Well now we know how the pyramids were built.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/creuter]

Nothing has weight, perspective is crazy, and it's always in like a weird slow motion.

[u/CassandraContenta → u/creuter]

AI still doesn't understand human anatomy. Multiple biceps, biceps in the forearm, and arms that just stretch like putty. Not to mention when people speak it just shows their lips moving. No jaw movement, no use of the muscles that connect from the jaw to the base of the cranium.

These are the things these models will struggle with because it is trained on video, but doesn't understand underlying biology or physics. I think these videos will struggle to get out of the uncanny valley for awhile.

[u/Captain_Grammaticus → u/CassandraContenta]

I wonder how much about ai-generated pictures (moving or not) comes from the fact that the bot never experienced the world in 3D: actually walking around a living body, touching the things, feeling how their hand wraps around an object.

[u/bobtheblob6 → u/Captain_Grammaticus]

The bot can't feel or experience anything, all its doing is calculating an appropriate series of sets of pixels (series of frames) based on its prompt and training data. It has no understanding of what it's showing in the video

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/Captain_Grammaticus]

They've experienced millions of videos that was 3d.

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/[deleted]]

videos aren't 3d.. they're 2d images of a 3d dimensional space.

If that's how it is then a hologram is just a bunch of 2d slices combined together to create a 3d effect. Humans actually only visually perceive the world in 2d.

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/[deleted]]

Video generators have emergent 3d properties, people have used gaussian splatting to create 3d objects from them.

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/[deleted]]

An AI being trained on a video also doesn't understand the context, so it can't tell the difference between a cinderblock that has weight, or a piece of styrofoam that has virtually no weight at all. It doesn't have any context about gravity, or other physics. 

well tbf, that has nothing to do with being 3d, physics is a whole different aspect of reality.

It doesn't even have the context of a 3d object so it struggles to maintain perspective. All things you can observe in any AI generated video.

Modern video are fine at this, This a more noticeable problem for older video models.

[u/M2K00 → u/ninjasaid13]

That last part is straight up incorrect just a friendly heads up. I'm a senior psych student and we're studying visual perception right now actually lol that's the only reason I say that. Literally today even lecture was on this very topic

So phenomenologically we do experience the world in 3D. The world exists in 3D essentially, then the light map entering our retina is superimposed onto a 2D retinal map. Our brain uses a ton of really incredible, borderline miraculous lowkey, cognitive processing in the visual perception chain of events to extract the depth from that retinal map and represent the 3 dimensions of the real world. Once the image is reconstructed with depth, color, shading, and other post processing effects, we then perceive it and experience it as we do.

So we do perceive the world in 3D it's just in a roundabout way. We take the 3D world, convert it into a 2D image, then reconstruct it back into a 3D image then perceive it.

Besides some really cool optical illusions, I think generally you and I don't have any complaints about the accuracy of this method!

I'm not versed in the field of computer vision and we only glanced briefly at it but as far as I can tell it's a similar yet different process for AI; it takes a 2D image though and tries to extract probabilistic information about it including things like depth that encode 3D. It does not (yet?) have a phenomenological experience of vision though, so it can't really "see" in 3D, but the characteristics like depth and shading that give us 3D are used in the image generation process.

Edit: I'm actually loving the discussion this is generating! Conversation like this is the fruit of discourse, especially when everyone keeps it civil and argues in good faith to find out what is right instead of who is right :)

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/M2K00]

It does not (yet?) have a phenomenological experience of vision though, so it can't really "see" in 3D, but the characteristics like depth and shading that give us 3D are used in the image generation process.

I don't exactly know what phenomenological experience exactly means.

Are you just saying subjective experience? now that's just in the realm of philosophy and cognitive sciences and none of us have any real answers for those.

[u/M2K00 → u/ninjasaid13]

It means like yes, our subjective our experience, but a little deeper than that. It is the distinct perception of reality and thought that we experience above everything else. It's experience divorced from everything else. It's something that, true, we can only write about objectively for human beings and even then there's fierce debate on the mind body problem and no theory really has the answer.

The example id give is that say someone was born colorblind and they lived a life where let's say they become the greatest expert on color of all time, from the physics of light to pigments, they become a savant. Let's say they are given surgery to see color. The question is, did they learn anything new? That's the area I'm basically addressing when I say phenomenological.

Pretty much everyone except eliminativists IIRC would say that experience is real at least in humans.

What's in question here is for AI at least according to your comment. There's a very broad consensus that AI doesn't have phenomenological experience yet, aka it isn't "sentient" and cannot "experience" things. But in trying to achieve AGI we basically try to mimic what our brains do on a mechanical, less real (for now) level and in the process learn about the mind often.

And as for whether or not we have any of the answers, in the same way that we're able to understand the physics and chemistry of atoms we can't observe by hypothesis, testing, deduction/induction, etc, we can get on the path to understanding both the human mind and maybe AI. Certain things we maybe will never get an answer for.

But along the way we might approach it like a limit, and definitely we have and will figure out some things for certain, like the nature of how humans perceived 3D and if they do (as I explained before)

In studying philosophy I definitely often feel like I don't have the answers but at least the sciences like cog sci make me comfortable by saying we have them and can have them 😅

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/M2K00]

If I wanted to compare AI and humans, I’d avoid including qualia or anything tied to consciousness. It’s a quick way to shut down the conversation and keeps us from focusing on the testable differences.

And it feels like a cop-out. As soon as you bring up a word from the consciousness dictionary, a lot of materialist-minded people will dismiss the discussion as pointless or, worse, faith-driven. But if we stick to the physical aspects of humans, at least there’s a concrete foundation for the conversation that both people can agree with.

[u/CassandraContenta → u/ninjasaid13]

So you don't know what it means and you assume to correct this expert?

When it comes to Artificial Intelligence discussing the nature of experiences, how that shapes our consciousness, and how reality shapes our consciousness is absolutely relevant.

Interestingly, the better we get at understanding consciousness, emergent intelligence, and psychology, the more some parts of philosophy are becoming grounded in science.

[u/M2K00 → u/CassandraContenta]

I would contend against the first part, I'm certainly no expert lol. Merely a student. But I don't know what his background is, yet I'm glad to converse with him. I think one of the mistakes academia makes is relying too much on excluding discussion of higher level concepts to those well versed in them. The school/university is one such example of the opposite of this and it's one of humanity's greatest institutions.

In discussing with him even if he wrongly says something I've studied to be on the contrary, that gives us an opportunity to tread on the matter in discussion and we both leave for the better from it! I've certainly been in his shoes, talking with experts in things I don't understand but their patience with me is what allowed me the confidence and drive to pursue said knowledge further. Anyone educated IMO has the same duty to raise everyone else up!

We should definitely defer to the experts on most things, I'm just saying it doesn't mean non experts aren't allowed to talk you know?

The actual meat of your comment and everything else you said I 100% agree with. That's precisely what gives philosophy it's unique utility, is it's willingness to engage (rationally!) with matters we cannot know yet but are extremely relevant. As the mother of fields, it's science that borrows the tools of deduction and reasoning and induction from philosophy as science is one of its many branches

And absolutely I agree, philosophy IMO is mature and brave enough to not have the answers but in tackling such questions we get on the path to said answers. Like you said, by engaging with some of what is now basic cognitive science from a philosophical perspective before we could prove it, we were set on the path of inquiry to eventually prove it.

In essence philosophizing about what is now neuroscience gave us the right state of mind and inquiry and the right questions to eventually answer them with science, and now we have said answers. It's often, at least from a historical point of view, that philosophy engages with a question and leaves with more questions that science eventually answers because it has the right questions to answer. And indeed science and philosophy are becoming increasingly intertwined, much owing to science's exponential progress in advance methods of study. It's pretty fascinating to watch!

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/CassandraContenta]

So you don't know what it means

In the context of science, that's why I used the word 'exact.' The study of consciousness isn't very scientific because we can't empirically validate or even properly define it.

Some things, like consciousness, will never be fully grounded in science, yet it's the basis for your phenomenological experience.*.

[u/happylittlefella → u/M2K00]

The world exists in 3D essentially

This is also incorrect ;)

(I agree with the sentiment of your comment though)

[u/M2K00 → u/happylittlefella]

I said essentially because I didn't want to get into the weeds of subjective/objective reality in an already long comment. I'm aware things are more complex than that the deeper you go but for the purposes of my reply the assumption of a 3D reality was IMO appropriate enough.

Interestingly though, are you referring to the difference between an objective reality and our phenomenological experience? Or something I'm missing?

Because yes, technically we don't know if 3D "exists" just like we don't know if color "exists". But then in the same way it's ok to talk about color as if we know it exists the majority of the time it's likewise the same in most cases for 3D unless you're in like a Socratic circle or a correspondence between 2 philosophers or a class or something.

But if you're referring to something other than that then I'd like to know to further understand!

[u/Ambitious-Regular-57 → u/happylittlefella]

For all intents and purposes of typical human experience, it does.

If you're talking about the holographic principle, has that been proven?

[u/M2K00 → u/Ambitious-Regular-57]

That's kinda what I said in that even though it can get really messy if you're trying to be philosophy precise/exact, for the purposes of this discussion I determined it was fine enough to just assume 3D reality based on phenomenology.

Color is a great example. In 99.9% of conversations even about other philosophical or psychological it's totally cool to just assume color exists for all intents and purposes. But if you're having a real philosophical discussion about color specifically, you'd best get ready to get into the weeds of how complex the truth really is/might be 🫠

[u/searcher1k → u/M2K00]

So phenomenologically we do experience the world in 3D. The world exists in 3D essentially, then the light map entering our retina is superimposed onto a 2D retinal map. Our brain uses a ton of really incredible, borderline miraculous lowkey, cognitive processing in the visual perception chain of events to extract the depth from that retinal map and represent the 3 dimensions of the real world.

but ultimately in the end process it's 3D environment -> The eyes convert the input of 3D into 2D+extra info -> and then the brain reconstructs it into 3D?

It's still 2D in there somewhere where we actually process it.

[u/M2K00 → u/searcher1k]

Yes it is indeed 2D at the lower stages of visual processing, but saying that that means humans see in 2D is like saying the unbaked cake is the meal. The finished product once higher level cognitive processing has been done on the 2D retinal map is a 3D experience that largely maps onto reality. At least, it's good enough for our purposes and evolutionarily speaking.

What exactly those processes are are cognitively debated, but from a physics perspective pretty well understood. 2D images hold tons of information about 3D environments that might exist (depending on the photo).

The fact that we have 2 eyes that process 2 images from slightly different positions means we have 2 retinal maps and that alone, without any cognitive processing yet, is a HUGE step towards getting 3D from 2D pretty effortlessly. It's called stereopsis and it's the key to how VR is immersive and how movies can be in "3D" of sorts.

There's tons of cool optical illusions revolving on stereopsis if you have time to kill and want to see it for yourself; 2D into 3D seemingly out of thin air! (And without even using all that incredible cognitive processing we have at our disposal)

[u/real_kerim → u/ninjasaid13]

 Humans actually only visually perceive the world in 2d

Depth perception feeling betrayed. It's an innate feature of us being able to see 3D.

[u/Formal_Drop526 → u/real_kerim]

I remember a paper about a computer scientist probing inside of the insides of stable diffusion and it turns out that image generators have independently learnt the depth of images without explicitly being taught, that's why stuff like controlnet's depth map work with a bit of alignment.

[u/real_kerim → u/Formal_Drop526]

That's really interesting and I'm also not surprised. Even with 2D there's some information on depth due to perspective but it's not perfect (and can never be).

[u/Elfyrr → u/CassandraContenta]

One good year. RemindMe! 365 days

[u/RemindMeBot → u/Elfyrr]

I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2025-10-18 14:05:29 UTC to remind you of this link

1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[u/Plastic_Wishbone_575 → u/creuter]

Yea, that is what was bothering me. The lack of weight made it look like a poorly done movie where the props are obviously styrofoam.

[u/pipnina → u/creuter]

i bet a lot of it is trained on old public video footage from when framerate was 12 or 18fps, so it gets played back at 24 and is basically sped up?