161–170 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word content. Art would have been the appropriate term.
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.
> launch new sora update > enable generating ghibli content since users are ADDICTED to that style > willingly ignore the fact that the people who own this content don't want this > wait a few days > "ooooh we're so sorry for letting these users generate copyrighted content" > disables it via some dumb ahh prompt detection algorithm > dumb down the model and features even more > add expensive pricing > wait a few mon…
copyright is such a poorly designed tax on our society and culture. innovations like Sora should be possible, but faces huge headwinds because... Disney wants even more money? the blind greed of copyright companies disgusts me
Saying 'disney/laws bad because I want billionaire corporation to have access to something they know they don't but built their business model around using anyway.' isn't saying anything but 'I want what I want'.
If anything society should take this slow and do it right, not throw out hundreds of years of thinking/decisions/progress because 'disney' and 'cool new tech'.
We should not bend/throw away laws because billion dollar industry chose to build a new business model around ignoring them. Down that path lies dystopia.
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…
> the writing doesn't seem to flow logically from one thought to another. Neither has most of the stuff Sam has said since basically the moment he started talking. It is possible, perhaps, that he is actually a very stupid person!
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
It has left me wondering if, instead of just charging users, they would start charging "rightsholders" for IP protection. I could see a system where e.g. Disney pays OpenAI $1 million up front to train in recognition of Mickey Mouse, and then receives a revenue share back from users who generate videos containing Mickey Mouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. If you read between the lines that’s clearly it. And on that note can I add how much I truly despise sentences like this: > We are hearing from a lot of rightsholders who are very excited for this new kind of "interactive fan fiction" and think this new kind of engagement will accrue a lot of value to them, but want the ability to specify how their characters can be used (including not at all). To me this sen…
You may not like their message, but the style can be found in practically any public communication from any corporation. Read a layoff announcement from Novo Nordisk as an example [1]. No difference. This is what I don’t like about HN, manufactured outrage when one dislikes the messenger. No substance whatsoever. When users are given such a powerful tool like Sora, there will naturally be conflicts. If one makes a vi…
In addition, the training process attempts to reproduce the copyrighted training data as perfectly as possible, with the intent to rent the resulting model out for commercial gain afterwards. Many argue that this is not fair use, but another instance of copyright infringement.
And if the previous infractions weren't enough, OpenAI's customers are now generating mass videos of copyrighted characters.
So, while it may be common corporate speak, it is still snake-tongued weasel-blather that downplays the illegality of their actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume "by virtue of you seeing it" includes other conditions or I don't understand how you can claim such a thing.
Where exactly have you seen art that wasn’t made to be sold? Be specific.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Current limit seems to be 100 per rolling 24 hour period, so not unlimited but definitely huge given the compute costs.
Setting the limit that high for a soft launch is bizarre. I got access to Sora and got the gist of it with like 10 generations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where exactly have you seen art that wasn’t made to be sold? Be specific.
Friends, family, coworkers, my own, random posts online, everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you mind explaining? As a non native English speaker I may have missed some nuance.
The word “content” is often perceived as devaluing creative work: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/movies/emma-thompson-writ... Paradoxically, it signals indifference or disregard about the actual contents of a work.
> I absolutely cannot fucking stand creative work being referred to as "content". "Content" is how you refer to the stuff on a website when you're designing the layout and don't know what actually goes on the page yet. "Content" is how you refer to the collection of odds and ends in your car's trunk. "Content" is what marketers call the stuff that goes around the ads.