4 ms·

The negative comments here shock me. This is the most amazing text-to-video we've ever seen, by a longshot. It's good enough for many uses. Absolutely mindblowi

by 55555 3y ago

The negative comments here shock me. This is the most amazing text-to-video we've ever seen, by a longshot. It's good enough for many uses. Absolutely mindblowing. Great job to the people who worked on this.

boesboes 3y ago
What negative comments?
- saurik 3y ago
  Yeah... I have only found a single negative comment about the quality--"As realistic as my blurry dream."--and it comes across as more of a cynical joke than a true negative review.
eurekin 3y ago
Just chiming in to second your opinion. Years ago, I wouldn't even dare to dream it would be possible. It's nowhere near, what people are used to watch normally, but the fact it's even trying to compete is insane.
danielbln 3y ago
I'm excited about these text 2 video models, what I'm not excited about is that it's Google publishing this. That means, no code, nothing deployed to try and most likely we will never ever hear about this ever again, or maybe it quietly hits Vertex AI in 2 years (like Imagen) and no-one will care. Also, ever since the Gemini marketing video shenanigans, I don't really feel like trusting whatever Google's research says they have, if I can't test it myself.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  > Also, ever since the Gemini marketing video shenanigans, I don't really feel like trusting whatever Google's research says they have, if I can't test it myself. The video was released by Google product marketing for a launch to customers, not research. I'm still somewhat confused by this one. I understand the community has decided to be harsh on Google for that video to draw a line - fair, truth in advertising, etc. -, but at the same time, we all had an understanding of where that tech is at currently and the pace it progresses at. Did anyone watching it really assume it was realtime? Can we not differentiate between technical publications and marketing anymore? Do we have to vilify everyone in an R&D department for the sins of the product marketing wing?
  - ImprobableTruth 3y ago
    The issue isn't that it's not real-time/sped-up, it's that it doesn't actually take video as input, but multiple hand picked stills.
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    We’re all harsh on it because we all had to see it being posted around by naive people as being amazing when it’s completely faked and misses half of the prompting, all of the latency. It was completely dishonest. Considering how trash Googles actual AI products are they deserve to be dragged even more over that video.
    - IshKebab 3y ago
      How is it completely faked? The video didn't give me the impression that the results were calculated instantly, or that no prompts were required.
- sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
  “PoC or GTFO” as they say.
  - addandsubtract 3y ago
    PapersWithCode or GTFO. [0] https://paperswithcode.com/ https://paperswithcode.com/
    - baldgeek 3y ago
      2 clicks from the Posted Link: "Read Paper", then "Code, Data and Media" tab will get you the dataset used (https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/ucf101 https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/ucf101)
      - sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
        Well in the Ai/ML era maybe “models or gtfo” is better. Training data is just common crawl for half these LMs.
      - gs17 3y ago
        That's not the dataset used for training. From the paper: >We train our T2V model on a dataset containing 30M videos along with their text caption. [...] We evaluate our model on a collection of 113 text prompts describing diverse objects and scenes. The prompt list consists of 18 prompts assembled by us and 95 prompts used by prior works (Singer et al., 2022; Ho et al., 2022a; Blattmann et al., 2023b) (see App. B). Additionally, we employ a zero-shot evaluation protocol on the UCF101 dataset >
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
How can you get excited about a company that’s shipped enough pieces of research you can count them on one hand during the 12 or so years they’ve been telling us about their work. Google can publish whatever research they want, literally doesn’t matter literally changes nothing because they can’t turn it into a product anyone can use and never will.
- ryandvm 3y ago
  Indeed. These recent AI demos are pretty damn impressive (even knowing there are smoke and mirrors), but it's hard to get excited about what's happening with their R&D when my Google Home device seems to be regressing on a daily basis. It is now basically is only useful for alarms and timers.
  - lbeltrame 3y ago
    Perhaps OT but I see often these comments on HN. How do these devices (I don't own one) lose functionality over time? Features removed through updates?
    - pbronez 3y ago
      Yes. The home assistant speakers aren’t making enough money to justify the large teams behind them. Thus we’ve seen significant layoffs on those teams in the past year. BigCos are looking for other ways to reduce costs. Killing features is one way to do it. There have also been situations where a feature is removed because of legal action; lawsuits alleging the features violates a patent. Live updates givith, live updates taketh away!
- smoldesu 3y ago
  I'm excited because I despise Google's products anyways and would rather use the research myself. Did that with Google's BERT model a few years back to make a particularly clueless Discord bot.
- sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
  Hey now, Google is going to use these technologies to fire their own employees to save costs for the next quarterly earnings call! Of course building products for actual users is no longer a “thing”, but think of the stock price.
tomcam 3y ago
Agreed. And the dancing bear is an instant classic.
endisneigh 3y ago
Well it’s Google and a lot of folks foam at the mouth at Google so it’s no surprise. They can’t dissociate the research from the creator.
heisgone 3y ago
It's indeed impressive. Stable diffusion is progressing so fast. That being said, I find myself picking more and more cues that an images is AI-generated. There is a feel to it. It's not different than the best movie CGI. As Christopher Nolan pointed-out, no matter how good it is, it's not the real deal.
malka 3y ago
It's by google. It will rot somewhere, never to be used.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by 55555 3y ago

boesboes 3y ago

What negative comments?

saurik 3y ago
Yeah... I have only found a single negative comment about the quality--"As realistic as my blurry dream."--and it comes across as more of a cynical joke than a true negative review.

eurekin 3y ago

Just chiming in to second your opinion. Years ago, I wouldn't even dare to dream it would be possible. It's nowhere near, what people are used to watch normally, but the fact it's even trying to compete is insane.

danielbln 3y ago

I'm excited about these text 2 video models, what I'm not excited about is that it's Google publishing this. That means, no code, nothing deployed to try and most likely we will never ever hear about this ever again, or maybe it quietly hits Vertex AI in 2 years (like Imagen) and no-one will care. Also, ever since the Gemini marketing video shenanigans, I don't really feel like trusting whatever Google's research says they have, if I can't test it myself.

sho_hn 3y ago
> Also, ever since the Gemini marketing video shenanigans, I don't really feel like trusting whatever Google's research says they have, if I can't test it myself. The video was released by Google product marketing for a launch to customers, not research. I'm still somewhat confused by this one. I understand the community has decided to be harsh on Google for that video to draw a line - fair, truth in advertising, etc. -, but at the same time, we all had an understanding of where that tech is at currently and the pace it progresses at. Did anyone watching it really assume it was realtime? Can we not differentiate between technical publications and marketing anymore? Do we have to vilify everyone in an R&D department for the sins of the product marketing wing?
- ImprobableTruth 3y ago
  The issue isn't that it's not real-time/sped-up, it's that it doesn't actually take video as input, but multiple hand picked stills.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  We’re all harsh on it because we all had to see it being posted around by naive people as being amazing when it’s completely faked and misses half of the prompting, all of the latency. It was completely dishonest. Considering how trash Googles actual AI products are they deserve to be dragged even more over that video.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    How is it completely faked? The video didn't give me the impression that the results were calculated instantly, or that no prompts were required.
sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
“PoC or GTFO” as they say.
- addandsubtract 3y ago
  PapersWithCode or GTFO. [0] https://paperswithcode.com/ https://paperswithcode.com/
  - baldgeek 3y ago
    2 clicks from the Posted Link: "Read Paper", then "Code, Data and Media" tab will get you the dataset used (https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/ucf101 https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/ucf101)
    - sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
      Well in the Ai/ML era maybe “models or gtfo” is better. Training data is just common crawl for half these LMs.
    - gs17 3y ago
      That's not the dataset used for training. From the paper: >We train our T2V model on a dataset containing 30M videos along with their text caption. [...] We evaluate our model on a collection of 113 text prompts describing diverse objects and scenes. The prompt list consists of 18 prompts assembled by us and 95 prompts used by prior works (Singer et al., 2022; Ho et al., 2022a; Blattmann et al., 2023b) (see App. B). Additionally, we employ a zero-shot evaluation protocol on the UCF101 dataset >

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

How can you get excited about a company that’s shipped enough pieces of research you can count them on one hand during the 12 or so years they’ve been telling us about their work. Google can publish whatever research they want, literally doesn’t matter literally changes nothing because they can’t turn it into a product anyone can use and never will.

ryandvm 3y ago
Indeed. These recent AI demos are pretty damn impressive (even knowing there are smoke and mirrors), but it's hard to get excited about what's happening with their R&D when my Google Home device seems to be regressing on a daily basis. It is now basically is only useful for alarms and timers.
- lbeltrame 3y ago
  Perhaps OT but I see often these comments on HN. How do these devices (I don't own one) lose functionality over time? Features removed through updates?
  - pbronez 3y ago
    Yes. The home assistant speakers aren’t making enough money to justify the large teams behind them. Thus we’ve seen significant layoffs on those teams in the past year. BigCos are looking for other ways to reduce costs. Killing features is one way to do it. There have also been situations where a feature is removed because of legal action; lawsuits alleging the features violates a patent. Live updates givith, live updates taketh away!
smoldesu 3y ago
I'm excited because I despise Google's products anyways and would rather use the research myself. Did that with Google's BERT model a few years back to make a particularly clueless Discord bot.
sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
Hey now, Google is going to use these technologies to fire their own employees to save costs for the next quarterly earnings call! Of course building products for actual users is no longer a “thing”, but think of the stock price.

tomcam 3y ago

Agreed. And the dancing bear is an instant classic.

endisneigh 3y ago

Well it’s Google and a lot of folks foam at the mouth at Google so it’s no surprise. They can’t dissociate the research from the creator.

heisgone 3y ago

It's indeed impressive. Stable diffusion is progressing so fast. That being said, I find myself picking more and more cues that an images is AI-generated. There is a feel to it. It's not different than the best movie CGI. As Christopher Nolan pointed-out, no matter how good it is, it's not the real deal.

malka 3y ago

It's by google. It will rot somewhere, never to be used.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]