[tomdell]

An impressive technical achievement, yes - but the presentation/marketing of this is absurd.

The generated videos are aesthetically horrendous. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics are going on that they can confidently describe something where the body shapes are nonsensically in flux with every change of frame (look at the eagle's talons, or the dog's leg movements as it runs) as "high-quality video".

Is generative AI hype blinding them to how hideous these videos are, or do they know and they just pretend like it's something it isn't?

[anigbrowl]

I don't like them; aesthetically they don't appeal and technically they fall short as you describe. But just about a year ago this was the State of the Art ('Age of Illusion' by Die Antwoord) with visual coherence maintainable for <10 frames or less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq56o0YH3mE

[espadrine]

That wasn’t quite the epitome of generated video a year ago; it was barely trained for temporal coherence.

But the best video generators were much worse than Emu Video; there was Make-A-Video[0] from Meta, and Phenaki[1] and Imagen Video[2] from Google.

[0]: https://ai.meta.com/blog/generative-ai-text-to-video/

[1]: https://sites.research.google/phenaki/

[2]: https://imagen.research.google/video/

[BoorishBears]

Check out what AI generated images looked like 24 months ago and this comment may feel a lot less pithy.

[bastawhiz]

A year ago this technology simply didn't exist at all. What are you expecting?

[ShamelessC]

Compared to prior work, it looks unbelievable. Is this just an armchair criticism or have you been paying any attention?

[tomdell]

Compared to prior work, it's great. On it's own, I don't agree with describing it as high-quality.

[ShamelessC]

Okay.