Hunyuan3D 2.0 – High-Resolution 3D Assets Generation
github.com
github.com
Case in point, I have a series of photos (48) that capture a small statue. The photos are high quality, the object was on a rotating platform. Lighting is consistent. The background is solid black.
These normally are ideal variables for photogrammetry but none of the various common applications and websites do a very good job creating a mesh out of it that isn't super low poly and/or full of holes.
I've been casually scanning huggingface for relevant models to try out but haven't really found anything.
Expect a lot of progress over the next couple of years.
It's a rabbit hole and I only really understood it when I realized that the minimum time between any GH committer's hobby example and implementing the 2003 state-of-the-art is ~4 years.
Fingers crossed that Gaussian Splatting makes the rewards high enough that resources get poured on this.
Thanks for the links. Going to check them out this morning.
And furthermore I also often post questions that lack sufficient context.
My point was that it's always okay to ask for clarification or to assume that there was maybe some broader contact context or to offer a suggestion that doesn't follow the most literal interpretation of the question as asked.
There are now more advanced options than Gaussian splatting, and these can achieve normal playback speeds rather than hours of filtering. I'll drop a citation if I recall the recent paper and example code. However, note this style of 3D scene recovery tends to be heavily 3D location dependent.
Best of luck, =3
Isn't a static-object-rotating-camera basically a requirement for photogrammetry?
I’m not aware of a fully-baked workflow for that — though it may exist. The first step has gotten really good: the recent single-shot AI models for depth are pretty visually impressive (I don’t know about metric accuracy).
The ones I’m aware of are DUST3R and the newer MAST3R:
https://github.com/naver/dust3r https://github.com/naver/mast3r
Good luck!
>These normally are ideal variables for photogrammetry
Actually no, my friend learned this the hard way during a photogrammetry project, he rented a photo studio, and made sure the background were perfectly black and took the photos but the photogrammetry program (Meshroom I think) was struggling to reconstruct the mesh. I did some research and I learned that it uses features in the background to help position itself to make the meshes. So he redid his tests outside with "messy" backgrounds and it worked much much better.
This was a few years ago so I don't know if things are different now.
[0] https://github.com/NVlabs/instant-ngp
[1] https://github.com/NVlabs/instant-ngp/blob/master/docs/nerf_...
On the geometry side from the theoretical point of view you can repair meshes, [1], by inferring a signed or unsigned distance field from your existing mesh, then you contour this distance field.
If you like the distance field approach, there are also research work [2], to estimate neural unsigned distance fields directly, (kind of a similar way as Gaussian splats).
[1] https://github.com/nzfeng/signed-heat-3d [it works but it's research code, so buggy, not user friendly, and mostly on toy problems because complexity explode very quickly when using a grid the number of cells grows as a n^3, and then they solve a sparse linear system on top (so total complexity bounded by n^6), but tolerating approximations and writing things properly practical complexity should be on par with methods like finite element method in Computational Fluid Dynamics.
[1] Not meant as an insult. Working professionals don't have time for this stuff.
> Dr. Michelle (@MichelleSaidel): I think because it takes away control from the child. Play is how children work through emotions, impulses and conflicts and well as try out new behaviors. I would think if would be super irritating to have the toy shape and control your play- like a totally dominating playmate!
> Alex Volkov (Thursd/AI) (@altryne): It did feel dominating! she wanted to make it clothes, and it was like, "meanwhile, here's another thing we can do" lacking context of what she's already doing
> The Short Straw (@short_straw): The real question you should ask yourself is why you felt compelled to turn it back on each time she turned it off.
> Angelo Angelli JD (@AngelliAngelo): Kids are pretty decent bullshit detectors and a lot of AI is bullshit.
> Foxhercules (@Foxena): […] I would like to point out again that the only things I sent this child were articulated 3d prints. beyond being able to move their arms, legs and tails, these things were made out of extruded plastic and are not exactly marvels of engineering. […] My takeaway from this is that, this is what children need. they don't need fancy with tons of bells and whistles with play on any sort of rails. And there's not a thing that AI can do to replace a Child's imagination NOR SHOULD IT.
Why don't working professionals have time for entertainment?
And are working people not always professionals?
The fidelity of a video generation model is comparable to an LLMs ability to nail spelling and grammar - it's a start, but there's more to being an author than that.
(from Claude)
Generative content right now is OK. OK isn't really the goal, or what anyone wants.
The idea of a "book" is really just an artifact of a particular means of production and distribution. LLM-generated text is a categorically different thing from a book, in the same way as a bardic poem or hypertext.
I don't think it is there yet for articles either.
My point with the Claude generated comment was maybe it could get pretty close to something like an hn comment.
To me, this takes the place / augments procedural generation stuff. NPC crowds in which none of the participants are needed for the plot, but in which you can have unique clothing / appearance / lines is not "needed" for a game, but can flesh it out when done thoughtfully.
Recall the lambasting Cyberpunk 2077 got for its NPCs that cycled through a seemingly very limited number of appearances, to the point that you'd see clones right next to each other. This would solve that sort of problem, for example.
There will never be a point where AI creates something incredible and you are like wow I prefer this AI stuff over human made slop.
It's like having god-mode in a game, it all becomes boring very quickly when you can have whatever you want.
no, that's just your standard moving up.
There is an absolute scale for which you can measure, and ai is approaching a point where it is an acceptable level.
Imagine if you applied your argument to quality of life - it used to be that nobody had access to easy, cheap clean drinking water. Now everybody has access to it. Is it not an incredible achievement, rather than it not being incredible just because it is common?
That quote from the movie "the incredibles", where the villain claims that if everybody is super, then nobody is, was your gist of the argument. And it is a childish one imho.
People don't get tired of good clean water because we NEED it to survive.
But oh, another virtual world entirely thought up by a machine? Throw it on the pile. We're going to get bored of it, and it will quickly become not incredible.
plenty of people in the world still drink crappy water, and they survive.
You don't _need_ it, you want it, because it's much more comfortable.
But when something becomes a "need" as you described it, you think of it differently. Just like how you don't _need_ electricity to survive, but it's so ingrained that you now think of it as a need.
> We're going to get bored of it, and it will quickly become not incredible.
exactly, but i have already said this in my original post - your standards just moved up.
Personally I'm not in favor of calling AI output slop, just because it is AI generated. You might then as well say that any electronic music is slop and any food prepared with help of machinery is crap. It might be crap or not, the automatedness is irrelevant.
The outputs of AI that I see today in the form of text, images or video don't look like slop to me.
If AI videos feel like slop right now, just wait another 4 years and see what happens
If you could actually talk to NPCs as in get their thoughts about the world and ask open ended questions, that’d be very interesting.
Take a look at the ImgnAI gallery (https://app.imgnai.com/) and tell me: can you paint better and more imaginatively than that? Do you know anyone in your immediate vicinity who can?
Read this satirical speech by Claude, in French https://x.com/pmarca/status/1881869448275177764) and in English (https://x.com/pmarca/status/1881869651329913047) and tell me: can you write fiction more entertaining or imaginative than that? Is there someone in your vicinity who can?
Perhaps that's mundane, so is there someone in your vicinity who can reason about a topic in mathematics/physics as well as this: https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1881696226669916408 ?
Probably your answer is "yes, obviously!" to all the above.
My point: deep learning works and the era of slop ended ages ago except that some people are still living in the past or with some cartoon image of the state of the art.
> "Cost to zero" implies drinking directly from the AI firehose with no human in the loop
No. It means the marginal cost of production tends towards 0. If you can think it, then you can make it instantly and iterate a billion times to refine your idea with as much effort as it took to generate a single concept.
Your fixation on "content without a human directing them" is bizarre and counterproductive. Why is "no human in the loop" a prerequisite for productivity? Your fixation on that is confounding your reasoning.
So while I generally agree with you, I think this was a bad example to use: a lot of these are slop, with the kind of AI sheen we've come to glaze over. I'd say less than 20% are actually artistically impressive / engaging / thought-provoking.
There's still plenty of slop in there, and it would be a better gallery of if there was a way to filter out anime girls. But it's definitely higher than 20% interesting to me.
The closest similar community of human made art is this:
Although unfortunately they've decided to allow AI art there too so it makes comparison harder. Also, I couldn't figure out how to get the equivalent list (top/year). But I'd say I find around the same amount interesting. Most human made art is slop too.
> Most human made art is slop too.
I'm assuming you're using the term "slop" to describe low-quality, unpolished works, or works where the artist has been too ambitious with their skill level.
Let me put it this way:
Every piece of art that is made, is a series of decisions. The artist uses their lived experience, their tastes and their values to create something that's meaningful to them. Art doesn't need to have a high-level of technical expertise to be meaningful to others. It's fundamentally about communication from artists to their audience. To this point, I don't believe there's such a thing as "bad art" (all works have something to say about the artist!).
In contrast, when you prompt an image generator, you're handing over the majority of the decisions to the algorithm. You can put in your subject matter, poses, even add styles, but how much is really being communicated here? Undoubtedly it would require a high level of technical skill to render similarly by hand, but that's missing the forest for the trees- what is the image saying? There's a reason why most "good" AI-generated images generally have a lot of human curation and editing.
Here's an example of some "slop" from the AI Art Turing Test (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-ar...) from a while back: https://i.imgur.com/RAMFKP1.jpeg There's definitely a high level of technical expertise that a human would require to paint something like this. But it's very clearly AI-generated. Can you figure out why?
---
As a side note, here's a human-made piece that I appreciate a lot. https://i.imgur.com/AZiiZj1.jpeg The longer you explore it, the more the story unfolds, it's quite lovely. On the other hand, when I focus on the details in AI-generated works, there's not much else to see.
I like your art. I'm glad you made it. What I like most is that it's fun to look at and think about which is what you say you intended. I hope I get to see more of your art.
> To this point, I don't believe there's such a thing as "bad art" (all works have something to say about the artist!).
As a classically trained oil painter, I know for sure there is bad art especially because I've made more than enough bad art for one lifetime.
Bad art begins with a lack of craftsmanship and is exemplified by a poor use of materials/media and forms, or a lack of knowledge of those forms (e.g. poor anatomical knowledge, misunderstanding the laws of perspective), or an overly literal representation of forms (a photograph is better at being literal, for example).
> Here's an example of some "slop" from the AI Art Turing Test […] But it's very clearly AI-generated. Can you figure out why?
It's only "clearly AI-generated" because we know that AI is capable of generating art. If you saw this without that context you wouldn't immediately say "AI!" Instead, you'd give it a normal critique that you'd give a student or colleague: I'd say:
- there's too much repetition of large forms.
- there's an unpleasant hierarchy of values and not enough separation of values.
- The portrait of the human is the focus of the image yet it has been lost in the other forms.
- The composition can improve with more breathing room in the foreground or background which are too busy.
- Here look at this Frazetta!
However, my rudimentary list could just as easily be turned into prompts to be used to refine the image and experiment with variations. And, perhaps you'd consider that to be a human making decisions?
Just to be clear, it's not my art.
I don't think I do, actually. It's not a term with a technical definition, but in simple terms it means art that is obviously AI, because it has the sheen, weird hands, inconsistencies, weird framing or thematic elements that are hard to describe without an art degree but which we instinctively know is wrong, or is just plain bad.
I used the term slop to describe bad humans art too, but I meant something subtly different. It's a term that has been used to describe bad work of all kinds from humans since long before there was AI.
In this case, it's art from humans who are learning what makes good art. You say there's no bad art, and it's a valid viewpoint, but I'd say bad art is when the artist has a clear goal in their mind, but they lack the skills to realize it. Nonetheless, they share it for feedback and approval anyway, and by doing that on a site like DeviantArt they learn and grow as artists. But meanwhile, to me or anyone else who is visiting that site to find "good", meaningful art made by skilled artists, this is slop. Human slop, not AI slop.
Thanks for sharing your better AI gallery. It's awesome to see.
Your reply clarifies my point even better: I shared a gallery, you evaluated it and shared an even better gallery! Undoubtedly someone else will look at yours today or next year, and say, as you said, "You missed a slop! Here's a better gallery".
My point fundamentally is about basic capability of the average and even above average person. As a classically trained amateur painter, I frequently ask myself: "Can I paint a nude figure better than what you've called slop?" As I mathematician I ask: "Can I reason better than this model?"
the fact that you are seriously asking this question says a lot about your taste.
Non sequitur. My sense taste or lack of it, is irrelevant.
Questions about "taste" don't matter when the average person doesn't have the craft to produce what they claim they are competent to judge especially when we're talking about such low hanging fruit as: "write a short story", "write an essay", "analyse this math problem", "draw an anatomically accurate portrait or nude figure", "paint this still life", "sketch this landscape".
Are you able to make the distinction between taste and craftsmanship?
Then after you are done signalling whatever it is you think you're signalling by vaguely gesturing at your undoubtedly superior sense of taste, perhaps we can talk like adults about what I asked?
Lmao.
Refer to my other comment for more context, for whatever that is worth (talking with strangers who are eager to judge everyone but themselves is always weird but unavoidable online): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790853
it is a fixation based on the desire that they themselves shouldn't be rendered economically useless in the future. Then the reasoning come about post-facto from that desire, rather than from any base principle of logic.
Most, if not all, that are somewhat against the advent of AI are like the above in some way or another.
Now show me the AI write something that's actually good on purpose.
The average human can't even write a 3000 word short story that is good "on purpose" even if they tried.
I know because I've participated in many writing workshops.
The real question is: can you?
> AI can write an argument that's bad on purpose
Are you able to recognise good writing? How do I know? For all I know you're the most incompetent reader and writer on the planet. But your skills are irrelevant.
What's relevant is that deep learning is more skilled than the average person. If you're not aware of this you're either a luddite or confused about the state of the art.
Writing a good argument requires 3 things: be logical, be compelling and likeable, and have a solid reputation. It does not require purple prose.
As for good writing, I'm pretty sure Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy qualifies, which was written with a rather small vocabulary and pedestrian prose, yet is universally praised.
Tbf, I do think Claude Sonnet and SD are impressive, and I think they can aid humans in producing compelling content, but they are not on the level of amateur fiction writers.
Besides, surpassing most humans in an area where most humans are unskilled is not a feat, not even AI companies flex on that.
That's a common misconception that young writers have. Their prose is first purple and overwrought, then they overcorrect and try to be Hemmingway, then they master the craft and discover that form follows function.
As such, the "purpleness" of prose is not an indictment of any sort except if the style doesn't serve the substance. So yes, purple prose is sometimes required and can be used correctly, just ask James Joyce or Hitchens or remember that first sentence in Lolita, for example.
Furthermore, almost every piece of writing you've probably enjoyed went through an editor or several professional editors. You'd be shocked to read early or even late drafts.
(Also, a having "solid reputation" has f' all to do with whether you can construct a good argument. Wanting that as a prerequisite is what the cool kids used to call "appeal to authority". Anyway ...)
But wtf are we even talking about now?
> Besides, surpassing most humans in an area where most humans are unskilled is not a feat, not even AI companies flex on that.
I don't care what "AI companies flex". What I care about, as a programmer, and as an artist, and as a writer who won a tiny prize in my even tinier and insignificant niche on the planet, is what tools we can build for the average person and what tools I have access to.
If I have a robot that is 50% stronger than me or 10x better read than the average human or 20% better than the average mathematician, that's a huge victory. So yes, surpassing the average human is a feat.
But it's not merely the average human who has been surpassed: the average mathematician (skilled in mathematics) and the average artists (skilled in art) and the average writer, have all been surpassed. That is my testable claim. Play with the tools, and see for yourself.
I've noticed obvious LLM output on low quality news sites, but I don't tend to read them anyway. Maybe all the comments I read are from LLMs and I just don't realise?
It's quite difficult to analogise because LLMs are so profoundly novel, but the best I can do is that it's like having an infinitely patient and extremely knowledgeable assistant. That assistant isn't omniscient or infallible, but it's extremely useful because it tends to provide the information that I want, presented in a way that's particularly relevant to me. That requires a certain amount of rapport-building - understanding the characteristics of various models, learning to ask good questions, guiding the model towards my preferences with customised system prompts - but the effort pays off handsomely.
And popularity has nothing to do with private, subjective quality evaluations of the individual (aka, what someone calls slop might be picasso to another), but with objective, public evaluations of the product via purchases.
For example, an AI picture of a bush is not slop, because we don't expect much from a picture of a bush (not aspirational).
A hand-drawn picture of a knight in armor by an enthusiastic, but not very skilled artist is not slop either - it has tons of details that resolve in an interesting way, and what it lacks in details, it allows the viewers to fill in for themselves.
A 'realistic' knight generated by AI is slop - it contains no imaginative detail, and allows very little room for personal interpretation, and it's not rewarding to view.
Slop doesn't need to be AI - creatively bankrupt overproduced garbage counts as slop in my mind as well.
This is a great definition. All the AI text I read is somehow missing the "meat" you find in good writing. All the right parts are there, but the core idea that makes me interested is just missing.
It's pretty much the same thing Linkedin has been full of for years. No one can bear to say anything controversial, so it's all just empty platitudes and junk.
It was rough at first, and needed plenty of tuning, but the terrain and environments it's capable of certainly have a wide audience.
But as far as pure, unbridled generation goes, yeah; I'm sure there will be plenty of slop made in the coming decade.
All these problems are trivially solvable (solved) using traditonal 3d meshes and techniques.
3D can be a useful intermediate when editing the 2D image, e.g. Krea has support for that[2]. But I don't think the rest of the traditional 3D pipeline is of much use here, AI image generation already produces images at a quality that traditional rendering just can't keep up with, neither in terms of speed, quality or flexibility.
In the videos you've attached, both tools (esp) the first, look impressive, but in the first example, you can clearly see that the model regenerates the street around the chameleon, when the artist changes it for no good reason.
In the second example you can see there's a bunch of AI tools under the hood, and they don't work together particularly well, with the car constantly changing as the image changes.
I think while a lot of mileage can be extracted from SD as it stands (I could think of a bunch of improvements to what was demonstrated here, by applying existing techniques ) - but the fundamental issue remains, in that Stable Diffusion was made to generate whole images at once - unlike transformers, which output a single token.
Not sure what's the image equivalent of a token is, but I'm sure it'd be feasible to train a model to fill holes - which'd be created by Segment Anything or something similar, and it would react better to local edits.
Star Trek's Holodeck is actually a good case study here (especially with the recent series, Lower Decks, going as far as making two episodes that are interactive movies on a holodeck, going quite deep into how that could work in practice both in terms of producing and experiencing them).
One observation derived here is that infinite procedural content at your fingertip doesn't necessarily kill all meaning, if you bring the meaning with you. The two major use cases[0] for the holodeck are:
- Multiplayer scenarios in which you and your friends enjoy some experience in a program. The meaning is sourced from your friendship and roleplay; the program may be arbitrary output of an RNG in the global sense, but it's the same for you and your friends, so shared experience (and its importance as a social object) in your group is retained.
- Single-player simulations that are highly specific. The meaning here comes from whatever is the reason you're simulating that particular experience, and it's connection to the real world. Like idk., a flight simulator of a random space fighter flying over random world shooting at random shit would quickly get boring, but if I can get the simulator to give me a highly accurate cockpit of an F/A-18 Hornet, flying over real terrain and shooting at realistic enemies in realistic (even if fictional) storyline - now that would be deeply meaningful to me, because 1) F/A-18 Hornet is a real plane that I would otherwise never experience flying, and 2) I have a crush on this particular fighter because F/A-18 Hornet 3.0 is one of the first videogames I ever played in my life as a kid.
Now, to make Metaverse less like bullshit and more like Star Trek, we'd need to make sure the world generation is actually available to the users. No asset stores, no app marketplace bullshit. We live in a multimodal LLM era - we already have all the components to do it like Star Trek did it: "Computer, create a medieval fantasy village, in style of England around year 1400, set next to a forest, with tall mountains visible in the distance", then walk around that world and tweak the defaults from there.
--
[0] - Ignoring the third use case that's occasionally implied on the show, and that's really obvious given it's the same one the Internet is for - and I'm not talking about cat pictures.
Caitian pictures, on the other hand…
I think they were more than implying what T'Ana got up to with Shaxs.
The third option is peoples' expectation for AR/VR itself: it could be a highly niche and expensive industry and unlikely to grow to the general population.
It has a 'why would I strap on a headset for stuff I can do without'
I will not starting meeting friends just because of the meta verse. I have everything I need already.
And even video calls with Whatsapp is alweird as f.
TENCENT HUNYUAN 3D 2.0 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT
Tencent Hunyuan 3D 2.0 Release Date: January 21, 2025
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT DOES NOT APPLY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, UNITED KINGDOM AND SOUTH KOREA AND IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE TERRITORY, AS DEFINED BELOW.
It's a technical possibility to hide something in the code, but that would be a bit silly since there's not that much of it here. It's not technically possible to hide a backdoor in a set of numbers that are solely used as the operands to trivial mathematical operations, so I'm very curious about what sort of hidden backdoor you think is here.
1. It's trivial to go look at what's being loaded.
2. Any code that's in the distributed pickled data is not weights. The GP suggests that there are backdoors hidden in the weights which is nonsensical unless the code runs eval on the weights or something similar, which would make anyone looking at the code immediately realise it was doing something dodgy.
As an example of (1), here's all the GLOBALs in the pickled code:
GLOBAL 'collections OrderedDict'
GLOBAL 'torch HalfStorage'
GLOBAL 'torch._utils _rebuild_tensor_v2'
According to DOD, Tencent - which published this model - is a Chinese military company
https://huggingface.co/tencent/Hunyuan3D-2/tree/main/hunyuan...
(I previously tried the stability 3d models: https://stability.ai/stable-3d and this seems similar in quality and speed)
They link a Huggingface page (great sign!): https://huggingface.co/spaces/tencent/Hunyuan3D-2
I tried to replicate the objects they show on their project page (https://3d-models.hunyuan.tencent.com/). The full prompts exist but are truncated so you can just inspect the element and grab the text.
Here's what I got
Leaf
PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDL.png
GLB: https://0x0.st/8HD9.glb
Guitar
PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDf.png other view: https://0x0.st/8HDO.png
GLB: https://0x0.st/8HDV.glb
Google Translate of Guitar:
Prompt: A brown guitar is centered against a white background, creating a realistic photography style. This photo captures the culture of the instrument and conveys a tranquil atmosphere.
PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDt.png and https://0x0.st/8HDv.png
Note: Weird thing on top of guitar. But at least this time the strings aren't fusing into sound hole.
But these are long and detailed prompts. Lots of prompt engineering. That should raise some suspicion. Real world has higher variance and let's get an idea how hard it is to use. So let's try some simpler things :)
Prompt: A guitar
PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDg.png
Note: Not bad! Definitely overfit but does that matter here? A bit too thick for a electric guitar but too thin for acoustic.
Prompt: A Monstera leaf
PNG: https://0x0.st/8HD6.png
https://0x0.st/8HDl.png
https://0x0.st/8HDU.png
Note: A bit wonkier. I picked this because it looked like the leaf in the example but this one is doing some odd things.
It's definitely a leaf and monstera like but a bit of a mutant.
Prompt: Mario from Super Mario Bros
PNG: https://0x0.st/8Hkq.png
Note: Now I'm VERY suspicious....
Prompt: Luigi from Super Mario Bros
PNG: https://0x0.st/8Hkc.png
https://0x0.st/8HkT.png
https://0x0.st/8HkA.png
Note: Highly overfit[0]. This is what I suspected. Luigi isn't just tall Mario.
Where is the tie coming from? The suspender buttons are all messed up.
Really went uncanny valley here. So this suggests we're really brittle.
Prompt: Peach from Super Mario Bros
PNG: https://0x0.st/8Hku.png
https://0x0.st/8HkM.png
Note: I'm fucking dying over here this is so funny. It's just a peach with a cute face hahahahaha
Prompt: Toad from Super Mario Bros
PNG: https://0x0.st/8Hke.png
https://0x0.st/8Hk_.png
https://0x0.st/8HkL.png
Note: Lord have mercy on this toad, I think it is a mutated Squirtle.
(If you want to share images like I did all I'm doing is `curl -F'file=@foobar.png' https://0x0.st`)
[0] Overfit is a weird thing now. Maybe it doesn't generalize well, but sometimes that's not a problem. I think this is one of the bigger lessons we've learned with recent ML models. My viewpoint is "Sometimes you want a database with a human language interface. Sometimes you want to generalize". So we have to be more context driven here. But certainly there are a lot of things we should be careful about when we're talking about generation. These things are trained on A LOT of data. If you're more "database-like" then certainly there's potential legal ramifications...
Edit: For context, by "look pretty good" I mean in comparison to other works I've seen. I think it is likely a ways from being useful in production. I'm not sure how much human labor would be required to fix the issues.
The second has similar problems: it has tuning knobs with missing winding posts, then five strings becoming four at the bridge. It also has a pickup under the fretboard.
Are these considered good capability examples?
It is pretty good with some easier assets that I suspect there's lots of samples of (and we're comparing to other generative models, not to what humans make. Humans probably still win by a good margin). But when moving out of obvious assets that we could easily find, I'm not seeing good performance at all. Probably a lot can be done with heavy prompt engineering but that just makes things more complicated to evaluate.
Prompt: A hawk flying in the sky
PNG: https://0x0.st/8Hkw.png
https://0x0.st/8Hkx.png
https://0x0.st/8Hk3.png
Note: This looks like it would need more work. I tried a few birds and generic too. They all seem to have similar form.
Prompt: A hawk with the head of a dragon flying in the sky and holding a snake
PNG: https://0x0.st/8HkE.png
https://0x0.st/8Hk6.png
https://0x0.st/8HkI.png
https://0x0.st/8Hkl.png
Note: This one really isn't great. Just a normal hawk head. Not how a bird holds a snake either...
This can make it hard to really tell if there's progress or not. It is really easy to make compelling images in a paper and beat benchmarks while not actually creating a something that is __or will become__ a usable product. All the little details matter. Little errors quickly compound... That said, I do much more on generative imagery than generative 3d objects so grain of salt here.
Keep in mind: generative models (of any kind) are incredibly difficult to evaluate. Always keep that in mind. You really only have a good idea after you've generated hundreds or thousands of samples yourself and are able to look at a lot with high scrutiny.
People just see fancy demos and start crapping on about the future, but just look at stable diffusion. It's been around for how long, and what serious professional game developers are using it as a core part of their workflow? Maybe some concept artists? But consistent style is such an important thing for any half decent game and these generative tools shit the bed on consistency in a way that's difficult to paper over.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about game design and experimenting with SD/Flux, and the only thing I think I could even get close to production that I couldn't before is maybe an MTG style card game where gameplay is far more important than graphics, and flashy nice looking static artwork is far more important than consistency. That's a fucking small niche, and I don't see a lot of paths to generalisation.
I get that we gloss over details, but if there's anywhere you're allowed to be nuanced and be arguing over details should it not be in academia?
(fwiw, I'm also very supportive of having low bars to publication. If it's void of serious error and plagiarism, it is publishable imo. No one can predict what is important or impactful, so we shouldn't even play that game. Trying to decide if it is "novel" or "good enough for <Venue>" is just idiotic and breeds collusion rings and bad actors)
When video generation gets easy he'll probably move to making short eye catching gifs.
When 3D models and AI in general improve I can imagine him for example generating shitty little games to put in banners. I've been using an adblocker for so long I don't know what exists nowadays but I remember there being banners with "shoot 5 ducks" type games where the last duck kill opens the advertisers website. Sounds feasible for an AI to implement reliably. If you can generate different games like that based on the interests of the person seeing the ad you can probably milk some clicks.
Are you in the game industry? If you’re not how would you even know they have not? As someone with some connections in the industry and may soon get more involved personally, I know at least one mobile gaming studio with quite a bit of funding and momentum that has started using a good deal of AI-generated assets that would have been handcrafted in the past.
[1] https://github.com/Tencent/Hunyuan3D-2/blob/main/assets/imag...