Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sora Update #1

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 191 posts

Re: Sora Update #1

#121

Post by mallowdram »

reorder9695 wrote: post #91
martin-t wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people who spend time working on code or art should have exactly zero protection against somebody else just taking their work and using it to make money?

No, but the current system is totally idiotic. Why not have a fixed timeframe i.e. 30-50 years to make money? Life of the author + x years is stupid not only because it's way too long, it keeps going until way after the creator is no longer benefitting, and it can cause issues with works where you don't know who the author is so you can't cleanly say it's old enough not to have copyright. I'm not sure for most (speci…

The shareholder class would demand rapid fire exploitation of © the moment it expired and the resulting media would be a soup of mediocrity. The idea is to recognize the highly creative have unique imaginations that invent paradigms that propel culture. Excluding that for 70+ years generates that. Had Lucas gained the rights to Flash Gordon (DeLaurentiis beat him to it) he'd never been forced to create the SW universe. Think about constraints as the path to progress.

Re: Sora Update #1

#122

Post by basisword »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #93
solid_fuel wrote: post #43

I don't understand some parts of this, the writing doesn't seem to flow logically from one thought to another. > Second, we are going to have to somehow make money for video generation. People are generating much more than we expected per user, and a lot of videos are being generated for very small audiences. > We are going to try sharing some of this revenue with rightsholders who want their characters generated by…

I don't get the confusion. He's saying that (i) they will need to start charging money per generation (ii) they will share some of this money with rightsholders

They will share the money with the rights holders large enough to sue them. Fuck the rest. Just as they’ve done with training material for ChatGPT.

Re: Sora Update #1

#123

Post by [deleted] »

measurablefunc wrote: post #73
HypomaniaMan wrote: post #71

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be

The logic is that if they don't do it then Meta or some other company will & they have decided it's better that they do it b/c they are the better, more righteous, & moral people. But the main issue is I don't understand how they went from solving general intelligence to becoming an ad sponsored synthetic media company without anyone noticing.

[deleted]

Re: Sora Update #1

#124

Post by nickthegreek »

qlm wrote: post #117
mlrtime wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree, it is content. The Japanese anime (referenced) is specifically made to be marketed and sold.

The involvement of money does not preclude a work from being considered art. Your claim is cynical and ahistorical.

it also doesn’t preclude it from being content.

Re: Sora Update #1

#125

Post by nickthegreek »

melvinmelih wrote: post #94
solid_fuel wrote: post #43

I don't understand some parts of this, the writing doesn't seem to flow logically from one thought to another. > Second, we are going to have to somehow make money for video generation. People are generating much more than we expected per user, and a lot of videos are being generated for very small audiences. > We are going to try sharing some of this revenue with rightsholders who want their characters generated by…

> After all, it's not like they could possibly identify every single living person and tie them to their likeness. Wasn’t he literally scanning eye balls a couple years ago?

the scanning continues.

Re: Sora Update #1

#126

Post by nickthegreek »

g42gregory wrote: post #32

It is already illegal to use images in somebody's likeness for commercial purposes or purposes that harm their reputation, could be confusing, etc... Basically the only times you could use these images are for some parodies, for public figures, and fair use. Now, the OpenAI will be lecturing their own users, while expecting them to make them rich. I suspect, the users will find it insulting. Generation for personal u…

you can use the images to harm someone’s reputation legally as long as you don’t represent them as real.

Re: Sora Update #1

#127

Post by estearum »

mlrtime wrote: post #116
danhau wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word content. Art would have been the appropriate term.

Disagree, it is content. The Japanese anime (referenced) is specifically made to be marketed and sold.

Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold.

Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.

Re: Sora Update #1

#128

Post by estearum »

nickthegreek wrote: post #124
qlm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The involvement of money does not preclude a work from being considered art. Your claim is cynical and ahistorical.

it also doesn’t preclude it from being content.

I don't think any supposes it does. They're arguing that the word choice implies something about the speaker's value system and the place that art or human culture has in it.

Re: Sora Update #1

#129

Post by idiotsecant »

krapp wrote: post #110
sph wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until they coopt the word "art" to include AI-generated slop. I dread the future discussion tarpits about whether AI creations can be considered art.

My person in deity that future has been here for a while now. Not only do they consider it art, they call what you and I consider art "humanslop" and consider it inferior to AI.

This sounds a lot like boomers complaining about kitty litter instead of bathrooms in elementary school

It's easy to get too chronically online and focus on some tiny weird thing you saw when in fact it's just a tiny weird thing

Re: Sora Update #1

#130

Post by qlm »

nickthegreek wrote: post #124
qlm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The involvement of money does not preclude a work from being considered art. Your claim is cynical and ahistorical.

it also doesn’t preclude it from being content.

Well, yes, but I didn’t really think that needed to be said.
Post reply on HN