As an outsider: sounds like the main value lies in the AI extracting detailed and accurate (but heuristic) metadata from video: audio transcriptions, text, people, environment and objects.
Once that’s there, you can use it for organizing, searching, filtering, or whatever you want. It does not need to be coupled with an LLM-based interface.
ML models for eg face & object recognition have been deployed in both local- and cloud based photo organization for at least a decade. I very much welcome transformers to do a much better job, but I also very much reject the everything-is-a-prompt hammer as a solution to all problems. Especially in deep and professional workflows where details matter.
Derushing in general is the most time consuming, so not only language pattern recognition but also image recognition: "From the rushes, extract all the sequences with bicycle crashes to give me a pile of clips to use in my edit" !
I film a bunch of skateboarding, and it can take tens of tries to land a trick. Similarly, there's usually an unique sound that signals a trick was finally landed.
Good multi-modal search and discovery is a huge part of cracking the editing problem.
Looks like https://kino.ai addresses that derushing stage, but as a specialized tool rather than as a function inside a video editor - which makes a lot of sense to me.
Tens? It sometimes takes my crew hundreds of tries (all on DV tapes).
How far have you been able to come with search for trick variations? It would be interesting to see a system that can reliably recognize what’s switch, nollie vs fakie etc. Then have it generate a list of all tricks for each skater and perhaps outstanding fails. Just some thoughts.
And that’s why I read the comments to see if anyone mentioned it.
To be able to literally take the source files used to put the video together and edit each piece individually would be great.
I wanted to create a car driving down a road covered in arches if greenery. I got lots of great options but I wanted a particular combination of options. If I could do something like that with video, that would be terrific
Not a personal jab, but I am astounded how every day, HN is full of discussion around how articles, newsletters, podcasts, and videos need to be aggregated and summarized for actual consumption. Repeat ad infinitum in both directions.
In my experience, I’ve always listened to live discussions or read long form blog posts, specifically for the story and obscure points being made. Summaries never capture that and always miss nuances.
It's approaching a very strange situation where people make overly wordy and bloated AI generated content and other people try to use AI to compress it back into useful pellets vaguely corresponding to the actual prompts used to generate the initial content. Which were the only bits anybody cared about in the first place.
One guy pays the AI to dig a hole, the other guy pays the AI to fill in the hole. Back and forth they go, raising the BNP but otherwise not accomplishing anything.
I haven't worried about search engines since I was trying to get my site into yahoo, but my understanding is that they rank long flowery prose far higher than things that are straight to the point.
There's then the added "benefit" of being able to put more adverts in such long text.
One of the main appeals of chatgpt is it just gives you the answer
So no different to searching online and finding some random page then. In my experience chatgpt is usually far more accurate, and as it gets right to the point you have far more time to understand if the answer is reasonable
No one searches online for a random page. You search for something you may or may not find. You don’t go in a library looking for Jules Verne and get out with any random book. I can agree that search engines may be bad, but they don’t create web sites out of thin air.
I do that sort of thing all the time. Sure it is nice to walk out with the Verne, but I am quite certain that I'll probably be walking out with several random books, with or without the one I was looking for.
I wanted to know when the clocks went back in the US and UK earlier.
---------
when do clocks go back uk and us
ChatGPT said:
In 2024, clocks go back on Sunday, October 27th in the UK and most of Europe, marking the end of Daylight Saving Time (DST). At 2:00 AM, clocks are set back one hour to 1:00 AM, giving people an extra hour of sleep. This marks the shift back to Standard Time and will last until spring when clocks go forward again.
In the United States, the clocks will go back a bit later, on Sunday, November 3rd, 2024.
---------
Compare to using a search engine to find this out, which involves one search, then clicking another page, then finding out the dates for the UK, then searching for the US, multiple pages, multiple paragraphs of text
First result was the evening standard
---------
What date do clocks go back in 2024 and when does British Summer Time end?
Brits will get an extra hour of sleep from next month as the days get shorter and shorter.
The temperatures are starting to drop, marking the end of summer – even if it’s not going quietly. Nonetheless, autumn is well and truly on the way and that also marks the end of British Summer Time (BST).
For those who aren’t a fan of dark mornings, that means you’ll gain one hour of sleep.
The custom of changing the clocks twice a year has been around in the UK for over a century, taking place once in March and once in October.
There’s still a little while until the clocks change but the date is already known, as it always happens on the last Sunday of October.
In 2019, the European Parliament voted to scrap mandatory daylight saving but Britain has no plans to, err, see the light.
This is what it all means for the UK.
When do the clocks go back?
The clocks go back on Sunday, October 27 at 2am.
---------
All that nonsense to parse and I still haven't got the US date
Because a search engine is not an answer engine. I just type 'daylight saving time uk' and 'daylight saving time us' and the answer was right at the top [0].
You're supposed to give a query, not a question (even though google et al. have worked hard to trick people into that). Which is why search engines works for me even if there are lot of garbage filled sites.
> Because a search engine is not an answer engine.
People have come to expect that though, and until a few years ago Google had actually gotten really good at it, partially because people finally started using structured metadata to give context.
Strange experience. I tried to replicate it by typing "US daylight savings time" into my URL bar and Duck Duck Go's summary blurb at the top of the results says "Daylight Savings Time Ends Sunday, November 3rd, 2024" and the first result is Wikipedia. Without even following it, the summary on the search page says "in the US, daylight savings time begins on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November."
Hacker News commenters seem to consistently have far more trouble searching for things than I do and I don't get it.
It’s clearly different in that ChatGPT sounds authoritative but you still have to track down sources and make sure they’re correctly summarized and accurate. Search doesn’t give you the impression that you’re doing anything else but ChatGPT always sounds authoritative even when it’s wrong, which makes it a hazard for the people who need it the most because they don’t have the personal expertise to recognize when it goes off track.
There’s a key difference to understand: web pages have individual reputation. If I see something about the moon landings on NASA.gov I assign it a different trust level than something I read on youcanthandlethetruth.social, whereas LLM output comes with the imprimatur of the company which made the system. Some LLMs do generate citations but those don’t always exist, come from authoritative sources, or say what they’re listed as saying but users are notoriously prone to not checking unless they’re primed to be suspicious.
Not sure about articles, but people keep recommending multi-hour-long podcasts and videos far beyond the ability of any employed person to keep up with what they might want, so a summary is a useful tool to extract the salient points and possibly consider if something meets the threshold of being better than all the other hour-long things I might want to spend my free hour on.
It sometimes feels like media has bifurcated into hyper-dense (let me explain a whole field of law in a 30 second tiktok) versus hyper-fluffy (documentary with 30 minutes of material spread out into six episodes, with a recap before and after each commercial break), depending on whether the target audience has a job or not.
It’s also changes in market dynamics. Professional podcasters sell ads so they need lots of content, and the pivot to video or podcasters which advertisers drove means that things which a decade ago would have been a blog post taking 15 minutes to read are now an hour or more commitment for the same amount of information.
This is a common complaint here because HN is so text heavy that you’re not going to find many people here who can’t read much faster than the average speaker can present information.
I generally agree with you when it comes to learning-focused content but there are definite cases where using an AI summary makes a lot of sense.
Imagine searching for a guide on how to disassemble your laptop. Unfortunately, you can only find a 30 minute video which is full of rambling, ads or other things irrelevant to you. You can at least in theory use AI to produce a textual summary which contains only the disassembly instructions and relevant snapshots of the video.
All professionals I've ever talked to seem to agree that videos are a terrible form of reference information (i.e. you need information to accomplish a task right now).
The same applies to recipe websites: an AI that can throw all the fluff away is useful considering the annoying habit of the authors to seemingly write about everything but ingredients and the steps necessary to cook the dish.
>All professionals I've ever talked to seem to agree that videos are a terrible form of reference information
It really depends. For most software things, I'd prefer to have written documentation. If it's purely for reference, then yes I agree text is better.
For working on my bicycle or car, often I like watching videos because you pick up on little ways the pros make the jobs easier - for example, the steps might do a poor job of describing the angle and movement of tyre levers, but it's easily understood via video (just an example).
As a result, it can be a much richer experience when you are building skills as opposed to just following a checklist.
I totally agree. What is life living with just summaries?
Podcasts and blog posts fall into "unique value/view/information I am learning" or entertainment "something that feels like a (parasocial) friend - content I can predictably expect and get some dopamine/sense of socialness from".
Summaries for the former remove the eureka moments and brain connections between ideas, replacing them with takeaways, and summaries for the latter are like summarizing a TV episode in text: no entertainment tends to really come from it.
I think it comes from having many messages at work, and I get that. When you have 50-100 messages/documents a day, quick summaries are a lifesaver, they help you filter, avoid, or get to the facts. But for things I select listening to.. for those hours of rest or (scientific) curiosity in my life.. summaries are not a virtue.
(for Parasocial - the feeling is: This person won't update me on their relationship problems, they'll explain a cool thing about castles to me and share their opinion, etc.)
It has a lot to do with the kinds of articles that appear on HN and across the internet. And also, that spending time on something requires being interested in it, and so, there's a larger audience for summaries.
I think, in general, most people have areas of interest to them where it would not occur to them to summarise what they're having fun engaging with.
I don't read much online drivel, but the way I would describe my interest in AI summary/model building, is that I do read a few articles/books deeply, but these refer to many other things that it would be useful to have a general picture of in my mind, but I'm never going to put the manual effort into building that surrounding structure.
E.g. I'm interested in classical art, and come across a lot of "he painted this while he was in $X before he moved to $Y". I'd like information about $X and $Y to be also available, how far apart are they, were they ruled by the same people, etc. But I won't be doing that sort of digging myself, I'd like it to show up next to what I'm reading, because I (will) have an AI reading along and doing this work for me.
Reddit and Google was how I chose which one to go with.
The Broadlinks RM4 minis were pretty cheap on AliExpress. I think I paid about $15 each? Might have to wait for specials to come up to get the lowest price.
"Storage of waste" is also a farce. All of the components of "nuclear waste" are commercially valuable, especially the exotic and hazardous ones. The issue is that we don't reprocess most of the spent fuel for political reasons.
That is not true, stop perpetuating that myth. Most of the nuclear waste by volume is of low level waste (90%) or intermediate level (7%) and only 3% is high level waste i.e. spent fuel. We still have to store the 97% of waste that cannot be reused.
If we're getting real and addressing "myths" then here's a good often ignored hard truth;
Most radioactive waste, by weight and volume, is low to mid level raioactive waste and most of that is 'NORM' and outside the nuclear power industry.
The mining industry also produces large volumes of waste containing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
~ https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/radwaste/Issues92_woollett.pdf
Two examples of large volumes of non nuclear industry radioactive waste are:
When did dang die and who elected you the moderator?
The topic I replied to was nuclear waste (check your very own comment) and it's relevant to nuclear power that dealing with radioactive waste is a persistent issue regardless of whether nuclear power exists or not.
The thread was about nuclear power and the accompanying issue with nuclear waste types. You brought up mining for rare earth and naturally occurring radioactive waste in the process.
I don't see how this relates to nuclear power and it's waste issue.
I'm not responsible for your inability to see a connection, FWiW I do have a few decades in global scale geophysics and environmental background radiation maping, but what would I know.
WRT your self annointed command and control of thread comments, have you read:
defrost, I assume you meant that most mining for rare earth also produces LLW. I don't see any other connection to nuclear power/nuclear waste besides that. So I assume your argument is that nuclear waste is not bad (or equally bad), since rare earth mining is also a source of LLW?
> I'm not responsible for your inability to see a connection ...
> WRT your self annointed command and control of thread comments ...
> When did dang die and who elected you the moderator?
Rare earths are used in the production of solar panels and wind turbines and the associated electronics and storage batteries. The point is that if you're concerned about "low-level waste" then you can't propose these things as an alternative since they generate even more of it.
Low-level waste is basically just ordinary rubbish. You don't have to store it in a mountain for a million years, it will be indistinguishable from background before anybody finishes arguing about what to do with it. A lot of it is indistinguishable from background to begin with but is legally required to be treated differently because of where it came from.
The people who think this is a problem haven't internalized a fact about radioactivity: Half life is the inverse of radioactivity. The more radioactive something is, the less time before it's gone. Anything with a short half life is not a problem because it will be gone soon; anything with a long half life is not a problem because it's about as radioactive as a banana.
> Low-level waste is basically just ordinary rubbish.
Untrue. You are just making nuclear proponents look bad with your broad strokes statements.
Edit: I am sorry if this came out angry. We need to have a good discussion about nuclear power and it's place in the energy mix. It's clearly losing at this point due to the immense costs associated with it (construction, insurance, decommission, etc.), the risks and the long investment horizon. Handwaving away issues or derailing arguments does not help the discussion.
Look we tried to find a solution for LLWs in Germany with cavern style storage repositories in Asse 2 and Morsleben. Due to many reasons, the costs spiraled out of control and we basically had to switch to overground storage and are in the process of repatriation. The reality is that currently storage of LLWs is expensive (see https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13212/low-level-radioactive...). The cost of treatment of LLW is difficult to specify. So far I have seen no reports that would compare treatment to long term storage repositories. Even with incineration the ashes still need to be stored for some time until they can be disposed.
This is just using a different definition of "nuclear waste". What most people mean by this (and are concerned by) is something that is radiologically dangerous and has to be stored for thousands of years, but no such thing exists. There are things that are radiologically dangerous, but they have short half lives and are commercially valuable. Then there are things that "last for thousands of years" (e.g. Pu-239), but Pu-239 is only mildly radioactive and has commercial and government uses as fissile material. In fact, building new reactors is the best way we know of to get rid of it.
What you're referring to ("low-level waste") is this:
> Low-level wastes include paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters, and other materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. Materials that originate from any region of an Active Area are commonly designated as LLW as a precautionary measure even if there is only a remote possibility of being contaminated with radioactive materials. Such LLW typically exhibits no higher radioactivity than one would expect from the same material disposed of in a non-active area, such as a normal office block.
This isn't really "nuclear waste", it's ordinary rubbish that was near radioactive material so people are paranoid about it out of an abundance of caution. And any radioisotopes that are present in it will follow the same rule -- anything with high radioactivity decays quickly. It's no great mystery how to deal with that sort of thing; you store it for a short number of years to let anything with a short half life decay and then you treat it as any other trash.
Not currently, but this is my roadmap. If you would like, I can contact you as soon as it is implemented, just email me at contact@autoeditor.video and I'll let you know.
For example “find all the interview sections where people are talking about x and make a sequence”.
OpusClip claims to have this but it’s behind a waitlist.