• hansolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It is, 60’s era Kung Fu is a common and flexible format. The rocks over the wall and identical real cats in robes is what seals it as AI to me.

      That being said, this is very well made. Good consistency, fluid motion. That’s more to do with selective editing of 1-4 second good bits from 10 second clips.

  • nialv7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    油 is a clever double (triple?) entendre here. Yes it directly translated to oil and 石油 (crude oil) has the same pronunciation as 食油 (food oil).

    But 油 also has the same pronunciation as 铀 (uranium). That is why he was talking about 炼油(refining oil/uranium) 来 (to) 炸 (fry/bomb) 鱿鱼 (the squid).

  • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I know we’re living in the backward world, but this isn’t satire, its pretty much historically accurate.

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        dude, at this point i don’t care. there’s enough care to detail that a human is doing something. it’s being used as a tool rather than as a slop generator.

        there is a difference between ai art and ai slop and this my friends is ai art.

        • Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s fine, you’re acclimating to the slop, soon you’ll be fine with complete slop.

          Some of us do still care however. I don’t care if a human edited this shit together it’s still shit.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            well, we had this argument about autotune in music, and y’all said it was okay. now suddenly it’s not. hrm.

            you take the human out and substitute it with a machine. do it in art and it’s fantastic. do it in programming and it’s unethical and you have the technical language to describe how the code it puts out is substandard because this shit threatens your money. it is real to you.

            • Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              I still think autotune is shit but okay, guy.

              And this shit threatens everybody’s money, not because it’s good mind you. But because the executives making the decisions think it’s good enough that they can stop hiring humans to do work on the back end because it’s all good enough to the slop consumers.

              And they’ll keep raising the prices of everything while pocketing the new profits so everything gets more expensive while also getting continually shittier.

              Why? Because people start to accept the slop.

              Don’t accept the slop. Have higher standards.

              • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                sorry, but i feel like such a luddite here

                i’m not going to complain when the computers are massacring another art form when they just finished massacring mine. It’s either all good or all bad.

                • Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  Look up the luddites actually, they were resisting for literally the things I just said. And y’know what? They were completely right! It wasn’t about fearing technology that could in theory make things easier, it’s that the owners were turning to the machines that made an inferior product for cheaper.

                  They fucked over the workers and the consumers because they didn’t care about quality of the product. They just wanted a cheaper made product and to not pay the workers.

                  So you’re actually on the side of the owners screwing all of us when you shrug and accept this crap as an inevitably.

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        yeah, and how many iterations did they do, how much did they storyboard, did the ai do the entire thing and if so did the ai use the traditonal concept to storyboarding to scene to etc. process to generate it.

        we have a specific process that is followed when folk make film

        does the AI do something different? could we look at the tree and arbitrarily pick a different fork if we didn’t like a decision rather than having to ask an entirely new question?

        it’s fascinating.

        • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Afaik seedance only has like three modes of generation:

          1. Text to video
          2. First frame + text to video
          3. First frame + last frame + text to video

          From what I’ve seen you can do ranges of time in the text for certain things like 1-3s: slow pan in etc.

          People will use something like Google’s nano banana to generate still frames in a storyboard-like prompt then have seedance generate the video for each 12 or so second portion

    • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Gotta be. Camera cuts are 8 seconds or less. Which isn’t a universal limit anymore but indicates a cheaper model or plan.

      Also things move wierd. Like the stabbing motion with the gun. Or the squid sitting in strange positions instead of “attaching” to the head like you assume it would. In a wierd way I feel like I can almost recognize what films this may have been trained on.

      Also over the last month there has been a deluge of ai videos being made from this perspective on this topic. Context is usually biggest evidence, barring everything else.

      • Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Continuity is a film production role that gets taken for granted until its done poorly. I would say that ai isn’t very good at it, but this vid at least looks very consistent with the designs between the shots

    • FuyuhikoDate@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I think that was too damn good for ai slop. But i understand your concern and I am also interested in the source

    • MrQuallzin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The shots are way too consistent to be AI. If it was AI, we’d expect background details to change between each one. This feels like a high quality robot chicken production

  • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    This is AI slop. Look at the cut after America walks in the door and says “Are you planning to use that oil to fry squid?” A whole section of wall with a door in it appears out of nowhere.