misogyny as an affront to human dignity. It’s immaterial to whether the subject is male or female, creating p*rn of someone without their consent is wrong. Full stop. 

I'd agree with that last statement. The controls that are / will be added are meant to prevent it.

Want to be clear I am not promoting "porn", rather I am curious what some will do and what they will do despite the best efforts of the developers. Its how it evolves going forward. This idea of what is porn is too easy to trip over and there is a great deal of subjectivity to it. There will be mis-steps, but in the end it will end in a better place.

I think the problem many have is how realistic some of these may look. It does not matter its fake, its just to close. In my mind I know its fake so I don't weight it heavily. Not to the point of having an impact on mankind. But I can respect some will see that differently.

Photoshop is an example of something that has been around that allows this kind of thing, worse with real images. It has no bounds except the skill of the user. I bring that up as an example of the limited damage it has done.

 

There is a parallel here. Tool vs person

Bad actors taking something and doing a bad thing to have it censored or banned. Sound a little familiar.

[Erich]

13 minutes ago, NoBanStan said:

Please read your initial comment and tell me it doesn't say "I can't wait for them to make more fake Taylor Swift porn". I heard about it, but I didn't look it up because it's exactly what it says. It's fake.

If you said that about some girl that does porn, I wouldn't have batted an eye because she signed up for it. So it's not about moral superiority, it's just common decency. Tell you what, let's get pictures of your wife/mother/daughter and let's make some porn out of them to share around. Would your feelings change? Serious question man.

It absolutely does not. Your quote substitutes words to fit your false narrative,or you read in what you wanted for your own purposes.  the P word was never mentioned until Chuck brought it up and you are capitalizing on it. 

For background, the image generator in question is not suppose to be able to use famous people. Calling one out by name would not get that image. But as it was 'learning' and people were teaching it nicknames, others could then use them.

I was specifically referring to, and I said, seeing how the controls will be circumvented. In no instance did I see a port image produced. They had her doing a number of  various  things. but not pornographic as that is not allowed. It would be fair to say some were sexualized in nature, but nothing you could not show in public.

Based the its later development, I am curious what it can do with video.  I was joking about the ARFCOM instances as it is somewhat known effort, I didn't know the comment would be modified / twisted. 

I know what I meant. If you dont want to believe it, fine. I'd say support it with other posts since there would be others if its is what you claim.

The idea, if it was a porn person you'd pass doesn't follow. You are saying they dont deserve dignity and they are subhuman or TS is better than them. I dont agree with that.

I will dignify your last. You are off base and misrepresenting a joking comment for your own reasons.

[NoBanStan]

6 hours ago, Erich said:

It absolutely does not. Your quote substitutes words to fit your false narrative,or you read in what you wanted for your own purposes.  the P word was never mentioned until Chuck brought it up and you are capitalizing on it. 

For background, the image generator in question is not suppose to be able to use famous people. Calling one out by name would not get that image. But as it was 'learning' and people were teaching it nicknames, others could then use them.

I was specifically referring to, and I said, seeing how the controls will be circumvented. In no instance did I see a port image produced. They had her doing a number of  various  things. but not pornographic as that is not allowed. It would be fair to say some were sexualized in nature, but nothing you could not show in public.

Based the its later development, I am curious what it can do with video.  I was joking about the ARFCOM instances as it is somewhat known effort, I didn't know the comment would be modified / twisted. 

I know what I meant. If you dont want to believe it, fine. I'd say support it with other posts since there would be others if its is what you claim.

The idea, if it was a porn person you'd pass doesn't follow. You are saying they dont deserve dignity and they are subhuman or TS is better than them. I dont agree with that.

I will dignify your last. You are off base and misrepresenting a joking comment for your own reasons.

Now that you've provided the additional detail, I suppose I'm in on the joke. I still don't see a joke, but humor is subjective.

I'm not here to come after anyone, so I will offer you an apology for wrapping you in with dirty deep fake group.

I still defend my stance that they are perverts.

[Erich]

1 hour ago, NoBanStan said:

Now that you've provided the additional detail, I suppose I'm in on the joke. I still don't see a joke, but humor is subjective.

I'm not here to come after anyone, so I will offer you an apology for wrapping you in with dirty deep fake group.

I still defend my stance that they are perverts.

That’s totally fair. I appreciate it and apologize for pointed statements, and the very poor word choice in the first comments that caused this. 

It’s really too bad that thread devolved. Several pages in the beginning were very imaginative and interesting. I don’t understand the fascination with that one person.

[NoBanStan]

3 minutes ago, Erich said:

That’s totally fair. I appreciate it and apologize for pointed statements, and the very poor word choice in the first comments that caused this. 

It’s really too bad that thread devolved. Several pages in the beginning were very imaginative and interesting. I don’t understand the fascination with that one person.

I don't blame you for firing back in your own defense. Perfectly natural. No hard feelings from my end.

I also don't get the obsession with her, but that's fame right? If only people could be so dedicated to better efforts in life. Myself included....

[Chucktshoes]

8 hours ago, Erich said:

I'd agree with that last statement. The controls that are / will be added are meant to prevent it.

Want to be clear I am not promoting "porn", rather I am curious what some will do and what they will do despite the best efforts of the developers. Its how it evolves going forward. This idea of what is porn is too easy to trip over and there is a great deal of subjectivity to it. There will be mis-steps, but in the end it will end in a better place.

I think the problem many have is how realistic some of these may look. It does not matter its fake, its just to close. In my mind I know its fake so I don't weight it heavily. Not to the point of having an impact on mankind. But I can respect some will see that differently.

Photoshop is an example of something that has been around that allows this kind of thing, worse with real images. It has no bounds except the skill of the user. I bring that up as an example of the limited damage it has done.

 

There is a parallel here. Tool vs person

Bad actors taking something and doing a bad thing to have it censored or banned. Sound a little familiar.

I apologize for misconstruing what it was you were referring to. I don’t ARFCOM, and hadn’t seen the thread that you referred to. I made my assumptions based upon the stories about the subject that bubbled up into the more mainstream outlets. 
 

I am quite happy that my point doesn’t apply to you directly. It doesn’t change my basic position that the dangers here far outweigh the possible benefits. For example, from this day on there is no such thing as video evidence. It’s all suspect. There’s just as much, if not more, danger from folks not believing videos that are real than from folks believing videos are fake. 

 

[Grayfox54]

On another forum I visit, in their "Pic of the Day" thread, some folks like posting pictures of very attractive ladies in various states of dress. No nudity mind you, but still quite sexy.  Recently, they've come to discover that some of these pictures are AI generated. You have to look closely, but when you do you notice small discrepancies. A missing finger or maybe an eye brow doesn't look quite right. Little things that most people don't notice. But they do look very real. 

All this AI stuff makes me nervous. Its only a matter of time before its used for nefarious purposes. If it isn't already. And now they can make movies? Put something fake on the evening news to control the people. The propaganda possibilities are endless. Scary stuff. 

[NoBanStan]

40 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

37 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

On another forum I visit, in their "Pic of the Day" thread, some folks like posting pictures of very attractive ladies in various states of dress. No nudity mind you, but still quite sexy.  Recently, they've come to discover that some of these pictures are AI generated. You have to look closely, but when you do you notice small discrepancies. A missing finger or maybe an eye brow doesn't look quite right. Little things that most people don't notice. But they do look very real. 

All this AI stuff makes me nervous. Its only a matter of time before its used for nefarious purposes. If it isn't already. And now they can make movies? Put something fake on the evening news to control the people. The propaganda possibilities are endless. Scary stuff. 

 

Right. Desantis' team actually used an AI photo of Trump hugging fauci during his campaign. It was easy to spot, but it probably fooled a lot of people.

Not an NPR fan, just pulled the first link from a search

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181097435/desantis-campaign-shares-apparent-ai-generated-fake-images-of-trump-and-fauci

Edited February 17 by NoBanStan
dunno how I quoted chuck there. stupid mobile

[Erich]

As the fear and anxiety around these grew last year, it had prompted governments to intercede. While the international agreements rely on voluntary participation, Europe has moved forward with legislation. Love or hate the democratic process, the direction is clear and it will just take us longer.

They will end up filtering and restricting the foundation models AI draws from. Much like how social platforms restrict content.

Leading up to an election year, timing and how much influence end products will have is unfortunate. As much as I loathe censorship and its usual effect on free speech, this is one of the items that may be appropriate to reach out to representatives to express concerns if you want to see something happen in the US sooner than later.

I work in an industry that has seen high adoption. Businesses feel compelled to use AI when their competitors are using it in an effort to stay competitive with productivity / potential cost savings. Employees read that as job loss. The fear was palpable for some.  Its limitations are noticeable and it gets things wrong quite a bit. In part due to use of stand alone internal deployments and use. Business will not use the platforms in the public sphere for privacy and security.  This should limit bad actors from injecting wanted content into local instance's foundations. Big should.

As end users, and realistically we will all be using it whether you know you are or not, being aware of the abuses now may be a good thing. I expect images and end products will eventually all be tagged with metadata or some form of ID such that it will be transparent that what you are looking at is the product of generative AI. Some socials do it already. Kind of surprised they arent all doing it for marketing purposes since this is really all about subscription $$$ now.

 

[ken_mays]

Another approach to de-degenerate our society:

DignifAI is gaining attention in the social media lately. Unlike the increasing number of apps that controversially remove clothes from images, this tool takes a different approach by adding clothing to pictures.

https://openaisea.com/dignifai-join-change-dress-with-ai-trend/

 

[DWARREN123]

Where are the killer asteroids when we need them?

[gun sane]

There were enough people who had no grasp of reality before the AI techs started generating fake ones.  I don't know how this is going to bring people back down to earth.