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

181–190 of 191 posts

Re: Sora Update #1

#181

Post by ronsor »

martin-t wrote: post #159
1gn15 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. (The "takers" also do not have copyright protection.)

So basically the only winners should be: - owners of large platforms who don't care what "content"[0] is successful or if creators get rewarded, as long as there is content to show between ads - large corporations who can afford to protect their content with DRM Is that correct? Do you expect it to play out differently? Game it out in your head. [0]: https://eev.ee/blog/2025/07/03/the-rise-of-whatever/#:~:text...

The vast majority of DRM is cracked very quickly; the only reason DRM cracking tools aren't more widespread is because of copyright law and the idiotic anti-circumvention provisions.

Consider that even DRM'd content is on torrent sites within hours of release.

Re: Sora Update #1

#182

Post by ineedasername »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #87
timschmidt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Though the smarter these things get, and the more layers of additional LLMs on top playing copyright police that there are, I do expect it to get more challenging. My comment was intended more to point out that copyright cartels are a competitive liability for AI corps based in "the west". Groups who can train models on all available culture without limitation will produce more capable models with less fr…

It's a matter of time. I imagine they'll get more effect suppressing activations of specific concepts within the LLM, possibly in real time. I.e. instead of filtering prompt for "Mickie Mouse" analogies, or unlearning the concept, or even checking the output before passing it to user, they could monitor the network for specific activation patterns and clamp them during inference.

They might, but we may also find they don’t function as well or as predictably if increasing amounts of their weights are suppressed. Research has so far shown that knowledge is incredibly, vastly diffuse, as are causes of different behaviors. There was some research that came out of Anthropic where a model being taught number sequences by another model, and that second model had fine tuning which with a stated preference for owls. The student model, despite no overt exposure to anything of the sort, expressed the same preference. The subtlety of influence that even very minor things have on the vast network of weights is, at least at present, too poorly understood to know what we’re getting in the bargain when holes are poked.

Re: Sora Update #1

#183

Post by Ianjit »

rsynnott wrote: post #89
noduerme wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a good point. They may well as admit at this point that curing cancer, new physics, and AGI aren't going to happen very soon. What surprises me a bit is that they'd take this TikTok route, rather than selling Sora as a very expensive storyboarding tool to film/tv studios, producers, etc. Why package it as an app for your neice to make viral videos that's bound to lose money with every click? Just sell it for…

> What surprises me a bit is that they'd take this TikTok route, rather than selling Sora as a very expensive storyboarding tool to film/tv studios, producers, etc. Because it’s not good enough, I would assume. Hard to see it actually being useful in this role.

The TAM for TV/Film storyboard is probably way too small to justify the cost of training and infering these models.

Re: Sora Update #1

#185

Post by ricardobeat »

estearum wrote: post #158
WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.

... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe. Here, I'll restate it: > 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.

Which is why the original comment you replied to characterized it as content and not art. But this has gone pretty much full circle already.

Re: Sora Update #1

#186

Post by Sateeshm »

pants2 wrote: post #55
stogot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And replace rightsholders with “maybe we will try to revenue share… maybe”

They also said at one point they'll share their profits with the world as UBI

What profits if no one has a job to pay for it

Re: Sora Update #1

#187

Post by estearum »

ricardobeat wrote: post #185
estearum wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe. Here, I'll restate it: > 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.

Which is why the original comment you replied to characterized it as content and not art . But this has gone pretty much full circle already.

So apparently:

The Sistine Chapel: Content, not art

The Mona Lisa: Content, not art

The Guggenheim: Content, not art

David: Content, not art

Geurnica: Content, not art

Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67: Content, not art

I understand why the original comment said it, and my response is a simple explanation as to why the original comment was very obviously incorrect.

Re: Sora Update #1

#188

Post by spongebobstoes »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #162
spongebobstoes wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Society has benefited hugely from copyright law. In fact, the first copyright laws were created in response to desires to have education material/a better educated society. 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 th…

Only since 1979 has copyright been longer than life.

Copyright stifles cultural evolution and suppresses creative expression by preventing ordinary people from subverting, reinterpreting, and otherwise reusing cultural icons.

The original 28 years of copyright would be enough for everyone from small artists to Disney to see massive ROI on works of art.

Art from 1998 is irrelevant or has already made the creator rich, so it's clear that even 28 years is an overshot.

Refusal to share when it costs nothing is simply greed. Let the people create and innovate. Let our culture evolve.

Re: Sora Update #1

#189

Post by thunderfork »

estearum wrote: post #179
Kiro wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happens quite often, yes. They are concept artists and designers but they share their own stuff. And just now I opened up Discord and skimmed through some art, pixel art and drawings channels in the many servers I'm in and saw a lot of art that I doubt anyone is trying to sell. People just love to share their creations.

Yes if you are friends with and deeply networked with professional artists and designers, you'll see a lot more hobby art. Most people are not friends with even one (never mind several) professional artists though. This scenario is irrelevant to my main thesis anyway, which is that people principally do not develop artistry to the levels required for strangers to care about it without doing so as a professional pursu…

[dead]

Re: Sora Update #1

#190

Post by array_key_first »

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…

If you change it to 30-50 years then nothing changes for Sora.

Most of the (obviously infringing) video I've seen is stuff well within the past 30-50 years.

Also, no copyright doesn't mean information free for all.

I still can't generate a fake video, pretend it's real, and then claim you're a criminal or you eat babies or something. Because that's libel.

Why do we have libel laws? Because the alternative is that you piss off Walmart or something and then they go and tell all employers that you're a pedophile and then you starve to death, with the cherry on top of having a tainted legacy. So we definitely need the libel laws.

But that's a problem. The whole premise of Sora is that it generates fake video with the intention of making it as real as possible.

No matter how you cut it, Sora's business model, and moral model, is on shakey grounds.

Post reply on HN