_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
(HTM) Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
(HTM) Disney making $1B investment in OpenAI, will allow characters on Sora AI
epolanski wrote 3 min ago:
That's some serious FOMO.
ferguess_k wrote 10 min ago:
Well I guess the best outcome is that the AI bubble bursts. Gonna be
way worse if it is actually legit...
andrew_lettuce wrote 43 min ago:
Comments all act like Disney is giving them $1B, but they are
essentially producing unlimited Disney IP content through OpenAI, and
get any value boost on their ownership investment, and get the Disney
stock bounce from the deal coverage. I don't really like the deal on
the face value of what we know, but will admit there is huge
potentially upside and it's very cheap relative to a lot of other
company AI "strategies"
mrdependable wrote 47 min ago:
I wonder how the various creative guilds will respond. Seems like they
are stabbing their team in the back on this one.
otterley wrote 56 min ago:
What mad world are we living in where Disney â Disney â is paying
someone to lose control over its IP?
Iolaum wrote 18 min ago:
Are they losing control though? OpenAI did sign a contract with them
and that presumably gives them some power. Maybe less than the power
they had over, for example netflix, but still more than nothing.
P.S. If you can't win them, join them ...
dmix wrote 37 min ago:
The alternative is they make no money and people still produce them
using other video gen tools without the copyright filters.
Similar to the music industry piracy battle, it makes more sense to
work with the big platforms than fight them.
otterley wrote 21 min ago:
I donât see the similarity here.
When music piracy was facilitated by corporate entities like
Napster, the rights holders sued them out of existence, after which
piracy evolved into a highly distributed problem that was too
costly to prosecute (you canât sue everyone using BitTorrent one
by one). Yes, eventually the music rights holders did facilitate
commercial distribution, starting with the iTunes Store, and it was
successful because they satisfied the marketâs key demand that
customers be able to buy one song as a time for 99c, as opposed to
the whole album, which would often cost upwards of $10. Also, they
didnât let customers modify the songs or make derivative works.
Generating Disney-derived content with AI, on the other hand,
requires massive resources that most individuals donât possess,
thus making corporate entities all but essential players in the
game. (This may change in a few years as technology improves, but
we shall see.) And weâre talking about derivative works here, not
mere copies.
nonethewiser wrote 26 min ago:
There are many alternatives. Another is they sue the shit out of
Open AI until you basically can't generate anything related to mice
or monarchies.
This may be the right move but it's by no means forced.
xhkkffbf wrote 45 min ago:
I think they're getting some equity in return for the investment. If
it goes up, Disney makes out. If it doesn't, well, ...
triceratops wrote 28 min ago:
Why not equity in exchange for rights? The crazy thing is they're
surrendering both rights and cash.
xhkkffbf wrote 23 min ago:
Maybe the negotiations established that the rights were worth $X,
but Disney wanted $X + 1 billion worth of stock?
While many startups will take anyone's money, it can be hard to
invest in some. And the most desirable are the hardest. So maybe
Disney was using the IP negotiations to open the door?
pantsforbirds wrote 1 hour 2 min ago:
I think I'm the only one kind of stoked about this. My kiddos are going
to LOVE making short films with their favorite Disney Princesses.
amelius wrote 45 min ago:
Yeah, but Disney will make you pay extra for it, that's for sure.
shadowgovt wrote 1 hour 7 min ago:
For everyone concerned about the AI systems being trained on
copyrighted material: this was always the end-game of that argument.
Once the technology was proven out to be useful, someone with a huge IP
portfolio was going to slam that portfolio directly into the training
data to get their own copyright-unencumbered AI.
dfedbeef wrote 33 min ago:
Copyright unencumbered... For their own characters?? Why would they
need clearance to generate things trained on their data.
shevy-java wrote 1 hour 12 min ago:
So the big fatso corporations all rally behind AI.
I don't like this. I don't dispute that AI has some useful use cases,
but there are tons of time-wasters, such as fake videos generated on
youtube. So when they now autogenerate everything, the quality will
further go downwards but they will claim it will go upwards. Well,
what may go up are the net profits. I don't think the quality will
really go upwards. They also kind of create a monopoly here. Only
other big corporations can break in - and they won't because it is
easier to share the profits in the same market in a guaranteed manner.
Quite amazing that this can happen. Who needs courts anymore when the
base system can be gamified?
Then there is also the censorship situation. If you keep on censoring
stuff, you lose out information. I see this on youtube where Google
censors cuss words. This leads to rubbish bleeps every some seconds.
Who wants to hear that? It's so pointless.
dagmx wrote 1 hour 17 min ago:
Putting aside feelings on AI, and also putting aside worst case
scenarios of the kind of content (which will happen regardless of what
they promise), I think this is a terrible move for the brand.
Content saturation works out very poorly for IP holders. The value of
your brand reduces dramatically , and you reduce excitement for new
releases.
This is the company that had to walk back its plans to saturate
streaming and theaters with their content because they ruined the hype
for Star Wars and Marvel content. Two of the most beloved franchises!
This is just going to make that worse when ever social media feed will
be blanketed by even more slop.
Unless the gambit is that they expect merch sales to go up, or they
have a way to guarantee a cut of any used content. Iâm sure there are
some IP infringement lawyers who have basically secured a life time of
work with this announcement.
dmix wrote 28 min ago:
> Content saturation works out very poorly for IP holders.
That really depends on how the culture of media consumption changes.
It's very different than the world of movie theaters and TV. Most
people are using social media to consume the majority of their
content. This at least helps constantly inject their characters into
the mainstream culture, when they can no longer dominate TV/cinema
and streaming platforms already saturate their characters with high
volume.
The biggest risk IMO is if the short content being produced is more
entertaining than what they officially produce or it turns into a
mini-culture they don't have influence over, and they struggle to
profit off the old stuff.
They will essentially be competing with their own IP.
ossner wrote 1 hour 25 min ago:
Others have pointed out the problems of trolls generating racist or
otherwise controversial content using Disney characters and this being
short-sighted by Disney, but I think this could just be another case of
"no such thing as bad PR".
People will undoubtedly generate reprehensible things using these
characters, and I think that's exactly what Disney wants because it's
an easy way to make their characters go viral.
seydor wrote 58 min ago:
Their characters are way past virality
fudged71 wrote 33 min ago:
Theyâre way past being relevant and that is the problem they are
solving⦠getting mindshare again.
jeffwask wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
It's strange though because if you know anything about Disney and how
the manage the characters in media and at the parks, they are
extremely protective of the brand and image of the characters.
Imagineers have very strict rules around virtual character meet and
greets and etc.
Allowing their characters to be used in AI generated content blows
that all out of the water unless there are some extremely tight guard
rails.
They are a half step from flooding the market with Disney Princess
porn.
squigz wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
> They are a half step from flooding the market with Disney
Princess porn.
I would think that whatever demand there is for that is already
filled.
lunias wrote 1 hour 25 min ago:
OpenAI is my least favorite AI company and Disney is (recently) among
my least favorite entertainment conglomerates. Sounds like a match made
in heaven. Good luck with the investment.
dominotw wrote 1 hour 4 min ago:
openai prbly is my most favorite because everyone else is obsessed
with job replacement as the final goal
ChrisArchitect wrote 1 hour 28 min ago:
OpenAI post: [1] ( [2] )
(HTM) [1]: https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/
(HTM) [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46231493
seydor wrote 1 hour 30 min ago:
Oh the memes
MallocVoidstar wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
Related: [1] > Walt Disney has sent a cease-and-desist letter to
Alphabet's Google, CNBC reported on Thursday.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/disney-sends-cease-and-desist...
dboreham wrote 1 hour 38 min ago:
Shouldn't OpenAI be paying Disney?
s1mon wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
That was my first thought. When I saw 'Disney' and 'OpenAI' in a
headline together I assumed the money was flowing the other way
around. Certainly other rights holders like the NYTimes are looking
for the cash to flow the opposite direction (they're suing because of
allegations that OpenAI trained on copyrighted material which can be
reproduced through prompting). Unless this investment somehow is
structured so that Disney gets stock which will potentially be worth
orders of magnitude more later...
sofixa wrote 36 min ago:
> they're suing because of allegations that OpenAI trained on
copyrighted material which can be reproduced through prompting
Are OpenAI even denying this?
zorked wrote 1 hour 42 min ago:
$1B, how many hours of runway does that buy.
mekdoonggi wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
-2 months because they need to spend $2b to make this revenue.
Investors should look for a bump of another -8 forward P/E. Huge
upside (negative) potential.
tonyedgecombe wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
Surely OpenAI should be paying Disney for the rights to their content.
What an upside down period we are living in.
dist-epoch wrote 1 hour 38 min ago:
You pay for advertisement and product placement.
Not the other way around.
We live in an atenttion economy, if Disney content is not in your
face on all mediums (which now include AI slop), they lose money.
nonethewiser wrote 20 min ago:
>You pay for advertisement and product placement.
Well, no. Disney does not pay Hasbro or Mattel to use their
characters. It does not pay clothing producers. So no, you dont
have to pay people to use your IP because it's just advertising.
Disney's IP is their core product.
You can make the argument they should let Sora use it to advertise.
But that's not necessarily how it works. And for good reason - fan
content doesnt necessarily benefit Disney in a measurable,
controlled way. Furthermore, the IP is the thing they themselves
are trying to sell you.
echelon wrote 1 hour 8 min ago:
The RIAA got it their way with Suno and Udio.
Sam Altman must be an unbelievable salesman. Iger is tired and is
looking for a way out. He's quit once already, but got dragged back
because of Chapek.
I spoke with several folks in the C-suite Disney leadership a year
ago about AI - Disney is learning and trying literally everything
they can to capitalize on AI. Every division is experimenting,
including ABC and ESPN. I spoke with the Pixar folks - of course
they're using it too. They want to see what works.
They're internally partnering and trying out lots of companies and
tools. It's been a mandate for a long time. Well before it was
kosher in greater Hollywood. Before Coca Cola's first AI Christmas
video last year. Disney was an early believer.
I've heard through the grapevine (companies talking to investors)
that Disney has been working with multiple foundation video model
companies. One of them was trying to animate parts of the live
action Moana film, supposedly. Not the one you've read about in the
news that got rejected. A much better funded one. Not sure if it
made it into the film - I suppose we'll find out soon.
Do recall, also, that Disney has publicly rebuffed OpenAI's
proposals twice in the past. Something changed, and my guess is the
Netflix/WBD deal.
dfedbeef wrote 2 hours 16 min ago:
Disney shareholders, feel free to make images of Iger, Mickey, and
Br'er Rabbit lighting piles on money on fire.
hnlmorg wrote 16 min ago:
The original depiction of Mickey Mouse is legally public domain
anyway
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_based_on_a_copyright-fre...
solumunus wrote 2 hours 17 min ago:
Oof.
fidotron wrote 2 hours 17 min ago:
Is this their YouTube goes legit moment? i.e. Disney get paid (by
indirect means so far) for characters on OpenAI but not (yet) Gemini?
If this includes exclusivity deals it could be big.
giancarlostoro wrote 2 hours 19 min ago:
This will not end well for Disney, 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. This
feels like another circular investment where Disney is hoping to make
money back I'm sure. On the other hand, assuming they do the freemium
stuff, I look forward to making a few videos of my daughters favorite
Disney princesses "talking" to her.
reaperducer wrote 29 min ago:
I look forward to making a few videos of my daughters favorite Disney
princesses "talking" to her.
I look forward to chatting with Pluto and Goofy and asking why one
has to wear pants when both of them are dogs.
baggachipz wrote 7 min ago:
Given that only one of the dogs can talk, you're set to get only
one answer. Though I suspect that the ability to talk bestows
bodily shame, based on this anecdotal evidence.
yreg wrote 41 min ago:
I understand that Disney might care about this, but I don't see why
they should.
What exactly does âfanartâ (no matter how distasteful and
controversial) change?
Let people generate whatever fictional character they want.
notyourwork wrote 38 min ago:
It only works until Mickey Mouse shows up on your Tiktok feed
lynching an African American and doing a sieg heil salute. Are you
sure Disney wants that or would not care about that??
zahlman wrote 31 min ago:
The question is why it shows up on your Tiktok feed.
lp0_on_fire wrote 8 min ago:
I thought it was well known and generally accepted that the
social medial companies push controversial click/rage bait to
keep people âengagedâ?
hbosch wrote 52 min ago:
>This will not end well for Disney
I have faith that the Parks Imagineers will soon be installing Sora
Stalls in and around every attraction in Disney World.
DeathArrow wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
People are already doing whatever clips they want to using open
source models.
jerf wrote 1 hour 17 min ago:
"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 generated, then
shoveled straight out without modification. 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). You can use the blessed Disney video generator to generate
something, then feed it into another less controlled AI system to
modify it into something Disney wouldn't want. Or a video of a Disney
character doing something innocent can be easily turned into
something else; it's not hard to ask the AI systems to put something
"against a green screen", or with a bit more sophistication,
something that can be motion tracked with some success and extracted.
"A front camera shot of Cinderella crouching down, repeatedly putting
a cucumber in and out of her mouth. She is against a green screen." -
where ever that video is going, Disney isn't going to like it. And
that's just a particularly obvious example, not the totality of all
the possibilities.
Just putting controls on the AI video output itself isn't going to be
enough for Disney.
cm2012 wrote 29 min ago:
Sora has good enough controls it is basically impossible to make it
do a dirty video like that.
zahlman wrote 32 min ago:
> 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 porn, but what's been
described to me is just... bizarre.
Y_Y wrote 56 min ago:
Don't use a cucumber if you're going to be subtracting the green
screen
s1mplicissimus wrote 35 min ago:
i assumed it was the egg plant, guess i'm getting old
iamacyborg wrote 42 min ago:
I think the idea is you want the cucumber also removed so it can
be replaced with something elseâ¦
podgietaru wrote 1 hour 27 min ago:
I actually straight up don't think they give a shit anymore.
I think decorum works in an environment where decorum is the norm,
but we have entered a political moment where that is no longer the
case. And I think that this kind of thing bleeds so heavily into
culture that they no longer give a shit about having their characters
next to it.
They have enough plausible deniability; they did not create the
content. I think that's enough for them, in this moment.
afavour wrote 27 min ago:
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 nothing of the shoddy quality of their TV shows. Mickey
Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling
is shocking given Mickey is supposed to be their signature
character. They just don't care. And I think it does have an
impact: my kids tired of Clubhouse very quickly and have little
connection to Mickey and friends. Compare that to say,
Dreamworksâ Gabbyâs Dollhouse which they loved.
Disney is propped up by its tentpole features but their bench is
incredibly weak. There are only so many Blueys you can buy to make
up the difference.
scrumbledober wrote 20 min ago:
The animation quality of mickey mouse clubhouse was appalling
when I first had kids. They seem to have decided to care about
that, as the animation on mickey mouse clubhouse + is a marked
improvement.
roywiggins wrote 23 min ago:
Fond-ish memories of Disney's direct-to-vhs push in the 90s
(HTM) [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-straight-to-video...
philistine wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
Yeah, basically Disney invested a billion dollar in Pregnant Elsa
Spider-Man Beach Castle.
lumost wrote 31 min ago:
They may be viewing this as an inevitable outcome with open
models/fly-by-night providers/providers in more liberal
copy-right jurisdictions.
They can either invest in mass classification and enforcement
operations or gain some revenue share from it.
bko wrote 1 hour 30 min ago:
Why is this a problem with Disney?
Who cares? Online trolls make inappropriate videos with characters.
Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it.
It's so exhausting that companies are overly cautious about
everything and let a tiny niche of internet culture drive these
decisions. If you get obscene material in your social media feeds,
you will continue to see this kind of stuff except maybe with some
Disney IP. If not, it will have no impact to your life.
But practical things that affect 99% of people like you mentioned
will be better, like your child wants to hear Mickey wish him happy
birthday. So I applaud this.
oceanplexian wrote 15 min ago:
Thank you.
Sad I had to scroll this far to find a comment that wasn't
pro-censorship of Fan Art because a character they saw on the
internet offended someone's Protestant values.
nonethewiser wrote 28 min ago:
I agree with you completely but I'm absolutely shocked that Disney
would agree to this. They are extremely protective of how their IP
is used. Famously so.
bombcar wrote 1 hour 38 min ago:
Grok create already lets you make 6 second videos, though sometimes
you have to say "Italian plumber" or "famous princesses".
dmix wrote 1 hour 16 min ago:
It's definitely not a war you're going to win simply via copyright
claims to the big chat interfaces. This stuff will happen
regardless. Especially as more open high quality LLMs role out.
They might as well have some direct say in the matter with the big
companies by creating relationships and profiting via licensing.
echelon wrote 1 hour 13 min ago:
The AI IP lines are being drawn now.
The IP holders will sue or DMCA the platforms, not the users.
First Grok, then eventually YouTube.
Then they'll charge licensing fees.
Are also: RIAA wrt Suno, Udio.
spwa4 wrote 18 min ago:
Pretty sure Youtube is constantly being sued for copyright
violation by now.
The question is what will happen when "the platform" is a model
downloaded on torrent sites and just generates movies from a
prompt. On the plus side: excellent compression ratio. On the
down side: discussion with your kids about how at the end Snow
White did not transform into a gigantic mech and blew up the
Evil Queen with rockets. Must be your old memory, dad!
dmix wrote 40 min ago:
They will be DMCA'ing the social media posts which is nothing
new.
The big models will and already have copyright filters on,
people are just working around them which will always be a
battle. They also don't host the videos they create themselves
on OpenAI/Grok.
As I said in my comment these videos are not all going to be
via the mainline Grok/ChatGPT interfaces and alternative video
generators will eventually become widely accessible to the
public.
echelon wrote 2 min ago:
It won't move the needle if users have access to unfiltered
Wan, Comfy, local, etc.
The majority of creation will happen directly through
YouTube, Meta, TikTok, and Sora.
Platforms and IP rights holders won't police the 0.1%.
They'll negotiate deals with the platforms. If they don't
license Elsa, Marvel, Pokemon, etc. then the platform
wholesale will lose access to the IPs.
Platforms will have to pay.
postalcoder wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
Disney is not the same company it was 20 years ago.
2025 Disney encourages children to gamble and gives Pat McAfee
significant visibility.
wooger wrote 1 hour 18 min ago:
What has Pat Mcafee got to do with anything, is he somehow a
controversial figure now?
jairuhme wrote 1 hour 15 min ago:
I think its just that people either love him or hate him and it
seems like OP is part of the latter group
postalcoder wrote 1 hour 8 min ago:
I donât have an opinion on him, despite the suggestiveness of
my comment. Heâs more illustrative of a spirit that Disney at
a time did not have an appetite for.
irishcoffee wrote 44 min ago:
Pat Mcafee catching strays (He has had his show for ~6 years)
but Screamin' A Smith gets a pass?
Your bias is showing.
postalcoder wrote 35 min ago:
Stephen A Smith has done as much to harm ESPN's brand than
any other figure. Please don't assume my biases from whom I
failed to mention â I could have used SAS instead of Pat
and my point would have been the same.
Perhaps I should have expected that the conversation would
get pulled this way but it's not where I wanted it to go.
godzillabrennus wrote 1 hour 40 min ago:
Disney is the same company as it was 20 years ago. In fact, it's
the same company as it was 100 years ago. They only care about
profit. They do just enough brand management to preserve the profit
motive.
meesles wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
I firmly disagree and think this shallow take dishonors a pretty
great man. While not perfect, Disney gave us the bedrock of
American children's culture which has been a soft tool for the US
for generations. Not to mention technology and other
advancements. I'm not a Disney nut, but the man was one-of-a-kind
and an impressive industrialist who instilled a great culture of
innovation and a deep love of children and play. All things I
value.
CodingJeebus wrote 20 min ago:
> While not perfect
Yep, Disney was also a leading producer of racist tropes and
content during Jim Crow. Historical clips of Mickey Mouse
characters putting on minstrel shows with blackface alongside
other racist stereotypes like crows can easily be found
online[0]. Not to mention Song of the South[1], a film Disney
produced based on Uncle Remus stories following slaves who
happily live on a Georgia plantation. Disney has, of course,
done their best to scrub these entries from history, but they
played a major role in depicting racist tropes to kids for
decades.
0: [1] 1:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b5j4T9E8PuE
(HTM) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South
jeffwask wrote 1 hour 15 min ago:
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.
godzillabrennus wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
To be fair, Walt Disney partnered with his brother Roy Disney,
and they co-founded and ran the Walt Disney Company (and the
iterations before it). These iterations of the Disney Company
were never just Walt Disney.
jeffwask wrote 40 min ago:
Yes, but if you watch any documentaries about early Disney
and listen to those people talk everything was about Walt's
vision even after death they would ask "What would Walt want
or do?" He was a figure whose influence and vision is on
another level in American History (both good and bad) and
early Disney was Walt no matter who was in charge on paper or
even if Walt was still alive. That only started to change
under Eisner. Roy was the one who kept Walt grounded so
ambition shrunk but they stayed the course Walt set.
DoughnutHole wrote 1 hour 19 min ago:
Companies can have additional motives to profit, and theyâre
more likely to when control is concentrated just because
individual people have multiple desires.
This was certainly the case with early Disney because Walt Disney
was a megalomaniac utopian. I donât think the original Epcot
plans ever had a reasonable chance of being profitable, but Walt
pushed them because he believed he was the saviour of urbanism in
America.
postalcoder wrote 1 hour 25 min ago:
Yes, perhaps if we deflated Disneyâs moral rot by a diversified
basket of other morally-rotted goods, I suppose weâd be able to
conclude that Disney is perhaps the same company.
Outside that effort, I see a company once famous for its
prudishness now unafraid of shame.
caminante wrote 1 hour 26 min ago:
Amen. Blaming Disney for bad content is like blaming politicians.
Who asked for the content? Who elected the politicians?
**[Jiminy] crickets**
armenarmen wrote 59 min ago:
Fwiw I think the all US presidents since Clinton were elected
on a non interventionist/pacifist campaign. Blaming the voters
when every one of them (less so with Biden) violated those
promises is a bit unfair, if you still believe in democracy.
dragonwriter wrote 46 min ago:
Almost every one of them was elected again, often by wider
margins (the only exception losing to another one of them)
after deatroying any illusion innthat direction you might
argue was produced by their campaign positions, so I don't
think you can absolved the American electorate here, even if
one agrees that their campaign before taking office met your
description.
AznHisoka wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
Garbage in, garbage out, as someone wise once said
impulser_ wrote 1 hour 58 min ago:
I guess it will depend on how good their security is, because I'm
assuming Disney is entering this deal with hard guidelines on what
will be allowed.
edoceo wrote 1 hour 18 min ago:
AI with hard guidelines? I don't think that will work.
pjc50 wrote 22 min ago:
"Hard guidelines" is making me think of the Pirate Code from
Disney's Pirates of The Caribbean.
bilbo0s wrote 1 hour 43 min ago:
This.
Don't believe for a second that Sora will allow you to make racist
content with Disney characters.
That said, there are a lot of other models out there that care
about neither licensing nor alignment. So those will allow you to
make racist content. Then you can do whatever you like with that
generated content.
A lot of IP owners will learn that there is more than one way to
skin a cat. It's easier than people think to turn children's
characters, like say, Hermoine, into a raging racist. And there's
very little technically speaking that they can do to stop it.
But yes, on OpenAI specific properties, they can definitely stop it
dead in its tracks. They can even get better at stopping it over
time. In fact, the more users try to generate it, the better the
system will get at stopping it.
doug_durham wrote 2 min ago:
I don't think that you will ever be able to generate Disney
characters with the Sora app. Sora is both a model and an app.
Instead I think that there will be a heavily guardrailed
specialized app where you can do some highly restricted things
for the opportunity for the content to show up on Disney+. Think
of it as "Disney art! Powered by Sora".
butlike wrote 13 min ago:
Great, so censorship by attrition.
dragonwriter wrote 16 min ago:
> Don't believe for a second that Sora will allow you to make
racist content with Disney characters.
Donât believe for a minute that whatever filters it uses will
be sensitive enough to the way racist content is constructed to
stop people from doing just that.
corobo wrote 20 min ago:
How are they going to stop it?
A certain combination of nonstandard characters will make an AI
character drop an n-word no problem
I guess they could chuck the output through whisper or something
to see if it transcribes back to anything dodgy?
LLM security feels very ball of sand held together with duct tape
haha
zrobotics wrote 1 hour 39 min ago:
I'm sure that's what Disney's lawyers specified in the contracts
and what their execs expect. However, judging by how LLM controls
have gone in the past, I'm fully expecting to see a slew of awful
content featuring Disney's characters in the days after this
launches. OpenAI also probably won't ever be able to actually
stop people from generating harmful content with the characters,
but the volume of awful stuff will probably eventually slow down
as people get bored and move onto the next controversial thing.
ipaddr wrote 2 hours 3 min ago:
This might end well for Disney. This provides a different marketing
angle to bring in younger people to Disney. The filters will block a
lot of the sexual violence content. The original cartoons are deemed
racist by some so this won't open a door already opened.
But it is another circular investment to throw on the AI bubble pile.
smith7018 wrote 1 hour 44 min ago:
Is it circular, though? Is an AI company giving Disney $1B?
andrew_lettuce wrote 48 min ago:
If just the news of the deal boosts Disney stock enough to pay
for the deal, then yes. Or if it boosts OpenAI valuation because
they now have Disney IP enough to pay off on Disney's investment,
it is basically Disney producing content indirectly.
qmr wrote 2 hours 10 min ago:
Sora?
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sora_(Kingdom_Hearts)
throw4847285 wrote 44 min ago:
I had the same thought. Finally, Sora will be teaming up with all
your favorite Disney characters! Didn't that happen already?
It's just a funny coincidence.
tecleandor wrote 2 hours 5 min ago:
It's also the text-to-video model from OpenAI
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sora_(text-to-video_model)
tiahura wrote 2 hours 12 min ago:
And, don't forget to figure in that OpenAI has indicated they're
getting into porn.
embedding-shape wrote 1 hour 59 min ago:
Is this about when Sam mentioned they want to continue/start
letting people do lewd texting with LLMs? Or are you talking about
actual pornography?
dragonwriter wrote 8 min ago:
The âlewd texting with LLMâ will be a tool for writing actual
pornography, and in workflows for image and video pornography,
even if the image and video generation doesnât happen on
OpenAIâs platform (in fact, people are using ChatGPT and other
major AI engines as tools in that already, but loosening the
filters were facilitate that even more on OpenAIâs platform.)
OpenAI knows that, and the people interested in that capability
know that, even if many of the other people seeing the marketing
about it don't.
complianceowl wrote 1 hour 46 min ago:
It's hard to tell.
empath75 wrote 2 hours 17 min ago:
reposting what i said in the other thread:
> There is no way the character licensing survives an hour of contact
with the public, unless it is _extremely_ restricted. I can't imagine
a worse job than trying to "curate" the torrent of sewage that is
going to get created. Deadpool is pretty much the only Disney-owned
property this makes sense for.
And I say this as someone who _likes_ using Sora.
tiahura wrote 2 hours 46 min ago:
Iger and Altman on CNBC at 10:30.
(DIR) <- back to front page