Hacker News Reader

Comment by linuxftw | Hacker News Reader

Based on conversations I've had with some people managing GPU's at scale in the datacenters, inference is an after thought. There is a gold rush for training right now, and that's where these massive clusters are being used.

LLM's are probably a small fraction of the overall GPU compute in use right now. I suspect in the next 5 years we'll have full Hollywood movies being completely generated (at least the specialfx) entirely by AI.

View on HN

Hollywood studios are breathing their last gasps now. Anyone will be able to use AI to create blockbuster type movies, Hollywood's moat around that is rapidly draining.

Anyone with a $200M marketing budget.

Throw it on YouTube and get a few key TikTokers to promote it.

Anybody had the ability to write the next great novel for a while, but few succeed.

There are lots of very good relatively recent novels on the shelf at the bookstore. Certainly orders of magnitude more than there are movies.

The other thing to compare is the narrative quality. I find even middling books to be of much higher quality than blockbuster movies on average. Or rather I'm constantly appalled at what passes for a decent script. I assume that's due to needing to appeal to a broad swath of the population because production is so expensive, but understanding the (likely) reason behind it doesn't do anything to improve the end result.

So if "all" we get out of this is a 1000x reduction in production budgets which leads to a 100x increase in the amount of media available I expect it will be a huge win for the consumer.

Have you....used any of the video generators? Nothing they create make any goddamn sense, they're a step above those fake acid trip simulators.

> Nothing they create make any goddamn sense,

I wouldn’t be that dismissive. Some have managed to make impressive things with them (although nothing close to an actual movie, even a short).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET7Y1nNMXmA

A bit older: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OOpYvxKhtY

Compared to two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHeCTfQOQcs

The problem with all of these, even the most recent one, is that they have the "AI look". People have tired of this look already, even for short adverts; if they don't want five minutes of it, they really won't like two hours of it. There is no doubt the quality has vastly improved over time, but I see no sign of progress in removing the "AI look" from these things.

What changed my whole perspective on this a few months ago was Google's Genie 3 demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDKhUknuQDg

They have really advanced the coherency of real-time AI generation.

My feeling is the definition of the "AI look" has evolved as these models progressed.

It used to mean psychedelic weird things worthy of the strangest dreams or an acid trip.

Then it meant strangely blurry with warped alien script and fifteen fingers, including one coming out of another’s second phalanx

Now it means something odd, off, somewhat both hard to place and obvious, like the CGI "transparent" car (is it that the 3D model is too simple, looks like a bad glass sculpture, and refracts light in squares?) and ice cliffs (I think the the lighting is completely off, and the colours are wrong) in Die Another Day.

And if that’s the case, then these models have covered far more in far less time then it took computer graphics and CGI.

Have you seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJC4Hnz3m0

It's not feature length movie but I'm not sure there's any reason why it couldn't be, and its not technically perfect but pretty damn good.

it's so weird how they spend all this money to train new models and then open sources it. it's gold rush but nvidia is getting all the gold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com