https://divine.video/ - For people who want to see for themselves.
Also the android app from the TechCrunch article, seems like it was nuked though: https://divine.b-cdn.net/app-release.apk
In the main picture, about half of those videos use filters that do something based on the location of the person’s head. Unless they’ve changed the definition since I went to college, that would be classified as a type of computer vision, aka AI.
Yeah they just mean the more layperson understanding of AI as in AI-generated content or as YouTube Studio dubs it: “synthetic media” (pretty good term imo)
Basically just stuff that was “generated”.
I’m sure transformative use of ML like filters etc. would be fine. Even incorporation of generated elements in otherwise a normal video would be fine.
So “I know it when I see it” rules, rather than anything rigorously defined.
Assuming this gets any traction at all the witch hunts will be rampant.
Why would anyone touch any garbage this guy produces?!
Loops: “Am I a joke to you?”
Everyone else: “Who said that?”
To get the perfect selfie please pull your tongue back in your mouth. Good, now close you mouth. Perfect, now lower your phone thirty degree. Great, now lower it thirty degrees more. Almost there! Now lower thirty more degrees and put it the fuck away in your pocket.
Congratulations, you now have the perfect selfie.
Love this
Weird Al is gonna be devastated!
What’s that guy need so much water for anyway?!?!?
it’s already the case that the distinction between what’s “AI” and what isn’t is a subjective, aesthetic difference and not a technical one
Detecting it is difficult but what actually is or isn’t AI should be pretty cut and dry. Either nothing completely generated, or no footage edited using generative ai (depending on how strict you want to be with your ban)
what about the neural networks that power the DSP modules in all modern cell phones cameras? does a neural network filter that generates a 3D mesh or rather imposes a 3D projection, eg putting dog ears on yourself or Memojis, count? what if i record a real video and have Gemini/Veo/whatever edit the white balance? i don’t think it’s as cut and dry as most people think
Every single one of those I’d put under the second category. It’d be hard to detect but it’s certainly not subjective. It just depends on how it’s written.
but what are the criteria? just because you think you have a handle on it doesn’t mean everyone else does or even shares your conclusion. and there’s no metric here i can measure, to for example block it from my platform.
The criteria is whatever you put in the “no ai” policy on the site. Whether that be ‘you can’t post videos wholly generated from a prompt’ to ‘you can’t post anything that uses any form of neural net in the production chain’ to something in between. You can specify what types are and are not included and blanket ban/allow everything else. It can definitely be defined in the user agreement, the part that’s actually hard would be detection/enforcement.
my point is that it’s hard to program someone’s subjective, if written in whatever form of legalese, point of view into a detection system, especially when those same detection systems can be used to great effect to train systems to bypass them. any such detection system would likely be an “AI” in the same way the ones they ban are and would be similarly prone to mistakes and to reflecting the values of the company (read: Jack Dorsey) rather than enforcing any objective ethical boundary.
Every single comment I said that detecting them would be the hard part, I’ve been talking about defining the type of content that is allowed/banned not the part where they actually have to filter it.
hard to detect
certainly not subjective
just depends on how it’s written
i’m fucking dead you have to be taking the piss lmfao
Whether AI art is good is subjective, it will change based on the whims of who you ask and cannot be defined. Whether something is AI generated depends on what definition you use but given a definition it either fits it or it doesn’t. It’s not subjective it’s just a little broad. As far as it being hard to detect that has no bearing on whether it is or isn’t AI.
Whether something is AI generated depends on what definition you use
I am so sorry, I don’t mean to be terse, but; We must speak a different English because this is the actual fucking dictionary definition of “subjective” :
4 a(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal subjective judgments (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background a subjective account of the incident b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli subjective sensations c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes a subjective symptom of disease compare objective sense 2cTHEREFORE, ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING:
Whether something is AI generated [or not, sic] depends on what definition you use…
MIGHT BE…
Whether something is AI generated or not is subjective.
Regardless,
Yeah I’m basically ignoring the part of implementing it as a separate issue from defining it, which is the part I’m saying is objective. Given a definition of what type of content they want to ban you should be able to figure out whether something you’re going to post is allowed or not, that’s why I’m saying it’s not subjective.
You summed up the problem with your own semantic definitions and viewpoints earlier pretty well. What you’re basically saying is there could exist a model that defines and filters AI content based on a subjective definition of genAI, which no shit sherlock - that’s fucking trivial and can be said about anything. There could exist a model that subjectively defines unicorns and filters them out of all content too. Doesn’t mean it’s actually useful to anybody or that there’s any practical reason to build it, though.
You’re just talking past @chrash0@lemmy.world who’s trying to point out to you that actually defining what constitutes genAI content is the hard part. You’re being obtuse and intentionally ignoring it by focusing on the implementation itself being easy.
Of course filtering things by a definition you’ve set is trivial. Out of all infinite possible definitions that we can choose, how do we make the right assumptions to choose the most optimal one, though? Do you see the issue and why you’re being kind of fucking stupid, man?
I don’t agree that having multiple definitions for something makes it subjective, what it makes it is vague. If you provide one one of those definitions to someone and ask them if something meets it (and for the sake of argument they have full knowledge of how it was created) they should always be able to come to the same conclusion. As I understand it, and the definitions you provided, what makes something subjective is whether it will be unique to the person evaluating it. If my definition of good art is it makes ME feel something, somebody else could look at the same thing I do and come to a different conclusion. You couldn’t build a model that filters out bad art based on that subjective definition. All I’ve been trying to say is that whether something is AI is something that is definable but apparently I’m being too fucking stupid to make that clear.
most people, unfortunately, don’t seem to think when they see the letters ‘A’ and ‘I’… these people probably would burn sage at the sight of the identity matrix lol.
i think you’re probably wasting your breath here but you seem like you might be cool, so if you’re interested in discussing ML at all reach out fs!
deleted by creator
Lemmy hates everything and everyone it seems.
We like our negativity here - it’s still okay to disagree and be positive though!
That being said, Dorsey was fine selling his last media company to the highest-bidding fascist. Chances are he‘ll do it again.
Personally, I won’t use any social media that isn’t billionaire-proof.
Valid criticism isn’t baseless hate. And, is better to be skeptical than blindly complacent.
Jack Dorsey more than deserves the hate and I’m happy to discuss it with you.
Banned for now…
deleted by creator
Honestly, I don’t really trust any cryptobro, I see them on similar level as AI-bros
don’t care dorsey is the problem
Loops ftw
TIL. Thanks friend.
What’s Loops?
A Fediverse platform for short form video, made by the guy who makes Pixelfed
Not really just short form, it’s more of a take on video feeds rather than just the limited length quickcontent Vine was famous about.
Obviously the focus is still on short(ish) content format, but I see more and more people transition to longer videos to deliver content. On YT/Facebook most videos I see nowadays are 10min or above.
Vine, but federated!
But does it ban AI content?
That would be based on the server’s policies, same as Lemmy or Mastodon.
I’d trust a federated environment a billion times more than anything Jack Dorsey is doing
Yeah, will never understand why these big billionaires keep taking these “we are for the people” stances, but are still trying to spin up these same ol for-profit, centralized products. If they really cared, they’d use that money to help nonprofits or decentralized services and stay out of the damn way.
It’s because it’s profitable, that’s why they do it. As long as they don’t Elon Musk, most people either don’t know who these people are or don’t care. And if they do go full EM, then most people still don’t care and it’s still profitable.
Yeah, they want money and clout
More tiktok than vine, really
You’re not wrong, but an arbitrary maximum video length is the least of my problems with a Dorsey product
TikTok but without users.
Jack Dorsey
Go back to sleep, dude has jumped on every consumer trend ever since he left Twitter. AI content is not even a core issue of current social media platforms, despite its overwhelming popularity and loads of posts.
Well, my kind of humor.
