8 ms·
Open-Sora does pretty good video generation on consumer GPUs
- firebaze 2y agogithub repo: https://github.com/hpcaitech/Open-Sora https://github.com/hpcaitech/Open-Sora
- lucideer 2y agoAssume "pretty good" here means "pretty good relative to Sora", because even Sora can't claim to be "pretty good" yet.
- jsheard 2y agoYou could say that actually being available to the public makes it pretty good relative to a product that's still vaporware 5 months after being announced. There's no timeline for Sora availability, or any indication of its compute demands, and by extension its cost per generation.
- akanet 2y agoI don't think vaporware as a term really applies here. Sora is real and I've seen it used live - it actually works and it is pretty astounding. I don't know how well scaling it for the public will go but they definitely built the thing.
- patapong 2y agoWhy do you think so? The videos looked very impressive for the most part IMO.
- nope1000 2y agoGenuine question: can you just call your alternative to product x "Open-x"?
- iuiz 2y agoI bet that this will result in a letter from a lawyer, if this gets any traction.
- gtirloni 2y agoUsually, no. If they have a registered trademark, you definitely can't.
- jampekka 2y agoDepends on how rich and powerful you are.
- mihaic 2y agoIronically, I think having a Twitter clone be called Open-X might fly legally, since that's generic enough, but pretty much any other instance where the trademarked name is very specific, like Open-Google or Open-Facebook would be surely easy to be removed by a judge. It's just that it takes a while for this process to happen, and until there's a legal injunction you can still use the name.
- N_A_T_E 2y agoAnybody else a bit scared for how this tech will impact people? It seems quite far reaching. Job loss from video production and film. Ease of spreading misinformation, lies and propaganda. I could even see less investment in physical infrastructure as real world experiences get replaced by generated video. Scary stuff.
- martin_a 2y agoIf you want to look at it from a brighter side, I think it's great that this tech exists and people know about it in large and how easy it is to fabricate false information with this. If I was very optimistic, I'd hope that people would question more what they see and hear and read to due to widespread of "Gen AI tools". In reality that will most likely not happen, but yeah, one can hope. And on job loss: Jobs come and go, nobody cared much about carriage drivers when cars took off...
- eagerpace 2y agoExactly this. What if we can now produce 100x video content and anyone can do it? YouTube didn’t kill TV shows just because anyone could make a video or stream live.
- tetris11 2y agoYeah but the people reskilled into other demanding jobs that still needed people. With AI, the demand for that skillset is diminishing as is the need for people at all. We're heading towards a Solaria situation, where the rich genuinely might no longer need to employ the masses, or sell them products. What would you do if you had a magic box that met all your needs? Pay a consultant? Hire a gardener? Call a maid? Request an escort? Why.
- LorenzoBloedow 2y agoAI is not and most likely will not be a "magic box that meets all your needs" in at least 1000 years unless something insane happens, AI does function approximation, when you scale it up it can do amazing things but you still need human creativity, you still need engineers because it can only output data not act on real-world stuff, you still need data that is generated by humans, you still need to train every model for your specific task, and tasks are infinite. If we wanted to replace humans we'd have to fully figure out how the human brain works first, for now no one knows how the human brain truly works so how can we claim AI will replace all humans? In my opinion, AGI is just an acronym pushed by people who have something to gain from mass hysteria, FOMO, and making people feel like "the end is near", AKA, AI influencers and founders who want investors to give them money. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone who believes in AGI is one of the two, most were probably just fed this narrative and it sounded believable so they just went with it. These are my two cents, sorry for the wall of text :P, but I just had to say something about what I perceive as an "AI bubble" that generates mass panic for most in order to benefit a few
- zdyn5 2y agoI know it’s probably using < 1000x compute of the real Sora, but “pretty good” is stretching it
- thriftwy 2y agoJust run all key frames through stable diffusion and it should be quite good.
- resource_waste 2y ago>Just Adding the word 'just' doesnt make it any easier. Something I've noticed is that people who have never done something themselves and are telling someone to do an difficult task, will use: "Just" in-front of it. This is particularly relevant in tech.
- PhoenixFlame101 2y agoIt's very likely the comment you replied to said it in a joking sense
- sertraline 2y agoIt is extremely difficult to tell if the person is joking in a field full of people who think AI is some sort of magic.
- nineteen999 2y agoWell I mean calling any of this diffusion/LLM stuff "AI" is a misnomer to begin with.
- tetris11 2y agoDepends if it's already been done before, in which case "just" would then have been just used quite justly.
- uh_uh 2y ago
- stbenjam 2y agoHow can they use the Sora name, isn’t that trademarked?
- oniony 2y agoYou can do anything you want until you get caught doing it.
- jebarker 2y agoQuite possibly: https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/product/component/sora-r3000.html https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/product/component/sora-r3000....
- KeplerBoy 2y agoThe domain matters. You probably can sell a car called Sora, but not AI video models or bike parts.
- Jiahang 2y agoJust a name
- _flux 2y agoIt's probably not the best idea to base your clone on the name that is being trademarked: https://trademarks.justia.com/984/05/sora-98405663.html https://trademarks.justia.com/984/05/sora-98405663.html
- __loam 2y agoAI developers don't care about intellectual property.
- jampekka 2y agoWhich is a positive turn of events. Intellectual property as a concept needs to go.
- croes 2y agoThat would give big companies a big advantage. It maybe wrong how it is now, but it exists for a reason. Same with patents.
- jampekka 2y agoDisney must be close to divine managing to get such a marketshare despite IP regulations holding them back.
- croes 2y agoWithout IP it wouldn't be Disney but the first company with enough power and money would crush any competition. Even now they can fight in court until smaller opponents go bankrupt but without any IP they wouldn't even have to fight. Remember when Amazon copied successful products on their marketplace? That would be the norm and you could even blame or sue them.
- jsheard 2y agoIt's a one-way street with AI companies though, they are against IP protection for training data but support IP protection for the product of that training. Read the TOS/license of nearly any big model and it's clear the creator considers it and its output to be their IP and they will fight to restrict how you can use it for commercial purposes or training competing models, because those being a free-for-all would get in the way of their business model. In practice it's less "abolishing intellectual property" and more "transmuting everyone else's IP into their own IP so they can be the ultimate IP landlords".
- voidUpdate 2y ago"pretty good" is definitely one point of view... all those videos look very blobby and morph-y
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Gormo 2y agoIf you want to make an adjective out of an English noun, just add a 'y' directly to the end of it, e.g. 'morphy'. The hyphen is erroneous here: 'morph-y' would be pronounced like 'morph why', and has the structure of a compound modifier without making any sense as one.
- voidUpdate 2y agoThat doesn't always work in a way that's clear, though. If I said a microcontroller felt pretty army, that's different to saying it feels arm-y, since army is already a word. I wasn't trying to say that it was like chess player Paul Morphy, I was trying to indicate it was an adjective derived from "morph". Language is meant to convey meaning, and you understood the meaning I was trying to convey, so what's the issue?
- Gormo 2y ago> If I said a microcontroller felt pretty army, that's different to saying it feels arm-y, since army is already a word. I'm assuming that you don't mean that the microcontroller reminds you of an upper body appendage, and are instead referring to a well-known instruction set architecture. If that's the case, I'd recommend 'ARMy'. But you're correct about the ambiguity where the word form you want to use collides with another pre-existing word. In that situation, you'll naturally need a different solution. > Language is meant to convey meaning, and you understood the meaning I was trying to convey, so what's the issue? That's precisely it. Language is meant to convey meaning: and the more complex and abstract the meaning we mean to convey, the more precise we need to be in our use of language. Deviating too much from well-established conventions makes ambiguity or miscommunication more likely. Conversely, to your point, blindly adhering to conventions where that would increase ambiguity also impedes communication. In this case, the erroneous hyphen didn't completely erase your intended meeting, but it did make the sentence slower to parse.
- kaptainscarlet 2y agoOne thing I wish for is for AI-generated images to have awareness for physical constraints.
- 31337Logic 2y agoAnybody else completely apathetic towards all of this? I'm so fed up with the morally-bankrupt Sam Altman and Open AI as a whole that by the time another one of these "Hey, check out the latest blah blah AI blah!!" gets posted, my first (and often lasting) impression "meh".
- biophysboy 2y agoThe dramatic predictions that tend to occur between the model updates are what annoy me. AGI is coming! It’ll be smarter than PhDs! We will need technocommunism!! Cold War 2!
- pxtail 2y agoFor me it's more than apathetic - for example when I'm encountering content which is illustrated with AI-generated images I noticed that I'm subconsciously downgrading it's quality right away - for sure it's wrong because that's classic example of judging book by the cover and even some good quality OS software on GH and/or good tech blogs with proven record use AI-generated content for illustrative purposes - however it's kind of automatic reaction for me and I need to use conscious effort to combat it.
- earthnail 2y agoI think it’s reasonable. You weigh the quality of content by the amount of effort its creator put into creating it. Has nothing to do with AI directly.
- b2bcert 2y ago[flagged]
- barrkel 2y agoI was forwarded a message just moments ago by my mother, a 5 second Facebook video, clearly AI generated - and I suspect Open Sora. More AI slop for everyone.
- echelon 2y agoI know AI will be used to spam, but to not see or acknowledge the positive capabilities of this technology is absolutely flabbergasting to me. This is going to make filmmaking cheap and accessible to a broad audience, and that's nothing short of a miracle. I typically do each year's 48 hour film project with a team of 8 or more people. This year I did it with myself and an editor, and it was amazing - no 6 AM trip to the prop house, no lifting heavy props from the top shelf, no signing location release forms, no sweltering lights. I didn't have to put on makeup or do blocking for hours. (I used mocap, rotoscoping, and compositing.) I've been using AI diffusion canvases to design - something I'd previously found entirely intimidating and unapproachable. I'm having so much fun and enjoyment with this. I don't see the world the same way, and I don't get this negativity.
- nineteen999 2y agoCan we see your this years project anywhere? Just curious to what you achieved with it, how complex the film is etc.
- barrkel 2y agoI get it. I play with image generation myself, with the odd bit of training and fine-tuning. But you have to recognize that the low marginal cost of this kind of generation is self-cheapening, and a world filled with gaudy saccharine content (the kind of stuff that wins RLHF head to head comparisons) upvoted and shared by people who don't recognize it for what it is, is a little bit dispiriting.
- voidUpdate 2y agoYou've hit the nail on the head. Its good at designing. But you can see from the visual quality of the examples that its not ready to be used as final content. No AI content I've seen is really ready to be used as a final piece, It shouldn't only ever really be the basis for something. I have no issues with an AI generated piece being used as a "sketch" or a "storyboard" but using it for a final product is just... lazy and looks crap?
- andersa 2y agoIt actually seems to look pretty terrible.
- PedroBatista 2y agoIMO it's "pretty good" from a technical and power efficiency perspective, but to someone who doesn't know/understand/care or has to deliver a "product" this is far from good or acceptable. Having said that, it's pretty impressive.
- ToucanLoucan 2y agoThese look like shit. Yeah I guess it's kinda cool you can make them with nothing but text but I dunno man, I could think of a dozen ways to make all of these shots that wouldn't have the sides of every object threatening to melt in the next frame. More difficult and cost more, I mean yeah, but again, then it won't look like a computer is hallucinating your scenes while also tripping on mushrooms. If this is indeed the "future of making movies," I dunno, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have no interest in watching anything made this way. Sorry. If you don't care enough about your project to do something besides AI prompts, I don't think you have anything to say that I need to hear.
- chrisallenlane 2y ago> If this is indeed the "future of making movies," I dunno, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have no interest in watching anything made this way. I'm still burned out on "regular" CG in movies. I'd be much more excited about a (hypothetical) return to practical effects than a push even further into computer imagery.
- BizarroLand 2y agoI recently watched John Wick 1 and I was mostly stricken by how little CGI was used in the movie. I kept watching, noticing small bits here and there, subtle things, but there was not much CGI compared to almost any other action movie I've seen in the last several years, especially not much of any obvious full green screen sets and fly-by-wire wuxia heroism BS.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]