100% AI generated "drone video" of Big Sur - does this replace some drone pilots?

[Dangerly]

Yesterday OpenAI announced Sora, which leap frogged everyone else in generating very realistic looking video 100% through prompt-generated AI. It produced this drone shot of Bug Sur, a shot I've long wanted to capture, but for those pesky drone laws that prevent me from flying there. I am in fact leading a mushroom foray there in two weeks looking for chanterelle mushrooms and I would love to bring my drone, but no... it's a huge no fly zone for drones, unless you want to get permission.

We've got this level of AI generated video available to anyone - imagine how much better this will be in another year or two. I will be using this to shoot drone sequences I've long wanted to shoot but can't, as well as all kinds of other video.

There are issues with the generated video quality if you look closely, but for 99.9% of people looking casually at these videos, it will appear 100% real to them. And these issues will be fixed.

Prompt:
Drone view of waves crashing against the rugged cliffs along Big Sur’s garay point beach. The crashing blue waters create white-tipped waves, while the golden light of the setting sun illuminates the rocky shore. A small island with a lighthouse sits in the distance, and green shrubbery covers the cliff’s edge. The steep drop from the road down to the beach is a dramatic feat, with the cliff’s edges jutting out over the sea. This is a view that captures the raw beauty of the coast and the rugged landscape of the Pacific Coast Highway.

 

[mavic3usa]

Here's a good video analysis including a brief mention about drone videos (not me, not my video):

 

[BobaFut]

We've got this level of AI generated video available to anyone - imagine how much better this will be in another year or two. I will be using this to shoot drone sequences I've long wanted to shoot but can't, as well as all kinds of other video.

I'll be the wet blanket and say that I have no interest in watching AI drone footage and I actually HATE generative AI in this context. I take pride not just in the final product, but the whole creative process of drone photography/videography. It's also what I like about seeing others' art here and in other places...knowing the work it took to create it. Nothing that these prompts give you is "100% AI generated." OpenAI and other AIs steal the work actual artists have done, then mashes it up and spits it out at anyone who can type in a prompt. AI doesn't know what Big Sur looks like without looking at data that is mined from real artists. It simply looks at art real people have made and then tries to imitate it (aka plagiarism). If you value the work of actual people going out there and making art (or even just hobbyists and professionals doing work that isn't "art"), then in most cases you shouldn't be using generative AI. It's like a cover band, but instead of acknowledging their songs are covers they put them on an album and sell them as their own.

 

[mavic3usa]

I'll be the wet blanket and say that I have no interest in watching AI drone footage and I actually HATE generative AI in this context. I take pride not just in the final product, but the whole creative process of drone photography/videography. It's also what I like about seeing others' art here and in other places...knowing the work it took to create it. Nothing that these prompts give you is "100% AI generated." OpenAI and other AIs steal the work actual artists have done, then mashes it up and spits it out at anyone who can type in a prompt. AI doesn't know what Big Sur looks like without looking at data that is mined from real artists. It simply looks at art real people have made and then tries to imitate it (aka plagiarism). If you value the work of actual people going out there and making art (or even just hobbyists and professionals doing work that isn't "art"), then in most cases you shouldn't be using generative AI. It's like a cover band, but instead of acknowledging their songs are covers they put them on an album and sell them as their own.

We know this already.

BTW similar was said about mp3 files.

 

[BobaFut]

We know this already.

BTW similar was said about mp3 files.

Okay cool, so you just don't care.

Also piracy and plagiarism are both bad but are not the same thing....and sorta beside the point but MP3 files kinda famously led to lots of piracy! And there are very compelling arguments that the media revolution spawned by MP3s (which ultimately gave us Apple Music, Spotify, etc...) ultimately was really bad for artists.

 

[mavic3usa]

Okay cool, so you just don't care.

Also piracy and plagiarism are both bad but are not the same thing....and sorta beside the point but MP3 files kinda famously led to lots of piracy! And there are very compelling arguments that the media revolution spawned by MP3s (which ultimately gave us Apple Music, Spotify, etc...) ultimately was really bad for artists.

I do care but sometimes you gotta know when to stop fighting technology. I was a big support of digital music and I am a big supporter of AI. Of course there needs to be some limitations (meaning it shouldn't be completely unlimited) but I'm not a fan of passing a bunch of laws to control technology. Nothing we can do to stand in the way so we should embrace it and help guide it; not try to restrict it or slow it down. This is inevitable and I won't be on the wrong side; I will use AI. I agree we should let the courts decide if there are conflicts or claims or some confusion but I don't agree with trying to get ahead of this by telling free people what they can create, what they can't create, what they can watch or can't watch, where they can post, whom they need permission from, what content can be used or not, etc. Current laws for the most part work well enough to keep this legal and maybe some tweaking but I keep hearing about "AI laws" like I keep hearing about "drone laws" and the difference is going to be the AI folks won't be deterred.

 

[Dangerly]

I'll be the wet blanket and say that I have no interest in watching AI drone footage and I actually HATE generative AI in this context. I take pride not just in the final product, but the whole creative process of drone photography/videography. It's also what I like about seeing others' art here and in other places...knowing the work it took to create it. Nothing that these prompts give you is "100% AI generated." OpenAI and other AIs steal the work actual artists have done, then mashes it up and spits it out at anyone who can type in a prompt. AI doesn't know what Big Sur looks like without looking at data that is mined from real artists. It simply looks at art real people have made and then tries to imitate it (aka plagiarism). If you value the work of actual people going out there and making art (or even just hobbyists and professionals doing work that isn't "art"), then in most cases you shouldn't be using generative AI. It's like a cover band, but instead of acknowledging their songs are covers they put them on an album and sell them as their own.

Soon enough we will all be watching AI generated drone video, and no one but pixel nerd experts will care or be able to tell the difference from real world drone video. Within the next 18 months we'll see the first successful, photorealistic Hollywood-level movie generated 100% by AI. And then anyone will be able to produce such videos from their laptop, and then it's not just movies but interactive experiences powered by AI with AI-powered NPCs, also moving into augmented reality and sitting on your couch, but I'm getting all futuristic so let's stay present...

I know many people, like my wife, whose enjoyment of an experience is enhanced if they know the story behind the experience. Like BobaFut says, "knowing the work it took to create it" adds enjoyment value for many people. They want to know the story behind the food, behind that drone shot, behind the painting. I like that too - I get it. It takes skill to plan and execute a great shot. As far as the final video goes though, 99.9% of people aren't drone pilots and so don't care at all.

Yes there is tension between creators like drone pilots (and writers, actors, etc.) and AI. This happens with all disruptive technologies, and the coming AGI will be the most disruptive technology in the history of humanity. As @mavic3usa says, "you gotta know when to stop fighting technology". I can't say anything detailed about this, but I am working closely with several of the top creators and organizations in the world to help fight what they perceive as an existential threat from AI. Today I tell them their choices are: 1. Fight in court; 2. Fight using technology (such as AI poisoning); 3. Wait for the laws to evolve and hope you survive; 4. Partner with AI to grow together. I choose clients that opt for the last partner and win together approach.

The history of art is that of artists being inspired by and riffing off each other. In fact, art can't even be understood or appreciated without also being aware of the body of related art. Copyright fair use permits reusing content within constraints. Companies like OpenAI have made public commitments to operate within these same constraints. How many songs contain samples of other songs? Countless. Do they give the artists of the songs they sample credit? No.

 

[JimSteadman]

As the video demonstrates, AI is not perfect, but it is pretty darned good. Sometimes good enough to fool anyone who does not know it is AI, including most of us. And it is going to get better. We have to live into this instead of being members of the flat earth society.

When I got my first digital camera many photographers looked down their collective noses at me. Real photography, they said, was capturing an image on film and developing it. Not anymore. There are still some who insist that if it is not presented exactly as it was shot, it is of no value, conveniently forgetting that you can utilize infinite settings in a digital camera to alter the capture of an image to be very different than what the camera 'saw', to say nothing of modifications in ON1 or Photoshop after the capture.

We need to understand what is happening and if not embracing it, then understand that others will, and that just like those initial digital cameras, this technology and its application will get better and better.

Further, remember that it is those of us who post drone videos here and elsewhere who are providing the raw material needed by AI to work its magic.

Thanks for sharing this interesting video.

 

[mavictk]

Once the AI generation becomes good enough it could play havoc with the FAA not knowing if a true violation occurred.

 

[Droning on and on...]

FWIW, I spotted this as fake (i.e didn't "feel" real) because the waves in the cove in the upper right are not moving.

Easy to fix, of course, and AI will improve so these sorts of mistakes aren't made. The point, however, for me is it exposes how this still isn't really intelligence, but rather very powerful computers that have achieved good language interpretation and image generation.

What's missing that would signal intelligence is understanding. Same reason AI has so many problems with hands.

 

[BobaFut]

I don't agree with trying to get ahead of this by telling free people what they can create, what they can't create, what they can watch or can't watch, where they can post, whom they need permission from, what content can be used or not, etc.

What do you mean? Copyright law literally tells people what they can and can't create, what they can or can't watch, where they can post, whom they need permission from, what content can be used or not, etc... It's why I'm not allowed to take photos or videos or music that other people create and post it or sell it as my own. It's why Fair Use works have to be transformative or educational. It's why YouTube won't let me monetize videos that have copyrighted music or forbid me from posting things like bootlegged movies.

The current crop of generative AI simply violates copyright at such a scale that you can't pin down precisely whose work is being stolen. Or places like photo sharing sites bury their AI sharing stipulations so far down in their TOS no person will ever see them and so artists' work gets shared unwittingly. This is absolutely something that legislators need to address in copyright law. I'm not saying they need to outlaw AI, but there needs to be more transparency and oversight. If people want to opt-in, more power to them, but right now the law is lagging behind the technology.

But my original comment wasn't really about the law, it was about artists supporting artists. I don't know how to make you understand that you should care about other people. AI is "disruptive" in the sense that art costs money and lots of people and companies would rather use free/cheap AI images and video than pay an actual artist for their work. You guys keep talking about "fighting technology" but this isn't about the technology. The technology isn't particularly novel and it can't do anything without ingesting work done by actual humans. I would simply suggest that tech companies not be allowed to incorporate artists' work into their algorithms unless those artists explicitly give permission for it, and creators should refuse to use any AI that steals from other artists.

Think of it this way. It's hard to fly a drone at Big Sur (apparently, I've never tried). But some enterprising pilot or artist goes through all the tedious steps and invests their time and effort into get permission to do it. They then take the time to fly their drone, edit their footage, and post it to various sites to showcase their work and maybe attract clients and also to sell the footage as stock footage. Then OpenAI comes along and ingests that video, so now instead of paying that pilot for the art they've produced, for-profit companies can just type in a prompt and get an AI-generated version of that Big Sur drone footage to put in their ads or movie or whatever. The only thing that's being disrupted here is the income of the original pilot who did all that work is now much less likely to be paid for it. I suppose that all disruptive technologies disrupt worker incomes because it diminishes the need for their labor, but a lot of generative AI technology exploits artists because it still needs their labor even as it cuts them out of the process.

Within the next 18 months we'll see the first successful, photorealistic Hollywood-level movie generated 100% by AI.

No offense, but this is absurd. AI can barely generate photos with properly spelled words ("barely" is being generous) or give AI-generated humans the correct number of fingers. But leaving that aside, nothing can be "generated 100% by AI." Literally not how the technology works. AI relies on content created by actual humans.

 

[mavic3usa]

What do you mean? Copyright law literally tells people what they can and can't create, what they can or can't watch, where they can post, whom they need permission from, what content can be used or not, etc... It's why I'm not allowed to take photos or videos or music that other people create and post it or sell it as my own. It's why Fair Use works have to be transformative or educational. It's why YouTube won't let me monetize videos that have copyrighted music or forbid me from posting things like bootlegged movies.

The current crop of generative AI simply violates copyright at such a scale that you can't pin down precisely whose work is being stolen. Or places like photo sharing sites bury their AI sharing stipulations so far down in their TOS no person will ever see them and so artists' work gets shared unwittingly. This is absolutely something that legislators need to address in copyright law. I'm not saying they need to outlaw AI, but there needs to be more transparency and oversight. If people want to opt-in, more power to them, but right now the law is lagging behind the technology.

But my original comment wasn't really about the law, it was about artists supporting artists. I don't know how to make you understand that you should care about other people. AI is "disruptive" in the sense that art costs money and lots of people and companies would rather use free/cheap AI images and video than pay an actual artist for their work. You guys keep talking about "fighting technology" but this isn't about the technology. The technology isn't particularly novel and it can't do anything without ingesting work done by actual humans. I would simply suggest that tech companies not be allowed to incorporate artists' work into their algorithms unless those artists explicitly give permission for it, and creators should refuse to use any AI that steals from other artists.

Think of it this way. It's hard to fly a drone at Big Sur (apparently, I've never tried). But some enterprising pilot or artist goes through all the tedious steps and invests their time and effort into get permission to do it. They then take the time to fly their drone, edit their footage, and post it to various sites to showcase their work and maybe attract clients and also to sell the footage as stock footage. Then OpenAI comes along and ingests that video, so now instead of paying that pilot for the art they've produced, for-profit companies can just type in a prompt and get an AI-generated version of that Big Sur drone footage to put in their ads or movie or whatever. The only thing that's being disrupted here is the income of the original pilot who did all that work is now much less likely to be paid for it. I suppose that all disruptive technologies disrupt worker incomes because it diminishes the need for their labor, but a lot of generative AI technology exploits artists because it still needs their labor even as it cuts them out of the process.

No worries, sounds like you are ready to submit a brief as a "friend-of-the-court" to help them make their decision on the impending legal battle that will ensue. Good luck with that, these and similar arguments have been waged countless times over and over and ultimately, there's just no way to stop it. Those points and positions you put forth have already been adjudicated and will ultimately turn out to ineffective; you may slow it down but nothing is going to stand in the way. But I do agree with you the laws have not kept up but as you already know, I'm not a big fan of government passing laws trying to control every details of our lives. I think we already know how this is going to turn out...

 

[wco81]

I would think an AI-created drone video would be based on having ingested thousands or millions of real drone videos or videos shot from helicopters to synthesize a request.

So drone pilots who film and upload their videos online may be contributing to future Deep Fake drone videos.

Then you don't have to worry about drone laws or even traveling to some fantastic locations to film videos. Don't go to Iceland, with its high costs and harsh conditions. Tell AI to make you a drone video shot at the Iceland locations you specify.

Or, have it make a video of a flyby over the stadium in which the last Super Bowl was played. And show the game going on with fans cheering as the shots replicate flying over a huge event.

We wouldn't be allowed to fly anywhere near the Super Bowl, or even any sporting event. But we could "create" it or have AI make it for you.

 

[mavic3usa]

I would think an AI-created drone video would be based on having ingested thousands or millions of real drone videos or videos shot from helicopters to synthesize a request.

So drone pilots who film and upload their videos online may be contributing to future Deep Fake drone videos.

Then you don't have to worry about drone laws or even traveling to some fantastic locations to film videos. Don't go to Iceland, with its high costs and harsh conditions. Tell AI to make you a drone video shot at the Iceland locations you specify.

Or, have it make a video of a flyby over the stadium in which the last Super Bowl was played. And show the game going on with fans cheering as the shots replicate flying over a huge event.

We wouldn't be allowed to fly anywhere near the Super Bowl, or even any sporting event. But we could "create" it or have AI make it for you.

That's not AI. That's Hollywood magic been doing that for decades. You don't have to go to moon to shoot a movie on the moon.

 

[wco81]

That's not AI. That's Hollywood magic been doing that for decades. You don't have to go to moon to shoot a movie on the moon.

The end product may be similar but the method to achieve it is different.

AI would do it faster and cheaper, no server farms of CGI, just manipulate the pixels directly.

In fact OpenAI is marketing Sora to Hollywood.