9 ms·
Sora Update #1
- minimaxir 1y agoYeah, Nintendo called, and faster than expected. > People are generating much more than we expected per user, and a lot of videos are being generated for very small audiences. What did OpenAI expect, really? They imposed no meaningful generation limits and and "very small audiences" is literally the point of an invite-only program.
- Jordan-117 1y agoCurrent limit seems to be 100 per rolling 24 hour period, so not unlimited but definitely huge given the compute costs.
- minimaxir 1y agoSetting 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.
- angulardragon03 1y agoGotta juice the utilisation numbers somehow. Limiting everyone to 10 per day would kneecap them, and they’d have nothing with which to attract new investors to keep the gravy train going
- mdrzn 1y agoIt has already been lowered to 30 per 24 hour period, and maximum 3 concurrent generations instead of 5.
- techblueberry 1y agoI don’t understand, what do they mean very small audiences, am I not supposed to make video for myself?
- minimaxir 1y agoOpenAI likely intended users to post every video they make to the public feed instead of just using the app as a free video generator. (i.e. Midjourney) Of course, another reason that people don’t publish their generated videos is because they are bad. I may or may not be speaking from experience.
- dgs_sgd 1y agoCan confirm.. I got access to the app yesterday and I have used it exclusively for making drafts and sending them to my friends without posting.
- mrcwinn 1y ago100%. I’m not comfortable sharing likeness of myself publicly. I send goofy stuff to friends. That was day 1, at least. Day 2+ I haven’t used the app again.
- notatoad 1y agomy read: they made the app look like tiktok, and were expecting people to make tiktok style viral videos. instead, what people are making is cameo-style personalized messages for their friends, starring mario.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- CPLX 1y agoIndeed. 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 sentence sums up a certain kind of passive aggressive California, Silicon Valley, sociopathic way of communicating with people that just makes my skin crawl. It’s sort of a conceptual cousin to concepts like banning someone from a service without even telling them or using words like “sunset” instead of “cancel” and so on. What that sentence actually fucking means is that a lot of powerful people with valuable creative works contacted them with lawyers telling them to knock this the fuck off. Which they thought was appropriate to put in parentheses at the end as if it wasn’t the main point.
- adriand 1y ago> To me this sentence sums up a certain kind of passive aggressive California, Silicon Valley, sociopathic way of communicating with people that just makes my skin crawl. To me that's Sam Altman in a nutshell. I remember listening to an extended interview with him and I felt creeped out by the end of it. The film Mountainhead does a great job capturing this.
- lelandfe 1y agoWow, I am sure excited for your new kind of interactive fan fiction of my properties. It will accrue us a lot of value! Anyway, please do not use our properties.
- vntok 1y agoNice but there's no need for the "please": it's not a request, it's a demand from an official lawyer-penned, strongly-worded, lawsuit actionable letter.
- martin-t 1y agoIt feels like big exploitative multimedia companies are the main force fighting big exploitative ML companies over copyright of art. I wish big exploitative tech companies would fight them over copyright of code but almost all big exploitative tech companies are also big exploitative ML companies. Oracle to the rescue? What a sick, sad world.
- minimaxir 1y agoUpdate after more testing: looks like every popular video game prompt (even those not owned by Nintendo) triggers a Content Warning, and prompting "Italian video game plumber" didn't work either. Even indie games like Slay the Spire and Undertale got rejected. The only one that didn't trigger a "similarity to third party content" Content Violation was Cyberpunk 2077. Even content like Spongebob and Rick and Morty is now being rejected after having flooded the feeds.
- mallowdram 1y agoI see a movie: The MoTrix, copyright blasting Soraddicts invent a new prompting language (or discover the one Altman seeded) as a way of evading Agents of the Entity, a © deity/program. Once unleashed, the world descends into HeroClix and ReadyPlayerOne slop simulation where original becomes indistinguishable from stolen.
- ojosilva 1y agoAnd I don't think you can revenue share these generations with rights owners just like that. What rights owner will let their "product" be depicted in any imaginable situation by any prompt by anyone in the planet? Words are powerful and images a 1000 words worth, videos are a millionth fold... I've seen a quick Sora video from OpenAI themselves I believe of the real life Mario Bros Princess, a rather voluptuous one, playing herself on a console and the image stuck. And it's not just misuse, distortion or appropriation but also association: imagine a series of very viral videos of Pikachu drinking Coke or a fan series of Goku with friends at KFC... it could condition, or steal, future marketing deals for the rights holders. This is a non-starter, unless you own a "license to AI" from the rights owner directly, such as an ad agency that uses Sora to generate an ad it was hired to do.
- geraldalewis 1y ago> rightsholders
- roxolotl 1y agoIt’s telling to how society values copyright of different media that 4 years into people yelling about these being copyright violation machines the first time there’s been an emergency copyright update has been with video.
- musicale 1y ago"Hi, as the company that bragged about how we had ripped off Studio Ghibli, and encouraged you to make as many still frames as possible, we would now like to say that you are making too many fake Disney films and we want you to stop."
- timschmidt 1y agoCue an open weights model from Qwen or DeepSeek with none of these limitations.
- ineedasername 1y agoThese attempted limitations tend to be very brittle when the material isn’t excised from the training data, even more so when it’s visual rather than just text. It becomes very much like that board game Taboo where the goal is to get people to guess a word without saying a few other highly related words or synonyms. For example, I had no problem getting the desired results when I promoted Sora for “A street level view of that magical castle in a Florida amusement area, crowds of people walking and a monorail going by on tracks overhead.” Hint: it wasn’t Universal Studios, and unless you know the place by blind sight you’d think it had been the mouse’s own place. On pure image generation, I forget which model, one derived from stable diffusion though, there was clearly a trained unweighting of Mickey Mouse such that you couldn’t get him to appear by name, but go at it a little sideways? Even just “Minnie Mouse and her partner”? Poof- guardrails down. If you have a solid intuition of the term “dog whistling” and how it’s done, it all becomes trivial.
- kg 1y agoThe detail that rightsholders seem to be demanding a revenue share is interesting. That sounds administratively and technologically very complex to implement and probably also just plain expensive to implement.
- minimaxir 1y agoSam says Sora 2 has to make money but there is no revenue model that can feasibly offset a $4-5 compute cost per video.
- nojs 1y agoWhere did you get that figure from?
- minimaxir 1y agoIt’s more a ballpark since exact numbers vary and OpenAI could be employing shenanigans to cut costs, but in comparison, Veo 3 which has similar quality 720p video costs $0.40/second for the user, and Sora’s videos are 10 seconds each. Although Veo 3 could cost more or less to Google than what is charged to the user. I suspect OpenAI’s costs to be higher if anything since Google’s infra is more cost-efficient.
- majewsky 1y agoSora 1 is slightly more expensive than Veo 3, at $0.50/second: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/cognitive-services/openai-service/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/cognitive-... (select "US East 2" as region; not all regions have Sora). Though again, caveat: Those are API prices. The real prices could be both lower (if there is a profit margin) or higher (if they are subsidized).
- nvr219 1y agoIt was revealed to them in a dream.
- 1y ago
- rr808 1y agoThat is my reminder to generate more AI slop to burn through all that VC cash.
- rhetocj23 1y agoSomeone I know uses chatgpt a lot. Not because they find it incredibly valuable. But because they want to stick it to the VC's funding OAI and increase their costs with no revenue. So this is why you have to be careful about usage numbers. The only true meaningful number is about those who are contributing towards revenue. Without that OAI is just a giant money sink.
- MountDoom 1y agoI suspect this has the opposite effect. More daily users == higher valuation, so more profit if the VCs decide to sell. There's no pressure on OpenAI to become profitable yet.
- jameslk 1y agoViacom-suing-YouTube-after-it-used-all-its-IP-as-a-growth-hack vibes
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nextworddev 1y agoLol blast from the past. Real Gs remember this.
- piskov 1y agoBroke: cure cancer, new physics, agi, take your jobs, what have you. Please give us a trillion. Woke: AI slop tictoc to waste millions of human-hours.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- eclipticplane 1y ago> AI slop tictoc to waste millions of human-hours. Don't forget the power it consumes from an already overloaded grid [while actively turning off new renewable power sources], the fresh water data centers consume for cooling, and the noise pollution forced on low-income residents.
- amarcheschi 1y agoAs a european, i don't know if it's more funny or sad that american citizens close tho data centers are effectively subsidizing ai for the rest of the world by paying more for their electricity since the datacenters are mostly there
- noduerme 1y agoYou 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 $50k/hr of video to someone with deep pockets. Is it just a publicity stunt?
- measurablefunc 1y agoThe query data they are collecting can be used for ad targeting. Remember, if you're not paying for it (and in many cases even when you are paying for it) then the data collected from your use of the application is going to be used by someone to make money one way or another. Google made billions from search queries & OpenAI has an even better query/profiling perspective on its users b/c they are providing all sorts of different modalities for interaction, that data is extremely valuable, analogous to how Google search queries (along w/ data from their other products) are extremely valuable to corporate marketing departments that are willing to pay a premium for access to Google's targeting algorithms.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tkamado 1y agoThe OpenAI dream: replace your job with AI, replace your free time with AI slop?
- CompoundEyes 1y agoI don't have access but it seems you can impose a friend into a video? Are we not rightsholders to our own likeness? It seems like a person should be able to block a video someone shares without their consent or earn revenue then if their likeness is used.
- minimaxir 1y agoYou have to explicitly opt into sharing your likeness with permission controls. > person should be able to block a video someone shares without their consent That is already implemented.
- solid_fuel 1y ago> You have to explicitly opt into sharing your likeness with permission controls. Ok... how is that supposed to work? I don't have an OpenAI account, there are no permission controls for me. Someone else could easily upload a picture of me, no?
- pants2 1y agoNo, you have to register yourself with a video where you're required to say a unique code. So unless you've posted a video of yourself online saying every number from 1 to 99 they won't be able to copy your likeness
- noduerme 1y agoSo only the heads of companies who lead shareholder meetings are vulnerable to this exploit? Cool.
- solid_fuel 1y agoThat's more than I expected from them, genuinely. But it still doesn't seem like a very solid solution. I wonder how much variation in look and voice it accepts? My partner likes to cosplay, and some of the costumes are quite extensive. If they want to generate a video in a specific outfit will they need to record a new source video? The problem exists in the other direction, too. If someone looks a lot like Harrison Ford, will they be able to create videos with their own likeness? I wonder how this extends to videos with multiple people, as well. E.g. if both my friend and I want to be in a video together.
- crimsoneer 1y agoSo that sounds like they "released" this fully aware it would generate loads of hype, but never ever be legally feasible to release at scale, so we can expect some heavily cut down version to eventually become publicly released?
- nmfisher 1y agoFeels very much like a knee-jerk response to Facebook releasing their "Vibes" app the week before. It's basically the same thing, OpenAI are probably willing to light a pile of money on fire to take the wind out of their sails. I also don't think the "Sam Altman" videos were authentic/organic at all, smells much more like a coordinated astroturfing campaign.
- ares623 1y agoOr to distract from the new routing and intent/context detection thing they have going on.
- g42gregory 1y agoIt 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 use is not illegal, as far as I know.
- camillomiller 1y ago[flagged]
- nickthegreek 1y agoyou can use the images to harm someone’s reputation legally as long as you don’t represent them as real.
- _fs 1y agois it still invite only? I tried downloading the app to give it a whirl, but apparently you need a code to even open the app
- mallowdram 1y agoIt began as floor wax now it's a dessert topping.
- solid_fuel 1y agoI 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 users. > The exact model will take some trial and error to figure out, but we plan to start very soon. Our hope is that the new kind of engagement is even more valuable than the revenue share, but of course we we want both to be valuable. The first part of this paragraph implies that the video generation service is more expensive than they expected, because users are generating more videos than they expected and sharing them less. The next sentence then references sharing revenue with "rightsholders"? What revenue? The first part makes it sound like there's very little left over after paying for inference. Secondly, to make a prediction about the future business model - it sounds like large companies (disney, nintendo, etc) will be able to enter revenue sharing agreements with OpenAI where users pay extra to use specific brand characters in their generated videos, and some of that licensing cost will be returned to the "rightsholders". But I bet everyone else - you, me, small youtube celebrities - will be left out in the cold with no controls over their likeness. After all, it's not like they could possibly identify every single living person and tie them to their likeness.
- cg505 1y ago1. They need to charge users for generation. 2. They might get into trouble charging users to generate some other entity's IP, so they may revenue-share with the IP owner. They're probably still losing money even if they charge for video generation, but recouping some of that cost, even if they revshare, is better than nothing.
- earthnail 1y agoYou got the last paragraph wrong. They need to negotiate with rights holders on the revenue split. They’re hoping that the virality aspect will be more important to rights holders than money alone, but they will of course also give money to rights holders. Or, in other words: here’s Sam Altman saying to Disney “you should actually be grateful if people generate tons of videos with Disney characters because it puts them front and center again.”, but then he acknowledges that OpenAI also benefits from it and therefore should pay Disney something. But this will be his argument when negotiating for a lower revenue share, and if his theory holds, then brands that don’t enter into a revenue share with OpenAI because they don’t like the deal terms may lose out on even more money and attention that they would get via Sora.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- brandon272 1y agoObviously, OpenAI could have had copyright restrictions in place from the get-go with this, but instead made an intentional decision to allow people to generate everything ranging from Spongebob videos to Michael Jackson videos to South Park videos. Today, Sora users on reddit are pretty much beside themselves because of newly enabled content restrictions. They are (apparently) no longer able to generate these types of videos and see no use for the service without that ability! To me it raises two questions: 1) Was the initial "free for all" a marketing ploy? 2) Is it the case that people find these video generators a lot less interesting when they have to come up with original ideas for the videos and cannot use copyright characters, etc?
- ronsor 1y agoThese video generators are mostly useful for memes at this point, and adding copyright shackles make it a lot less useful for memeing.
- simianparrot 1y agoConsidering that these models are trained on existing data to remix it means that when you shackle their ability to remix existing IP’s they’re practically useless because there’s little originality if any to squeeze out of them to begin with.
- hamhamed 1y ago[flagged]
- HypomaniaMan 1y agoJust because something can be done doesn't mean it should be
- measurablefunc 1y agoThe 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.
- camillomiller 1y agoOh we all noticed, but this is a new level of entrepreneurial narcissism and corporate gas lighting. Maybe one day Sam Altman will generally be perceived as who he actually is
- measurablefunc 1y agoHe is the boy wonder genius who will usher an era of infinite abundance but before he does that he has to take a detour to generate a lot of synthetic media & siphon a lot of user queries at every hour of every day so that advertisers can better target consumers w/ their plastic gadgets & snake oils. I'm sure they just need a few more trillions in data center buildouts & then they can get around to building the general purpose intelligence that will deliver us to the fully automated luxurious communist utopia.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- array_key_first 1y agoIt's because AI is just software, and like most software, it's shit. Almost a net negative for people. Obviously you can't sell a neutral or net negative product, so you just do what software always does, offset it with ads, i.e. consuming human time instead of money. If a service has real value people actually want, then it doesn't require ads. If the service needs ads to be viable as a business, that's a strong indicator the product or service isn't very good or useful.
- cess11 1y agoIs this a roundabout way to say that they've realised that people are using their service to make porn of celebrities and fictional characters in the entertainment industry, and aim to figure out a way to keep making money from it without involving "rightsholders" in scandals?
- simianparrot 1y ago> In particular, we'd like to acknowledge the remarkable creative output of Japan--we are struck by how deep the connection between users and Japanese content is! Translation from snake speech bs: We've been threatened by Japanese artists via their lawyers that unless we remove the "Ghibli" feature that earned us so much money, and others like it, we're going to get absolutely destroyed in court.
- qlm 1y ago> Japanese “content” Sickening
- simianparrot 1y agoNo human writes like this. If he actually did it’s worrying.
- rossant 1y agoWould you mind explaining? As a non native English speaker I may have missed some nuance.
- danhau 1y agoThe word content. Art would have been the appropriate term.
- sph 1y agoWait 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.
- krapp 1y agoMy 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.
- surrTurr 1y ago> 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 months > launch new model without all of these restrictions again so that the difference to the new model feels insane
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- slacktivism123 1y ago>dumb ahh prompt detection algorithm Don't worry, you can write "dumb ass" here without needing to use algospeak. This isn't Instagram or TikTok and you won't be unpersoned by a "trust and safety" team for doing so. P.S. No need for a space after your meme arrows :-)
- spongebobstoes 1y agocopyright 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
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoSociety 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 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.
- aubanel 1y ago> "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)" Marvelous ability to convolute the simple message "rightholders told us to fuck off"
- zarzavat 1y agoRevenue sharing for AI generated videos of characters sounds completely insane. I can't tell if this is face saving or delusion.
- sumedh 1y agoIt sounds insane to you but sounds completely normal to me. Why should AI generated videos not have revenue sharing. In the end what matters is whether people enjoy the video, it does not matter if its AI created or human created.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y agoAs someone who is concerned about how artists are supposed to earn a living in a ecosystem where anyone can trivially copy any style effortlessly, it does sound better than the status quo? The fact that LLMs are trained on humans data yet the same humans receive no benefits from it (cannot even use the weights for free, even if they unwillingly contributed to it existing), kind of sucks. What alternative is there? Let companies freely slurp up people's work and give absolutely nothing back?
- stared 1y agoIt is sad (and predictable, PR- and legal-wise) that there was no mention of the Ghibli Studio. I would be actually moved if there was some genuine in the line of "We are sorry - we wanted to make a PR stunt, but we went to hard." and offered real $ for that. (Not that I believe it is going to happen, as GenAI does not like this kind of precedence.)
- rpgbr 1y ago>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. Once again, Scam Altman looking for excuses to raise more money. What a joke…
- tmaly 1y agoI just heard people were making full length South Part episodes with Sora 2. But it seems now that this has been banned by OpenAI.
- Ianjit 1y agoThe clip length is 20 seconds.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]