7 ms·

All the vids have that instantly recognizable GenAI "sheen", for the lack of a better word. Also, I think the most obvious giveaway are all the micro-variations

All the vids have that instantly recognizable GenAI "sheen", for the lack of a better word. Also, I think the most obvious giveaway are all the micro-variations that happen along the edges, which give a fuzzy artifact.

Rinzler89 2y ago
>All the vids have that instantly recognizable GenAI "sheen" That's something that can be fixed in a future release or you can fix it right now with some filters in post in your pipeline.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  > "That's something that can be easily fixed in a future release (...)" This has been the default excuse for the last 5+ years. I won't hold my breath.
  - ekianjo 2y ago
    You had AI videos 5 years ago?
    - surfingdino 2y ago
      AI in general.
      - bbor 2y ago
        …I mean, it was advancing slowly for linguistic tasks until late 2022, that’s fair. That’s why we’re in such a crazy unexpected rollercoaster of an era - we accidentally cracked intuitive computing while trying to build the best text autocomplete. AI in general is from 1950, or more generally from whenever the abacus was invented. This very website runs on AI, and always has. I would implore us to speak more exactly if we’re criticizing stuff; “LLMs” came around (in force) in 2023, both for coherent language use (ChatGPT 3.5) and image use (DALLE2). The predecessors were an order of magnitude less capable, and going back 5 years puts us back in the era of “chatbots”, aka dumb toys that can barely string together a Reddit comment on /r/subredditsimulator.
        surfingdino 2y ago
        AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit content of no use to anybody and the next iteration of customer support phone menu trees that sound more convincingly yet remain just as useless. That and another round of IP theft and mass surveillance in the name of progress.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        This is a consequence of a type of cognitive bias - bad examples of AI are more easily detectable than good examples of AI. Subsequently, when we recall examples of AI content, bad examples are more easily accessible. This leads to the faulty conclusion that. > AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit content of no use to anybody Good AI goes largely undetected, for the simple reason that it closely matches the distribution of non-AI content. Controversial aside: This is same bias that results in non-passing trans people being representative of the whole. Passing trans folk simply blend in.
        WhyOhWhyQ 2y ago
        You're making an unverifiable claim. How are we supposed to know that the undetected good AI exists at all? Everything I've seen explicitly produced by any of these models is in uncanny valley territory still, even the "good" stuff.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Don't care. Every request for verification will eventually reach the Münchhausen trilemma
        WhyOhWhyQ 2y ago
        Okay. So you are a person who does not care if what they are saying is true. Got it!
      - airstrike 2y ago
        We don't have AI in general today
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    5 years ago there were no AI videos. A bit over a year ago the best AI videos were hilarious hallucinations of Will Smith eating spaghetti. Today we have these realistic videos that are still in the uncanny valley. That's insane progress in the span of a year. Who knows what it will be like in another year. Let'em cook.
    - authorfly 2y ago
      Disco Diffusion was a (bad) thing in 2021 that lead to the spaghetti video / weird Burger Kind Ads level quality. But it ran on consumer GPUs / in Jupyter notebook. 2 years ago we had decent video generation for clips 7 months ago we have Sora https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39393252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39393252 (still silence since then) With these things, like DALL-E 1 and GPT-3, the original release of the game changer often comes ca. 2 years before people can actually use it. I think that's what we're looking at. I.e. it's not as fast as you think.
      - bbor 2y ago
        What video generation was decent 2 years ago? Will smith eating spaghetti was barely coherent and clearly broken, and that was March 2023 (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-will-smith-eating-spaghetti https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-will-smith-eating-spaghett...). And isn’t this model open source…? So we get access to it, like, momentarily? Or did I miss something?
        authorfly 2y ago
        So you're right to be excited, I agree. And I don't know, Meta, like OpenAI, seems to release conditionally, though yes, more. I doubt it before the election. When the Will Smith one was released, it was kind of a parody though. Tech had already been able to produce that level of "quality" for about 2 years at the time of it's publishing. The Will Smith one is honestly something you could have created with Disco Diffusion in early 2021, I used to do this back then... 2022 saw: https://makeavideo.studio/ https://makeavideo.studio/ (coherent, but low res - it was possible to upscale at extreme expense) https://sites.research.google/phenaki/ https://sites.research.google/phenaki/ https://lumiere-video.github.io/ https://lumiere-video.github.io/ It was more like 18-20 months ago sorry so early 2023, but https://runwayml.com/research/gen-1 https://runwayml.com/research/gen-1 was getting there as was https://pika.art/home https://pika.art/home - Sora obviously changed the game, but I would say these two were great.
- atrus 2y ago
  I think the big blind spot people have with these models is that the release pages only show just the AI output. But anyone competently using these AI tools will be using them in step X of a hundred step creative process. And it's only going to get worse as both the AI tools improve and people find better ways to integrate them into their workflow.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Yeah exactly. Video pipelines that go into productions we only see the end results of have a lot of steps to them beyond just the raw video output/capture. Even Netflix/Hollywood productions without VFX have a lot of retouching and post processing to them.
- derefr 2y ago
  Not even filters; every text2image model ever created thusfar, can be very easily nudged with a few keywords into generating outputs in a specific visual style (e.g. artwork matching the signature style of any artist it has seen the some works from.) This isn't an intentional "feature" of these models; rather, it's kind of an inherent part of how such models work — they learn associations between tokens and structural details of images. Artists' names are tokens like any other, and artists' styles are structural details like any other. So, unless the architecture and training of this model are very unusual, it's gonna at least be able to give you something that looks like e.g. a "pencil illustration."
DebtDeflation 2y ago
At least all the humans in these videos seem to have the correct number of fingers, so that's progress. And Moo Deng seems to have a natural sheen for some reason so can't hold that against them. But your point about the edges is still a major issue.
dageshi 2y ago
Yeah but... it's good enough? There were movies with horrible VFX that still sold perfectly well at the time.
- jsheard 2y ago
  An important contrast is that early VFX offered strong control with weak fidelity, and these prompt-based AI systems offer high fidelity with weak control. Intent matters if you want to make something more than a tech demo or throwaway B-roll and you can't communicate much intent in a 30 word prompt, assuming the model even follows the prompt accurately.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Just need to wait for someone to develop a version of ControlNet that works with this system.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    This is such an important problem of the entire genAI idea. It's absurd that people keep focusing on quality instead of talking about it. But then, a lot of people have financial reasons to ignore the problem. What's too bad, because it's hindering the creation of stuff that are actually useful.
  - dageshi 2y ago
    Yeah, that's a fair point.
  - blueblisters 2y ago
    Yeah controlnet-style conditioning doesn't solve for consistent assets, or lighting, framing etc. Maybe its early but it seems hard to get around traditional 3D assets + rendering, at least for serious use-cases. These models do seem like they could be great photorealism/stylization shaders. And they are also pretty good at stuff like realistic explosions, fluid renders etc. That stuff is really hard with CG.
  - mrandish 2y ago
    > AI systems offer high fidelity with weak control You are spot on. I've been involved in creating technologies used by film and video creators for decades, so I have some understanding of what would be useful to them. The best video AIs I've seen only seem capable of replacing some stock video clip creation because, so far, I haven't seen any ability to maintain robust consistency from shot to shot and scene to scene. There's also no granular control other than the text prompt. At first glance, these demos are very impressive but when you try to map the capability shown to a real production workflow for a movie, TV show or commercial, they're not even close because they aren't even trying to solve the problem. To be clear, I think it's probably possible to create a video AI that would be truly useful in a real production workflow, it's just that I haven't seen anything working in that direction yet.
blargey 2y ago
I wonder how much RLHF or other human tweaking of the models contributes to this sort of overstauration / excess contrast in the first place. The average consumer seems to prefer such features when comparing images/video, and use it as a heuristic for quality. And there have been some text-to-image comparisons of older gen models to newer gen, purporting that the older, more hands-off models didn't skew towards kitschy and overblown output the way newer ones do.
jensensbutton 2y ago
I don't think that's a bug. I think that helps us separate truth from fiction as we navigate the transition to this new world.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  Ever heard of post processing? Because no, you can't trust these signals to always exist with AI content.
lopis 2y ago
I assure you that's not enough. These are high quality videos. Once they get uploaded to social media, compression mostly makes imperfections go away. And it's been shown that when people are not expecting AI content, they are much less likely to realize they are looking at AI. I would 100% believe most of these videos were real if caught off guard.
- ddtaylor 2y ago
  I regularly catch my kids watching AI generated content and they don't know it.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    A surprising amount of it is really popular too. I recently figured out that the Movie Recaps channel was all AI when the generated voice slipped and mispronounced a word in a really unnatural way. They post videos almost daily and they get millions of views. Must be making bank.
    - inkcapmushroom 2y ago
      I was watching UFC recaps on Youtube and the algorithm got me onto AI generated MMA content, I watched for a while before realizing it. They were using old videos which were "enhanced" using AI and had an AI narrator. I only realized it when the fight footage got so old, and the AI had to do so much work to touch it up, that artifacts started appearing in the video. Once I realized it I rewatched the earlier clips in the video and could see the artifacts there too, but not until I was looking for them.
      - araes 2y ago
        There's already rabbit holes of fake MMA fighting you can fall into online? Even if you're a "fan" and relatively aware of what to look for ... still difficult to spot? Horribly, had the same sensation while watching UFC at a bar. "Haven't I seen this match where they fall on the ground and hug for hours before?" Mostly empty background audience with limited reactions. Somebody took AI video editing, and in a year or two, we're already at entire MMA rabbit holes of fake videos. Commenting mostly as a personal evidence reference of how crazy the World Wide Web has gotten from anecdotal sources.
newaccount74 2y ago
I thought the movements were off. The little girl on the beach moves like an adult, the painter looks like a puppet, and everything is in slow motion?
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  They look like some commercial promo video, which makes sense since that's probably what they were trained on.
- the_af 2y ago
  To me they seem off, but off in the same sense real humans in ads always seem off. E.g. the fake smile of the smiling girl. That's what people look like in ads.
Workaccount2 2y ago
It's my understanding that the AI sheen is done on purpose to give people a "tell". It is totally possible right now to at least generate images with no discernible tell.
- spookie 2y ago
  > It is totally possible right now to at least generate images with no discernible tell. I have yet to find examples of this
  - grumbel 2y ago
    There are numerous tricks and LORAs to make realistic images without the overpolish you get by default: * https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fvs0e1 https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fvs0e1 * https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fak0jl/finally_an_update_on_improved_training_approaches/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fak0jl/fi...
    - daedrdev 2y ago
      Haha, I think I can maybe tell on like one or two of those
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    In the linked webpage, the following videos would be good enough to trick me: - The monkey in hotspring video, if not for its weird beard... - The koala video I would have mistaken for hollywood-quality studio CGI (although I would know it's not real because koalas don't surf... do they?) - The pumpkin video if played at 1/4 resolution and 2x speed - The dog-at-Versailles video edit If the videos are that good, I'm sure I already can't distinguish between real photos and the best AI images. For example, ThisPersonDoesNotExist isn't even very recent, but I wouldn't be able to tell whether most of its output is real or not, although it's limited to a certain style of close-up portrait photography. https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en
hoosieree 2y ago
Video autotune.
dekhn 2y ago
That sheen looks (to me) like some of the filters that are used by people who copy videos from TV and movie and post them on (for example) facebook reels. There's an entire pattern of reels that are basically just ripped-off-content with enough added noise to (I presume) avoid content detection filters. Then the comments have links to scam sites (but are labelled as "the IMDB page for this content").
- CSSer 2y ago
  The idea that Meta’s effectively stolen content is tainted by a requirement to avoid collecting stolen content is laughably ironic.
  - kylebenzle 2y ago
    Yes, but thats just a hypothesis, have we seen any evidence that shows the cause of the "AI sheen" is bad training data, or more likly, just a shortcomming of generating realistic photos from text at this early stage.
alana314 2y ago
I'm thankful to be able to recognize that sheen, though I think it will go away soon enough
demaga 2y ago
It is maybe recognizable in most cases, but definitely not instantly nor easily. I could definitely see nobody noticing one of those clips used in an otherwise non-AI video production.
forgetfulness 2y ago
A lot look like CGI, but I wouldn't be able to tell that they weren't created by an actual animator.
sixothree 2y ago
I did some images generation and found a LORA for VHS footage. It's amazing what "taking away the sheen" can do to make an image look strikingly real.
Loughla 2y ago
The ATV turning in mid air was a giveaway as well. Physics seems to be a basic problem for these type of videos.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  The bubble released into the air is also pretty good until at the end where bubbles appear out of thin air. But overall the physics are surprisingly good. In the videos from text we a person moving covered in a bedsheet, a mirror doing vaguely mirror-like things, a monkey moving in water and creating plausible waves, shadows moving over a 3d object with the sloth in the pool and plausible fire. Those are all classic topics to tackle in computer-generated graphics, all casually handled by a model that isn't explicitly trained on physical simulation. In a twist of irony it's the simplest of those (the mirror) that's the most obviously wrong.
programjames 2y ago
I think that's because they're still using mean-squared error in their loss function.

Rinzler89 2y ago

>All the vids have that instantly recognizable GenAI "sheen" That's something that can be fixed in a future release or you can fix it right now with some filters in post in your pipeline.

surfingdino 2y ago
> "That's something that can be easily fixed in a future release (...)" This has been the default excuse for the last 5+ years. I won't hold my breath.
- ekianjo 2y ago
  You had AI videos 5 years ago?
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    AI in general.
    - bbor 2y ago
      …I mean, it was advancing slowly for linguistic tasks until late 2022, that’s fair. That’s why we’re in such a crazy unexpected rollercoaster of an era - we accidentally cracked intuitive computing while trying to build the best text autocomplete. AI in general is from 1950, or more generally from whenever the abacus was invented. This very website runs on AI, and always has. I would implore us to speak more exactly if we’re criticizing stuff; “LLMs” came around (in force) in 2023, both for coherent language use (ChatGPT 3.5) and image use (DALLE2). The predecessors were an order of magnitude less capable, and going back 5 years puts us back in the era of “chatbots”, aka dumb toys that can barely string together a Reddit comment on /r/subredditsimulator.
      - surfingdino 2y ago
        AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit content of no use to anybody and the next iteration of customer support phone menu trees that sound more convincingly yet remain just as useless. That and another round of IP theft and mass surveillance in the name of progress.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        This is a consequence of a type of cognitive bias - bad examples of AI are more easily detectable than good examples of AI. Subsequently, when we recall examples of AI content, bad examples are more easily accessible. This leads to the faulty conclusion that. > AI so far has given us ability to mass produce shit content of no use to anybody Good AI goes largely undetected, for the simple reason that it closely matches the distribution of non-AI content. Controversial aside: This is same bias that results in non-passing trans people being representative of the whole. Passing trans folk simply blend in.
        WhyOhWhyQ 2y ago
        You're making an unverifiable claim. How are we supposed to know that the undetected good AI exists at all? Everything I've seen explicitly produced by any of these models is in uncanny valley territory still, even the "good" stuff.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Don't care. Every request for verification will eventually reach the Münchhausen trilemma
        WhyOhWhyQ 2y ago
        Okay. So you are a person who does not care if what they are saying is true. Got it!
    - airstrike 2y ago
      We don't have AI in general today
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  5 years ago there were no AI videos. A bit over a year ago the best AI videos were hilarious hallucinations of Will Smith eating spaghetti. Today we have these realistic videos that are still in the uncanny valley. That's insane progress in the span of a year. Who knows what it will be like in another year. Let'em cook.
  - authorfly 2y ago
    Disco Diffusion was a (bad) thing in 2021 that lead to the spaghetti video / weird Burger Kind Ads level quality. But it ran on consumer GPUs / in Jupyter notebook. 2 years ago we had decent video generation for clips 7 months ago we have Sora https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39393252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39393252 (still silence since then) With these things, like DALL-E 1 and GPT-3, the original release of the game changer often comes ca. 2 years before people can actually use it. I think that's what we're looking at. I.e. it's not as fast as you think.
    - bbor 2y ago
      What video generation was decent 2 years ago? Will smith eating spaghetti was barely coherent and clearly broken, and that was March 2023 (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-will-smith-eating-spaghetti https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-will-smith-eating-spaghett...). And isn’t this model open source…? So we get access to it, like, momentarily? Or did I miss something?
      - authorfly 2y ago
        So you're right to be excited, I agree. And I don't know, Meta, like OpenAI, seems to release conditionally, though yes, more. I doubt it before the election. When the Will Smith one was released, it was kind of a parody though. Tech had already been able to produce that level of "quality" for about 2 years at the time of it's publishing. The Will Smith one is honestly something you could have created with Disco Diffusion in early 2021, I used to do this back then... 2022 saw: https://makeavideo.studio/ https://makeavideo.studio/ (coherent, but low res - it was possible to upscale at extreme expense) https://sites.research.google/phenaki/ https://sites.research.google/phenaki/ https://lumiere-video.github.io/ https://lumiere-video.github.io/ It was more like 18-20 months ago sorry so early 2023, but https://runwayml.com/research/gen-1 https://runwayml.com/research/gen-1 was getting there as was https://pika.art/home https://pika.art/home - Sora obviously changed the game, but I would say these two were great.
atrus 2y ago
I think the big blind spot people have with these models is that the release pages only show just the AI output. But anyone competently using these AI tools will be using them in step X of a hundred step creative process. And it's only going to get worse as both the AI tools improve and people find better ways to integrate them into their workflow.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Yeah exactly. Video pipelines that go into productions we only see the end results of have a lot of steps to them beyond just the raw video output/capture. Even Netflix/Hollywood productions without VFX have a lot of retouching and post processing to them.
derefr 2y ago
Not even filters; every text2image model ever created thusfar, can be very easily nudged with a few keywords into generating outputs in a specific visual style (e.g. artwork matching the signature style of any artist it has seen the some works from.) This isn't an intentional "feature" of these models; rather, it's kind of an inherent part of how such models work — they learn associations between tokens and structural details of images. Artists' names are tokens like any other, and artists' styles are structural details like any other. So, unless the architecture and training of this model are very unusual, it's gonna at least be able to give you something that looks like e.g. a "pencil illustration."

DebtDeflation 2y ago

At least all the humans in these videos seem to have the correct number of fingers, so that's progress. And Moo Deng seems to have a natural sheen for some reason so can't hold that against them. But your point about the edges is still a major issue.

dageshi 2y ago

Yeah but... it's good enough? There were movies with horrible VFX that still sold perfectly well at the time.

jsheard 2y ago
An important contrast is that early VFX offered strong control with weak fidelity, and these prompt-based AI systems offer high fidelity with weak control. Intent matters if you want to make something more than a tech demo or throwaway B-roll and you can't communicate much intent in a 30 word prompt, assuming the model even follows the prompt accurately.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Just need to wait for someone to develop a version of ControlNet that works with this system.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  This is such an important problem of the entire genAI idea. It's absurd that people keep focusing on quality instead of talking about it. But then, a lot of people have financial reasons to ignore the problem. What's too bad, because it's hindering the creation of stuff that are actually useful.
- dageshi 2y ago
  Yeah, that's a fair point.
- blueblisters 2y ago
  Yeah controlnet-style conditioning doesn't solve for consistent assets, or lighting, framing etc. Maybe its early but it seems hard to get around traditional 3D assets + rendering, at least for serious use-cases. These models do seem like they could be great photorealism/stylization shaders. And they are also pretty good at stuff like realistic explosions, fluid renders etc. That stuff is really hard with CG.
- mrandish 2y ago
  > AI systems offer high fidelity with weak control You are spot on. I've been involved in creating technologies used by film and video creators for decades, so I have some understanding of what would be useful to them. The best video AIs I've seen only seem capable of replacing some stock video clip creation because, so far, I haven't seen any ability to maintain robust consistency from shot to shot and scene to scene. There's also no granular control other than the text prompt. At first glance, these demos are very impressive but when you try to map the capability shown to a real production workflow for a movie, TV show or commercial, they're not even close because they aren't even trying to solve the problem. To be clear, I think it's probably possible to create a video AI that would be truly useful in a real production workflow, it's just that I haven't seen anything working in that direction yet.

blargey 2y ago

I wonder how much RLHF or other human tweaking of the models contributes to this sort of overstauration / excess contrast in the first place. The average consumer seems to prefer such features when comparing images/video, and use it as a heuristic for quality. And there have been some text-to-image comparisons of older gen models to newer gen, purporting that the older, more hands-off models didn't skew towards kitschy and overblown output the way newer ones do.

jensensbutton 2y ago

I don't think that's a bug. I think that helps us separate truth from fiction as we navigate the transition to this new world.

ffsm8 2y ago
Ever heard of post processing? Because no, you can't trust these signals to always exist with AI content.

lopis 2y ago

I assure you that's not enough. These are high quality videos. Once they get uploaded to social media, compression mostly makes imperfections go away. And it's been shown that when people are not expecting AI content, they are much less likely to realize they are looking at AI. I would 100% believe most of these videos were real if caught off guard.

ddtaylor 2y ago
I regularly catch my kids watching AI generated content and they don't know it.
- throwup238 2y ago
  A surprising amount of it is really popular too. I recently figured out that the Movie Recaps channel was all AI when the generated voice slipped and mispronounced a word in a really unnatural way. They post videos almost daily and they get millions of views. Must be making bank.
  - inkcapmushroom 2y ago
    I was watching UFC recaps on Youtube and the algorithm got me onto AI generated MMA content, I watched for a while before realizing it. They were using old videos which were "enhanced" using AI and had an AI narrator. I only realized it when the fight footage got so old, and the AI had to do so much work to touch it up, that artifacts started appearing in the video. Once I realized it I rewatched the earlier clips in the video and could see the artifacts there too, but not until I was looking for them.
    - araes 2y ago
      There's already rabbit holes of fake MMA fighting you can fall into online? Even if you're a "fan" and relatively aware of what to look for ... still difficult to spot? Horribly, had the same sensation while watching UFC at a bar. "Haven't I seen this match where they fall on the ground and hug for hours before?" Mostly empty background audience with limited reactions. Somebody took AI video editing, and in a year or two, we're already at entire MMA rabbit holes of fake videos. Commenting mostly as a personal evidence reference of how crazy the World Wide Web has gotten from anecdotal sources.

newaccount74 2y ago

I thought the movements were off. The little girl on the beach moves like an adult, the painter looks like a puppet, and everything is in slow motion?

declan_roberts 2y ago
They look like some commercial promo video, which makes sense since that's probably what they were trained on.
the_af 2y ago
To me they seem off, but off in the same sense real humans in ads always seem off. E.g. the fake smile of the smiling girl. That's what people look like in ads.

Workaccount2 2y ago

It's my understanding that the AI sheen is done on purpose to give people a "tell". It is totally possible right now to at least generate images with no discernible tell.

spookie 2y ago
> It is totally possible right now to at least generate images with no discernible tell. I have yet to find examples of this
- grumbel 2y ago
  There are numerous tricks and LORAs to make realistic images without the overpolish you get by default: * https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fvs0e1 https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fvs0e1 * https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fak0jl/finally_an_update_on_improved_training_approaches/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fak0jl/fi...
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    Haha, I think I can maybe tell on like one or two of those
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  In the linked webpage, the following videos would be good enough to trick me: - The monkey in hotspring video, if not for its weird beard... - The koala video I would have mistaken for hollywood-quality studio CGI (although I would know it's not real because koalas don't surf... do they?) - The pumpkin video if played at 1/4 resolution and 2x speed - The dog-at-Versailles video edit If the videos are that good, I'm sure I already can't distinguish between real photos and the best AI images. For example, ThisPersonDoesNotExist isn't even very recent, but I wouldn't be able to tell whether most of its output is real or not, although it's limited to a certain style of close-up portrait photography. https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en

hoosieree 2y ago

Video autotune.

dekhn 2y ago

That sheen looks (to me) like some of the filters that are used by people who copy videos from TV and movie and post them on (for example) facebook reels. There's an entire pattern of reels that are basically just ripped-off-content with enough added noise to (I presume) avoid content detection filters. Then the comments have links to scam sites (but are labelled as "the IMDB page for this content").

CSSer 2y ago
The idea that Meta’s effectively stolen content is tainted by a requirement to avoid collecting stolen content is laughably ironic.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  Yes, but thats just a hypothesis, have we seen any evidence that shows the cause of the "AI sheen" is bad training data, or more likly, just a shortcomming of generating realistic photos from text at this early stage.

alana314 2y ago

I'm thankful to be able to recognize that sheen, though I think it will go away soon enough

demaga 2y ago

It is maybe recognizable in most cases, but definitely not instantly nor easily. I could definitely see nobody noticing one of those clips used in an otherwise non-AI video production.

forgetfulness 2y ago

A lot look like CGI, but I wouldn't be able to tell that they weren't created by an actual animator.

sixothree 2y ago

I did some images generation and found a LORA for VHS footage. It's amazing what "taking away the sheen" can do to make an image look strikingly real.

Loughla 2y ago

The ATV turning in mid air was a giveaway as well. Physics seems to be a basic problem for these type of videos.

wongarsu 2y ago
The bubble released into the air is also pretty good until at the end where bubbles appear out of thin air. But overall the physics are surprisingly good. In the videos from text we a person moving covered in a bedsheet, a mirror doing vaguely mirror-like things, a monkey moving in water and creating plausible waves, shadows moving over a 3d object with the sloth in the pool and plausible fire. Those are all classic topics to tackle in computer-generated graphics, all casually handled by a model that isn't explicitly trained on physical simulation. In a twist of irony it's the simplest of those (the mirror) that's the most obviously wrong.

programjames 2y ago

I think that's because they're still using mean-squared error in their loss function.