501–510 of 520 posts
Congrats Disney. You just sold out every actual animator you pretended to care about. Sure, go ahead and downvote me.
Im just a consooomer and upvoting you. Nobody wants more slop...
AI has driven the corporate suites of these companies insane. > As part of the agreement, Disney will make a $1 billion equity investment in OpenAI, and receive warrants to purchase additional equity. I don't know what kind of hypnosis tricks Sam Altman pulls on these people but the fact that Disney is giving money to OpenAI as part of a deal to give over the rights to its characters is absolutely baffling. OpenAI an…
If OpenAI has exclusive rights to AI generation for Disney and other IP rights holders, that would create the kind of moat they've been missing so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"there were certain historical characters removed from Sora 2 because people kept making racist videos that are hard to censor, and it became increasingly unhinged" Also Google "Elsagate" to see what sorts of things people would like to do with Disney characters. Or a YouTube search for Elsagate. The other thing I'd point out is that people kind of seem to forget this, but it isn't a requirement that AI video be gene…
> Also Google "Elsagate" to see what sorts of things people would like to do with Disney characters. Or a YouTube search for Elsagate.... Elsagate shows the level of effort that people are willing to put into this (a strange combination of laziness, but extreme effort poured into enabling that laziness). I still wonder what motivates the people behind that sort of thing. It'd be easy to understand if it were just por…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney is actually paying $1B so it makes no sense. OpenAI gets the IP plus $1B.
Disney gets to invest $1B pre-IPO, in what might become an even more valuable company (or crash and burn, we'll see).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I became a parent I was really surprised at how much crap Disney puts out. My previous exposure had just been their blockbuster movies which showed a close attention to detail. But you scratch under the surface and it's an endless pile of awful quality clothing, crappy lunchboxes, that kind of thing. To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone. And to say…
Krusty the clown was a parody of Disney and the simpsons authors nailed it. [1] Disney has basically always been like this. Overpriced goods powered by the brand alone. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dsy16hhOI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair to Walt Disney, he cared about a lot beyond profit and believed in advancing technology and society in a way modern corporate leaders absolutely do not. He was no saint but he's a far cry from modern CEO's.
I think that, given the times , we might rate him a little bit above "no saint". Perhaps slightly below or at par with the norms of his time, which we could now look back on as the peak of some rather nasty tendencies in society. https://www.vulture.com/2013/12/walt-disney-anti-semitism-ra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI will in a few years generate entire movies, including Star Wars ones. I can see at least one remake of A New Hope coming in the next years with all the original cast after their characteristics are licensed for use with AI. The huge amount of money saved makes just impossible for the studios to ignore the technology.
> The huge amount of money saved makes just impossible for the studios to ignore the technology. It will be interesting to see the knock-on reaction to the quality of the output vs the money saved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are clearly plenty of people who feel the same way as you, and for those people what I’m about to ask might have such an obvious answer that it could feel like I’m being rhetorical or feigning ignorance to provoke an emotional response, but it’s truly honest: Why should Disney care? To which you might say “because people care”, so: Why should people care? Back when I was a spud I used futuristic text-to-speech…
People care because it's entirely unconscious. Even if you choose not to care, you can't, because you've already seen it. The way advertisement works is that it's brain hacking - it's just associations. Over time your brain associates a brand with a product or products, and then simply by having this association in your brain you're more likely to buy the product. This also works for negative advertisement. Think abo…
Kids making their computers say profane things about famous people or even making crude jokes at the expense of the disabled themselves created “negative associations” with the technology, and potentially with the companies producing it (if the effect is somehow unaffected by context), but the developers did not restrict access and blind people gained a tool that fundamentally altered their ability to navigate the world.
Now? Parents of a terminally ill child who cannot afford a trip could place their daughter in a photo with Elsa. Therapists working with autistic children who connect only with specific Disney characters could generate personalized social stories and visual supports. Teachers in underfunded schools could create engaging materials without licensing fees. Placing a real person alongside Mickey Mouse, or just making a Disney character give a thumbs up and “Happy Birthday, Billy”, required Disney's permission, professional artistic skill, and significant money. That gatekeeping is dissolving and I can’t imagine the positive impact it could have in people’s lives…apparently assuming Billy doesn’t get access to the prompt input first and ruin it for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But for professionals who use these to solve complex problems and need correctness above all? Is that the same thing as making bootleg graphics involving Disney characters?
No? What kind of unrelated "gotcha" is this?