If Veo3 was trained on YouTube, as most sources seem to suggest, wouldn’t it mean that Google just turned its “valued” YouTube creators (at least those who were uploading non-adversarial video, which is most of them in all likelihood) into content producers for a tool designed to replace them? What about YouTube Music—is Google headed towards trillion-dollar lawsuits a la Suno and the like?
turtleyacht · 4h ago
We could probably (now) trace a purely domain-agnostic path from "I need to understand subject-matter experts" to "It's just data for machine-learning."
Seeing total video automation is incredible. It's the most compelling reason yet to avoid the infinite treadmill.
strogonoff · 1h ago
Who will provide new data, once the incentives are eliminated?
turtleyacht · 1h ago
History is written by those who bother, as they say. Humans will always create.
At the same time, they can also choose to deliver in a binary medium like a game or proprietary WASM container. Or even scans of their handwritings.
Text is now zero cost; ideas may need to be carried along in frictive streams.
strogonoff · 1h ago
> Humans will always create.
Citation needed. Humans have created for as long as they could benefit from their creativity (be it reputation, patronage, or capitalism when combined with IP laws). If that way is no more, I would not be so sure.
benwad · 43m ago
That's not the case at all. People all around are constantly making art just for the sake of it. Most of it won't ever even be seen by other people. Removing the financial incentive will definitely change the landscape (for the worse, imho) but creativity for its own sake is enough for most people.
strogonoff · 7m ago
Again, citation needed. For as long as humanity existed, creating art always implied [the promise of] sharing it for either utilitarian reasons, or for enjoying the resulting reputation and recognition (we can go all evolutionary biologist about it and say reproduction, etc.), or for financial gain (more recently). Am I missing some point in human history where this was done without ever expecting any of that?
Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist.
(All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)
turtleyacht · 43m ago
Yes, it's possible no one will want to make anything if there is no compensation.
At the same time, people do not always calculate world states ahead of time; sometimes, it's just to do the thing.
kubb · 6h ago
I’m still waiting for the first compelling piece of computer generated literature or cinema.
I’d say art but for many, generated pictures are amazing so I’ll accept that.
But creating compelling narratives seems impossible right now. I wonder why is that. Are the models missing something?
The videos here are short clips. They can’t be made into a full movie or even a full YouTube video.
gerardnico · 6h ago
I was looking a documentary in Netflix (night stalker) and men all transitions between scene were Ai generated.
pastapliiats · 5h ago
Exciting opportunity to stop consuming broad social media and narrowing it down to only specific creators that you can trust not to use AI.
glimshe · 4h ago
If creators are transparent about it, how is AI worse than CGI?
anileated · 18m ago
On a technical level, DTGI (diffusion-transformer generated imagery) is a subset of CGI (computer generated imagery). All DTGI is also CGI.
Computer is the medium, like painting on a canvas. You can paint, or you can pay someone to paint for you.
On a conceptual level, DTGI is a big change. From painting, or paying a creative to paint, to paying a faceless corp to generate a permutation of paintings by other people (who probably did not consent to that).
If creator is transparent about it, I would appreciate it, but as someone said once I’d prefer to just see the prompt since that is the extent of creative input.
rasz · 6h ago
This is the first time I cant tell AI slop by the pixels :| dark times ahead.
Seeing total video automation is incredible. It's the most compelling reason yet to avoid the infinite treadmill.
At the same time, they can also choose to deliver in a binary medium like a game or proprietary WASM container. Or even scans of their handwritings.
Text is now zero cost; ideas may need to be carried along in frictive streams.
Citation needed. Humans have created for as long as they could benefit from their creativity (be it reputation, patronage, or capitalism when combined with IP laws). If that way is no more, I would not be so sure.
Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist.
(All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)
At the same time, people do not always calculate world states ahead of time; sometimes, it's just to do the thing.
I’d say art but for many, generated pictures are amazing so I’ll accept that.
But creating compelling narratives seems impossible right now. I wonder why is that. Are the models missing something?
The videos here are short clips. They can’t be made into a full movie or even a full YouTube video.
Computer is the medium, like painting on a canvas. You can paint, or you can pay someone to paint for you.
On a conceptual level, DTGI is a big change. From painting, or paying a creative to paint, to paying a faceless corp to generate a permutation of paintings by other people (who probably did not consent to that).
If creator is transparent about it, I would appreciate it, but as someone said once I’d prefer to just see the prompt since that is the extent of creative input.