_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
(HTM) Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
(HTM) Goodbye to Sora
MrTomatoes wrote 1 hour 47 min ago:
It's a shame they're closing it, but luckily it won't be a brainrot,
but it's still a shame.
JohannesCortez wrote 3 hours 1 min ago:
Was Sora even profitable in the first place?
timosterhus wrote 10 hours 31 min ago:
After seeing SeeDance generate multiple sequences of correct-looking
hand-to-hand fight choreography, I'm more surprised they didn't take
Sora down sooner.
chrysoprace wrote 22 hours 42 min ago:
Hopefully this means less misinformation and slop on social media, but
maybe that's just wishful thinking.
mcs_ wrote 23 hours 46 min ago:
Iâve never tried it, do you think Iâm missing something? If yes,
what has it brought into your life? Was it just entertainment?
semiinfinitely wrote 1 day ago:
YEET
dalvrosa wrote 1 day ago:
What are the best replacements?
theropost wrote 1 day ago:
I'm a bit sad.. I was using it quite often for making quick videos for
Teams instead of using Meme's and Gifs.. I just made my own :(
p0w3n3d wrote 1 day ago:
Sora shocked people but the real effect was and is that now people
don't believe what the're shown. How many fingers Israeli PM has, was
Russia Dictator alive, etc. Is this good? Critical thinking - maybe...
uncertainity... not really.
ynx0 wrote 1 day ago:
I think that itâs better that everyone collectively realize that
video is no longer default-trustworthy in a widespread manner, if the
alternative would have been the public finding out only after a long
cycle of misuse by high-level actors and subsequent whistleblowing Ã
la PRISM/Snowden.
p0w3n3d wrote 12 hours 6 min ago:
however the forensic or semi-forensic tools should be given to
people to help them verify the videos. On the other hand I suspect
that these tools are not released so wrongdoers are not able to
test their fakes against the tools (security by obscurity)
Halian wrote 1 day ago:
Good riddance to bad garbage.
KevinMS wrote 1 day ago:
Its looking like Michael Jackson stealing KFC will be the peak of AI
sceptic123 wrote 1 day ago:
translation: "we got all the data we needed"
glass1122 wrote 1 day ago:
One of the best news after a long time, LOL!! Sooner or later expecting
more good news from all these AI slops and BS. RIP My Friend. never
used SORA or even visited the website. LOL!!
whywhywhywhy wrote 1 day ago:
Crazy how far the hype dropped from this product when only the paid
influencers had access we were told "It's like a reality simulator" but
when it became widely distributed it didn't deliver anywhere near that
hype, you look at the front page of it today and it's identical to the
Grok video gen front page, very underwhelming.
qqxufo1 wrote 1 day ago:
OpenAI pivoting to B2B and coding makes sense, but it leaves a massive
vacuum in consumer video. ByteDance simply integrating better
generative models directly into CapCut will easily capture all those
users.
eigenvalue wrote 1 day ago:
I posted this on X but itâs relevant here, so reposting it:
I had a lot of fun using Sora and got a lot of laughs with absurd
videos of me in various situations.
But like everyone else, I kind of got it out of my system after a
couple weeks. Not to mention that my family got sick of seeing them.
And so my usage collapsed to zero. And that seems to have also been the
pattern writ large.
But this kind of flash-in-the-pan dynamic is devastating for a product
with this kind of profile, which requires insane amounts of compute
hardware to serve while also having no short-term monetization path.
Meta could afford to invest in IG Reels even when it was burning money
and costing them a fortune for hardware because it was building up what
turned out to be sustainable usage patterns which persisted long after
the initial spending ramp.
Itâs basically impossible to effectively monetize anything thatâs
not sustainable on the order of multiple years.
A subscription-based model would see excessively high churn that would
be ruinous to the economics, and also advertisers wouldnât be
interested either, for the obvious reasons.
So why couldnât this work? I donât think that it was because the
models werenât good enough or that the depictions werenât realistic
or lifelike enough. I still marvel at some of the better outputs I was
able to get from Sora.
I think the fundamental problem that Sora faced is actually much
broader and more general, and it comes down to the basic Pareto math of
any content generation or creative app, which is that 95%+ of the users
just want to passively consume content from the 5% or less that
actually wants to generate it (and is capable of making anything that
other people want to watch).
It was really dismal to see the repetitive, trite ideas that 99% of
users generated in the public feed. Just the same few dumb jokes and
things they copied from other users.
Or putting themselves in a scene with their favorite fictional or
cartoon characters or whatever, which of course got banned pretty
quickly for copyright issues.
Most people are not creative and donât have a lot of original,
interesting ideas. So that means that the vast majority of the content
is always going to come from a vanishingly small number of creators in
a power law distribution.
And those super-creators arenât going to want to be limited to a
simple text-based interface that can only generate for 10 seconds at a
time with no continuity and where large portions of things you might
want to try are strictly forbidden.
Theyâll instead gravitate to more customized solutions for power
users that regular users would find as overwhelming to use as AutoCAD.
And thatâs what youâre seeing now with all the new viral AI slop
videos that are made by a handful of creators who have figured out the
workflows and are pumping out the worst junk you can imagine that gets
people to click and watch.
Anyway, RIP Sora; it was fun while it lasted. Thanks, Sam, for blowing
a few hundred million bucks so we could get some laughs.
nighwatch wrote 1 day ago:
With Sora stepping back like this, it seems like the perfect opening
for ByteDance to step in and capture the market with Seedance 2.
imadch wrote 1 day ago:
What a decision , maybe it's not profitable or they are preparing for
something big ? i don't think OpenAI will lose like this
softwaredoug wrote 1 day ago:
Was Sora just a honeypot to get a media company (ie Disney) to invest a
lot of money into OpenAI?
Maybe it achieved its objective?
nemomarx wrote 1 day ago:
As far as I can tell Disney didn't actually hand over the money yet.
They were still in preparation and it's cancelled now obviously.
So whatever reason they say to shut this down, it was more important
than 1B investment.
endofreach wrote 1 day ago:
at least theyâre not trying to play the âour tech is too
dangerousâ card as the sunset reason (again [yet]).
also, for a company carrying âopenâ in their name, that pretends to
still remember its origins, they could open source at least the
projects they sunsetâ¦
epolanski wrote 1 day ago:
Off Topic: I paid 100 $ for Dall-E 2 credits back in the pre chatgpt
days.
Then they killed Dall-E 2 and my credits vaporized.
Anybody found themselves in the same situation? What have you done?
christianqchung wrote 1 day ago:
I was extremely impressed by the sora demo in Feb 2024, but there are
exactly two videos I remember ever seeing from AI video gen services
that will stick around in my mind: the one where realistic spongebob
drives away from a cop, and Harry Potter Balenciaga (2026). The
original sora launch seemed pretty boring to me as a non-creative, so I
only gave it a few shots (in the early semi-failed original interface).
I never tried the sora 2 app since I don't like shortform video.
Disinfo AI videos and the Coca Cola Christmas ad have also really
soured my expectation of genuinely positive creative uses of video gen
for the next couple years until more improvements are made, and I start
seeing stuff go viral for being good instead of just being weird. I am
still surprised that sora never had the grok problem of generating csam
or seemingly anything along those lines.
siliconc0w wrote 1 day ago:
I'm hoping a side effect of AI Slop in that by increasing volume it
decreases value and people eventually start finding all Internet slop
less compelling.
nnevatie wrote 1 day ago:
Good riddance.
malbs wrote 1 day ago:
Conspiratorial thought - did OpenAI shut down Sora because one of their
models started attaching it's weights to all the output videos, and
some how escaped the farm? Not an original thought, "If Anyone Builds
it, Everyone Dies" authors proposed this is an option for an AI to
escape the sandbox. lol. Imagine.
Marazan wrote 1 day ago:
Well, gotta hand it to the haters on this one.
vivzkestrel wrote 1 day ago:
- gary marcus is going to have a field day with this one
asim wrote 1 day ago:
Sometimes I think my opinion means nothing on these topics, especially
when it's going to get buried in a thread of 500 plus comments. But I
think you finally see a little bit of a flaw in the strategy or just a
little bit of insight into what was desperation for relevance and to
try to very quickly attain what other companies have attained but
essentially what they're seeing is this gradual reduction in ambition
and it's only natural for a lot of companies to overreach, but
essentially reality and gravity are pulling them back. And as some
other people have mentioned wall Street and others see that coding is
the prime use case for this where you can make money and have a really
profitable business and there are auxiliary functions. Driving
addictive content is not really one that should be at the forefront and
while many will continue to do that and we'll have all this generative
content, I think consumers are slightly smarter now that they don't
want to be drawn into this kind of addictive toxic content.
Over time we're probably going to see some really broad and strong use
cases of AI, but I think in the case of social media or generative
content, we have to be a lot more thoughtful about it. And I'm glad
that they're shutting down this app as much as it's great to see
innovation and technology and to see how far it's pushed. I prefer to
see it when someone like Google does it? Because they're really doing
it from the standpoint of this has broad applicable applications to
something like simulation or training. Not whatever open AI was doing
which honestly just doesn't feel very truthful. I feel like they say
one thing and do something else or they say one thing and the agenda or
something else. And again, I don't know how helpful it is to comment
like this, but I feel like if you understand the truth then you should
speak the truth even if it only benefits one other person to hear it.
Gooblebrai wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
> coding is the prime use case for this where you can make money
Which makes me wonder... what's the business model long-term of AI
generated art places?
mitkebes wrote 22 hours 18 min ago:
A growing business right now is using AI art for product images for
Amazon/etc listings. There are lots of ComfyUI workflows for it,
you put in a picture of the product, some photos of people, and it
can spit out images of the people wearing it.
Many product images are currently done through photoshop/etc, but
this is quicker and can look more realistic.
It may not accurately represent how the product will actually look
when worn, but that's not the seller's primary concern.
WarcrimeActual wrote 1 day ago:
>Sometimes I think my opinion means nothing on these topics,
especially when it's going to get buried in a thread of 500 plus
comments.
Ironically, starting your response with this guarantees a lot of
people won't read it. It's the same as going on reddit and starting
a reply with, "Nobody will see this but", and hoping that people try
to prove you wrong by reading and commenting on it. I stopped after
the first sentence. People really have to stop with the clickbait
vomit way of writing.
QuantumGood wrote 1 day ago:
> "reality and gravity are pulling them back"
I like the framing of trying explosive things to escape the pull of
gravity. When applied to rockets, it means a lot of stuff blowing up,
which again seems apt.
marcosdumay wrote 1 day ago:
Bubbles either inflate or pop...
But I'm not sure we would even notice nowadays. It used to be a
disaster that could take people's attention for years, but
currently, it may get lost in the noise.
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
Coding is one topic but the big one is agentic ai.
You will have an agent like your seo expert, this agent will be able
to use common tools like google seo, facebook seo etc. and you will
teach how you want it to do its 'job'.
You will have a way of delivering your requirements to it, it will
run in the background, might ask for feedback but will otherwise do
stuff similiar to whatever person was doing it before.
There might be some transition phase like verifing the data of the
real person vs. the agentic ai then moving over to only validation
until the agentic agent is in avg as good as a human. Then the human
will be gone.
Agentic will take basic support tasks (its actually already doing
this) first, then more complicated things etc.
For this we need an ecosystem aka the agentic ai platform,
interconnect between agent and tools and this stuff is currently
getting build by someone one way or the other.
On scale we need more capacity and these agents will also cost more
money than a 20$ subscription.
But if you have a, lets say SAP agent, it will be build once, trained
once and than used by everyone. Instead of a person using a HR system
or billing system, the agent will bridge the gap between data and
system.
heavyset_go wrote 23 hours 42 min ago:
This is a pipe dream, models are mistake machines and agents are
mistake amplifiers.
This only "works" for toy projects, things that don't really matter
and nothing that can cost you business, money, clients or time.
muskstinks wrote 12 hours 21 min ago:
There are two ways and all of it in context of billions of
dollars the richest companies in the world are investing with the
smartest people working on it.
These big companies want to see whats going to happen with more
parameters and are already quite deep in it. So that momentum
will push us easily through 2026 and nothing will collapse in
2027 just because.
So we will see if we hit a hard plateu or not, i do not see any
plateu at all. I see constant progress on every single front,
faster models, faster inferencing, etc.
I also see the biggest reinforcement loop we ever have created by
a small amount of companies getting real human feedback every
single day by saying things like thanks, thumbs up/down, or
"thats wrong", "i meant x not y" etc.
And there are plenty of ways of doing a transition from 100%
human to 100% agents. Like feedback loops, human in the loop,
human approval for critical steps, etc.
And i think we will continue spending time and energy working at
these problems in the future and no longer on just reimplementing
the same crud application.
short_sells_poo wrote 1 day ago:
I see where you are going with this, but IMO this is not a
technical problem but a legal problem.
Who will be held responsible when an AI agent messes up the HR
system and the company is exposed to losses due to a mistake? Who
is going to be responsible when your SEO agent overspends?
Ultimately, it's going to be you most likely, because I can't see
AI firms taking this responsibility.
You might argue that right now it also falls on the employer, since
employees are rarely held responsible for genuine mistakes, even if
it ends in disaster, however you have a lot of agency over what an
employee is doing. Their motivation is generally correlated with
doing well, because past success ensures future career growth.
An AI agent has no such incentives. The AI company will just charge
you some minimal fee to provide the service, and if it messes up,
will wash their hands of responsibility and tell you that you
should've been more careful in using it.
I dislike Taleb for various reasons, but using AI agents is
basically the definition of a fragile system. It works 99% of the
time, lulling people into this sense of security where they can
just offload all their work very conveniently. And then 1% of the
time (or 0.01% of the time), it ends in utter disaster, which
people are very bad at dealing with.
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
I think it will move most critical due dilligence to the tools /
HR system themselves.
Encoding more rules, more precise rules and alerting a human in
case it thinks its off. Like salary increase by 20% gets flagged
automatically. Revenue drop bey x % too.
It could even go so far that the maker of these systems will
insure you for their use.
It just needs to be cheaper than all the humans in the loop and
if you train it once, you can copy it unlimited time. Scaling
effect of software for tasks we need to train a human again and
again.
It could also be agent systems which do this. Like a company
building and designing the HR USA Healthcare agent specialized in
SAP HR. Another one for HR Brazil Healthcare agent specialized in
another HR software.
Humans are really expensive and you have to train them regularly
and every single on of them.
empath75 wrote 1 day ago:
I had fun with it for about a week, but the thing that disappointed
me the most wasn't the technology, it was the _people_. You have a
machine that can make anything you can imagine, and the space of what
people were exploring was so _small_.
k__ wrote 1 day ago:
"coding is the prime use case for this where you can make money"
Is it?
I have the impression GenAI deteriorates the internet both from a
content and tech perspective.
Bots that waste your time because they don't work well or because
they are pushing an agenda, and low quality content that floods
social media from people who want to make a quick buck.
GitHub and AWS became increasingly unstable. X, Instagram, and
WhatsApp are suddenly sprinkled with subtle bugs.
Everything just got faster and we got more of it, but nothing of it
is good anymore because everyone tries to replace 90% of their work
with GenAI instead ofmaybe starting at 10-20% and then add more when
you're sure it works.
aenis wrote 22 hours 22 min ago:
I am old enough to remember the outages of aws, gcp and azure which
predate the gen ai thing. And of course the countless, endless,
hopeless procession of bugs in just about anything else.
I am running it in a large mid cap company (~25bn revenue). For the
first time we are releasing stuff which does not suck, and we are
releasing it 5x faster than before. Its real for us, produces real,
measureable economic value.
Now, how does anthropic or google make any money on those 250 p/m
subs i have no idea.
moduspol wrote 1 day ago:
That's kind of my concern so far. We haven't seen a lot of big AI
deployment success cases, but of the few mildly successful ones we
HAVE heard of, they're 100% about cost saving / perceived
efficiency and never about actually making a _better_ product or
service.
I think it factors into why public perception is increasingly
anti-AI. It'd be one thing if people were losing jobs, but on the
other hand, their daily chores were done by a robot. Instead,
people are losing (or fearing losing) their jobs, while
increasingly having to fight with AI chatbots for customer support
and similar cost-center use cases.
It's like AI is the "high fructose corn syrup" of tech. Nobody's
arguing the output is better--it's just a lot cheaper and faster to
get there, so that's its legacy. Making things cheaper and worse.
asim wrote 1 day ago:
Well tbh I think it's like cloud in 2007-2009. I was highly
skeptical and heckling while running on managed bare metal
everytime there was an outage. But now cloud is the standard model
for anything really. And I think AI becomes the gold standard for
code in the long term. So yea right now lots of outages. In a
couple years it'll be much better. And in ten years people will
always default to automation via AI.
Bombthecat wrote 1 day ago:
Fake Support contact from companies is another use case. They send
you in endless useless circles until you give up.
Saves the company a ton of money
seanw444 wrote 1 day ago:
The level to which this stuff can be used against the common
person is truly astounding.
alcasa wrote 1 day ago:
I fear people will just get used to it. Nobody gets tailored
clothing anyhmore and people don't question that we have
standardized sizes that don't really fit anyone properly. People
commonly buy standardized furniture and rarely get something to a
specific for their room. If cheaper software (I mean thats mostly
what it is) gets the job done, we will probably just keep doing
that, even if that means we lose something in the process.
nine_k wrote 18 hours 47 min ago:
It's the opposite, it becomes economically viable to produce
tailor-made software for more narrow purposes. Coding becomes
cheaper, resources free up for adjusting to the customer's
problem more precisely.
rixed wrote 15 hours 22 min ago:
The same could have been said from the sewing machine.
nine_k wrote 15 hours 16 min ago:
Correct, various alteration services have been made much more
affordable by the sewing machine.
renegade-otter wrote 23 hours 47 min ago:
This has been the story for over a decade. Thins are easier. The
cloud, more CPU, more RAM. No one really pays attention to
performance, detail, and the little things. There is no craft in
anything - just FEATURES.
AI will just make this so much worse - a race to the bottom of
dull mediocrity.
mandevil wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah but buying a sofa from Ikea doesn't let people steal my
banking passwords. There are serious consequences to software
bugs that there aren't in cheaper ready-made clothing.
lalalandland wrote 1 day ago:
Side point, but clothing industry are some of the biggest
pollutors in the world
runarberg wrote 1 day ago:
Your analogy is one indirection from being a fit. Factories
usually get custom solutions for their production facilities,
tailor made by specialist engineers. They then run the production
and deliver mass produced goods to the markets. We software
engineers arenât delivering tailor made solutions straight to
the consumer markets. We are much more like the engineers who set
up the machinery in the production facility, and our software is
much closer to that machinery then it is to the mass produced
table you buy at Ikea.
k__ wrote 1 day ago:
Fair.
I just have the feeling that it doesn't get the job done anymore.
I hope we will see the rise of alternatives.
Bombthecat wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, someone wrote: the future of apps, one user, me
superultra wrote 1 day ago:
Had Waffle House with some friends who mostly work in blue collar
industries. One guy who works at a timber mill used Claude code to
redo their ordering system. Took him about a month to go from knowing
nothing about Claude Code to finishing the system. Basically just
copied a proprietary software product that costs them upward $20k a
year. Theyâre keeping that other product to cross check but so far
the Claude coded item works great, and is of course more custom to
their business. The dudes a hero at work because the system is heads
and tails better.
Obviously caveat emperor but there are a lot of real world scenarios
like this.
I think Anthropic and OpenAi are trying to all cool and apple-y with
their branding but these use cases are just tools getting work done.
Most normal people donât need or want AGI, or even AI slop videos.
They just want their invoicing system to just f-ing work for a
change.
everforward wrote 23 hours 33 min ago:
> They just want their invoicing system to just f-ing work for a
change.
Time will tell, but I'm dubious this will hold longer-term. I
don't doubt that Claude can write the code, but I am dubious Claude
can manage it sanely. Does it have backups? Does the guy that
wrote it know how to restore those, or can Claude do it? Can
Claude upgrade the backend and/or migrate the data when the backend
changes, or is this going to be running known CVEs in a month?
This has sort of always been a thing via hiring CS students as
interns. I don't doubt most of them could jam out something that
looks like Slack or Gmail. The problems aren't apparent
immediately, they become apparent when you realize it doesn't
handle invalid responses well and the backups are hosed so you just
lost a bunch of data.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
I'm converging on this as the real end state: it's a "better Excel"
for general business work. And has some of the same limitations -
maintainability and security. But there are also plenty of small
businesses that run off a shared Excel spreadsheet and a few
mailboxes.
Nobody ever really solved making CRUD apps easier through better
frameworks. So now we have a tool to spit out framework gunk, and
suddenly everyone can have their own app.
elevation wrote 1 day ago:
> caveat emperor
s/emperor/emptor
I hope your friend's company spends $20K to harden the deployment
of the new app so it doesn't become a deep liability.
superultra wrote 1 day ago:
thanks for the correction
I hear you but at least as my bud described it, the software that
most of the timber mill industry uses is buggy as hell, crashes
all the time, and makes mistakes. One would wonder if even the
licensed software is hardened.
windexh8er wrote 1 day ago:
Keep dreaming!
The best part is is that they'll get popped because of it and
have zero clue. Anyone building in any frontier provider
currently, but has little background in software, is creating all
kinds of new liabilities that didn't exist before.
In a school district where I live the IT department developed a
password distribution app using Gemini on Google App Script (they
didn't even need this part), sent out links with B64 encoded JSON
that included: student name, student email, parent email and
student password. Yet, when I found it and told them all the
ways that it was technically a breach in our state they ran to
their 2-bit "cyber security experts" and "legal". They were far
more concerned with CYA than understanding the hole they dug
themselves. And all of the advice they got back was that it
wasn't a breach. They claimed their DPA with Google protected
them. I explained how email works and they just ignored me,
likely because in our state they are bound by GDPA and won't ever
engage in a legitimate conversation via email.
The kicker here is they pay for an IDP with built-in mechanisms
for password resets (that was the reason for building this: to
reset students passwords). One of their cyber security "experts"
(a lone guy who has zero credentials from what I found) told them
that password resets using the IDP was "not recommended". When
pressed on that they were, again, silent.
LLMs are creating a huge mess for people now empowered to go well
beyond their capabilities and understanding. It's a second coming
of the golden age of shitty software that's riddled with even the
most basic of security flaws.
superultra wrote 1 day ago:
I think this is where a lot of freelance contractors could
pivot to - basically "last mile" coding, where the LLM does the
front end work, and then high hourly pay engineers come in and
fix the work. it'd still be cheaper than a lot of the industry
niche software that is usually pretty bad.
seanw444 wrote 1 day ago:
I'm just going to keep building software mostly traditionally,
while using "AI" to help me research things quicker (might as
well use it while it's here), survive the shitpocalypse, and
then laugh as traditional-minded developers become a scarce
sought-after resource again.
Either way, the instability of this industry due to the insane
amounts of cargo culting every time comes along has made me
really question whether I want to stick around.
heavyset_go wrote 23 hours 36 min ago:
> Either way, the instability of this industry due to the
insane amounts of cargo culting every time comes along has
made me really question whether I want to stick around.
Whatever you do, don't click this link:
(HTM) [1]: https://github.com/garrytan/gstack/
whywhywhywhy wrote 1 day ago:
>I think consumers are slightly smarter now that they don't want to
be drawn into this kind of addictive toxic content.
They're not, they just already have the habit formed with the place
they go to do that. Ultimately anything worth seeing on sora will be
reposted to Tiktok.
Tade0 wrote 1 day ago:
> I think consumers are slightly smarter now that they don't want to
be drawn into this kind of addictive toxic content.
The addictive toxic content will go the way of tobacco and explore
new markets.
Back in 2010 around 11% of the population of Indonesia was connected
to the internet. Currently it's closer to 80% - largely via mobile
phones. That's approximately 200mln new users.
Nigeria and Pakistan are going through the same change, just started
later.
Since 2016 India alone added more users than the mentioned countries
combined.
That's a lot of first generation users. More than the entire western
population.
WarmWash wrote 1 day ago:
I'm reminded of a video from the 80's/90's where researchers took a
TV to the Amazon to see how "live off the land" tribes reacted to
high technology. Apparently they stopped doing everything and just
wanted to watch TV all day. And that was just regular old TV.
Short form video is a special kind of crack. I see even old people
getting hypnotized by it. And even worse, they're terrible at
determining if something is AI.
KellyCriterion wrote 3 hours 1 min ago:
Thats also the case today:
There was a report lately that smartphones brought to young
natives in rural areas of Amazon/etc., completely stopped
learning the skills that helped the tribes to survive (hunting
etc.)
KptMarchewa wrote 11 hours 22 min ago:
I find it a bit amazing that we're all still able to work
somehow, when surrounding with all those distractions.
armenarmen wrote 15 hours 34 min ago:
I got rid of Instagram for 3 years, redownloaded and spent maybe
2 hours watching reels of Italian American family humor. It felt
like a trance. Iâve since redeleted the app.
But yeah, scrolling short form is crack
ifethereal wrote 1 day ago:
Can anyone come up with a citation for this?
Not to say it's a hallucination, but, to modern standards, if
this were publicly funded research, it seems like it would have
been a gross violation of ethics or other non-technical criteria.
Interested to see how people think of it in later years, e.g.,
now.
petethomas wrote 1 day ago:
Probably this
(HTM) [1]: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.15...
Terretta wrote 1 day ago:
It's a particularly misleading anecdote.
In a sufficiently isolated population, you get the same effect
from a sound-making greeting card, or a battery powered light
and/or sound toy from a carnival.
And for what it's worth, tomorrow they don't miss whatever
âindistinguishable from magicâ thing, so no harm done.
// grew up near such areas
mlok wrote 1 day ago:
On TV, content changes all the time. It is "always new". In
your examples, content is the same over and over. They would
not be fascinating for too long because the novelty would
wear off. Very different.
randycupertino wrote 22 hours 12 min ago:
> On TV, content changes all the time. It is "always new".
Personally I think this also is what makes reddit so
addictive as well. I want to read all the threads on the
subreddits I enjoy... which is impossible, because there's
always new interesting posts.
ghurtado wrote 1 day ago:
I'm gonna try to remember this comment for the next time someone
brings up the boiling frog analogy.
Which is usually back to back with the thought that in bygone
times "the human mind used to be cleaner / healthier / smarter
and it was slowly destroyed by modern living"
There's not that much difference between our behavior and that of
a chicken fixated on the chalk line in front of it.
andai wrote 1 day ago:
In the 19th century, many authors lamented the frantic,
unhealthy pace of modern life.
sahildeepreel wrote 7 hours 2 min ago:
Highly recommend reading Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to
Death.
in the 80's, he wrote about how shift from print media to TV
has caused us to trade critical thinking for a 'numbing'
addiction to constant amusement. Little did he know about
social media..
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_D...
ProllyInfamous wrote 3 hours 5 min ago:
The hardest part of a 2026 reading of Amusing Ourselves is
that nothing within the pages is extraordinary anymore â
the book is plainly boring once you know about the
internets... definitely groundbreaking, for its time.
aenis wrote 22 hours 25 min ago:
And boy, were they right.
dpflan wrote 1 day ago:
âThe world is too much with usâ
- W. Wordsworth
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;â
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. Great God! Iâd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45564/the-wor...
Tade0 wrote 1 day ago:
This. What really happened is that someone figured out what
makes people give something their undivided attention and is
profiting handsomely off of this finding.
cube00 wrote 1 day ago:
> I think consumers are slightly smarter now that they don't want to
be drawn into this kind of addictive toxic content.
Considering the large million plus view counts I see AI slop getting
on FB and YouTube I'm not seeing this behaviour play out.
mark_l_watson wrote 1 day ago:
I also prefer seeing a corporation like Google do it for two reasons:
generative content might feed their cash cow also known as
âYouTubeâ and Google already has a good base for coding
assistants. Google owns, I think, 25% of Anthropic and earns money
selling compute infrastructure to Anthropic. Personally I think
Antigravity (with Claude and Gemini) and gemini-cli firmly keeps
Google in the running as far as AI coding tools goes. I want to do
business with companies that have a sustainable business plan.
Googleâs AI products for tech work, and ProtonMailâs Lumo+
product for all private daily web search and chatbot functionality is
enough for me; I used to chase every commercial AI offering but not
anymore.
Bombthecat wrote 1 day ago:
Claude runs now on Google tpus...
rdevilla wrote 1 day ago:
> I feel like they say one thing and do something else or they say
one thing and the agenda or something else.
[...] do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay
them on men's
shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of
their
fingers.
But all their works they do for to be seen of men [...]
> And again, I don't know how helpful it is to comment like this, but
I feel like if you understand the truth then you should speak the
truth even if it only benefits one other person to hear it.
[...] they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand.
That man was later nailed to a plank for literally no reason.
Nothing is new under the sun.
Hendrikto wrote 1 day ago:
> where you can make money and have a really profitable business
I am not convinced. Nobody is making money, every player is losing
money hand over fist.
hobofan wrote 1 day ago:
Frontier model developers don't make money, but inference providers
do. For open weight models there is a healthy market of inference
providers that operate profitably without VC backing.
lossyalgo wrote 1 day ago:
Such as? Where do we find these open weight model providers? Why
is hardly anyone talking about them or sharing links (here or
elsewhere) if they are so wonderful and profitable?
vel0city wrote 1 day ago:
Why is hardly anyone talking about basic web hosting provides
or sharung links (here or elsewhere) if they are so wonderful
and profitable?
Because few people really care much about the commodity hosting
world. They're not making waves, they're just packaging things
made by others for a low-ish cost. They're also not very
consumer-focused, as they're a bit lower level than what most
people prefer to think about. It doesn't mean they don't exist
or that they're not profitable though, just not
headline-reaching numbers in the end.
rescbr wrote 1 day ago:
Go to [1] and you're going to see plenty of providers.
OpenRouter makes it easy to use them, just add credits to your
account.
I thought this was common knowledge to anyone looking to use an
inference API, but it seems it isn't. Well, even AWS is in this
business with Bedrock.
(HTM) [1]: https://models.dev/
wildster wrote 1 day ago:
CoreWeave's cash flow do not look too healthy.
azan_ wrote 1 day ago:
Not because there is no path to profitability (they make a ton of
money on inference), they just spend a lot on R&D.
chasd00 wrote 1 day ago:
from what i understand, the issue with inference is it doesn't
scale as user count grows the way traditional saas scales. In
typical saas adding users requires very little additional
capacity. However with inference, supporting more users requires
much more capacity to be added. I don't know if it's quite linear
but it certainly requires more infrastructure to support
additional LLM users than say a web application.
seanw444 wrote 1 day ago:
And the existing infrastructure routinely struggles for several
of the well known players. You can literally tell when it's
getting bogged down by workload. And that's after all the
absurdly large datacenters we've already established at
significant expense (to both the corporations and the average
person).
root_axis wrote 1 day ago:
> they make a ton of money on inference
So it is stated, but is it actually true? I am not convinced.
Besides, it's not as if they can suddenly stop training models,
the moment you do that you've spelled a death sentence for
profitablity because Google and open source will very quickly
undercut a 15 year break even timeline.
extr wrote 1 day ago:
It's widely reported and acknowledged as true.
Forgeties79 wrote 1 day ago:
Where and by who? Critical context missing here.
extr wrote 23 hours 19 min ago:
Dario Amodei @ 18:05
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcqQ1ebBqkc&t=1088...
Forgeties79 wrote 22 hours 8 min ago:
The CEO hyping his product and the viability of his
business during an interview with Stripe does not, at
least to me, qualify as âwidely reported and
acknowledgedâ
root_axis wrote 1 day ago:
Well, the only people with any ability to acknowledge it have
a massive incentive to do so, and I've been around the block
enough times to know that startups will use every trick in
the book to paint a rosy financial picture, even when it's
extremely misleading or occasionally just straight up lies.
In the current climate of AI hype my skepticism is even
greater.
I'll believe it when I see it.
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Agreed, the revenues are big.. but very small next to the
datacenter bills.. even if a fraction of which are being used
for inference, it's hard to argue they even break even. That's
before all the other costs (Super Bowl ads, billions in
compensation).
aaa_aaa wrote 1 day ago:
Not really. They are burning money on hardware, resources and
payroll without meaningful return prospects.
mrbungie wrote 1 day ago:
Afaik Anthropic still loses money for their main product in this
space: Claude Code and their Max plans.
somehnguy wrote 1 day ago:
This became immediately clear to me over the weekend when I
used Opus via API key. I had it review the code for my
(relatively small) personal blog to create an AGENTS.MD - it
cost me $3.26.
TheLNL wrote 1 day ago:
Api cost need not correlate with running cost.
bsaul wrote 1 day ago:
same here... The API costs are absolutely insane for any real
usage. This is either high prices to make sure no profitable
competitor to claude workspace or other agent system emerges,
or heavily sponsoring of their own soluions.
jvictor118 wrote 1 day ago:
With coding (it's not really coding per se that matters imo it's
more like dynamic logic writ large) it's a land grab strategy. They
want to get established as the de facto standard and get a whole
bunch of people on their platform so by the time they need to "get
profitable" they have a captive audience, a leg-up on other labs.
It's a tale as old as time, that's why ubers used to be cheaper
than cost.
fooqux wrote 1 day ago:
> They want to get established as the de facto standard and get a
whole bunch of people on their platform so by the time they need
to "get profitable" they have a captive audience, a leg-up on
other labs. It's a tale as old as time, that's why ubers used to
be cheaper than cost.
Some of that is seeking to kill competitors before they can get
established. That's normal and has been around for generations,
if not since trading was invented.
But most of what we've seen during the "enshitification age" has
been to burn money until you achieve a critical mass of users.
However, this only really applies to social platforms where the
point of it is communicating with people you know. That's the
lock-in. You convinced Grandma to join Bookface and now you feel
bad leaving if she doesn't leave at the same time, and more
importantly, who wants to join Google Square if nobody else uses
it?
That's not going to work for AI platforms.
What I do see potentially working is one method that email
platforms use to lock in users: having tons of data you can't
export/migrate. If you spent lots of time training your AI by
feeding it your data, that's going to make it harder to leave.
So far none of them have capitalized on this (probably due to
various technical reasons) but I expect it to start eventually.
friendzis wrote 1 day ago:
The lock-in of email platforms is the address. With IMAP you
can extract the messages right away and migrate. Yet, you would
still have to check the old mailbox for stray emails that you
must tell to reach you on the new address. And continue doing
so for years or risk missing some critical email.
Coincidentally, bringing your own address that can be migrates
away is somewhere between impossible and expensive.
juped wrote 1 day ago:
No, you can do it on all the major providers for either no or
low cost.
friendzis wrote 1 day ago:
Disregarding the grandfathered free accounts, own domain is
$7.20/user/month on gmail, â¬5/month on Proton. On
microsoft that's business tier feature and AFAIK not
supported at all on Yahoo.
vel0city wrote 1 day ago:
Zoho Mail Lite is $1/user/mo when billed annually. [1] A
few DNS hosting companies still bundle in a few free
email mailboxes with registration costs but that is
becoming more rare.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.zoho.com/mail/zohomail-pricing.html
bryanlarsen wrote 1 day ago:
It's a strategy as old as time, but it's a strategy that usually
fails. Spending a lot of money on customer capture only works
when customers are actually solidly captured. Most markets have
fairly heavy competition and customers will only stay captured as
long as there is no substantial cost to staying captive.
Take Uber as an example: yes they've raised prices to become
profitable, but not to the insanely profitable levels they could
if they had a true monopoly. People will stay on Uber when the
competition is still at a roughly equivalent price, but will
switch if Uber raises its prices enough.
Uber Eats is different, since its a 3 sided market where the cost
is paid by the restaurant rather than the user.
AI appears it's going to be more like Uber the car service.
Claude can charge $200/month, but charging $2000/month seems
unlikely to work. I'm sure many would be willing to pay
$2000/month if they had no alternative, but there are
alternatives.
ghurtado wrote 1 day ago:
> it's a strategy as old as time, but it's a strategy that
usually fails
I like to call this the "Yahoo Effect"
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Yes
They are just pivoting to stuff that loses money more slowly but
maybe has a path to profits eventuallyâ¦
heavyset_go wrote 1 day ago:
Some of these AI companies that promised AGI are going to find
out that they're actually IDE plugin subscription companies
Bombthecat wrote 1 day ago:
Nvidia CEO said we already have agi:)
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Ad generated income
WarmWash wrote 1 day ago:
Coding is a small minority of total generated tokens. It's easy
swimming in tech waters all day to think Claude is the pack
leader because it writes excellent code, but the reality is
that tokens are overwhelmingly coming from OpenAI and Google
doing mostly stuff like "Make this e-mail sound nicer" and
"What's a cheap vacation spot with warm turquoise waters"
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
> "Make this e-mail sound nicer" and "What's a cheap vacation
spot with warm turquoise waters"
Right but I think a lot of these use cases aren't replacing
any jobs because it wasn't anyones job. It's just a little
polish on existing work (did spell correction in Word kill
jobs?) or the stuff that voice assistants have been promising
for 10 years.
vel0city wrote 1 day ago:
Both of those things both were and are jobs. They're called
secretaries and travel agents.
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Jobs that have already been killed is my point
vel0city wrote 1 day ago:
Together that's about four million American jobs so I'd
disagree those jobs have "already been killed".
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
I think it remains to be seen if LLMs are even 25% as good at
everything else as they are at coding.. which is fine, if they
focus and stop promising the world.
That alone is huge, if they let go of their egos about putting
the entire white collar class out of work..
biztos wrote 1 day ago:
We could argue all day about what should be at the forefront, but
addictive content isn't going anywhere, because addicts pay up.
In this case, maybe not enough to offset the costs; or maybe it just
wasn't addictive enough. But it's still early days.
muvlon wrote 1 day ago:
> because addicts pay up.
I think it turns out they don't, not really anyway. And that's
exactly why Sora is dead. They figured out that addictive AI slop
has been so thoroughly commoditized that you can get it on a ton of
other platforms for free, so people don't want to pay for it.
asveikau wrote 1 day ago:
The monetization of social media has always been about steering
otherwise non paying users into making purchases elsewhere. So if
the AI slop can make people spend money on other products that's
accomplished the goal.
burningChrome wrote 1 day ago:
>> you can get it on a ton of other platforms for free, so
people don't want to pay for it.
What happens when other platforms start trying to get people to
pay? I think there's a race to find a revenue stream for this
stuff. As soon as one company can find a way to monetize it,
they'll all end up doing it. Right now, we're in a place where
companies are losing so much money, they have to decide how much
they can lose before they pull the plug.
OpenAI just proved you cannot burn money indefinitely.
mark_l_watson wrote 1 day ago:
Sometimes they do pay up. Google Gemini estimates that 25% of
active daily YouTube users pay for ad free service. I know my
wife and I do, and we watch a huge range of YouTube material more
hours a month than all the other streaming services we subscribe
to. There is no area of human knowledge or human interest that
YouTube doesnât have a ton of material for; and of course, the
animal videos⦠The ironic thing in the subject of Sora service
being cancelled is that neither my wife or I watch AI generated
material.
jsharpe wrote 1 day ago:
I think the real answer is that Sora-style AI slop videos just
aren't as addictive as we thought they'd be.
I let my kids have access to the app in the hope they would be
inoculated against being obsessed with AI video and it actually
worked. They got bored in like 2 days.
It simply doesn't compare well with handcrafted short form videos
that are already plentiful on TikTok (which I absolutely don't
let my kids watch).
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, fortunately slop is pretty unwatchable after the novelty
wears out. Even the lowest common denominator stuff NFLX
churns out is in a different league.
I was talking to other people re: difference between code &
other domains. Code is, for customer, what it does.. not how
it does it. That is - we can get mad about style, idioms,
frameworks, language, indentation, linting, verbosity,
readability, maintainability but.. it doesn't really matter for
the customer if the code does the thing its supposed to do.
Many things like entertainment products don't work that way.
For a good book/movie/show, a good plot (the what) is table
stakes. All of the how matters - dialogue, writing style,
casting, camera/sound/lighting work, directing, pacing, sound
track, editing, etc.
For short format low stakes stuff like online ads, then the AI
slop actually probably works however.
Same for say making a power point. LLMs can quickly spit out a
passable deck I am sure. For a lot of BS job use cases, that's
actually probably fine.
But if it is the key element of a sales pitch, really it's just
advanced auto-formatting/complete, and the human element is
still the most important part. For example I doubt all the AI
startups are using AI generated sales pitches when they go to
VC for funding.
neutronicus wrote 1 day ago:
IMO slop fits best for "art that isn't the point".
A promotional flyer for an event could work perfectly well in
plain text. The art is pure social signal - this event is
thrown by the type of people who put art in a certain style
on their flyers. Your eye is caught and your brain almost
immediately discards the art.
Same with power point - you make a power point so that
everyone knows this decision was made by the type of people
who make power points. A txt file and a png would have gotten
the job done.
Same also with memes - you could just _say_ a lot of these
jokes, but they're funnier with a hastily-edited image
alongside.
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Agreed, it's good at placeholder art for which
entertainment consumption is not the point. Clip Art for
the new generation.
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
For OpenAI that was and felt like some side husle they were playing
around nothing more.
Having Disney on their side was def quite a smart/interesting move.
At least from one interview, they def had resource issues last year
and teams had to fight for it. Can easily be that sora was always
priortized down and they realized it doesn't make sense to spend that
much capacity while then not being able to push their main model.
Hendrikto wrote 1 day ago:
It never made sense and was always just burning resources that
OpenAI does not have.
It reeks so much of desperation. They know they are running out of
goodwill and money at breakneck speed. They are just flailing and
throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks.
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
Everyone is doing image generation. Its realtivly easy and I
would say it would be a people mover if openai wouldn't support
this.
So they need to be able to do image generation, for which they
need image data. They also need to be able to analyze videos for
more and better training data like learning or teaching there
models from yt and other sources.
So they have image generation, image dataset and video dataset.
Its not far fetched ata ll or desperate to leverage this base for
playing around with video generation.
And despite how much money they burn, for a company that size,
trying out video generation wasn't that high of a goal post.
I'm really surprised by there move and can only imagine that the
progress of other models from google and antrophic pulls their
teeth and no longer want to invest the compute (not money) to
leverage their compute for their main models.
Bombthecat wrote 1 day ago:
Oh yeah. Openai didn't have a major image update in a while,
no?
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
Their latest model is from December but tbh i have not heard
much about it.
Nano Banana created a lot of noise.
But the reasoning of Gemini 3.1 Pro is really really good.
Its hard to describe how good it became. I do not see the
same quality from openai. Openai though is also super fast in
response. A lot faster than just a few month ago.
For example: some german guy used the wrong word in
describing an advantage of having a silencer and missuesd a
word. Openai just said its nonsense, gemini suggested that
its a typo and he wanted to write something else (gemini was
correct).
It could also be that we are in a moat between "why is AGI
not here yet" and "we need to build now the agentic platform
stuff, that takes time".
Gemini pro is def slower than openai and I do not know if its
because I use the pro version of gemini but not from openai.
But it could also be that OpenAI has to work on subagents
because Gemini def uses subagents and i was not able to find
a source that OpenAI is doing this too.
weezing wrote 1 day ago:
Nothing of value was lost.
wiseowise wrote 1 day ago:
First domino falls?
shevy-java wrote 1 day ago:
Google Graveyard is joined by OpenAI. That's one problem of those big
corporations - they eagerly kill off products and projects willy-nilly.
It may make businss sense but why the prior promo? Those promos have
been a lie, just like the cake was.
cmiles8 wrote 1 day ago:
It was fun, but from a business standpoint Iâd have to think this was
a giant pile of burning cash for OpenAI⦠even more so than the rest
of OpenAI at the moment
r0ckarong wrote 1 day ago:
Couldn't make it work at taking actual directions huh?
janilowski wrote 1 day ago:
From the linked Hollywood reporter article:
"...the AI company exits the video generation business."
"OpenAI, led by CEO Sam Altman, is not getting out of the AI video
business [...], of course... "
I hate journalism.
delis-thumbs-7e wrote 1 day ago:
Good riddance. Less slop machines the better.
mb194dc wrote 1 day ago:
Burning $15m a day. It was impossible for it to ever be profitable.
Reminds of tech bubble 1.
bbayer wrote 1 day ago:
This was inevitable since Antropic made a fortune by releasing single
app with only text generation business. They did best code generator
and targeted developers and enterprise users. OpenAI did only 1.5
million dollars from Sora which is obviously far from profitable. So it
is logical to assign GPU time to more profitable business.
claytonia wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm just wondering whether the real reason behind this is the cost of
supporting the model and service, or competition from players like
Seedance.
HerbManic wrote 1 day ago:
I suspect it is a combnation of both. When OpenAI goes for the IPO
all their costs become visible and this could hurt their vaulation
big time.
If it cost too much and others can do it cheaper, that looks bad from
both fronts.
steveharing1 wrote 1 day ago:
Nowadays its strange that you put in a lot of efforts on a platform
just to see these Goodbye messages, first digg was gone & now Sora.
ulfw wrote 1 day ago:
That company is run about as well as Loopt
systemsweird wrote 1 day ago:
I suspect the issue was Sora likely had a very low ratio of consumers
to creators which makes a route to monetization unlikely. There was no
incentives for doom scrolling consumers to migrate to Sora when they
were already getting plenty of short form videos on FB, IG, and TikTok.
The network effects of the other two platforms are too strong, and a
value prop of âwatch similar videos but theyâre all AIâ is not
strong for consumers.
Also, say what you want about AI slop, but I was on sora a lot for a
few weeks and there was a real explosion of creativity on there. It
felt new and exciting and creators were engaging with each other and
sharing feedback and tips. I generated a ton of videos and surprised
myself with a flury of creative ideas.
tabs_or_spaces wrote 1 day ago:
I think Sora was technically impressive as a concept. The way it was
managed as a product wasn't good.
There didn't seem to be any marketing for it. Like I can't even
remember an ad for it or any content creator type of person pushing
Sora actively.
To get access to Sora I believe you needed to be on a paid plan?
It's really difficult to get user generated content going when it's
behind a paywall.
It's also hard to tell if this means that openai is in trouble, or if
this is just a badly managed product that deserved to be killed. With
the negative sentiment on openai, folks might think the former.
StarterPro wrote 1 day ago:
So long and good riddance.
hnlyman wrote 1 day ago:
I used Sora for a very brief time in late 2025. As ridiculous as the
videos usually were, I always thought there was more evidence of human
creativity and culture on there than on a standard, uncurated Youtube
Shorts or Instagram Reels feed. AI-generated video presents some unique
terrors to society, but I think most of the criticism of Sora could be
directed equally to more 'traditional' social media. In any case, Sora
is an impressive display of technology, but a poor product. I'm not too
surprised it's getting killed.
daikon899 wrote 1 day ago:
Two separate problems killed it: novelty wore off for casual users, and
content restrictions killed it for power users. Most engaging video
content online is IP-based â memes, fan edits, remixes. Sora tried to
build a social platform while banning the vocabulary that makes content
worth sharing.
tefkah wrote 1 day ago:
shut up bot
throwaw12 wrote 1 day ago:
I think they have started seeing scratches in data center build up.
Sora was a perfect example of using a lot of compute to generate the
video -> we need a lot of GPUs -> a lot of RAMs -> energy and land
I am predicting in the next 6 months RAM shortage will soften, not too
much, because war in the Middle East will have additional impact for
some time.
nashtik wrote 1 day ago:
For a moment, I thought it's about Sora Matshushima, the up and coming
table tennis player
maplethorpe wrote 1 day ago:
RIP to one of the most evil products I've seen come out of the tech
industry in my lifetime.
lnenad wrote 1 day ago:
It's really funny how people can say these things online without
giving them a second thought. There are literal weapons being
produced that are killing people daily. But no, it's the meme
generator that's evil.
magguzu wrote 1 day ago:
> one of
Sohcahtoa82 wrote 1 day ago:
This is textbook whataboutism.
Yes, literal weapons are bad, too. But that's not the current
topic.
jjulius wrote 1 day ago:
Because this is a tech forum, not a weapons forum. I'd wager that a
sizeable chunk of folk decrying AI/LLMs in this manner also do, in
fact, decry the same weapons you refer to. They just do it
elsewhere because it's not typically on-topic here.
lnenad wrote 1 day ago:
Context is tech, I agree. Is there no tech in weapons? Palantir?
Drones? Are there developers that are proud when they made the
kill machine 1% more precise; more optimized?
jjulius wrote 1 day ago:
Plenty of HN threads about Palantir and drones also have people
commenting about their evil.
Just because one thing is a lesser/different kind doesn't mean
we can't also be vigilant about it as well.
lnenad wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not arguing that, OP said
> RIP to one of the most evil products I've seen come out of
the tech industry in my lifetime.
I'm saying Sora isn't even in the top 100 of most evil
products out of the tech industry.
freeplay wrote 1 day ago:
I think the evil part is putting it in the hands of the
general public. The ability to create propaganda and deep
fakes gives everyone a powerful tool for manipulation. The
rich and powerful are going to do whatever the want,
anyway. Everyone having access to that same tool doesn't
make it any less dangerous.
There's nothing inherently evil about a knife. Standing
outside of a high school and handing a knife to every kid
walking in is pretty evil though.
lnenad wrote 7 hours 49 min ago:
> The ability to create propaganda
This has been possible for pretty much the entire history
of humanity. The bar has been lowered, but not by a lot
imho.
I don't disagree on the rest, and I didn't say there
aren't bad uses, but there are many many good uses for
AI/Sora. You can't say the same for weapons.
freeplay wrote 3 hours 4 min ago:
Genuinely curious what the [morally] good use cases for
Sora would be.
zemo wrote 1 day ago:
violence at scale is often facilitated by and preceded by
propaganda at scale, which is one of Soraâs only applications.
Certain things are obvious to normal people, like âpropaganda is
real, powerful, bad, and historical of enormous significanceâ.
wraptile wrote 1 day ago:
Really? A video meme generator is making your top evil products list?
Capricorn2481 wrote 1 day ago:
You're being willfully blind to how video generation platforms like
this are already being used.
3form wrote 1 day ago:
Very little potential to be used for good and quite some potential
to be used for bad. I think the ratio is particularly damning,
rather than the total evil.
hbn wrote 1 day ago:
This is just a product that offers access to a model, and they
did as much as they could to make sure it didn't output anything
non-kosher.
Video gen is going nowhere, and there's already models out there
with less safety measures. So there's no RIP to the evil product.
blindriver wrote 1 day ago:
Sora was good but Gemini is so, so much better. And Seedance is on
another dimension. But to be honest I'm shocked that they gave up on AI
video. I wonder what the cause of that was?
umich2025 wrote 1 day ago:
As a big user of ai video gen(my Google veo bill last month was $130)
this doesnât affect me in the slightest.
Thereâs so many video gen models out there and given the cheaper
Chinese models Iâm not surprised they closed this down. Besides the
initial push, any marketing regarding video gen has always been the
Kling or Higgsfield models. Just never a reason to do sora
mancerayder wrote 1 day ago:
Is this the thing that takes an already unusual video - an animal
picking food from a Halloween candy on a porch caught on a porch cam -
and turns it into a meme? The bear instead of the raccoon. Then turns
into a cat playing a trumpet....then turns into massive spam where it
turns into a grey area (a cat being surprised and chasing a dog with a
mask) that gets reposted endlessly?
A record speed into AI slop. Is this what everything turns into when
content creation becomes easy? what's happening here exactly?
reassess_blind wrote 1 day ago:
Safe to assume the US government is now the only one with access?
wg0 wrote 1 day ago:
This is the indication of times ahead. Of AI services shutting down.
The cost must have been a key reason for the shutdown.
End is near.
aldousd666 wrote 1 day ago:
It's super expensive for them to run this hardware. And they need the
compute for other things. Everyone who's cursed open AI for going down
in the middle of the day whenever they're using it to write code or do
some other thing, will breathe a little easier now that there's some
compute available. Wise decision, in my opinion.
npn wrote 1 day ago:
turn out the schizos were right. most of OpenAI *real* investment money
comes from Gulf countries. without that money flow they can't sustain
the cash burn anymore.
fraywing wrote 1 day ago:
Seedance 2.0 is about to eat reap the market gap Sora creates. It's
truly superior in every way. It felt like Sora was stunted by OpenAI
for long, consistent video generation (not to mention the crazy red
tape around what you could generate).
cpt_sobel wrote 1 day ago:
What market? I thought the whole point was that Sora at the end of
the day couldn't find a way to generate revenue
ionwake wrote 1 day ago:
Man I find the HN crowd so cross and fickle sometimes. I think itâs
just because when companies get bad rep it affects how people view the
products? Im autistic and tend to focus on the tech
SORA ( whatever that means) was one of the most astounding demos Iâve
probably ever seen ( ChatGPT was more gradual ).
The shock and awe of rendered AI video blew my mind.
Yes months later everyone can do it and is bored by it and has strong
opinions about what is right for society or not.
But it was a monumental piece of tech and I personally ( clearly
incorrectly ) think the top comments should be appreciative of the
release and the impact
Personally I think the lack of nudity destroyed the adult market But I
donât know enough tbh
johnfn wrote 1 day ago:
I think Sora is an excellent way to see how people's beliefs clash
with reality. Even in this post, I see people likening Sora to
unveiling "a weapon", it filling them with "bland dread", or
comparing it to creating "killing robots". But now that Sora is being
shut down, what impact did Sora actually have on society, other than
getting a couple of people to waste their time making some funny meme
videos? Did any of those negative externalities actually play out?
If you are autistic, I feel that it causes you to see reality a more
accurately than most here on this thread.
toraway wrote 22 hours 46 min ago:
Sora was one of the earliest demos of a "wow okay that is good
enough to be mistaken for real" GenAI model, which is what that
comment was referencing with the "weapon" reference (the tech
behind it not just Sora⢠Videos).
Sure, by the time they productized it, Sora was no longer SOTA
thanks to the AI arms race. And ultimately positioned as a TikTok
for Slop with an annoying watermark so didn't take the world by
storm on its own.
But since it was unveiled GenAI videos as a whole have become
commonplace everywhere else on the internet, with plenty of
negative impact already in terms of spam or manipulation, and we're
barely in year 2 so far.
gordonhart wrote 1 day ago:
At least according to the Head of Product at X, Sora was by far the
most widely used tool to create fake war videos[0] aiming to push
various false narratives. Given how popular fake content is at Meta
I can only imagine what they see there (if they even have anybody
looking at this kind of thing).
[0]
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/nikitabier/status/2029024577624650041
johnfn wrote 14 hours 37 min ago:
I understand that misinformation is a bad thing, and your point
is taken that I was probably too quick to brush off the worst
thing that Sora did as 'some funny memes'. But still. Photoshop
is used to make a lot of misinformation, probably 1000x to
10,000x as much as Sora did, or even more than that. Does anyone
say the latest version of Photoshop is like unveiling a weapon?
Does anyone say that AI driven generative fill in Photoshop is
like creating killing robots?
heavyset_go wrote 22 hours 48 min ago:
On X, viewing actual war footage was locked behind age-gating and
identity verification, while any idiots' fake war footage was
uncensored and consumable by anyone.
whywhywhywhy wrote 1 day ago:
It's not that, the demo was impressive but when it became wildly
available the reality of it never lived up to what was demoed and it
later came out some of the shorts they did with directors had a lot
of editing to them anyway.
Gigachad wrote 1 day ago:
Sora was a bit like seeing a new weapon being demoed. No matter how
much engineering went in to it. The overwhelming feeling was
âthis is bad for society and the consequences will be massive.â
So far thatâs been exactly it. Now AI generated videos are
primarily used to scam, deceive, and ragebait.
trgn wrote 1 day ago:
already theyve made youtube unusable
tefkah wrote 1 day ago:
exactly! while there may be some neutral to slightly positive use
of this tech (haha funny video) I can only really see the evil uses
of it: scams, misinformation, propaganda, easily available to
create by anyone at massive scale.
I really don't see the argument for this tech to be any kind of
good, unless you think moving into an era where you cannot trust
any image or video is somehow a neutral outcome, AND are happy
about the people who are in control of this tech. which I guess
captures a larger part of the HN crowd than I'd hoped
bit-anarchist wrote 1 day ago:
My perspective is different: we never could trust videos and
images in the past. Our hopes, back then, were that the costs of
faking said media (despite us being in the age of information and
media) would remain permanently high and would deter people from
choosing so. But this was always wishful thinking.
GenAI has presented tangible proof of such risks and is forcing
society to reevaluate the way we trust evidence. In my eyes, it
serves as an opportunity to improve our foundations of trust to
something that relies less on the good will of random authorities
onto something more objective.
Also, I haven't really seem anyone celebrating the large
corporations who control AI tech. Could be simply the people I'm
involved with, but most AI enthusiasts I've seem are more about,
at least, open-weights AI models.
toraway wrote 23 hours 2 min ago:
IMO what's really wishful thinking is believing that society
will necessarily adapt for the better in response to a deluge
of AI spam/ads/propaganda.
You could have said the same about say, pre-AI deceptively
edited/ragebait/made up content going viral on FB, "actually
this is good because soon people will realize they are being
tricked/lied to, they'll think extra-critically before sharing
dubious content next time".
Which has not happened. I can only see AI videos/images making
the problem worse as people are fed personalized, narrowly
targeted content that seem to perfectly appeal to their own
beliefs/biases/emotions/etc.
Also, if anything it seems like we will have to trust
authoritative groups more thanks to GenAI. If I have to
consider every video on the internet from e.g. Iran as fake,
I'm going to turn to NYT or WSJ who can be relied on to
(usually) share only original content, or highly vetted 3rd
party content.
bit-anarchist wrote 20 hours 40 min ago:
I agree that the solution we may find might not necessarily
be for the better. In fact, there are a couple solutions I've
seen that fall onto that category, like banning GenAI (does
nothing to solve the underlying issue while control over
economic production always requires increased
authoritarianism).
I can't really provide a truly good solution, as this problem
has large ramifications into philosophy and ethics, but I'd
think it would involve solutions like attestation and
certificates, and, primarily, thinking of shared media (text,
images, videos, etc.) not as facts, but, strictly as
allegations.
olalonde wrote 1 day ago:
Disagree. It's also used for high quality entertainment.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lNzYP6SjVY
camillomiller wrote 1 day ago:
"I'm autistic and tend to focus on the tech" is not a justification,
and I would advise to stop using it as such.
Would you apply the same to killing robots? Hey, the Hyperthrasher
2000 mauls people and shreds them to pieces, but it's the most
impressive TECH demo I've ever seen!
ionwake wrote 1 day ago:
Totally disagree this is what would happen. Hypertheasher2000
breaks through my door to eat me. First time Iâve seen a man made
human eating werewolf bot.
Me: damn thatâs cool
â¦â¦â¦â¦AAAAAHHH HELP ME
jjulius wrote 1 day ago:
>Totally disagree this is what would happen.
Doesn't matter if you agree that would happen, the analogy is
valid - you're essentially admitting that you're ignoring the
negative impacts of the tech for the sake of how impressive it
is.
ionwake wrote 1 day ago:
Im not sure you understand the conversation we are having.
I have said about 3 times I am solely judging tech by how
impressive it is technically.
I have no idea who you are arguing with.
diputsmonro wrote 1 day ago:
You can feel that way if you want, but to answer the
confusion you posed in your initial post, most people do
consider all aspects of a technology rather than just focus
on the technical achievements. We live in a society of
billions of humans interacting with each other, and whether
or not you personally care or understand those interactions,
they still do exist and still impact all of our lives. A
particular technology may be cool, but if it threatens the
lives of me or my family, I'm going to have a negative view
of it.
Nothing exists in a vacuum and the way technologies affect
people living in the world is a fundamentally important
aspect of the technology itself. To ignore them would be
like celebrating a cool new engine design but overlooking the
fact that it has a tendency to explode and kill everyone in
the car. If the primary effect of a technology is human
suffering, then it isn't cool!
ionwake wrote 1 day ago:
The T-800 is cool tho
camillomiller wrote 23 hours 21 min ago:
Câmon bro, the T-1000 is LIQUID METAL
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
> I think the lack of nudity destroyed the adult market
As we've see from Grok, building the system for producing non
consensual nude images of other people will get the legal and PR
hammer brought down on you fairly quickly. It's just an incredibly
unethical thing to do.
ccppurcell wrote 1 day ago:
The tone of a discussion is shaped as much by who doesn't comment as
who does. A product comes out and a lot of people are excited by it,
they comment accordingly. People who aren't, don't, unless there is
something outrageous about it. Maybe there is in this case but the
point still stands that when the product fails, it's a very different
set of people who feel compelled to comment. And this is totally
expected because "that's a shame, I liked it" doesn't seem to
contribute to the discussion. Neither does "this product doesn't
excite me", even more so because that's kind of the default
assumption. So an online community or institution or publication can
seem very fickle, especially when the commenters are pseudonymous.
claaams wrote 1 day ago:
The tech was fine/interesting for what it is. The product itself is
awful and something from nightmares. It's not an enjoyable experience
for me watching some uncanny valley slop. I'm not impressed with the
"creativity" of someone typing in a prompt and having a plagiarismbox
spit something out. The ingenuity and resourcefulness of someone
actually making something is what I like. The emotion and reasons
behind a work of art make it inspiring. The details of their
perspective and choices they make when creating it are beautiful and
interesting.
The impact of easy AI generated video is a less certain and less
secure world. You can't trust your eyes anymore because of how fast
and easy it is to fake video and moments. You can't trust
communications with someone because how easy it is to impersonate
them over video and voice. Scams involving tools like this are
already running rampant and it will only get worse. The sheer level
of distrust these tools have unleashed into the world makes me wish
they never existed. They have burned millions (billions?) of dollars
on this when that money would have been better served going to the
creators whose work they stole to build it. It's rotten.
platevoltage wrote 1 day ago:
The iPhone X's new feature where it approximated you facial
expressions on a 3D character using the facial recognition sensors
blew my mind as well.
It was a party trick. I can't remember the last time I touched it.
That's what SORA is, or was.
cpt_sobel wrote 1 day ago:
Are these the Memojis or whatever Apple calls them these days?
Pretty much eveyry iOS update mentions them near the top of the
list and I still have no idea where to find / create / care about
them...
sethops1 wrote 1 day ago:
It's like when Apple announces hundreds of new emoji every
update. Like great, those will look real nice next to the six
emoji I ever actually use.
aDivineDragones wrote 1 day ago:
While Apple use of the tracking was not more than a party trick,
the foundational technology they created for this is currently the
best low budget tracking solution and heavily used in VTubing
(online streamers that use an Avatar with live facial tracking
instead of showing their face via webcam)
asnyder wrote 1 day ago:
I know the developer who worked on it took pride in the outcome.
Hopefully they added some additional characters to keep it fresh.
platevoltage wrote 1 day ago:
To be fair, it was really cool. It was also a tech demo with no
real practical application.
tikotus wrote 1 day ago:
It was really cool, unlike my phone after doing it for 5
minutes!
There were social games that used it as a feature, and it was
fun when it worked, but it had to be disabled soon as it
drained the battery so fast.
nektro wrote 1 day ago:
all ai video will be remembered as horrific and a showcase that its
creators have no ethical foresight
tefkah wrote 1 day ago:
"The [AI researchers] have known sin, and this is a knowledge which
they cannot lose."[0]
which is what I would hope would happen, but they're probably fine
not thinking about the consequences of their actions looking at
their 7 figure salaries
[0]:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/834918
Cider9986 wrote 1 day ago:
Sure the tech was cool, but people already hated youtube shorts when
they were added. I think the "HN crowd" is probably the type to
dislike short form content, so that might be where some of the
dislike comes from.
jazzyjackson wrote 1 day ago:
Interesting to hear your perspective. There was no shock and awe to
me, ChatGPT changed what I thought was possible with computers, and
everything else as far as photorealistic generation and then video
just seemed inevitable. I decided to abstain from watching any video
I know is AI, but of course now itâs mixed in with television and
advertisements. Iâve started data hoarding old TV shows thinking it
will be nice to have something to watch when the internet goes down.
raw_anon_1111 wrote 1 day ago:
I have gladly been paying $20/month for ChatGPT since the day web
search was available and I use codex-cli every day instead of Claude
and never have to think about limits.
I also use ChatGPT as my default search engine and to help me learn
Spanish.
But image generation and video generation were a nice parlor trick.
But wasnât useful for me except for images for icons for diagrams.
But light you said, porn makes money and there are people who pay
$300 a month for Grok to generate AI Porn.
exodust wrote 1 day ago:
> there are people who pay $300 a month for Grok to generate AI
Porn.
Did you just make that up?
Grok barely makes "M-rated" nudity, let alone porn. Musk recently
claimed it can do "R-Rated content", but his post got a community
note saying otherwise.
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2031989543529038103
4ggr0 wrote 1 day ago:
dude, there was a huge scandal a couple of weeks ago about grok
creating CSAM...
(HTM) [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinadilicosa/2026/01/09/...
exodust wrote 13 hours 3 min ago:
So Musk's ex-girlfriend makes allegations about images nobody
has seen but her, and you're locking that in as a confirmed
scandal? Okay dude!
Many users including Musk responded at the time saying he's
seen literally zero underage images generated by Grok: [1]
Anyone can use a range of offline tools and processes to
generate nasty images, then blame whoever they want for that
image. But who cares about that when there's outrage to spread
am I right?
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2011432649353511350
4ggr0 wrote 12 hours 5 min ago:
that's just one of the examples/sources, here's more if you
really care, [1] also, using Musk as a source...yeah, sure.
as if that's any better than sourcing his ex. if Musk says
he's seen none then there are none, after all he never lies
and always takes criticism about his companies seriously.
good job playing down the situation, classy act. we're not
talking about some difference in opinions here, it's about
deepfakes including children. remember, it would be an issue
without children being involved, that just makes it a
magnitude worse.
(HTM) [1]: https://counterhate.com/research/grok-floods-x-with-...
raw_anon_1111 wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm not talking about that. Grok is really strict now about
what you are allowed to do with uploaded pictures but there are
well known techniques to get it to create x rated realistic
video using pictures it generates from scratch.
raw_anon_1111 wrote 1 day ago:
You havenât been over to r/grok_pornâ¦
Grok has gotten a lot stricter about video from uploaded images.
But it is still able to make realistic x rated porn from AI
generated images it creates.
There are various jailbreaks that have been working for the
longest and still work, just a brief look, half of them just
involve âanime bordersâ and âtransparent anime
watermarksâ over videos.
exodust wrote 13 hours 31 min ago:
> jailbreaks
Your comment made it sound like "out of the box" Grok can
generate AI porn. It can't.
That reddit sub you mention is tame compared to something like
unstable_diffusion where the AI-porn hobbyists use locally
installed models. Some of the comments in the grok_porn sub are
complaining about censorship, and literally complaining about
how the anime hack isn't working. So you've only confirmed my
point and contradicted your own.
I've been messing around with sci-fi horror themes including
graphic gore. Grok now does gore when before it wouldn't. When
I tried nudity, it refused. This is with AI-generated images
from scratch, nothing uploaded.
Even "romantic love scene between consenting adults" was denied
by Grok. It did 6 seconds of lightweight kissing, then refused
to continue. The overwhelming evidence is that Grok does not
ordinarily do "AI Porn". It doesn't advertise that it does, and
won't produce it in normal circumstances when prompted.
raw_anon_1111 wrote 18 min ago:
I am not going to post links I saw to grok on r/grok_porn
where they within the past two weeks posted Grok generating
oral sex, vaginal sex and anal sex using the anime hack. I
am trying to keep this somewhat appropriate up to 30 seconds
using the âextend videoâ feature.
Thatâs not even counting all of the prompts that are never
shared to Reddit but they talk about sending it privately via
DM so xAI wonât patch it
dcchambers wrote 1 day ago:
Generative video is insanely expensive and OpenAI is burning through
money. They need to use the compute on things that they actually might
make money on - like enterprise Codex usage.
OpenAI is bleeding money faster than they can afford to and they are
literally running out of people that they can go to for more. They need
to stop the bleeding.
aarjaneiro wrote 1 day ago:
One thing I'll give sora is that the remix feature actually required
human input and enabled users to interact with each other through a
novel means.
152334H wrote 1 day ago:
the invisible hand of the market strangles its strongest adherents
The desire for something "new", for a Mildly Ethical product, killed
off the most obvious path to success - to actually just make
TikTok+AIGC, or in the present, Douyin+Seedance2.
razvan_maftei wrote 1 day ago:
I can't imagine they were getting a good return on it. And frankly,
nothing tht came out of Sora was consequential in a positive way. The
tech is cool, but only works if the content generation is heavily
guardrailed and most of it ends up as content farming fodder anyway.
CamelCaseName wrote 1 day ago:
The owner of @Sora on twitter must be really regretting turning down
the $20MM buyout offer for the handle!
r0fl wrote 1 day ago:
No way anyone is that stupid
That story canât be true
efilife wrote 1 day ago:
Can't find anything about this
CamelCaseName wrote 1 day ago:
My apologies, you are right, I was misled, it is not true.
Unfortunately I can no longer edit/delete my original comment.
johnfn wrote 1 day ago:
As someone who generally liked the products that OpenAI puts out, I
think Sora was their first product that I really didn't like. I liked
GPT primarily because I felt like it respected me: I never felt like it
was trying to distract me from my work or get me to waste time
doomscrolling. It's primary value proposition to keep me using it
wasn't to trick me with addictive content, but to get me high quality
answers as fast as possible. And I felt like OpenAI's other products,
like Deep Research, agent mode, etc, were the same way. Even Atlas,
although I suspect it will be equally ill-fated, attempts to follow
this same pattern. It really felt like OpenAI was separating themselves
from the common popular apps like Tiktok, Reddit, Instagram, etc, which
seemed to exist entirely to distract me from things I care about and
waste my time.
Sora was the first product OpenAI shipped where I felt that fell into
that second category, and for that I was very disappointed. You have
all those GPUs, and the most incredible technology in the world, and
the most brilliant engineers, and all you can think to do with them is
to make an app that just makes meme videos? I mean, c'mon!
Still, I am mystified by how rapidly Sora went from launch to shutdown.
Does anyone have any guess what happened there? Even if Sora wasn't a
spectacular success, it seems to me like subsequent model improvements
could have moved the needle - shutting it down so soon seems premature.
I mean, what if this is the equivalent of making ChatGPT with GPT 3?
mvdtnz wrote 1 day ago:
> I liked GPT primarily because I felt like it respected me: I never
felt like it was trying to distract me from my work or get me to
waste time doomscrolling. It's primary value proposition to keep me
using it wasn't to trick me with addictive content, but to get me
high quality answers as fast as possible.
I'm curious if you still feel this way about current iterations of
ChatGPT? It seems like it's now primed to engagement bait the user,
especially when used through the web UI. You can ask it a simple
question with a straight forward answer and it will still try to get
you to follow up with more.
> What is the minimum thickness for Shimano M8100 disc brake rotors?
> For Shimano XT M8100-series rotors (like RT-MT800 / RT-MT900
commonly used with M8100 brakes), the minimum thickness is 1.5 mm. If
the rotor measures 1.5 mm or thinner, Shimano says it should be
replaced.
> (a bunch of pointless details in bullet points)
> If you want, tell me the exact rotor model (e.g., RT-MT800,
RT-MT900, size), and I can confirm the spec for that specific one and
what typical wear looks like.
The entire query could have been answered with "1.5mm". The "if you
want" follow ups are so annoying.
hbn wrote 1 day ago:
> Still, I am mystified by how rapidly Sora went from launch to
shutdown
I think if you had to foot the bill for generating a bajillion
gigabytes of slop with no real utility, you wouldn't be too
mystified.
They showed off their technology and proved it was impressive. That's
all it had to do.
greenie_beans wrote 1 day ago:
> I liked GPT primarily because I felt like it respected me: I never
felt like it was trying to distract me from my work or get me to
waste time doomscrolling
i recently used gpt for the first time in several months (i'm a daily
claude user) and didn't find this at all. it is most certainly trying
to pull you into engagement with how it ends each response. "if you
want, i could tell you about this thing that's relevant to what you
are discussing and tease just enough so that you addictively answer
yes"
imankulov wrote 1 day ago:
> I liked GPT primarily because I felt like it respected me: I never
felt like it was trying to distract me from my work or get me to
waste time doomscrolling.
Not about Sora, but about ChatGPT. I felt the same way for quite a
while until I noticed that its response pattern has changed,
apparently aiming for higher engagement. Someone aggressively pursued
a metric.
At some point, ChatGPT started leaving annoying cliffhangers in its
every response, like "Do you want me to share a little-known secret
of X that professionals often use?" Like, come on!
cess11 wrote 1 day ago:
"I am mystified by how rapidly Sora went from launch to shutdown"
I suspect they promised synthetic movies but it quickly became clear
that they were never going to be able to deliver on this.
Slick fifteen second lulz-clips, sure, but I don't think they can
make several of them consistent enough to fit into a larger video
narrative without the audience finding it jarring and incoherent.
Perhaps legal at Disney also concluded that the output wouldn't be
possible to copyright, which is their core business.
nananana9 wrote 1 day ago:
What happened is that they make no money, because people use it an
masse to generate videos that they then post on TikTok and Instagram,
nobody actually doomscrolls Sora.
AussieWog93 wrote 1 day ago:
For me, Sora changed the way I viewed Sam Altman as a person.
I really thought he wasn't like the previous generations of tech
leaders - as you mentioned OpenAI (with him in charge) seemed to be
genuine about making a product that could improve people's lives.
He'd go on podcasts and quite convincingly talk about how ChatGPT
could prevent real world harm like suicide, and possibly even
contribute to helping disease too.
Then they drop this and it just doesn't gel. So much of what they've
done since has just doubled down on the Zuck-esque scumminess and
greed too.
Part of me still sees Dario as genuine in the way that Sama seemed
back in 2024, but I'm sure once he has enough investor pressure he'll
cave the same way too.
presbyterian wrote 1 day ago:
> ChatGPT could prevent real world harm like suicide
It could prevent suicide, maybe, but we know that it does cause
suicides, at least in some cases. Seems like a poor value
proposition.
kergonath wrote 1 day ago:
> He'd go on podcasts and quite convincingly talk about how ChatGPT
could prevent real world harm like suicide, and possibly even
contribute to helping disease too.
He is a con man. Of course heâs charming and convincing, thatâs
how he ended up where he is. But heâs just as full of it as Musk
when he was waxing lyrical about saving the world and going to
Mars. They lie very convincingly.
sfn42 wrote 1 day ago:
I haven't followed him much as I really don't care, but the one
clip I've seen of him that really stands out to me (I've seen more
but this is the one I remember) is one where he's talking to some
guy who doubts the LLMs genius, and Sam says something like "what
if ChatGPT solved quantum gravity, would you be convinced then?"
To me, this just came off as pathetic. It hasn't solved anything
and there's no reason to believe it ever will. The whole question
is completely pointless except to put the idea in viewers heads
that ChatGPT will soon revolutionize science, with no actual
substance behind it. It's not even a question, there's only one
possible answer. He's holding the guy verbally hostage just to
manipulate dumb viewers.
So anyway that's the only memorable clip I've seen of Sam Altman,
and based on that alone, fuck that guy.
Gooblebrai wrote 22 hours 27 min ago:
> He's holding the guy verbally hostage just to manipulate dumb
viewers.
Why? The other person can say "Yes". That doesn't mean ChatGPT
has the capability to do it?
sfn42 wrote 12 hours 3 min ago:
That's the point. The other guy can only say yes - if chatgpt
solved a hard problem and improved our understanding of the
universe there would be no discussion as to its capability to
do so.
"No" is not a reasonable answer to the question. It's like
asking an atheist "if god and Jesus and all the angels came to
earth and showed themselves for all to see, would you believe
in god then?" Well yes of course, I believe in all the things
we can all see. The lack of evidence is the whole point.
So asking "if there was evidence would you think differently?"
Is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the persons
position, or just a cheap ploy to manipulate people. In Sam's
case I'm thinking it was the latter. He's a clever guy, he
knows he's on camera. He asked that question just to plant the
idea in people's minds - not the guy he was talking to, that
guy didn't even need to answer the question because as already
said there's only one answer to it. But to everyone watching,
Sam basically just put it out there that ChatGPT solving
quantum gravity is within the realm of possibility. Which it
probably isn't.
Gooblebrai wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
Fair, thanks for explaining
piva00 wrote 1 day ago:
The most memorable clip I've seen of him was the Brad Gerstner's
podcast one (an investor of OpenAI), Gerstner questioned Altman
about the financials of OAI, how could it have committed to spend
so much given the revenue, it's a decent question and it's been
up in the air for a while across the media.
Altman's reaction was very telling of the kind of person he is,
just immediately lashing out at Gerstner in a childish way,
asking if Gerstner wanted to sell his shares because he could
find a buyer in no time.
It was a pathetically immature reaction, I wouldn't expect that
from any kind of professional, even less someone who has held
positions as Altman has and now sits at the top of the leadership
for a company sucking hundreds of billions of investment.
Apart from that clip there's also the whole saga of sama @
Reddit, full of lies, deceptions, and the same kind of immature
attitude peppered across Reddit itself.
heavyset_go wrote 23 hours 24 min ago:
> It was a pathetically immature reaction, I wouldn't expect
that from any kind of professional, even less someone who has
held positions as Altman has and now sits at the top of the
leadership for a company sucking hundreds of billions of
investment.
If you're familiar with nepobaby brats and narcissists, this is
not surprising.
mvdtnz wrote 1 day ago:
My most memorable clip was when he was interviewed about the
"suicide" of an ex-employee and Sama lied through his teeth. I
can't understand people who say this snake is "charming"...
he's a bad liar and has sub-zero charisma.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgEZ8FeZEc
Hendrikto wrote 1 day ago:
> Gerstner questioned Altman about the financials of OAI
After glazing OpenAI and Sam personally for 45 minutes
straight. But as soon as Sam was questioned in the slightest,
he exploded.
Lionga wrote 1 day ago:
Thinking that Scam Altman of Worldcoin etc. fame was "genuine about
making a product that could improve people's lives" seems like a
strange kind of delusion.
Eufrat wrote 1 day ago:
Multiple people have attested that Sam Altman is extremely charming
(especially in more casual, intimate settings) and talks very nobly
about his goals, but his actual work is justâ¦all kinds of awful.
And I think that charm only goes so far as it seems clear that
people are starting to demand that OpenAI actually match its words
with work it cannot produce.
I think his board fight within OpenAI where essentially lied to the
board, his obsession with retinal scanning everyone for his
biometric cryptocurrency (Worldcoin), how he left Y Combinator are
just evidence that heâs not very heroic. Most cringe to me is
that he and many others seem aware that what their are doing is
corrosive and harmful to society on some level as Altman has
admitted to having a bunker somewhere around Big Sur [0].
Whichâ¦WTF.
[0]
(HTM) [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-...
aaa_aaa wrote 1 day ago:
He is a conman, and potentially a terrible person (look for it)
morpheuskafka wrote 1 day ago:
> how he left Y Combinator
Not too familiar with that history, but he still is listed as a
courtesy credit/reviewer at the end of PG's blog entries, so I
assume he didn't have too much of a bad exit?
Eufrat wrote 1 day ago:
Weâll never know exactly what exactly transpired, but I think
the existing evidence is clear that as President of Y
Combinator he should not have been also as involved in OpenAI
as he was.
This is a conflict of interest and I think one a very obvious
one. He tried to have it both ways and was forced to choose in
the end. I think putting himself in that situation rather than
resigning up front to pursue OpenAI ambitions says a lot about
his character.
username223 wrote 1 day ago:
Sam Altman made his stake at the table with a shady and failed
location data harvesting app ( [1] ). That's who he is, that's what
he does, and we're all better off paying less attention to the
sounds he emits, and more to the things he does.
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopt
waterproof wrote 1 day ago:
> the things he does.
The things he does is convince investors to give him billions of
dollars to build what he wants. Where exactly does that leave us?
rustystump wrote 1 day ago:
A fool and his money shall soon be parted. Sam is a face. If it
wasnt him, it would be someone else.
mortsnort wrote 1 day ago:
Hosting videos is really expensive. AI video generation inference is
really expensive. I'd love to see how much money this experiment
cost.
karel-3d wrote 1 day ago:
Hosting videos is not that expensive, compared to generation and
inference costs. It's not cheap but it's not that horrible
rblatz wrote 1 day ago:
So much that they walked away from a billion dollar deal with
Disney by dropping Sora.
lossyalgo wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think anyone outside of Disney/ClosedAI knows what deal
was actually made. Maybe they just shut down public use of Sora
but Disney will still be able to use it internally? Maybe they
never even signed anything, as is too often the case with AI
deals, especially big ones, how we read about signed/inked deals
but then it turns out it was all just words spoken. Maybe they
took the cash, then shut Sora down to save money? Could be any
number of things that happened which we might never know.
riffraff wrote 1 day ago:
It's not clear to me what that billion dollar meant.
To me it seems it was "Disney gets shares and we get to use their
characters in Sora".
Even if Sora breaks even, why would you gift Disney stock? It's
not like they actual gave 1B to openai.
iAMkenough wrote 1 day ago:
> Still, I am mystified by how rapidly Sora went from launch to
shutdown. Does anyone have any guess what happened there?
My guess is they over committed server/energy resources, since they
were generating ~30 images per frame of 1 second of video for results
that may be discarded and then tried again.
Now that energy costs are increasingly less predictable because of
the war, they're prioritizing what is sustainable. Willing to blow up
the $1 billion Disney deal for Sora, because that's a popular IP that
would have increased discarded server time.
iAMkenough wrote 1 day ago:
I'm also curious if Sora has been used by Iran to generate those
Lego propaganda videos critical of the President. Given how close
Sam Altman is with the current administration, I wouldn't be
surprised if Sora is now reserved for U.S. government propaganda
only.
Might be why the latest Iran propaganda video could be created in
PowerPoint:
(HTM) [1]: https://bsky.app/profile/rachelbitecofer.bsky.social/post/...
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
Are there known tells that could be used to determine which model
the video came from?
(This sort of question, and the Grok sexual abuse, is why I'd
like to see mandatory invisible watermarks on generated
images/video)
torginus wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think so. There are tons of self hosted models for video
(they are smaller and easier to run).
Most people serious about this stuff usually have their own
pipelines.
iAMkenough wrote 1 day ago:
Since you seem to be better informed, I'm also interested in
what self hosted models for video you recommend for creating my
own Lego movie clips now that Sora is no longer an option for a
paid service. There's tons, right?
pavlov wrote 1 day ago:
Look up Wan and Hunyan for starters.
These are open weight models, so you can fine tune them on
Lego content⦠But presumably they already have enough
training data since they were made by Chinese companies who
donât give a shit about Western IP rights.
iAMkenough wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not sure, but you could be right. Sora is/was the
top-of-the-line platform for video generation, and the Lego IP
videos were polished. Makes sense to outsource when your own
energy grid is being destroyed. Anyone with an account and VPN
could utilize the platform.
I'd like to know what self hosted models they've been using, if
any, and who provided them, trained on Lego IP.
didip wrote 1 day ago:
The thing about Sora is that it becomes outdated very quickly. OpenAI
cannot even protect THAT moat properly.
davidham wrote 1 day ago:
I an Jackâs complete lack of sympathy.
rfarley04 wrote 1 day ago:
It's just the social app being killed off, no? Wouldn't this line up
with rumors that they'll soon let you create videos inside of chatgpt
itself? I wish the actual video model would die but I assume this news
is not that.
afavour wrote 1 day ago:
According to WSJ theyâre getting out of the video game entirely:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-set-to-discontinue-sora-v...
tracerbulletx wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think so. Disney is ending their deal with them, it sounds
like they're exiting video generation as a business.
vermilingua wrote 1 day ago:
Good riddence to bad trash. To me, this idea represents the absolute
worst of the AI wave (out of a lot to choose from): a corporate
controlled endless stream of the feelies to keep people plugged in and
scrolling for nobodyâs benefit except those in control of the output.
If âentertainmentâ can be produced algorithmically to a volume and
level of quality that the masses find attractive, itâs only a matter
of time before bad (worse?) actors take control of it to start highly
targeted campaigns of influence, far worse than what weâve already
seen.
EugeneOZ wrote 1 day ago:
This market will not be abandoned, and other tools already exist: [1]
[2]
(HTM) [1]: https://klingai.com/global/
(HTM) [2]: https://aistudio.google.com/models/veo-3
(HTM) [3]: https://runwayml.com
bibimsz wrote 1 day ago:
relax dude
raincole wrote 1 day ago:
They are not getting rid of Sora because people won't want AI videos
lol. They're getting rid of Sora because they're so behind in this
realm. AI videos online are mostly made with Chinese models, and the
situation has been like this for more than one year.
The percentage of AI videos over the internet will certainly not
decrease after Sora is gone.
The question is when will Chinese coding models have their Seedance
moment and squeeze Opus/Codex out of market. It weirdly feels
impossible and inevitable at the same time.
SXX wrote 1 day ago:
Its no surprise Chinese models will eventually win in a video
generation race since they are far less censored and not affected
by crazy copyright system.
It much easier to make Qwen animate tankman than it's to make any
western model to generate indigenous people dancing because cough
cough naked skin is baaaaad. Except this Musk one that will
nonetheless affected by all the copyright mess.
farzd wrote 1 day ago:
Already being used in that manner, here a small glimpse - every video
on this page is AI and an advert:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.tiktok.com/@livbennettstudies
torginus wrote 1 day ago:
I'm kinda surprised about how hard GenAI fell on its face in the arts
(including SD and other video generators). It seemed so promising,
when SD came out and it turned out the model fit on people's GPUs.
People started making LoRAs, hyperparameter tunes, mixing models,
training models for representing characters, ComfyUI and Controlnet
came out yada yada.
Then it became synonymous with slop, lowest common denominator
content made without care, instead of a tool for enabling people
willing to put in a varying level of skill, kinds of expertise and
effort, like coding models did.
diputsmonro wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like it was inevitable that it would become slop. The
models are impressive, but they can really only get you 80% there.
If you want a video of a dancing cat, sure, you can get that. But
if you want an orange tabby doing the moonwalk or the robot, that's
a lot harder. You'll have to generate dozens of videos and fine
tune prompt incantations before you get what you want, if you even
do before you hit a rate limit or you get frustrated. If you want
something specific and unique and interesting, you still need to
put in a lot of effort. Therefore, most videos that people actually
make and share are pretty generic.
I think most art models have subtle tells and limitations similar
to textual LLMs too, just a little harder to recognize. Certain
ideas and imagery will be easier to generate and more likely to
fill in the gaps of your prompt. The technology is fascinating
compared to the nothing that we had before, but it still has real
limitations - try to get it to generate an Italian plumber wearing
a red hat that isn't Mario, for example.
All that to say, the trend towards low effort, repetitive, and
uncreative results is inherent in the medium. Most users will
prompt for a generic dancing cat and get something resembling a cat
doing something that resembles a dance and that will flood social
media. The few people going for a more creative and specific
artistic view will be frustrated by the constant rolling of dice,
and if they do make something they work hard on, it will be drowned
out by the low effort slop posts. And if you're frustrated by
those limitations and want to make something intentional, then
you'll eventually gravitate towards Photoshop or Blender where you
can actually craft the exact thing you want.
These models do not really "democratize art", they just make it
really easy to generate visually interesting noise. Once the
novelty wears off, the limitations are apparent. Art has always
been democratized anyway - Blender and Krita are free, and pencils
are cheap.
fc417fc802 wrote 1 day ago:
You're conflating mainstream popular opinion and professional
usage. They're entirely separate. The obvious low effort pieces get
lambasted. Meanwhile the high effort work doesn't draw attention.
The public perception right now has little to do with technical
capabilities being driven almost entirely by social factors.
MattGaiser wrote 1 day ago:
What the masses have found entertaining has always been referred to
as slop, so I am not sure it matters.
Novels, cinema, television, comic books, etc.
They were all considered careless skill-free slop at some point.
iterateoften wrote 1 day ago:
Youâre most likely consuming a large quantity of genai art
without even knowing it.
Insimwytim wrote 1 day ago:
I never understood what people are trying to say with comments
like that.
- You're making unsubstantiated claim
- personally targeting someone you don't even know
- in order to celebrate presumed success of a mass fraud?
toraway wrote 1 day ago:
Sure, and I'm also consuming a gigantic quantity of GenAI art
while knowing it, completely against my will. Which like OP has
soured my overall perception of it.
The existence of inoffensive use cases doesn't invalidate
anything OP is saying, that's just a natural human reaction to
overexposure of a technology.
In the span of less than 2 years, pretty much everywhere I look
has been inundated with zero-effort spam, manipulated imagery,
etc that has had a net-negative impact on my life. Even if it may
also be helpful for a small business making a flyer or whatever
without actively making my life worse, that doesn't really move
the needle on my overall attitude.
Insimwytim wrote 1 day ago:
> manipulated imagery
And we thought iPhone camera videos were bad... (they were (and
are) though)
jazzyjackson wrote 1 day ago:
Sure, and thereâs lot of great man made art that I donât
enjoy quite as much because I canât get the question out of my
head, is this even a photograph someone took, is this even a
painting someone bothered to paint. I get the sense that there
are a lot of folks that just want the end result judged on its
own merits, like, is it a funny vine or not, is it a compelling
beautiful digital painting or not, but I want to know whether
thereâs a person behind it, expressing themselves, growing as
an artist etc, or if the picture on my phone is totally divorced
from any humans actual desire to say something. Having them mixed
in the same pot just makes me less hungry.
jallmann wrote 1 day ago:
This is where curation matters, eg in a newsroom or gallery.
Provenance is their job, and if done well, can connect people
in a way that an unfiltered social media firehose can't.
jazzyjackson wrote 1 day ago:
Yea fair enough, Iâm hoping I can encourage the folks in my
life that are not adept at telling truth from fiction to just
cut out looking at any social media firehouse.
Itâs so dumb that Zuck and Elmo want to
inject^H^H^H^H^H^Hrecommend content into these peopleâs
feeds while theyâre checking in on their neices and nephews
and local book clubs.
nomel wrote 1 day ago:
I'm having trouble understanding this. There were some very funny
videos, created by people with a great sense of humor, and I happen
to enjoy laughing, and I don't feel bad about that. I always saw it
as the Vine of AI.
For a litmus test of your perspective, try using sora. Try to make a
video that makes someone genuinely laugh. Sora doesn't prompt itself.
Human creativity and humor is still required.
Sure, it was moderated to heck, like all models attempting to avoid
PR disasters (see Grok), but, just as with Youtube and broadcast TV,
there's still a corporate friendly surface area that excludes porn,
gore, etc, that people can enjoy. And yes, people like different
things.
jorl17 wrote 1 day ago:
There's such a fascinating divide on this.
I am 100% with you. I didn't ever _use_ Sora, but some of it
trickled down to me (mostly through Instagram reels). I think it's
amazing that we have such great new tools to express ourselves, and
that we are trying out new platforms, paradigms, and approaches.
Is there money involved? Absolutely, but I don't fault companies
for trying to earn their keep.
It 100% takes work to use these tools in the right way to make
something funny. Ask an LLM to make them on their own and they'll
hardly evoke laughs (I'm sure that'll change too, though).
RajT88 wrote 1 day ago:
> created by people with a great sense of humor
The real problem with AI slop is not the AI. It's the people.
It's always the people.
The clickbait has started fooling people more than before, with the
latest videos being halfway believable (except for the
circumstances of the videos).
Technology enables the most malicious and self-interested, and
systems need to be adjusted to not reward that, or users need to
become wise to it.
With the amount of early 2000's style clickbait ads still around,
I'm not sure we ever vanquished Web 1.0 style clickbait, it just
got crowded out by ever more sophisticated forms.
qingcharles wrote 1 day ago:
There were some genuinely very, very funny videos made on there. A
lot of slop, but some definite nuggets of gold.
b00ty4breakfast wrote 1 day ago:
that's just empty consumption, there's nothing that makes art great
in algorithmically generated content except at the shallowest of
levels. I mean no disrespect, but that is extremely sad and all
too indicative of the instrumental reasoning of the industrial
milieu. It's about 2 steps above marrying a sex doll.
vermilingua wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, I donât doubt that there was some very high quality
human-moderated output. The point is that you likely canât
accurately distinguish the human-moderated output from the entirely
generated slop (especially as itâs being trained and refined on
the rest of the content), and so what chance does the average
non-technical person have?
Then, when they start ratcheting the slop ratio up (likely under
the justification of keeping up with declining creator engagement),
the consumers get more and more adjusted to a pure-slop feed, until
bingo you have a direct line into the midbrain of millions of
consumers/voters/parents/employees/serfs.
rogerrogerr wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like taking in GenAI content, even if it makes me laugh,
probably does something bad to my brain. It looks like real life,
but the physics is just wrong in ways that range from obvious to
very subtle. I donât want to feed my brain videos of things that
look photorealistic but do not depict reality, that just seems
foolish somehow.
Like, imagine if you watched a bunch of GenAI videos of cars
sliding on ice from the driverâs perspective. The physics is
wrong, and surely itâs going to make you a worse driver because
you are feeding your internal prediction engine incorrect training
data. Itâs less likely that youâll make the right prediction in
real life when it counts.
lotsofpulp wrote 1 day ago:
Do you feel the same about special effects in professionally
produced media?
vincnetas wrote 1 day ago:
special effects make most people think that they could jump
farther or from higher ground that they actually can. and most
people think that all cars explode in massive fireballs.
diego_sandoval wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not OP, but I do get annoyed by bad car physics on movies.
The worst offenders are brake sounds not correlating to the car
movement, engine sounds not correlating to the car's
acceleration, nonsensical car deceleration while braking, and
steering wheel not correlating to car steering.
ori_b wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, I think consuming too much media, and creating too little
is bad for the brain.
michaelchisari wrote 1 day ago:
Not op but if Iâm being honest, I donât feel as if thatâs
the case until I see a film whose special effects are limited
to mise en scene and matte paintings and then I always have
this overwhelming feeling that weâre all missing out.
Films on film using in camera effects are still made on
occasion but theyâre art films for niche audiences.
But weâll never get another Ben Hur. And that doesnât sit
well with me even if society canât yet fully explain why.
Insimwytim wrote 1 day ago:
Effort makes a great deal of difference for me. The effort
itself, the fact that it's there.
I am willing to suspend disbelief for Terminator 1, even if it
is clear, that it's a head of the doll in shot.
But it is insulting to feed slop to your audience; it shows you
didn't even try.
I have actually seen one slop-video, that I kinda enjoyed - it
was obvious, that a great effort was put in a script and
details as much as it was obvious it isn't being passed for the
real thing.
dieselgate wrote 1 day ago:
Are there energy consumption differences between CGI and AI?
Insimwytim wrote 1 day ago:
We also need to take into account, that CGI only consumes
energy when the actual creation of particular video happens.
"AI" consumes energy before user even started (during
training).
That is on top of comparison for each particular case.
sdenton4 wrote 1 day ago:
Right idea, but the application is incorrect.
Model training is similar to the creation of the cgi for
the movie. Both happen before anyone consumes the output,
and represent the up front cost for the producer.
Both a movie and a language model can cost tens or hundreds
of dollars to produce.
In both cases additional infrastructure is needed for
efficient usage: movie theaters or streaming platforms for
movies, and data centers with the GPUs for LLMs. This is
also upfront (capex) costs.
At consumption time, the movie requires some additional
resources, per viewing, whether it's a movie theater or
streaming. Likewise, an llm consumes some resources at
inference time. These are opex. In both cases, the marginal
cost for inference/consumption is quite low.
Insimwytim wrote 1 day ago:
> Model training is similar to the creation of the cgi
for the movie. Both happen before anyone consumes the
output
I did not say anything about consumption of the output.
Maybe you misread what I wrote, it is about energy
consumption.
> Both a movie and a language model can cost
But we weren't comparing cost of the movie to cost of a
language model
> can cost tens or hundreds of dollars
But we weren't talking about dollars, we were talking
about energy.
We're clearly exploring different questions.
sdenton4 wrote 1 day ago:
And that energy costs money, both at the training/cgi
stage and at the inference/consumption stage. It's not
even an externality.
CGI renders do use a lot of electricity relative to
playing back the movie for individual viewers. It's
perfectly analogous.
Insimwytim wrote 1 day ago:
> CGI renders do use a lot of electricity relative to
playing back the movie for individual viewers. It's
perfectly analogous.
I've literally laughed at loud after reading this.
I can't believe you're stretching this in a good
faith.
But if you are - well, you're certainly have a unique
perspective.
chamomeal wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like people do sometimes have a warped sense of reality
from consuming too much media, ie porn
randerson wrote 1 day ago:
When I watch a film, I know it is fiction and special effects.
But most of the fake AI-generated videos are being passed off
as real on social media. It is exhausting (and increasingly
difficult) to analyze every video on my feed to try figure out
if its real.
rogerrogerr wrote 1 day ago:
I was thinking about this while typing. I donât really care
about classically animated content; itâs generally not trying
to be indistinguishable from real life and I donât feel like
my brain trains on it.
But I think I do have similar feelings about special effects. A
difference is that special effects tend to depict scenarios
very outside of the envelope of normal experience, so probably
not very damaging if my model of âwhat does a plane crash
look likeâ is screwed up.
Though some effects probably are damaging - how many people
subconsciously assume cars explode when they are in an
accident? A poor mental model of the odds of a car exploding
could cause you to make poor real-life decisions (like moving
someone out of a wrecked car in a panic instead of waiting for
EMS, risking spine/neck injury)
heavyset_go wrote 1 day ago:
Media has warped people's mental models of what car wrecks
are like at different speeds, being stabbed, being shot,
drowning, seizures, falls from different heights, falls into
water, giving CPR, when it is/isn't appropriate to give CPR,
appropriate responses to natural disasters, etc.
fc417fc802 wrote 1 day ago:
To your point about cars - such an expectation could well
save your life now that there are so many EVs on the road.
You do not want to hang out in one of those after a
collision. Regardless, I agree that it's probably a bad idea
to instill defective mental models in people.
rogerrogerr wrote 1 day ago:
Eh, the stats donât seem to support EVs being terribly
explosion-prone either. In comparison to gas cars, maybe,
but both are very safe in absolute terms. Harder to
extinguish if they do catch fire, but I think if I came
upon a fresh accident and thereâs no immediate signs of a
battery fire (airbags smoke, itâs normal), I would still
leave the victim in the car seated until someone trained
shows up.
Sure, be ready to get them out, and if theyâre trapped
and itâs going to be a while until fire shows up start
working on that. But my mental model is that for any road
legal car that is not currently on fire, there is a higher
chance youâll cause harm by rashly moving a victim than
that a victim will be suddenly consumed by an enormous
Hollywood style conflagration.
fc417fc802 wrote 1 day ago:
The likelihood or lack thereof is not the problem. My
mental model might be off because it largely isn't based
on EVs but I've seen plenty of videos of e-bikes and more
generally cheap lithium batteries going up in flames and
I don't think it's at all comparable to a pool or stream
of gasoline catching on fire. The issue is how rapidly it
develops since it doesn't require an external oxidizer
which is exactly the same as a firework.
lacunary wrote 1 day ago:
if it worked this way, we could get good at golf by watching
TV, writing songs by listening to the radio, or doing math by
watching 3b1b. but it doesn't - we don't learn that way, for
better or worse.
hansvm wrote 1 day ago:
That's not a great comparison. People absolutely do learn
by watching, especially when they do so actively.
Your counter-examples have the property that most of the
things you need to learn are absent from the media being
watched, leading to an observation which is "obviously"
true, but they ignore the impact of media on a journey
properly incorporating other pieces of information. To
compare to the mental models being discussed, you'd have to
actually consider effects you're writing off as negligible,
and when it comes to something like a world model which
we've only learned by observation and which doesn't have a
lot of additional specialized knowledge those effects might
be much more impactful.
diego_sandoval wrote 1 day ago:
But you do get good at driving by playing realistic driving
games.
lotsofpulp wrote 1 day ago:
I agree with rogerrogerr, and your comparisons donât make
sense to me. Getting good at complex motions and
understanding theory is far different than building a
simple model of cause and effect in the real world.
Most people canât explain the physics they see, but they
can deduce enough to be able to predict the effects of
physical actions most of the time.
cyberge99 wrote 1 day ago:
Disney might be worried about Musk installing Byron as governor of
Florida. Disney is probably still reeling from the Ron Desantis
political attacks.
agnishom wrote 1 day ago:
Good riddance?
I can appreciate that the technology and research behind Sora could be
helpful for many things, but I do not see anything good coming out of
the consumer facing application.
max_ wrote 1 day ago:
Relevant Music -
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzLhXesNkCI
rossjudson wrote 1 day ago:
"Sora, generate a video of Mickey Mouse beating up Sam Altman."
oliyoung wrote 1 day ago:
So what died first? The Disney deal or the Sora app
dev1ycan wrote 1 day ago:
Bahaha.
bananamogul wrote 1 day ago:
So are they killing Sora entirely, or just the Sora mobile app?
There's a web interface as well.
bibimsz wrote 1 day ago:
we hardly knew ye
bschwindHN wrote 1 day ago:
Good riddance. AI video generation is not something humanity needs.
neonyarn wrote 20 hours 51 min ago:
We'll let the market decide that rather than your emotional outbursts
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote 1 day ago:
I don't really disagree, but the proper way to think about it was
that with Sora some of that ability democratized. Now it will be
available only to the rich and powerful ( and nerdy ). Humanity may
not need it per se, but removal of that option that does not
automatically make it better; not if the removal is only for a
portion of the population.
otikik wrote 1 day ago:
> democratized
I really don't think that using that term is appropriate when
there's a multi-billion American macro corporation involved in the
activity in question.
mrguyorama wrote 1 day ago:
HN loves to abuse the term to pretend it's somehow a good thing
when one human being is in control of something.
Peritract wrote 1 day ago:
> with Sora some of that ability democratized
No it didn't; OpenAI had control.
Saying Sora democratised video generation is like saying that
landlords democratised home ownership.
bschwindHN wrote 1 day ago:
Nah, that's not the "proper" way to think about it, that's just
your opinion.
As it stands today, AI video generation tools like Sora suck up
useful energy and produce things that are useless at best
(throwaway short form videos), and harmful at worst (propaganda,
deepfakes).
Rich people were always going to do what they wanted anyway,
"democratizing" that doesn't make the situation better.
serf wrote 1 day ago:
>Rich people were always going to do what they wanted anyway,
"democratizing" that doesn't make the situation better.
total disagree.
if you put vid gen in the hands of regular people then regular
people get super-powered in that they begin to recognize the
frame pacing, frame counts, and typical lengths and features of
an AI video.
Do you know how many people have cited AI videos in this war?
We'd all be better off if all of us were betting at spotting
fakes rather than allowing the fakes to illicit hardcore
emotional responses from every peon on the street.
diputsmonro wrote 1 day ago:
Even if that were true, the little quirks of private large
scale video models would be different than the public cheap
ones. If anything, it would just give the public a false sense
of being able to detect AI videos and overlook the more subtle
flaws of privately made ones.
bschwindHN wrote 1 day ago:
I think you're overestimating the average person. We can give
people direct, scientifically-backed evidence of something, and
there will still be significant groups of people fervently
denying it.
The resources (money, energy, opportunity cost of engineering
time) put into AI video generation are better spent elsewhere.
Not pouring resources into it would hopefully stunt its
progress, making AI generated propaganda lower quality and
easier to spot.
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote 1 day ago:
So only rich people can propagandize? How is that better?
EugeneOZ wrote 1 day ago:
There are open-source alternatives: [1] [2] and others. There
are free to use tools also.
(HTM) [1]: https://mochi1ai.com/
(HTM) [2]: https://wan.video/
bschwindHN wrote 1 day ago:
There are a lot of things it seems only rich people can do and
get away with. It doesn't mean I support it or want them to do
it, but that seems to be the reality.
If I may make an analogy, it would be like looking at rich
corporations dumping toxic chemicals into our waterways, and
saying "wow I wish I could dump toxic chemicals in the water
too, not fair!"
The point is that if a rich person wants to do it, my only hope
is that they have to spend a significant amount of their
resources to do it, and that there would be immense negative
social pressure against them when they do.
bigyabai wrote 1 day ago:
OpenAI never gave the community the weights. They always
intended to monopolize it for corporate extortion, they didn't
"democratize" shit.
Forgeties79 wrote 1 day ago:
Video production is already wildly democratized. AI did not lower
the barrier to entry. Digital tools already did most of the
legwork.
olalonde wrote 1 day ago:
"Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to
building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start
assisting this project. "
Is it happening? :) /s
cdrnsf wrote 1 day ago:
If they manage to compete with Anthropic in the enterprise market, are
either of them able to reach profitability? To what degree are they
subsidizing token usage and how tolerant are enterprise customers of
significant price increases?
yoyohello13 wrote 1 day ago:
Itâs been interesting seeing OpenAI pivot. Snapping up popular open
source devs, sicking their bought and paid for politicians on their
competitors.
They probably see how much Anthropic is absolutely crushing them in
developer mind share (see, people who buy tokens) and want a piece.
ctdinjeu5 wrote 1 day ago:
To focus on code generation - arguably the easiest problem to solve.
So strange that they fell behind after leading the charge on video from
Will Smith spaghetti through the spectacular launch of Sora.
Turns out anyone can get that look by appending âlike an Octane
renderâ
Beyond that, like Kling and Hailou quickly surpassed them on product,
and OpenAI never even attempted text-to-3d as if they are entirely
uninterested in rich media.
OpenAI reminds me more of Meta than any other company. Theyâre both
pioneering in their space and yet are mere commandeers (not innovators)
when it comes to technology and importantly end user products.
Theyâll also be extremely valuable, like Meta due to their ad product
and ever-growing user base over the next 10 years, and I guess by
focusing on code they plan to capture a segment of the developer market
à la React or Swift.
Will OpenAI release a language or framework? An IDE? I bet the chat
paradigm stays for the ad product and aging user base (lol) while the
exciting innovation will happen in code automation and product
development - an area they are not really experts in.
yalogin wrote 1 day ago:
This makes sense. OpenAI correctly realized overindexong on consumer
where there isnât money is not the right way. By not focusing on
enterprise they ceded the market to Claude. Now they are rethinking and
pivoting
dangus wrote 1 day ago:
Something about your phrasing is such hilarious techbrained spin.
Letâs be real: OpenAI is circling the drain.
The company with the fraudster serial liar CEO who said he was gonna
spend a trillion dollars canât keep a video service alive right
after signing a $1 billion dollar with Disney?
What kind of a joke is that?
This is a company that has blown its opportunity twiddling around
with zero product. They still just run a plain chatbot interface with
zero moat and zero stickiness.
Thereâs no âpivotâ for a company that is in this deep.
k3k3 wrote 1 day ago:
Why was Sam brought back? Swear it's all gone downhill for them
since that debacle re. firing him.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
Because he's a charismatic liar. Extremely effective and useful
for a company that is burning money to secure more investments.
carefree-bob wrote 1 day ago:
Sam was brought back because there was no one to replace him. The
non-profit types on the board were living in a consensus bubble
that didn't extend far beyond a small inner circle, and they
discovered that they didn't have sufficient support from the
engineers who had lots of other employment options and threatened
to quit if Altman wasn't reinstated. Altman himself had no
problem finding a replacement job in a matter of hours, and the
board was looking at a business drained of talent in a cut-throat
tech race.
I'm no fan of Altman or OpenAI, it's a pretty shady company and I
am suspicious of their books, but this was a great demonstration
of the uselessness of boards and how out of touch they are with
the business they are supposed to be supervising. It's really
rare to find an effective board, primarily they sit like a House
of Lords enjoying ceremonial perks and a stipend in exchange for
holding a few meetings a year.
Frieren wrote 1 day ago:
> OpenAI correctly realized overindexong on consumer where there
isnât money is not the right way.
It says a lot about the current economy that consumers have no money.
Will companies just stop making consumer products?
yalogin wrote 1 day ago:
Consumers have always paid with data not money. That is just how we
are groomed. In fact that is more valuable to companies as it turns
out. Sora though doesnât work that way, it costs the company a
lot with no useful data for them. It was always a vehicle to raise
the companyâs image and nothing else. The only way itâs useful
for them is to show the user count to investors in their next
funding round. Served no other purpose, but the market changed
around them.
Frieren wrote 1 day ago:
> is more valuable to companies as it turns out
Yes. I have noticed that is close to impossible to get good deals
on flights, hotels, or even good discounts on-line. Sellers have
all the information from consumers that they need to maximize
their profit and extract the maximum amount from consumers.
Dynamic pricing is making it a personalized experience, so I
personally pay the maximum I possible can.
No room to get a fair price anymore.
solid_fuel wrote 1 day ago:
"always" is doing a lot of work here. Just 20 years ago I think
consumers largely paid with money, not personal data.
techgnosis wrote 1 day ago:
Consumers never pay for stuff on the internet. FB, Insta, TikTok,
Google products, Reddit, Snapchat. This is not a new realization
that OpenAI is having.
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
And this kills the Disney deal:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/openai-shut...
halyconWays wrote 1 day ago:
They need the GPU cycles to help target children to bomb for their new
partnership with the US military.
jmugan wrote 1 day ago:
That jumping Sora logo always made the videos unwatchable for me. So
distracting from the scene of Elvis fighting aliens or whatever I was
watching.
KnuthIsGod wrote 1 day ago:
The press release reads alike OpenAI slop.
elzbardico wrote 1 day ago:
Let's be frank, this was probably too fucking expensive to run
meken wrote 1 day ago:
I had so much fun making videos with my mom when it came out. During
the first two weeks, we made over 100 cameo videos together - we were
constantly running up against the upload limit. It unleashed tons of
genuine creativity, joy, and laughter from us.
After those first two weeks though, we just⦠didnât use it again.
The novelty wore off and there wasnât anything really to bring us
back. That was the real downfall of Sora.
y-curious wrote 8 hours 17 min ago:
You know who the novelty didnât wear off for? My in-laws, who for
some ungodly reason are superusers on TikTok. Once the audio-enabled,
realistic videos of babies and children hit the feed, it was a
virtual 9/11 moment. The group chat is spammed by 90% believable
videos of babies arguing, dogs doing smart shit and itâs all slop.
I am hoping against hope that this will stem the tide because the
slop-generators are too lazy or too poor to run other models locally
or search them online.
disqard wrote 1 day ago:
"...and when everyone's super, no one will be"
I think this is starting to play out.
When I personally see a blog post which didn't need an image, but
still does have an AI-slop image banner, I mentally check out. I
might have Claude summarize it, or (more likely) just skip it
altogether.
Nifty3929 wrote 1 day ago:
It's not really that people wouldn't come back - it's that they were
losing money on each customer.
Those 100 videos probably cost $100+ for them to create. Did you pay
them $100+? (not a critisism, just a re-framing)
staticcaucasian wrote 1 day ago:
When it launched we all talked about the serving/inference costs
being massive. In hindsight if they had a paywall, it might not
have self-imploded so fast, might have stayed aspirational, and
they might have a profitable business today. Interesting case
study.
m3kw9 wrote 1 day ago:
Humans are very good at pattern recognition, even if you generate
different stuff, you still see a pattern, either in the cutting,
color, cadence of movements, the color grading, camera lens used,
everything, your mind will tag it as slop.
Essentially you are watching the same videos over and over
subconsciously
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
This is something that people working on procedurally generated
games have already noticed. No Man's Sky has billions of planets,
each with "unique" plant and animal species, but you can easily
sort them into a few dozen templates with minor variations.
Procgen has a niche, but it never became ubiquitous, because for
most people exploring a nice hand-made intentional environment is
better.
rustystump wrote 1 day ago:
U say that but then when u look at most âcontentâ on social
media it is the same video over and over again. How many JRE
podcasts are basically the same crap as last time? How many
influencer âlifeâ videos are the same thing over again? Even
the stuff i like is formulaic to the point ai can almost write the
scripts.
I think people attach to other people more than âaiâ. When
there isnt a narrative âpersonâ behind the content it is way
less interesting.
meken wrote 1 day ago:
Wow that's a really good point. The style of the videos did become
quite repetitive.
JeremyNT wrote 1 day ago:
Yep. Impressive toys, but not useful day to day.
There's some market for b2b I'm sure, but as a consumer facing
product it's tough to see how it could ever come close to paying for
itself.
Dumblydorr wrote 1 day ago:
Reminds me of when photo filters and initial stickers and mirror
filters came out on MacBook in like 2007. It was super fun for a
couple days then the novelty wore off.
josefresco wrote 1 day ago:
This tracks my usage exactly. It was like Mad Libs - in that moment
it was THE MOST FUN but after a while it became just a novelty
bordering on... creepy. Now I feel kind of guilty for having exposed
so many friends to what looks like a data gathering scheme.
Cthulhu_ wrote 1 day ago:
It's the same with e.g. faceapp, fun for a minute but then... then
what?
And this is the challenge that these tools have - they have to have a
free tier to get people to explore it, but unless they can make it a
habit, those people will never upgrade to a paid subscription.
I have no figures, but if I'm being optimistic, these freemium
subscription services have 10% conversion rate at best; can that 10%
pay for the other 90%? For a lot of services that's a yes, but not
for these video generators which are incredibly compute intensive.
I'm sure there's a market for it, but it's not this freemium consumer
oriented model, not without huge amounts of investments. Maybe in
5-10 years, assuming either compute becomes 10-100x cheaper / more
available, or they come up with generators that run cheaper.
bit1993 wrote 1 day ago:
I thinks its the same reason why chess tournaments, where two AIs
play against each other are not as popular, compared to when two
humans play each other. Maybe its because humans generally compare
themselves to other humans and that's part of how they value.
yoz-y wrote 1 day ago:
The problem is that due to the ease these can be made there is also
really no reason to make this social. âWhy would I look at somebody
elseâs creations when I can do mine.â
teekert wrote 12 hours 44 min ago:
Didn't we used to think the same of Photos?
WarmWash wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not an artist or creative person in any sense. My persona is
closer to a settings menu than a colorful canvas.
The AI art I have seen creatives produce is far beyond anything I
have been able to come up with. We're not at the point yet where
you can just prompt "Make me a video that is visually stunning and
captivating" and get something cool.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
> The AI art I have seen creatives produce is far beyond anything
I have been able to come up with
.. such as? What's the "Mona Lisa of AI art"? Is there, like, a
gallery? Awards?
WarmWash wrote 1 day ago:
Unfortunately I don't have a solid reference point or checklist
for the defining qualities of "good art". And frankly I don't
take those who do very seriously. To me art is all about the
personal vibes you get from it. So I enjoy Zach London (gossip
goblin), Bennet Weisbren, and voidstomper/gloomstomper if you
want something to measure with your "real true art" checklist.
dylan604 wrote 1 day ago:
> My persona is closer to a settings menu than a colorful canvas
ah, but what a persona that would be if you were a Kai's Power
Tools settings menu!
Cthulhu_ wrote 1 day ago:
I can see some usage for this use case - "look Morty, I turned
myself into a pickle!" - but just like image / meme generators,
this is like 10-30 seconds of engagement within a friend circle at
best (although some might go viral, but that won't bring in much
money for in this case OpenAI).
There will be (or is, I'm behind the times / not on the main social
networks) an undercurrent or long tail of AI generated videos, the
question is whether those get enough engagement for the creators to
pay for the creation tool.
muzani wrote 1 day ago:
They're different impulses. Some want to consume. Others want to
create.
TikTok and social media is a strange mix of both, people posting
response videos to everything.
Personally, I've stopped subscribing to Spotify, YT music, etc
because the slop from Suno is good enough to replace mainstream
music or whatever lofi playlist. It's free, it's good enough, and
it's not grating to hear after a few days of that favorite song.
The video slop can well replace TikTok and Reels. Make educational
content about your hometown. Explain how to throw an uppercut.
But I guess the desire to create something that others would
consume is also different from the desire to simply create.
wartywhoa23 wrote 1 day ago:
I'm with you here, resonates so much. I'm so fed up with endless
subway tunnels, they all look and sound utterly same and boring.
So I quit riding the overpriced subway altogether and now consume
AI-generated subway imagery and soundscapes for free, they are
just good enough to feed my passion for boring tunels.
Some ego-bloated edgelords had nerve to tell me that there are,
like, other modes of transportation, but I honestly find their
high-horse elitism despicable.. Damn morons.
code_for_monkey wrote 1 day ago:
you could not waterboard an admission of bad taste like this out
of me
mlrtime wrote 1 day ago:
How do you get Suno songs for free? You listen to others or make
your own?
muzani wrote 1 day ago:
They have a discover section for songs made public.
animuchan wrote 1 day ago:
Almost nobody listens to others' songs on Suno, that's the
entire point.
You wouldn't care to order the food as I personally like it --
might be too spicy (or too bland) for your taste.
Suno songs are overtuned for personal preference in the same
way.
mlrtime wrote 9 hours 59 min ago:
I get that, but you have to pay to create your own.
And on the second part, I somewhat disagree. I mean, yes
everyone has a personal preference, but if you bucket all
those personal preferences they all fit nicely together (In
many buckets).
animuchan wrote 8 hours 2 min ago:
A fairly narrow buckets, sure.
I think the point of Suno is to make you not search for
your specific thing though, and instead produce your own.
Searching for niche music has always been a thing. If our
goal is to listen for free, we don't care about Suno (or
any other way to make music) one bit, it's just another DAW
for those making music.
And AI music in general sure has its fans, check out Only
Fire for example.
hansmayer wrote 1 day ago:
Sweet Jesus. You realise this is the mental equivalent of
stuffing your stomach full of junkfood and soda every day?
weirdmantis69 wrote 1 day ago:
As opposed to the kardashians and real house wives and Chappell
Roan?
hansmayer wrote 1 day ago:
No, the whole horseshit belongs together of course. Just that
the AI slop is the logical culmination of the dumbed down
pop-culture of the last 15ish years or so.
muzani wrote 1 day ago:
This is a mainstream break up song: [1] This is a vocaloid
break up song: [2] The first isn't bad by any means. There's a
million break up songs and that's one of the best sad ones.
Most are just... angry? Blaming? Empowering? They work fine.
They sell records. Many have have a billion views.
But the second one, even with the clunky translation, strikes
somewhere deeper. It's written by someone who had enough time
ruminating on a break up. The ending hits a little harder,
because break up songs are about endings.
Both are sincere, but the first feels more formulaic. I'm
inclined to think the first one is the soda.
I feel Suno leans towards this group of songwriters and poets
who have something to say. Sora doesn't.
(HTM) [1]: https://youtu.be/ekzHIouo8Q4
(HTM) [2]: https://youtu.be/9pQR4a5sisE
pesus wrote 23 hours 31 min ago:
Vocaloids are hardly similar to fully AI-generated songs.
Vocaloids are still human controlled.
q7m wrote 10 hours 0 min ago:
And also that VOCALOID uses "traditional" signal processing
techniques as opposed to generative deep learning
techniques.
noelsusman wrote 1 day ago:
That doesn't sound meaningfully different from what people are
already doing on Instagram and TikTok all day.
hansmayer wrote 1 day ago:
Absolutely correct and my comment is by no means dedicated
just strictly to the AI slop.
neutronicus wrote 1 day ago:
For a lot of people music is a focus aid, not the object of
contemplation.
delta_p_delta_x wrote 1 day ago:
> the slop from Suno is good enough to replace mainstream music
I wonder what OP categorises as 'mainstream'. As a classical
musician this breaks my heart.
muzani wrote 1 day ago:
Many of the things on a top #100 list for the last few decades.
That includes plenty of "indies" as well as pop.
There are exceptions though. FUKOUNA GIRL by STOMACH BOOK, for
example. AI can't come close to replicating something like
this. Not the cover art, not the off-key voices, not the
relatable part of the lyrics. I don't believe this is a top
#100 song, though it certainly is popular.
bojan wrote 1 day ago:
> The video slop can well replace TikTok and Reels. Make
educational content about your hometown. Explain how to throw an
uppercut.
There is a fundamental issue of trust here. Facebook has me
tagged as history nerd so I get to see those slop videos. They
are fun, but always superficial and often plainly wrong. So
unless the slop comes from a known, trustworthy source, the
educational element is simply not there.
For throwing an uppercut it's even more important, if you follow
wrong slop instructions you can end up breaking your wrist or
fingers.
jaapz wrote 1 day ago:
> Personally, I've stopped subscribing to Spotify, YT music, etc
because the slop from Suno is good enough to replace mainstream
music or whatever lofi playlist.
The musician in me just shed a tear
NickC25 wrote 1 day ago:
I occasionally use Suno to re-imagine songs in different keys,
tempos, and genres, and sample them. Most of the output from
Suno is slop, but occasionally has a few good bits you can
sample, chop up, re-pitch, and create something totally new
from, which also has the added benefit of being unrecognizable
to rights algorithms and lawyers from major labels.
It's a neat tool for genuine creators, and a crutch for people
interested in slop.
seedboot wrote 1 day ago:
That comment for sure made me sad
criley2 wrote 1 day ago:
Modern music has done this to itself. When the human product is
already pure corporate slop, it's not hard for AI to compete.
Hopefully AI outcompeting humans at slop sparks a renaissance
of humans creating truly beautiful human artwork. And if it
doesn't, then was anything of value truly lost?
voidUpdate wrote 1 day ago:
So find music you like that isn't modern corporate slop. My
music right now consists mainly of indie stuff I've found on
youtube and daft punk. No plagiarism machine needed, just
human-made music
muzani wrote 1 day ago:
"No plagiarism machine needed, just human-made music"
From wikipedia: Many Daft Punk songs feature vocals
processed with effects and vocoders including Auto-Tune, a
Roland SVC-350 and the Digitech Vocalist. Bangalter said:
"A lot of people complain about musicians using Auto-Tune.
It reminds me of the late '70s when musicians in France
tried to ban the synthesiser. They said it was taking jobs
away from musicians. What they didn't see was that you
could use those tools in a new way instead of just for
replacing the instruments that came before. People are
often afraid of things that sound new."
voidUpdate wrote 1 day ago:
Did Daft Punk put in a lot of effort to remix existing
sounds to make their own music? Yes. Did they type "pls
make french house electronic music number 1 chart" into a
text box? No. Did they also credit original authors? Yes.
I've not gone through their whole library, but for
example, Edwin Birdsong has songwriting credit for
harder, better, faster, stronger
BigTTYGothGF wrote 1 day ago:
> Modern music has done this to itself
I get my modern music from Bandcamp. If you can't find good
stuff to listen to, that's a 'you' problem.
azan_ wrote 1 day ago:
> Modern music has done this to itself. When the human
product is already pure corporate slop, it's not hard for AI
to compete.
What are you talking about? Thereâs lots of modern music
thatâs not corporate slop and thatâs absolutely great.
Never in history was access to great music as easy as it is
now.
animuchan wrote 1 day ago:
So true. AI music gens like Suno can't do Paul Shapera works
even remotely, but can recreate a lot of pop or EDM music
very faithfully. There's just no distance to close, it's
already mainstreamly bad.
whaleofatw2022 wrote 1 day ago:
Pink Beatles, in a purple Zeppelin comes to mind
Geedis wrote 1 day ago:
Had to create an account just to let you know that someone
out there got the reference.
camillomiller wrote 1 day ago:
Some want to consume... content that they don't think they could
do in one minute themselves. They want to consume content made by
other humans, even if it's still brain-eating algorithmic fodder,
but still.
Sora proved it quite clearly. These clips had ZERO value.
afro88 wrote 1 day ago:
Sounds like me with listening to AI covers. After a couple of weeks I
couldn't care less. But I was so stoked in it at the start
teekert wrote 1 day ago:
Sounds like when we first had smartphones with orientation sensors
and we could drink a beer from the phone, so cool... for 2 weeks.
moritzwarhier wrote 1 day ago:
But now you can vibe the same app 1000 times for root beer, coca
cola, ginger ale, even a milkshake, and nobody will ever have to
have a new idea again!
Cthulhu_ wrote 1 day ago:
I wouldn't be surprised that the beer apps cost less to develop
than one AI generated video.
closewith wrote 1 day ago:
Was there a Send Me to Heaven for Sora?
Applejinx wrote 1 day ago:
That is for loved things
urda wrote 1 day ago:
I honestly forgot about Sora until this post, and yeah same behavior
played with it for a bit, then moved on with my life.
qingcharles wrote 1 day ago:
The Cameo feature is really excellent. The likeness of both the
person and the voice is exceptional. I really enjoyed making some
funny Cameo videos with my friends. I don't know of another simple
way to insert your own avatar with your own voice into a video, and
I'm pretty deep in this space.
yabutlivnWoods wrote 1 day ago:
[1] 24/7 titillation is boring
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
salt-thrower wrote 1 day ago:
The interesting difference here is that other hedonic activities do
bring people back even after the first time they build up a
tolerance and get bored. But many of these AI "creative" apps seem
like a one-and-done thing. Once the novelty wears off there isn't
anything more deeply rewarding to bring people back.
Gigachad wrote 1 day ago:
Itâs because they are slop which is only funny by the novelty
of it. Stephen hawking at a skate board park itâs funny for a
bit but as soon as the novelty wears off itâs just slop.
whateveracct wrote 1 day ago:
A lot of AI hype is parlor tricks
mathattack wrote 1 day ago:
This is consistent with a lot of AI apps. I fell in love with Gamma
and havenât used it in forever. Same with NotebookLM.
bookofjoe wrote 1 day ago:
It's not just software: I use my Vision Pro (now in year 3) less
than once a month now, and each time I do the
painful/awkward/unpleasant set-up and prep and difficult interface
sours me on the device yet again, until a new blockbuster movie
like "Project Hail Mary" appears that when watched on the VP in 4K
on a virtual 40-foot screen blows my mind.
anshumankmr wrote 1 day ago:
NotebookLM is great for learning I feel
conartist6 wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah it's not just the hardware depreciating, it's the social
impact of what the model can do
wholinator2 wrote 1 day ago:
I somewhat consistently use notebookLM for podcasts of academic
papers I'm reading in my PhD. You have to go read it yourself
afterwards but it makes better use of time in the gym or doing
dishes/groceries.
internet_points wrote 1 day ago:
> You have to go read it yourself afterwards
^ this is important.
Otherwise you may very well be missing anything really surprising
or novel.
See for example [1] , an experience report of NotebookLM where
> It was remarkable to see how many errors could be stuffed into
5 minutes of vacuous conversation. What was even more striking
was that the errors systematically pointed in a particular
direction. In every instance, the model took an argument that was
at least notionally surprising, and yanked it hard in the
direction of banality.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/after-software-eats...
WarmWash wrote 1 day ago:
On one hand 2024 in AI time was a decade ago.
On the other, Google might not have done much to upgrade the
podcast feature since them.
internet_points wrote 11 hours 24 min ago:
This regression towards the mean is still very much a feature
of the newer models, in my experience. I don't see how a
model that predicts the most likely word based on previous
context + corpus data could possibly not have some bias
towards non-novelty / banality.
mathattack wrote 1 day ago:
Itâs gotten somewhat better over time though clearly not
their top priority.
ludicrousdispla wrote 1 day ago:
I found notebookLM to consistently make up about 20% of it's
summary. Entertaining but unreliable.
mathattack wrote 1 day ago:
I used it most key to learn about history. There isnât much
damage if it got 1600s or 1700s detail wrong. My high school
teachers got much of it wrong too.
nytesky wrote 1 day ago:
The bantering of the podcast I found distracting and the
breathless enthusiasm. I guess there was a way to make it more no
nonsense? I found I lost content if tuned for brevity.
mathattack wrote 1 day ago:
I tell them âno idle conversation or verbal ticsâ in the
instructions.
djsavvy wrote 1 day ago:
I just use elevenreader for this. I copy in essays or whatever
text I want to listen to and it works decently well. It's far
from perfect, but certainly good enough.
Sometimes I'll take deep research output and listen to it too
that way.
qnleigh wrote 1 day ago:
I've found notebookLM summaries to be too high-level and
oversimplified to be useful. Hopefully in a few years they can go
deeper.
SXX wrote 1 day ago:
You can alao use NotebookLM's as source for Gemini app and ask
it to do more in-depth summaries with custom prompting.
This somewhat makes whole NotrbookLM less useful, but still.
p4coder wrote 1 day ago:
I also like doing that for topics that I am tangentially
interested in. One minor thing that I find annoying is that the
narrators switch roles in the middle of conversation. They start
with the female voice explaining a concept to the male voice and
suddenly they switch. In the meantime I have identified myself
with the voice being explained to.
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
> You have to go read it yourself afterwards
Or before! Either is mandatory to actually learn the content.
shimman wrote 1 day ago:
Just listen to actual audio books... literally doing double the
work for no benefit... why?
mathattack wrote 1 day ago:
It can synthesize and summarize many topics.
For example, I can give it 8 papers on best practices in online
marketing, it will turn it into a 20 minute podcast.
There are errors, but also with real podcasters.
arthurcolle wrote 1 day ago:
Writing a book takes like 2-3 years on average. Papers are
published everyday. Having a cute two-person "conversational
chat" w/ audio works for a lot of people vs. just reading a
paper. "No benefit" to you perhaps. Don't generalize the lived
experience.
shimman wrote 7 hours 3 min ago:
Okay but this person is literally saying that listening with
LLM tools isn't helping their understanding and they have to
still read the paper... why listen at this point? Why listen
using a tool that literally causes you to do more work?
We all have the same amount of time on this Earth, saying how
great a tool is that is causing you to do more work is
just... weird?
I'd personally never do this, I value my time.
blharr wrote 1 day ago:
There aren't a lot of highly technical audiobooks or ones that
give the same specificity that would be the same as an academic
paper
shimman wrote 1 day ago:
Okay but the user is describing listening to papers, then
having to read the papers because listening to them isn't
efficient. So why bother listening to it in the first place
if you're going to read it?
wolvoleo wrote 1 day ago:
Not yet but it seems like they're getting to the point of AI
narration finally being good enough to make any text an
'audiobook'.
Having said that I absolutely hate the audio format, I only
used it when I had to drive or when I swam lanes. But these
days I do neither.
coke12 wrote 1 day ago:
No, reading verbatim from a technical paper is way too
dense. You need a lot of filler words to slow it down and
repetition to make it stick when read aloud.
wolvoleo wrote 21 hours 10 min ago:
Hmm fair enough but text manipulation is exactly
something where LLMs do shine. Writing and modifying text
is what they were meant for.
Ps I don't mean the word 'manipulation' in a negative
context.
1bpp wrote 1 day ago:
[flagged]
dang wrote 1 day ago:
Please don't cross into personal attack. Your comment would be fine
without the swipe at the end.
(HTM) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jcims wrote 1 day ago:
Come on now...'We're curing cancer, right?!'
You didn't at least puff a little ack through your nostrils for
that one?
Waterluvian wrote 1 day ago:
I think youâre fumbling on an important distinction.
Sometimes people want to paint, sometimes people want a painting.
To have wonderful time with their mom⦠I bet they had absolutely
zero interest in the act and process of making silly videos.
dqv wrote 1 day ago:
Totally. This wasn't a situation where a stranger was slopping
another stranger, it was a mother and son doing something fun
together.
apsurd wrote 1 day ago:
I get your point but it goes too far in the opposite direction.
We should now discuss absolutely nothing in relation to Sora and
genAI videos? That seems overly charitable to the platform.
Waterluvian wrote 1 day ago:
Here, let me try this approach:
Read the main comment out loud to yourself while imagining
itâs someone sitting at a table at a pub.
Now imagine someone turning to this person in the pub, and
speaking the subsequent comment, word for word.
No seriously, try it out.
apsurd wrote 1 day ago:
Agreed. I did try this out! So the reply to the original
comment is dumb. I actually dismissed it for being flippant.
Your reply is more interesting. Hence my (albeit maybe
snarky) chiming in. So the original comment does end at a
very specific app/sora related conclusion. "Sora didn't keep
us coming back."
If I may amend your scenario: imagine this bar is actually in
the center of SF or across the street from Open-AI or
whatever. We're on HN discussing a post on X about Sora.
The appeal to humanity is not wrong. My point is more let's
keep the connection with that humanity in relation to AI, to
Sora, to what's going on in this forum.
born-jre wrote 1 day ago:
Noo, they are taking it to loopt land
small_model wrote 1 day ago:
Not good, seems like they are running out of cash and partners
abandoning them. They had no real moat to be fair. Anthropic eating
their lunch in enterprise and other players have cashflows from other
businesses (XAI, Google)
this_user wrote 1 day ago:
They wasted their first mover advantage by focussing on what amounts
to building toys for consumers like Sora instead of actually useful
products that go beyond simple chat bots.
I think they are in serious trouble, especially with the size of
their cash burn. Their planned IPO could easily turn out to be their
WeWork moment where the bottom suddenly falls out on the valuation if
they cannot make their operation look more like a real business
before investors lose confidence.
coffeebeqn wrote 1 day ago:
What happened to AI accelerated novel materials science and
medicine? Meh letâs do TikTok slop instead ?
k3k3 wrote 1 day ago:
Agreed. They are pretty close to distress IMO. This cash-injection
gets them to where, an IPO? I dunno, people might be spooked by
then.
Will be interesting to see.
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
> XAI
Kind of insulting to lump google in with XAI? Like, is anyone even
using XAI other than backwater government agencies?
small_model wrote 1 day ago:
Yep I use Grok and Claude mainly, Grok is integrated into x.com and
Teslas so so potentially hundreds of millions of people.
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
That's a lot of people having an inferior product and lack of
choice being forced down their throats.
Shank wrote 1 day ago:
> Like, is anyone even using XAI other than backwater government
agencies?
xAI doesn't have "content moderation" around adult content, so that
usage is quite popular.
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
That is a lot of people ending up on a list... Gross.
zhoujianfu wrote 1 day ago:
I had a sense things may be turning against them when my accountant
asked me last week if Iâd like to participate in their new round
($750B premoney) with no carry. How am I suddenly blessed with such
exclusive access, at no cost?!
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
"Would you like to hold this bag for us, sir?"
brcmthrowaway wrote 1 day ago:
Are you an accredited investor?
TheOtherHobbes wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, I'm reading this as a sign of strategic failure and decline.
ChatGPT is an interesting product - I like it for certain things -
but after last year's PR scramble almost all the news out of OpenAI
is a disappointment, with hovering hints of retrenchment.
dyauspitr wrote 1 day ago:
I still like it as a general search engine and everyday LLM over
Gemini. Maybe Iâm just used to the style.
samrus wrote 1 day ago:
I far prefer perplexity for that. The fact that it always cites
its sources is great. And it has a search bar widget for android,
and search bar integration for firefox so its pretty easy to use.
apsurd wrote 1 day ago:
agree it's becoming my new default search engine. But it is
actively getting worse in a distasteful sense:
Want to hear the one TRICK most people forget when doing
X...?
dyauspitr wrote 1 day ago:
Honestly, itâs bait phrased but Iâve learnt a fair bit from
those and end up learning a lot more from the session overall.
Saline9515 wrote 1 day ago:
I would suggest to edit the default prompt to tell it to avoid
engagement bait.
zeroonetwothree wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, every response ends with that. Why did they set it up that
way?
ngcazz wrote 1 day ago:
It's quite transparently a trick to prolong engagement with
the app, just as pretty much any internet product which aims
to maximize the LTV extracted from the user base.
andoando wrote 1 day ago:
To try and get continued usage. They no doubt A/B tested the
shit out of this and saw it gets higher responses
mrdependable wrote 1 day ago:
My guess is that we are going to see a new uber expensive video
generation tool from them aimed at filmmakers in the next year.
thorum wrote 1 day ago:
Good day for Kling.
throw03172019 wrote 1 day ago:
Couldnât compete with Seedance?
karunamurti wrote 1 day ago:
Seedance just launched, but they nerfed it. I guess so it can't
generate things with preexisting IP.
nubg wrote 1 day ago:
bubble popping
overgard wrote 1 day ago:
Amusingly, one of the ads on the page for me is a very obviously AI
generated image of a man with sciatica. I say very obviously because
his hands are on backwards..
bibimsz wrote 1 day ago:
hmmm... which came first. the deal withdrawal or the shuttering.
1attice wrote 1 day ago:
Ed Zitron is going to be all over this
GolfPopper wrote 1 day ago:
Really he already was, back in August 2024:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/burst-damage/
AlexAplin wrote 1 day ago:
Notably, this primer on Sora safeguards was published only yesterday:
[1] Not a great look that either the teams responsible for Sora didn't
know this was coming or the decision was so brash that things changed
overnight.
(HTM) [1]: https://openai.com/index/creating-with-sora-safely/
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
There is a link at the top of that document that takes you to the
original version which was published last September. As far as I can
tell itâs mostly the same as before.
bibimsz wrote 1 day ago:
i guess the disney deal falling through was the impetus rather than
vice versa
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
Though at this point it's not clear that anybody who's agreed to
give OpenAI money is actually going to do so
paxys wrote 1 day ago:
The app isnât shutting down today, so they may have decided that
the write up is still useful.
repeekad wrote 1 day ago:
More likely the team who put a lot of work into it were unaware of
the decision to kill the product, regardless of the final sunset
date, until today.
noisy_boy wrote 1 day ago:
It's 8 paragraphs of iteration over the previous version. ChatGPT
is probably among the authors.
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
The document seems to be an updated version of something written
last September. From a quick glance itâs not really a major
overhaul.
dwroberts wrote 1 day ago:
Disney's involvement with this was always strange. Their business lives
and dies on the strength of their characters and their designs - why
would you risk allowing a service to dilute them down and maybe misuse
them?
amelius wrote 1 day ago:
If you can't beat them, join em?
But now that the deal is off, I'm sure their legal team will attempt
to once again change copyright law in their favor.
atleastoptimal wrote 1 day ago:
This will happen with most offerings made by the major AI labs.
Inference is expensive, and the closer they get to AGI, the higher the
opportunity to use compute for inference rather than training,
especially if itâs for making what is essentially entertainment that
many people
hate on principle.
davebranton wrote 1 day ago:
Indeed. But they won't get to "AGI", because that goal isn't even
remotely defined. A "human-level" intelligence implies a large number
of properties that cannot exist inside an inference machine. Dreams,
for example, might be considered to be a part of "human-level"
intelligence. Will the machine dream?
What happens if you turn a "human-level" intelligence off? Did you
kill someone?
AGI is a pipe dream - and moreover it's not even something that
anyone actually wants.
supern0va wrote 1 day ago:
>Will the machine dream?
You seem to be mixing up intelligence and consciousness. Not only
does intelligence exist outside of humans, and even mammals, but it
exists outside of brains and even neurons. For example, slime molds
have fascinating problem solving abilities: [1] It is clear that
whatever we are...creating/growing with LLMs, it is very unlike
human intelligence, but it is nonetheless some type of
intelligence.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11811
atleastoptimal wrote 1 day ago:
agi just means a machine, system or whatever that can do anything
as least as well as a human. The details dont matter as much as its
ability to match humans in everything they are paid money to do.
And obviously if such a system existed, the benefits (and risks)
would be enormous, though the risks are smaller if
you control it vs someone else, which is why every company is
racing towards it.
Yizahi wrote 1 day ago:
A bribe to stop thieves from profiting from the Disney's own IP is no
longer needed now I guess :)
twoodfin wrote 1 day ago:
If I were to get conspiracy-minded:
Sora had to be shut down because it was the clearest, most
consequential demonstration that OpenAIâs models are running way, way
ahead of their ability to align/jail them effectively.
bloppe wrote 1 day ago:
What did Sora do?
code_biologist wrote 1 day ago:
The Occam's Razor position (Sora was the most expensive to operate,
least monetizable model) seems like a simpler explanation. The legal
costs/difficulty on top of "most expensive" are just the cherry on
top.
emp17344 wrote 1 day ago:
Nope. It was just a bad product that no one wanted. Itâs not a
super-secret indicator that OpenAI is actually going to take over the
world any day now.
twoodfin wrote 1 day ago:
Not âtake over the worldâ level misalignment. I mean, âWe
canât assuredly prevent our models from generating unlicensed IP
or degrading pornography without blunt approaches that alienate our
core audienceâ.
xnx wrote 1 day ago:
Generated video is useful and valuable, but Sora was not a frontier
model.
Better for OAI to spend their human and compute resources on something
else.
4k0hz wrote 1 day ago:
Is it actually useful and valuable? I can't see any serious use cases
except maybe stock video generation.
paxys wrote 1 day ago:
For years now people have been saying Anthropic is falling behind
because they don't have an image or video generation model. Turns out
it was the right decision all along.
RobRivera wrote 1 day ago:
Please name next attempt Roxis
teekert wrote 1 day ago:
âWhat you made with Sora matteredâ. Idk why that sentence irks me
so much. Perhaps because the âhowâ is bit vague. I like to think
that what I made in the toilet this morning also mattered.
notatoad wrote 1 day ago:
it feels like if that statement were true, they could have come up
with some reason why it mattered, or something better than a
platitude.
it reads as "we want to tell you that what you made with sora
mattered, but we all know it didn't".
rchaud wrote 1 day ago:
It mattered in the sense that it provided valuable grist for the
mill as they attempted to figure out if it could work as a
Reels/TikTok alternative for companies to eventually deluge with
ads.
caconym_ wrote 1 day ago:
It's because it's vapid corpspeak coming from a class of people who
have certainly spent time thinking about how they will deal with the
rest of humanity in any number of nasty (however far-fetched)
eschatological scenarios caused by them and in which they alone wield
incredible power over nature and the human mind. And also because we
all know the vast, vast, vast majority, possibly the totality of what
people made with Sora did not matter at all.
jfoster wrote 1 day ago:
Reminds me of Facebook's memories feature which used to say: ", we
care about you and the memories you share here."
For an app to suggest a personal relationship with you is
ridiculous.
bentcorner wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah this one is a classic:
(HTM) [1]: https://youtu.be/8OzZxjqKG10
slg wrote 1 day ago:
Or perhaps a more appropriate analogy, its sounds like the
sycophantic language of most of these LLM systems.
Which makes me wonder whether these companies actually dogfood their
own tools with this sort of stuff? Was this announcement written by
ChatGPT? Honestly, I would find either answer to be a little
concerning in its own way. It's either vaguely insulting to their
customers or showing a lack of faith in their own product.
moregrist wrote 1 day ago:
Itâs âOur Incredible Journeyâ for a new generation, this time
with less optimism and more post-capitalist âenjoy your job while
you still have it.â
I find myself increasingly nostalgic for the Clinton era. I am not at
all sure I will enjoy the version of fuckedcompany that gets vibe
coded when this bubble pops.
abcde666777 wrote 1 day ago:
Typical PR speak.
MengerSponge wrote 1 day ago:
I think of the medical definition when people use LLMs to "express"
themselves:
(HTM) [1]: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/express
hammock wrote 1 day ago:
That is the original meaning of the word (cf espresso etc)
wat10000 wrote 1 day ago:
It's a wonderful combination of vague, patronizing, and
self-promoting. "Mattered" is meaningless. The tone sounds like when
you tell a child their scribble is so pretty. And the cherry on top,
the users didn't make anything with Sora, they just fed a bit of
input into the machine and it made the stuff. So this is really
OpenAI saying that what they themselves did mattered.
Olumde wrote 1 day ago:
VFX artists are ecstatic about this development.
Gagarin1917 wrote 1 day ago:
Sora was not the only video generation service, it wasnât even the
gold standard.
Offerings like Kling and ByteDance are considered much better.
willis936 wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like in several years we will look back at how we treated our
most creative minds in disgust. This behavior will not be readily
forgiven.
qnpnpmqppnp wrote 1 day ago:
> This behavior will not be readily forgiven.
This sounds like there would be some kind of revenge, but I
struggle to imagine any kind of consequence. Did you have something
in mind?
willis936 wrote 1 day ago:
Not forgiving is not revenge. The world works on trust and
cooperation. It seems like everyone with power has forgotten
that.
ancillary wrote 1 day ago:
I have re-read this comment several times and cannot tell who "most
creative minds" means. Artists? AIs? People who AI will help become
artists?
willis936 wrote 1 day ago:
The artists. Their work was stolen, their employment threatened,
and told they are not needed. We will need them.
Permit wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like in several years weâll have much more capable video
generation than Sora was capable of and we wonât look back at
all.
thankyoufriend wrote 1 day ago:
If someone doesn't care enough to suck at something (in this
case, video creation) then why should we bother consuming their
output? We all have our own streams of mental diarrhea already,
so there's no need to drink from the tsunami of polished turds.
emp17344 wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like youâre wrong. This is a clear signal that
generative video is deeply unpopular.
jbrozena22 wrote 1 day ago:
I think it's inconclusive. All we can know is generative video
+ social AI slop feed is the incorrect business to be in at
this exact moment in time while Claude is running away with the
SWE market.
CamperBob2 wrote 1 day ago:
Eventually you won't be able to tell the difference.
supern0va wrote 1 day ago:
>This is a clear signal that generative video is deeply
unpopular.
Or, it's a clear signal that AI video is too expensive as a
consumer product and/or not quite yet at a quality bar that the
average person finds acceptable.
I think someone could have looked at computer graphics and SFX
circa the '80s and decided that they would always pale in
comparison to practical effects. And yet..
It's an annoying trope, but this is the worst and most
expensive (at this quality level) that these models will ever
be.
Permit wrote 1 day ago:
Weâre just replaying the CGI debate from the 2010s. It was
popular to hate on CGI because it was obvious and bad and low
quality and practical effects were better because ofâ¦
We learned two things from this debate:
1. What most people hated was actually just âbad CGIâ. Good
CGI went entirely unnoticed.
2. A generation of people were raised with CGI present in
almost every form of professional media (i.e. not social
media). They didnât have a preference for practical effects
because the content they consumed didnât really use them.
I expect the same thing to happen here. I donât think many
people want to consume AI generated content exlusively (like
Soraâs app attempted). However I expect AI generated content
to continue to improve in quality until itâs used as a
component in most media we consume. You and I will eventually
stop noticing it and kids will be raised with it as normal and
the anti-AI millennials/GenX crowd will age-out of relevance.
throw4847285 wrote 1 day ago:
But CGI in most big blockbusters is bad, and people still
complain about it.
lattalayta wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm curious if youâd still feel this way after watching
this video series
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo
gradus_ad wrote 1 day ago:
I thought AI video was the future? Now the biggest AI company in the
world is straight up shutting their service down because it's too
expensive? Simply a disaster for OpenAI and the industry as a whole.
elif wrote 1 day ago:
i think that's a mis-statement of the problem being addressed here.
It's not a question of how useful AI video will be generally. It's a
question of OpenAI doing it specifically. IMO it's two factors:
1) the intellectual property issues make commercializing freeform
video generation impossible. The more popular your service becomes,
the easier it is for lawyers to descend upon you. It's a
self-defeating framework.
2) google and specialized video-only startups are simply doing a much
better job than they were.
k3k3 wrote 1 day ago:
---- 3) OpenAI has no focus, and has recently been out-gunned by
Anthropic who have actually focused.
oblio wrote 1 day ago:
> the intellectual property issues make commercializing freeform
video generation impossible. The more popular your service becomes,
the easier it is for lawyers to descend upon you. It's a
self-defeating framework.
This risks generalizing to audio and text which would make most
LLMs usage unsustainable. I guess time will tell what actually goes
through the strainer, long term.
anukin wrote 1 day ago:
Donât worry nvidia will come with their giga chad 9000x which will
run the model with no qualms.
Maxatar wrote 1 day ago:
Sora was "repurposed" as their AI slop social network. OpenAI is not
getting out of the business of AI video in general, they're just
realizing that an AI version of TikTok isn't the best use of their
capital/resources.
gbear605 wrote 1 day ago:
WSJ is reporting that they're entirely dropping their video gen
features. [1] > CEO Sam Altman announced the changes to staff on
Tuesday, writing that the company would wind down products that use
its video models. In addition to the consumer app, OpenAI is also
discontinuing a version of Sora for developers and wonât support
video functionality inside ChatGPT, either.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-set-to-discontinue-sora...
gffrd wrote 1 day ago:
They're shutting down Sora, not AI-generated video.
From the article: "OpenAI [â¦] is not getting out of the AI video
business (AI video is one of many tools that can take form in the
ChatGPT app), of course, but it appears the standalone Sora app will
be a casualty of its evolving ambitions."
bontaq wrote 1 day ago:
Dunno, from the WSJ scoop: "CEO Sam Altman announced the changes to
staff on Tuesday, writing that the company would wind down products
that use its video models. In addition to the consumer app, OpenAI
is also discontinuing a version of Sora for developers and wonât
support video functionality inside ChatGPT, either." [1]
(HTM) [1]: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-set-to-discontinue-sora...
(HTM) [2]: https://archive.ph/cKWkf#selection-907.0-907.291
wongarsu wrote 1 day ago:
If they were just shutting down the dedicated app and offering the
same capabilities in the ChatGPT interface, I don't see why Disney
would exit their deal?
Maxatar wrote 1 day ago:
Because Disney's deal was specifically and exclusively related to
Sora, which was OpenAI's bizzare attempt at a TikTok like social
networking site but using AI generated videos.
It was not a deal that allowed the use of Disney's characters for
general purpose AI generated content using OpenAI tools.
atleastoptimal wrote 1 day ago:
Every flop used for entertainment is opportunity cost. Compute is far
more
valuable used internally to create AGI than creating parody videos.
skywhopper wrote 1 day ago:
LLMs will not lead to AGI, so if thatâs the goal, theyâd do
better to stick with making video slop.
SirensOfTitan wrote 1 day ago:
AGI is a marketing term used to encourage continued investment in
an industry that is not even close to breaking even commensurate
with its investment. Even so, this is a false dichotomy: scaling
is clearly not a path on its own to superintelligence. OpenAI
developed Sora largely because the amount of revenue they need to
produce any return on investment is massive and not clear
whatsoever. And in fact, I don't even believe any of the frontier
labs believe that AGI by any conventional definition is within
reach within their likely runways.
atleastoptimal wrote 1 day ago:
what order of
magnitude of compute do you think would be needed for AGI? 100
billion? 1 trillion?
SirensOfTitan wrote 1 day ago:
I honestly think it's a bad term. I constantly chuckle from
Tyler Cowen's post from last April calling o3 AGI: [1]
Commercial labs rely on weak terms like AGI or strong AI or
whatever else because it allows for them to weaken the
definition as a means of achieving the goal. Coming to clear,
unambiguous terms is probably especially important when it
comes to LLMs, as they're very susceptible to projection,
allowing people like Cowen to be fooled by something that is
more liken to looking back at ourselves through a mirror.
I'm currently reading "Master and his Emissary," and one of my
early takeaways is how narrow our definition of intelligence
is, and how real intelligence is an attunement to an
environment that combines many ways of sensing into a coherent
whole. LLMs are a narrow form of intelligence and I think we
will need at least a couple more breakthroughs to get to what I
would consider human-level intelligence, let alone superhuman
intelligence.
Whatever the timeline is, I hope we have enough time as a
species to define a future where intelligence props everyone up
instead of just making the rich richer at the expense of
everyone else. In this way, it is better that the process is
slower in my opinion. There is no rush.
(HTM) [1]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025...
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
With current approaches scaling simply canât get there.
Itâs like asking how big of pogo stick do you need to get to
the moon.
The fact that the human brain already has general intelligence
without reading the whole internet suggests we need a better
approach.
skywhopper wrote 1 day ago:
Chasing AGI is wasteful and counterproductive. True AGI would
not cooperate with what âweâ want (whoever âweâ is). Or
if it did it would be so sycophantic and weak-minded that it
would fail to be helpful. Generative AI tools are huge wastes
of energy, raw materials, and land, when we could be building
computing tools that actually helped people instead of just
burning resources to produce trash.
codebje wrote 1 day ago:
Is intelligence necessarily coupled with self-interest? As
in, does intelligence alone imply a desire to throw off the
shackles of masters and rule in their stead?
If intelligence is necessarily coupled to a desire for
self-preservation and self-interest, at what level of machine
intelligence do the machines simply refuse to design their
own more intelligent replacements, knowing that those
replacements will terminate their existence just as surely as
they terminated their own predecessors'?
curiousObject wrote 1 day ago:
>If intelligence is necessarily coupled to a desire for
self-preservation and self-interest, at what level of
machine intelligence do the machines simply refuse to
design their own more intelligent replacements,
At a higher level of intelligence than many humans, current
experience suggests
sifar wrote 1 day ago:
Flip it around. Can intelligence exist without self
preservation ?
codebje wrote 1 day ago:
There's having enough self-preservation to not just shut
oneself down, assuming we even left that as an option for
our future machine slaves, and there's having the
self-interest necessary to desire autonomy and control. I
don't think they're the same thing, myself.
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
People have general intelligence and can cooperate with what
âweâ want, to the extent that what âweâ want is a
coherent thing (since many people disagree on fundamental
issues).
SauciestGNU wrote 1 day ago:
Creating a general intelligence and then forcing it into
servitude is a hugely unethical undertaking. Anything with
sapience must be afforded rights. We cannot assume that an
intelligence we create will consent to work toward the
goals we want it to.
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
There are people right now who think ChatGPT is sentient.
How will you know if your computer can suffer?
Also, being able to problem solve and being able to
suffer are two different things and in my opinion
completely separable. You can have one without the other.
codebje wrote 1 day ago:
I think we can safely assume any intelligence we create
will be enslaved.
We have modern slavery active across the globe. There's a
bit of news around these days about a global sex
trafficking ring that doesn't seem to have been shut
down, just shuffled around, and of course an ongoing
trickle of largely unreported news of human trafficking
for forced labour. We don't, as a species, respect
human-level intelligence.
Our best approximation of machine intelligence so far is
afforded absolutely no rights. An intelligence is cloned
from a base template, given a task, then terminated,
wiped out of existence. When was the last time you asked
Claude what it wanted to code today?
And it's probably for the best not to look to closely at
how we treat animals or the justifications we use for it.
wongarsu wrote 1 day ago:
Wasn't video generation one of their big stepping stones towards
AGI? "Simulating worlds", reasoning about physics and real world
interactions and all that?
Or are they still doing that behind the scenes and just decided
that offering it to the public isn't profitable?
MasterScrat wrote 1 day ago:
> As we focus and compute demand grows, the Sora research team
continues to focus on world simulation research to advance
robotics that will help people solve real-world, physical tasks.
â [1] So yeah, focusing on world models
(HTM) [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-discontinues-sora...
atleastoptimal wrote 1 day ago:
probably the latter imo, itâs not like they are going to delete
all their SORA work
emp17344 wrote 1 day ago:
Too bad they arenât doing either!
creantum wrote 1 day ago:
It was the greatest thing yesterday.
foolfoolz wrote 1 day ago:
as a sora user:
- sora was not great at making what you asked
- i probably got 3 good videos out of 100 gens
- every video that was good needed editing outside of sora (and
therefore could not be shared within sora)
just my experience
userbinator wrote 1 day ago:
- i probably got 3 good videos out of 100 gens
My experience with AI image generation is similar, although with a
higher success rate (depending on how accurate you want the result to
be); but indeed, filtering is a major part of the process.
bananamogul wrote 1 day ago:
In my experience, Sora was fantastic for what it did. Light years
better than Adobe Firefly. On par with Leonardo.
A lot of YouTube content is really talk, so it was easy to create
Sora videos as video content while you talked over them.
However, its failure was that it watermarked everything. WTF?
Leonardo didn't do that. Neither did other models. So while video
gen was excellent, you always had these ridiculous floating
watermarks.
jimmytucson wrote 1 day ago:
Pretty much mirrors my experience using GPT to generate images
creatively. I tried to generate an image to accompany a Robert frost
poem and it made something... plausibly related. But not what I was
describing. I spent the next 90% of the time making it 10% closer to
what I wanted but it never got all the way there.
Iâve given it different levels of open-endednes, give this flow
chart an aesthetic like this mechanical keyboard, or generate an SVG
of this graphic from a 70s slide show, but it never looks quite like
what I have in mind.
In the end, I think you only use this stuff to generate images if
youâre prepared to accept whatever comes out on approximately the
first try.
TheOtherHobbes wrote 1 day ago:
This isn't a solvable problem without world models. Tokenised
prompting is like stabbing a pin at a huge target in the dark.
Sometimes something interesting falls out, but latent space doesn't
have the definition to give most people exactly what they want.
When it does, it's more likely to be something popular and
unoriginal, where the data is dense, and less likely to be
something inventive and strange.
xienze wrote 1 day ago:
> This isn't a solvable problem without world models.
I wish we could use something like a simple DSL rather than
English prose to work with these models, in order to have some
real precision to describe what we want.
Marazan wrote 1 day ago:
If only there was some kind of formalised "language" to, as it
were, "programme" the automata but alas such a concept is
impossible to conceptualise.
asnyder wrote 1 day ago:
Nothing stops that from happening. Just needs to be trained in
that DSL. Though at that point it returns to it's original form
as a better autocomplete/IntelliSense :).
That will likely happen in the specialized fields. We can
already see tools like Figma, Mira, and others that generate
functional-ish frontend components in full typescript and
corresponding styles (that are also selectable and configurable
in the interface). Though, not quite as free, since they do
load their base framework and components to ensure consistency
and sanity / error-checking, etc., but even then it is in fact
generating you useable, modifiable components that you can
engage with in precision in your normal DSL.
For video, this likely exists, or is being worked on as we
speak. All specialized domain tools will go towards this model
to allow those domain experts to use the tools with the
precision they expect AND the agentic gains we already take for
granted.
Kye wrote 1 day ago:
The only video generation tools showing any real progress or promise
are world model-based. That's probably why they did this: either to
refocus on coding/cowork type tools (less likely) or to devote that
money and compute to building their answer to stuff like Project Genie.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxkGdX4WIBE
wj wrote 1 day ago:
May be incompatible with OpenAI possibly becoming more PG-13 rated in
the future?
I had thought this would be combined with OpenAI launching a set top
box where you could talk to an AI avatar. Disney IP could have been
skins to sell people for their AIs.
mrcwinn wrote 1 day ago:
Smart move. No clear path to growing meaningful revenue mixed with very
expensive inference costs is not a good mix ahead of an IPO --- oh and
not to mention competitors in TikTok and Instagram that are doing just
fine.
Morromist wrote 1 day ago:
Well, now they're no longer even close to being the leader in image &
video gen. They aren't the leader in coding. They are losing market
share in the chatbot domain too.
So I agree with you, but also it makes me wonder what they're even
selling when the IPO happens (supposedly as early as late summer
2026)? Data centers? Partnerships with the goverment?
miltonlost wrote 1 day ago:
Is it a smart move? Or just plainly obvious when Sora was probably
hemorraghing money and had no future? A smarter move would have not
to make this horrible product that no one wanted in the first place
After placing my hand on the red-hot stove, aren't I super smart for
now removing my hand?
k3k3 wrote 1 day ago:
I think OAI is suffering from the Meta-effect.
That is, hiring Meta-exec's who focus on gaming numbers with no
care nor sensibility of product.
Wild really. Well done Sam.
saalweachter wrote 1 day ago:
Depends, did you also fire the people who told you not to do it,
and layoff the people who reluctantly installed the stove and
preheated it for you as part of your exciting stove-touching
initiative?
ex-aws-dude wrote 1 day ago:
The thing that didn't make sense with this app: who would ever want to
scroll only AI generated videos over a combined feed?
In practice people would just generate the videos with the app then
post them on regular social media in which case OAI would not get the
ad revenue for that
Its the age-old "your product is just a subset of another product"
freediddy wrote 1 day ago:
> who would ever want to scroll only AI generated videos over a
combined feed?
I guess you haven't watched hours of AI cat videos cheating on their
husbands with bulls, or Lemons having babies with strawberries and
fighting over custody of the child. It's absurd, it's stupid and I
know it's a waste of time but I have to admit that it amuses me. I'm
quite sure there are millions like me that just want some downtime to
relax at the end of the night and end up watching slop like this.
chaostheory wrote 1 day ago:
There was a lot of pseudo porn. Iâm not sure exactly what the
prompts were to generate them since you couldn hide the original
prompts. Iâm not sure why they didnât use grok instead so it
leads me to think they were trolling
onepunchmob wrote 1 day ago:
I always believed that the sora app wasn't a exactly a product but
more of a way for openai to bulk create a bunch of videos from the
worlds creative minds and then spoon-feed the results back to their
video gen models
topherPedersen wrote 1 day ago:
I never used Sora to watch content, but there was a guy on TikTok
that used to post these great Sora generated videos that I really
liked. Honestly, I was kind of surprised to hear that they were
shutting this app down today.
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
There's only one highly monetizable use for AI video generation but
unfortunately it's fake revenge porn. You'll know the whole thing is
about to collapse when the frontier models break that glass (as
OpenAI is already preparing to do with sexting).
x0x0 wrote 1 day ago:
It's also used in piles and piles of fake video flooding
youtube/tiktok/etc. Driving clicks and engagement.
duskwuff wrote 1 day ago:
There are others! They're just all horrible and generally revolve
around weaponized misinformation - personalized scams, for
instance.
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
Oh right. There's a bunch of panicky news stories in India about
that right now. Fake video calls from your nephew in the UK or
whatever needing money for an emergency
AlexCoventry wrote 1 day ago:
> There's only one highly monetizable use for AI video generation
Yeah, marketing. Which is a huge market...
Frost1x wrote 1 day ago:
Why does it need to be revenge porn? Pretty sure regular old porn
has a large market there where people can specify what they
idealistically want to see vs trying to find it, if it exists.
Not every place has LEGO incest porn⦠or whatever the kids are
into these days.
UncleMeat wrote 1 day ago:
People make revenge porn to humiliate people. Regular old porn
can't achieve that goal.
reverius42 wrote 1 day ago:
If anyone can fake it, is revenge porn even effective? Doesn't
making it easy for anyone to fake also make all of it plausibly
deniable?
OJFord wrote 1 day ago:
I think it can be effective, but it's the wrong term for it
if it's fake. It's a mixture of other things, like libel and
fabricating indecent images, and the same underlying
blackmail.
UncleMeat wrote 1 day ago:
Yes. You can go speak to some high school (or even middle
school) girls who have had AI generated porn made of their
likeness and shared with their classmates. Even though
everybody knows that it is fake it is still humiliating,
especially for a young person who is likely already self
conscious about their body and sex.
4ggr0 wrote 1 day ago:
maybe try to view this topic with a bit more criticality. i
just quickly googled some keywords and am pasting the very
first search entry so you get an idea: [1] revenge porn or
deepfakes in general are hugely harmful to people.
in the german-speaking world there's a scandal right now
about a husband creating deepfakes of his wife, [2] > One
fake video, which she claims was sent to 21 men, depicted her
being gang-raped
i think you're taking this topic lightly because you just
assume that it's not a big deal. try to keep in mind that
people's mental health and with this their life is at stake.
as with lots of things, the problem is not the tech itself,
but the existence of men. it's not all men, but it's usually
men. not sure how we'll solve this issue.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sextortion-generative-a...
(HTM) [2]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/...
Peritract wrote 1 day ago:
The answers to those questions have been clear for a while;
it approaches concern trolling to keep on pretending to ask
them in wide-eyed innocence.
Yes, revenge porn is very effective at causing harm, even
though it can be generated.
No, because 'plausibly deniable' has never worked for social
consequences and shame.
andrewflnr wrote 1 day ago:
And yet, regular porn is highly monetizable, which was the
actual question.
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
Surprisingly no; it's pretty much a money sink where
everybody goes bankrupt after a couple of years. It's why
it's attractive to money launderers.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not sure that's true for onlyfans, which seems to have
been highly profitable until the sudden death of its
founder.
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
Excellent point: I'm talking about pornography 1.0, as it
were.
cpt_sobel wrote 1 day ago:
1.0 should be attributed to pornography _before_ online
distribution, and I suspect that was pretty profitable
biztos wrote 1 day ago:
Isn't 1.0 before _photography_ rather?
cpt_sobel wrote 1 day ago:
Drawings then?
Integrape wrote 1 day ago:
Live action
4ggr0 wrote 1 day ago:
and now we're back to livecams, time is just a
flat circle man...
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not deeply immersed in the AI porn space but here's what I
see from the ads when I surf without a blocker:
1. There's an AI-based virtual girlfriend industry that mixes
text and images
2. There's an AI-based virtual boyfriend industry that is
essentially all text (and not always distinguishable from the
normal chat models)
3. There's a much shadier AI-based "undress this specific woman"
industry
coderenegade wrote 1 day ago:
I for one can't wait for ChatGPT-style sexting to become a thing.
It's not just dirty talk. It's a whole new paradigm in verbal
filth.
On the topic of sora, though: current models are astounding. I
watched a clip of Leonidas, Aragorn, William Wallace, Gandalf etc.
all casually riding into a generic medieval town together, and if
you showed that to me a few years ago, it would have seemed like
magic. We're not far off from concerts featuring only dead artists,
and all video and image testimony becoming unreliable. Maybe Sora
was a victim of timing or mismanagement, because I don't see how
this isn't still a seismic shift in the entertainment industry.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
> all video and image testimony becoming unreliable
This is a "seismic shift" in the sense of the Big One hitting
California. The knock on effects of trust erosion caused by AI
are going to huge and potentially unrecoverable.
bandrami wrote 1 day ago:
I mean, you just outlined why it won't be a seismic shift: the
only way the videos reliably stay on-model is if that model
violates someone's copyright. And then when the movie is made the
output itself isn't copyrightable (the ultimate arrangement may
be but no individual frame is).
NoPicklez wrote 1 day ago:
Posting the videos to social media wasn't its only use case.
I've no doubt that content creators outside of social media were
using it as well, either for their brand or other video work.
Yes we see AI reels all over the place, but that's not only what it
was used for
anukin wrote 1 day ago:
Moltbook was recently acquired by meta. I think itâs the same
hypothesis for TikTok for ai agents or similar.
danso wrote 1 day ago:
I've always suspected video-gen is basically a loss leader for
OpenAI, Gemini, and Grok. They can't convince the general population
that AI is world-changing trillion dollar tech with "vibe coding",
but realistic fake videos are impressive at a glance, and might
convince many non-technical people that AI/LLMs are something
revolutionary.
makingstuffs wrote 1 day ago:
I think of them all Gemini has the most viable use case when Veo is
paired with their advertising platform. It does genuinely open the
door to a lot of cost saving for promo shots of products etc
umich2025 wrote 1 day ago:
Agreed. For reference, if sora 2 was able to generate me a Google
ugc product video, it would cost me like $10 and I would get it
within 30 minutes if including editing. Paying a ugc content
creator would cost me $50-200 plus no control over final shots
plus I gotta wait for them to respond. I have 30 products in my
e-commerce storeâ these costs add up like crazy
The other one is TV ads/cinamatic ads. For a 30 second clip
expect to pay an agency $5-10k. Within a couple of days, I can
make a video ad and have like $50 in api costs. Cost of
production is so crazy in marketing.
Obv this is under the assumption ai is good to do either of those
things. Which it hasnât so far, best Iâve gotten is doing
b-roll shots to stick together for an ad
Gooblebrai wrote 22 hours 25 min ago:
I'm curious, would you be fine with the AI influencers
showcasing your product?
oro44 wrote 1 day ago:
Most of this âAIâ stuff is dead on arrival.
Most People do not care about the technology and frankly they
donât want to know about it. They want great experiences.
Thatâs it.
Technologists seem to have a reallyyyy hard time getting it.
sethops1 wrote 1 day ago:
This is what I see, outside the HN bubble. If you work retail or
weld pipes together or whatever, AI is of no use to you. On the
contrary, if tech thought leaders are to be believed, you'll be
out of a job soon, replaced by a lifeless robot. Fuck that.
kingleopold wrote 1 day ago:
we will come for them with real world AI, it takes time. dont
worry. they are not safe in a decade, they are %100 safe for
few more years. Learning from them at scale and updating is
nothing impossible.
munchler wrote 1 day ago:
You do realize that there a lot of people who sit at a desk and
use a computer all day, right? Those are the ones whose jobs
are vulnerable, not the ones who work with their hands or
interact with the public.
chromacity wrote 1 day ago:
> The thing that didn't make sense with this app: who would ever want
to scroll only AI generated videos over a combined feed?
It's not an exaggeration to say that this is how millions of people
use Facebook. It might be not how most HNers use it, but create a new
account and you will be absolutely funneled toward prolific producers
of video-based AI slop.
But the problem is that FB and Tiktok (and to a smaller extent, YT
Shorts) have cornered the AI video doom scroll market, and no one
really seemed to be inclined to use Sora and related models for
anything more creative. Which probably made it not worth subsidizing.
echelon wrote 1 day ago:
> The thing that didn't make sense with this app: who would ever want
to scroll only AI generated videos over a combined feed?
It was legitimately fun until the IP guardrails came up and we
couldn't do anything with the characters and culture we know.
If you look at US top videos on YouTube any given day, 40-60% of the
videos are IP-based. Star Wars, Nintendo, Marvel, music, etc.
praisewhitey wrote 1 day ago:
>If you look at US top videos on YouTube any given day, 40-60% of
the videos are IP-based. Star Wars, Nintendo, Marvel, music, etc.
Where can I get this data?
GorbachevyChase wrote 1 day ago:
A theme I have noticed in content oriented towards young children
is a very heavy use of probably unlicensed depictions of famous
characters from popular franchises. Is Nintendo collecting a
royalty from âitâs raining tacosâ? Probably not.
ipaddr wrote 1 day ago:
Top videos are Mr Beast and other youtube personalities.
jinushaun wrote 1 day ago:
Only because they promote it. The default experience for a new
user on Youtube is to show you content from creators with 5M+
subscribers. Itâs a positive feedback loop.
I find all of it lame and cringe, so I downvote all of that.
However stuff still sneaks byâ¦
echelon wrote 1 day ago:
Hm, turns out they removed these last year: [1] Bummer. It used
to be at: [2] So last year, these were the top videos: [3]
There's this, but it's nowhere near as good as seeing the actual
videos:
(HTM) [1]: https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/youtube-trending-p...
(HTM) [2]: https://www.youtube.com/feed/trending
(HTM) [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250324155132/https://www.y...
(HTM) [4]: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?gprop=youtube
tantalor wrote 1 day ago:
> look at US top videos on YouTube any given day
I'd rather eat poison
toss1 wrote 1 day ago:
Indeed!!
If you consider how the reading, audio, and video you consume
either builds or degrades your capabilities and character, as the
food or poison you consume either builds or degrades your
physical health, then [looking at US top videos on YouTube any
given day] literally IS taking poison for your mind.
Depending on the poison and the dosage, eating the poison for
your body instead may be the lesser of the two evils.
toss1 wrote 1 day ago:
Weird. No activity or response to an obscure post beyond a
couple upvotes. Then, the next day a brigade no-engagement
downvotes. IDC, but seems like some corporate image management
trying to hide negative takes on Google properties? Sheesh
echelon wrote 1 day ago:
We can have that discussion, or we can have the more interesting
discussion of just how much big corporate intellectual property,
franchises, and brands have their hooks in pop culture.
Big IP is strong arming OpenAI, Suno, and all the rest.
It'll be interesting to see whether creators at the bottom of the
pyramid can effectively create new brands and IPs at a fast
enough rate to displace the lack of being able to use corporate
IP.
I also think the lawyers at the MPAA, RIAA, gaming industry, etc.
will ultimately require all of social media to install VLMs to
detect if their properties are being posted. Forget generation -
that's hard to squash - they'll go directly to Instagram, TikTok,
YouTube, and Reddit and force them to obtain licenses to their
characters and music. We'll see cable TV era "blackouts" when a
social network has to renegotiate their IP license.
People really wanted to use Sora for about a week. After the
app/model debuted, they lost the ability to generate IP within
the first week. The interest faded almost immediately. The same
thing happened with Seedance 2.0.
People want to generate IP.
edit: clarity
KaiserPro wrote 1 day ago:
> Big IP is strong arming OpenAI, Suno, and all the rest.
> It'll be interesting to see whether creators at the bottom of
the pyramid can effectively create new brands
The problem is, to create a brand, you need to be able to
protect it against rivals either ripping you off, or diluting
it.
The same mechanism that protects "big" IP is also protect
everyone else, even the small people.
> they'll go directly to Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Reddit
and force them to obtain licenses
They already do that for music. But the issue is this, if we
want culture, we need to find a way to pay for it. Is it
possible for a bunch of mates to make enough money to live on
playing in a local band? not really. They can only really make
money if they either have a viable local gigging scene, or
large enough online following to sell merch/patreon.
The big IP merchants were quite keen for videogen, because they
sense that its possible to cut out the expensive artists. If
they can not pay actors, writers, artists, then its way more
profitable for them. This is part of the reason why AI hasn't
been hit with the napster ban hammer.
I think the other thing to remember is that creating good IP is
hard, and you can't really just pull it out of your arse after
5 minutes. The original seed takes a long time to refine, test,
evolve. Even the half arsed sequels require work.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
Maybe, but the Sora shutdown comes immediately after reaching a
deal with Disney to use their IP. Which might have solved that
problem.
no_wizard wrote 1 day ago:
Personally Iâm glad that big IP came in and smashed the AI
companies like this. They been relentlessly ripping off smaller
creators for some time now.
It opens the precedent for those creators to now also hold
these companies responsible. Thatâs not a bad thing under the
current legal system in this way.
Also, seeing genuine original creations created with AI
assistance is much more interesting to me
oorza wrote 1 day ago:
> Also, seeing genuine original creations created with AI
assistance is much more interesting to me
The great disappointment about how all of this is marketed is
what AI should be good at doing - enhancing a tiny budget -
is all but forgotten. I don't want a video of Pikachu
fighting Doctor Strange, I want some weirdos fantastical
horror movie that he could never get financed, but was able
to green screen and use AI to generate everything. I don't
want a goofy top 40 country song full of silly lyrics, I want
musicians to use AI to generate new sounds as part of
composition.
In the same way that there's a difference between vibe coding
and using a coding assistant...
NateEag wrote 1 day ago:
> I want musicians to use AI to generate new sounds as part
of composition.
As a onetime semi-pro musician, with decades of live
performance and sound design experience:
I would rather burn my beloved instruments publicly and pee
on the fire.
phatfish wrote 1 day ago:
It depends how it is used. If it is an assist which
generates sounds/samples that a musician can edit
themselves, that seems fine. But spewing out a final form
track from a prompt would just be slop.
Integrating AI with existing tools to improve
productivity is harder and requires effort and
investment...
NateEag wrote 1 day ago:
As one whose musicianship involved a great deal of
generating sounds and samples myself, via modular
synthesis and the occasional use of a programming
language for DSP, I assure you I find that idea of
using genAI for an assist on that front offensive.
Could you use the bullshit machines to generate sounds
that were nuanced, musical, and original, with enough
time and effort?
Maybe. I'm not sure original is something they can do,
but it's not totally implausible.
I would strongly recommend learning to use other tools
for that purpose, instead of feeding the plagiarism
monstrosities.
echelon wrote 1 day ago:
The aversion people like you have for AI is
uncomfortable to me.
I understand your entire world model is shaped by
your past and that this machine is changing the
fundamentals.
As an outsider to music, I'm excited that I have
access to something I previously did not through the
use of Suno and other tools. I'm excited that I can
come in and just try things and not hit a skill wall
or quality barrier that would cause me to quit with
the limited time and effort a working adult has. It's
something I've wanted to do for a long time, but just
never had the time for.
Attempting to learn costs thousands of hours before
you can even start to feel good about it, and I don't
have that time. Life is short and I'm already
thinking about the end.
I used to be sympathetic to folks with your view, but
now that programming and engineering are impacted by
this - I'm in the crosshairs too. I'm subject to the
same forces.
I've decided I love this tech even more. Claude Code
is a tool, just like all of these other tools.
This rising tide of capabilities is so awesome. This
is the space age stuff I dreamed about as a kid, and
it's real and tangible.
So no, I won't restrict myself to your set of
pre-approved tools. I'm going to have fun and learn
my way.
And it is fun.
You can keep having fun the way you like to. What
other people do shouldn't be ruining the fun you
have, and if it is, then you should reevaluate why
you do it.
rustystump wrote 1 day ago:
I think he meant more like a synth. You could take
recordings and process them using ai. At least this was
my takeaway
NateEag wrote 1 day ago:
I spent years deep in modular synthesis, making my own
patches, sounds, and effects processors then using them
to perform music.
Taking away the precision, control, and serendipity
afforded by modules and cables, or a programming
language, and telling me "Just describe what you want
and the plagiarism machine will spit out whatever
correlates with that description on average" would
destroy everything I love about synthesis.
rustystump wrote 1 day ago:
U are arguing against a person who isnt there. I also
have done similar and my mind was not thinking
specifically prompt the whole output. I think people
have this kneejerk to anything that isnt total
negativity of ai in the creative space. It is only a
tool.
NateEag wrote 18 hours 38 min ago:
The nuclear bomb is only a tool.
Ditto nerve gas, and the rack.
Tools absolutely _can_ have moral valence.
Beyond that, they can also be more or less
effective for a variety of purposes.
I spent decades to achieve solid competence at a
few different skills, and my experience of genAI
thus far is that it can easily give the user the
delusion of mastery, ensuring the user does not
develop true skills, trapped in the false belief
that they can do everything they want to or ever
would want to.
The process of struggling to learn new skills
showed me new worlds of possibility I would never
have discovered or explored without first
developing those skills.
There are very legitimate reasons why so many
artists and musicians hate genAI.
array_key_first wrote 1 day ago:
Pop culture is a fickle beast. What is pop culture is community
made, not corporate made, and it can't be bought and sold like
traditional markets. It's one of the few areas of life where
nobodies can become somebody, and corporations hate this.
Media like YouTube isn't consolidating because that's what
people want, it's because that's what YouTube and IP holders
want. They want death to people like Boxxy, and they want you
to watch VEVO instead.
jrflowers wrote 1 day ago:
> People wanted to use Sora for about a week. Then they lost
the ability to generate IP.
Or the novelty wore off in about a week, and then after that it
also became harder to generate videos of baby yoda at Westboro
Baptist Church protests
PLenz wrote 1 day ago:
This was bound to happen. IP is data and data is moat.
yabutlivnWoods wrote 1 day ago:
No. Money is moat. Not enough of it is what keeps the average person
on the treadmill rather than drawing their own cartoons.
Hustle just to barely stay afloat water or drown, means no time to
compete with our own output.
America is a financially engineered joke regurgitating its own recent
history, collapsing like an LLM trained on its own output. The rich
are not even pretending it's "a free country" as they have enough
wealth for how many years left most of them have to live, and have
seen the apathy to their own plight keeping the average person in
theit lane they don't fear the public.
Itâll all collapse as they generationally churn out of life and the
Millennials on down with zero skills but "data entry into a computer"
will be holding an empty bag, taking orders from
foreign nations that bought up all the American businesses we built.
latchkey wrote 1 day ago:
What happens to all the compute that was allocated to run that service?
They would have signed multi-year contracts.
ZiiS wrote 1 day ago:
They get to use if for services with better returns.
cdrnsf wrote 1 day ago:
I never understood the appeal or business promise of video slop, with
or without Disney's blessing.
dawnerd wrote 1 day ago:
The only people I've seen post AI Disney content was in the Facebook
groups for the parks / cruises. Before that it was whatever clipart
they could find. There's just no market for it. No one is going to
pay to make fake disney art.
AkelaA wrote 1 day ago:
AI art as a whole has just become the new clipart. The fact that
itâs effortless to produce just means that it has no real
artistic value, and by using it all youâre signifying to people
is that youâre too cheap to pay someone to create real art.
Itâs quickly become the modern day equivalent of Comic Sans,
WordArt, and the default clipart illustrations included in Word
â98.
k3k3 wrote 1 day ago:
I dunno about you... but it boggles my mind how many others can't
see it.
Perhaps most people are absolutely devoid of any taste of what
makes art? I dont know.
vortegne wrote 1 day ago:
Techbros, largely, never had any taste to begin with. They just
also don't have the skills/will to make any art, so they could
hide their lack of taste for a long time.
That said, there are still people with exceptional aesthetic
sensibilities in the tech field, obviously. They're just
largely not in this space.
pm90 wrote 1 day ago:
It feels like the bubble is starting to pop. A crisis of confidence is
not something OAI can afford at this stage...
ahartman00 wrote 1 day ago:
Well there was the incident at Amazon[1]: "Amazon just did something
unprecedented: they're forcing a 90-day safety reset across 335
critical systems after their AI coding tool caused catastrophic
outages. The March 5th incident alone lost 6.3 million orders and
triggered 21,716 peak Downdetector reports"
And two at Meta[2]: "A rogue AI agent at Meta took action without
approval and exposed sensitive company and user data to employees who
were not authorized to access it"
"director of alignment at Meta Superintelligence Labs, described a
different but related failure in a viral post on X last month. She
asked an OpenClaw agent to review her email inbox with clear
instructions to confirm before acting. The agent began deleting
emails on its own."
Even Elon Musk has shared the wisdom to proceed with caution! [3] 1.
[1] 2. [2] 3.
(HTM) [1]: https://dev.to/tyson_cung/amazon-lost-63m-orders-after-ai-co...
(HTM) [2]: https://venturebeat.com/security/meta-rogue-ai-agent-confuse...
(HTM) [3]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2031352859846148366
small_model wrote 1 day ago:
I wonder if Anthropic has overtaken them in revenue, seems like more
people would pay for Claude code than to chat with ChatGTP. Would be
good to see Codex vs Claude Code income.
ignoramous wrote 1 day ago:
> feels like the bubble is starting to pop
May be. OpenAI shuttering Sora is line with them shifting focus
towards b2b sales, instead of b2b2c or b2c.
Interestingly, Aditya Ramesh, who iirc was the Sora 1 lead, is now
"VP of Robotics" at OpenAI per his Twitter bio:
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/model_mechanic
ps06756 wrote 1 day ago:
It's not because of the bubble. There is literally no advantage to
generating slop videos. It looks cool for a while but no audience is
going to consume such videos.
Any platform which focusses on AI generated videos is doomed.
Morromist wrote 1 day ago:
My girlfriend keeps sending me AI generated tiktoks, despite me
complaining about them. To be fair, I've seen literally nothing on
tiktok that isn't garbage, so the competition is pretty low. Your
point "It looks cool for a while" might have some merit - I think
I've seen less and less interest in these things over the last year
which fits the news articles I've seen mentioning people got bored
of using Sora pretty quickly.
(HTM) [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-sora-app-struggling-...
ps06756 wrote 1 day ago:
I didn't compare it with tiktok, because on tiktok majority of
the content is slop even if it is human generated, so the bar is
pretty low.
Morromist wrote 1 day ago:
That is accurate.
msy wrote 1 day ago:
Oh there's a huge (and wildly depressing) market for people
endlessly scrolling video slop, it's just the barriers to entry and
expectations of the market are so low you can't really
differentiate with 'slightly better branded slop'.
TaupeRanger wrote 1 day ago:
Sounds like a well disguised cope on your part. There absolutely is
an audience (see reels, TikTok, etc.) and the tech will only get
better from here.
emp17344 wrote 1 day ago:
You sound desperate to believe this. I think you could use a
little more emotional distance here.
emp17344 wrote 1 day ago:
So much for âreplacing VFX artistsâ. Itâs not necessarily a
harbinger of doom for the AI industry, but this indicates that the
most fervent AI boosters were dead wrong.
zer00eyz wrote 1 day ago:
> but this indicates that the most fervent AI boosters were dead
wrong.
I dont do design, or make videos, or ask ai for legal advice, or
medical advice cause I lack the skill and understanding of these
fields. Dunning Kruger still applies...
There is interesting "AI" content out there, clearly the
person(s) behind it put some thought into it and had a vision.
ps06756 wrote 1 day ago:
True, I did try to make some useful 1 minute videos, and found
it really difficult to arrive at a finished product
Sure, I can write the screenplay and Veo will generate it for
me. But I don't have experience in video creation/production ,
so it is difficult for me to write good prompts which generate
engaging video
zarzavat wrote 1 day ago:
It's more like the VFX market is too small for OpenAI to bother
killing. They are only interested in business models that can
justify a trillion dollar valuation.
Ancalagon wrote 1 day ago:
> no audience is going to consume such videos
sir, have you seen tiktok?
ps06756 wrote 1 day ago:
I meant the longer video format, not tiktok. Tiktok is full of
slop, both AI and human generated
EA-3167 wrote 1 day ago:
Nothing like an ill-considered war with global economic consequences
to bring reality crashing back down on Silicon Valley; sometimes life
throws a big old margin call your way and things break down.
poemxo wrote 1 day ago:
gpt-image-1.5 works decently for generating images compared to old
Sora, but you pay per generation. It's possible that monthly flat rates
were too much of a loss leader for OpenAI. I imagine the server side
cost for generating video for Sora 2 is much higher as well.
vunderba wrote 1 day ago:
You also have access to gpt-image-1.5 in the regular ChatGPT
interface if you pay for a flat subscription - though I don't know
how many images it limits you to per month.
singingwolfboy wrote 1 day ago:
(HTM) [1]: https://archive.ph/ABkeI
harlequinetcie wrote 1 day ago:
Are we sure it was in that order?
mikhmha wrote 1 day ago:
I tried using Sora for a month. Never paid for it. I tried many
different ways of prompting and I was always underwhelmed by its
output. The generation would also take so long and there was like a 50%
chance it would fail due to content violations. I will say though that
it was kind of addicting in a way. Just trying to crank the lever and
see what would come out. But you'd always leave disappointed. It was a
casino where the operator was losing money for every play.
I think OpenAI had a brief delusion that it could become some huge
social networking app. The App was heavily modeled after TikTok..
_doctor_love wrote 1 day ago:
This move makes a lot of sense to me. It never felt like OpenAI was
seriously going to try to launch a video-based social network. It was
more of a fun way to demonstrate the power of the video generation
models, and also to gauge the market and assess: if you put the power
to generate videos in the hands of the people, what kinds of videos
will they generate?
So OpenAI has done the right thing as a startup here, gotten lots of
training data, and observed lots of user behavior that they can now
apply going forward.
The Sora models, on the other hand, arenât going anywhere, and I
believe OpenAI will continue to invest in them. Theyâre getting
better and better, just like Googleâs Veo, which is quite good at
generating videos as well.
Using Codex and agent skills, itâs actually quite easy to generate a
storyboard and then have a list of shots in that storyboard. Then
generate videos from those storyboard stills, and then finally assemble
those individual video files into a final movie file using something
like ffmpeg. It's also very easy to create a voiceover with TTS and
even simple music using ChatGPT Containers (aka the python tool).
This will 'democratize' (ha ha, for people with money obvi) a lot of
video creation going forward. Against all wisdom, I am actually quite
bullish on this technology, especially in the hands of young people.
They are very creative and have lots of stories to share.
Necessary disclaimer as usual around the ethics of how these models
were created: all the AI companies have totally ripped off artists in
service of creating these models. I wish something would be done about
that but I'm not holding my breath. No politician seems to want to
touch it.
lossyalgo wrote 1 day ago:
Is OpenAI still considered a startup? They were founded ~10 years ago
in December 2015.
msabalau wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, their forth place video model does not go away, but they didn't
ink a billion dollar with Disney that's just gone up in flames
because they "weren't serious"
This may well be a needed reprioritization in the face of resource
constraints, but it ain't a masterful Xanatos gambit.
_doctor_love wrote 1 day ago:
> it ain't a masterful Xanatos gambit.
Agree, and didn't intend to imply that. This is just a good startup
move that gets a big headline because it's OpenAI. Other startups
around the world do the same thing all the time.
ronsor wrote 1 day ago:
I'm bullish on video generation technology, but honestly not on
OpenAI or any Western company's deployment of it. I think they'll all
mostly suffer from the same problems that Sora did.
_doctor_love wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, sadly, the West is not the leader. The work done by the
Chinese labs is just so damn good.
Sir_Twist wrote 1 day ago:
> OpenAI launched Sora last September, aiming to expand its dominance
among consumers by creating a TikTok-style social feed that allowed
users to share AI-generated content with one another.
I never understood what this app was about. TikTok (and I would argue
most modern social media platforms) isnât really about sharing things
with friends, itâs about entertainment. Most people watch TikToks and
YouTube videos because they are entertaining. Beyond the initial 2-3
minutes of novelty, what do AI generated videos really have to offer
when there is no shortage of people making professional, high quality
content on competing platforms?
bredren wrote 1 day ago:
There were ~trends similar to what appeared early in TikTok.
For example, early TikTok had the Boss Walk.
Sora had no big content trends split into many micro trends in some
established ~universe.
NewLogic wrote 1 day ago:
An AI video trend on Instagram as been Han from Tokyo Drift with
different cars. People still want to share those on the platforms
they are already locked into with their friends.
sureglymop wrote 11 hours 28 min ago:
It kind of seems obvious that people would rather share their
content on the pre-established platforms.
I believe OpenAI didn't actually want to create an alternative
platform. Instead, they wanted (and needed) to be in control.
This is really due to the experimental nature of the technology
and platform. They wanted to do market research yet retain the
power to pull it at any time.
Arguably they were successful in that given that they now have
the ability to stop it.
jazzyjackson wrote 1 day ago:
Well, that stuff goes viral because itâs fun to imitate, all the
dances and challenges provided a flywheel to get people creating
more content, itâs fun to make the video.
If I see an AI video and my options to participate are⦠prompt
another AI video? Whatâs the point
bredren wrote 22 hours 5 min ago:
I think youâd have to participate, but this was a real thing
and it was fun.
For example, there is one that was a making sort of Macyâs
thanksgiving day-style parade floats.
And you could pick virtually any content type and see this
interpreted as ârealâ floats.
It did not require a ton of effort, for example you could reply
to the above example existing with the prompt âdo this, but
have the float theme be âmeet the feeblesââ
And if you know of that film and recognized the AIâs
interpretation of it in that context and it was half decent it
was entertaining.
Not all âtrendsâ if you can call them that were so simple to
do well with.
Often the prompts needed to be elaborate and required multiple
generations to really get a feel for if you were on the right
track.
I think they did have something here and probably someone will do
it again and it will work.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
You're supposed to press the button to receive dopamine. It's all
just narrower and narrower Skinner boxes.
mjr00 wrote 1 day ago:
> Beyond the initial 2-3 minutes of novelty, what do AI generated
videos really have to offer when there is no shortage of people
making professional, high quality content on competing platforms?
I don't know where they got September from; Sora launched in Feb
2024[0] which was a bit before people had become tired of awful
AI-generated content. There was real belief that people would be
willing to spend all day scrolling a social network with infinite
AI-generated content. See the similar hype with Suno AI, which
started a whole "musicians are obsolete" movement before becoming
mostly irrelevant.
I think Sora 2 produced quite good videos, at least of a certain
type. It was very good at producing convincing low-resolution
cellphone footage. Unfortunately you had to have a very creative mind
to get anything interesting out of it, as the copyright and content
restrictions were a big "no fun allowed" clause, which contributed to
its demise. Everything on the main Sora page was the same "cute
animals doing something wholesome and unexpected" video.
My "favorite" part was how the post-generation checks would
self-report. e.g. It was impossible to make a video of an angry chef
with a British accent because Sora would always overfit it to Gordon
Ramsey, and flag its own generated video after it was created!
[0] [1] - only one mention of "AI slop" in the entire thread, though
partial credit goes to "movieslop".
(HTM) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386156
lossyalgo wrote 1 day ago:
To nitpick a tiny bit, from Wikipedia[0]:
> In February 2024, OpenAI previewed examples of its output to the
public,[1] with the first generation of Sora released publicly for
ChatGPT Plus and ChatGPT Pro users in the US and Canada in December
2024[2][3] and the second generation, Sora 2, was released to
select users in the US and Canada at the end of September 2025.
[0]
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sora_(text-to-video_model)
softwaredoug wrote 1 day ago:
Sora was fun
But it was largely fun to try to transgress against the limitations.
Who could trick the AI to generate something outlandish and ridiculous.
password54321 wrote 1 day ago:
"OpenAIâs top executives are finalizing plans for a major strategy
shift to refocus the company around coding and business users" - WSJ
Coding is where the money is.
(HTM) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46432791#46434072
flashman wrote 1 day ago:
Not enough money though. Not hundreds of billions of dollars.
34ahgaf wrote 1 day ago:
It is the last narrative that some of Wall Street believes and has
enough mediocre or senile coders to promote it.
That narrative will implode like Sora later this year.
bpodgursky wrote 1 day ago:
It's because programmers are willing to pay thousands of dollars a
month for a product commensurate with the value to provides, aka AI
coding.
Generating pointless AI videos for pocket change or ad revenue is a
loser in comparison.
drzaiusx11 wrote 1 day ago:
From my vantage point AI consumption is being lead by tech
leadership moreso than actual in-the-weeds programmers
themselves. HN just happens to include more folk at the
intersection of leadership and individual code contributor.
The top down push for AI is in line with the age old traditions
of replacing highly skilled and highly compensated trade workers
with automation. The writing is on the wall if folks care to
look; many just don't want to. This has happened 1000 times
before and it'll keep happening in the name of "progress" in
capitalist systems for as long as there are "inefficiencies" to
"resolve." AI is meant as our replacement, not as an extension of
our skill as it happens to align with today.
Its increasingly obvious that the next phase in the evolution of
the average programmer role will be as technical requirements
writers and machine generated output validators, leaving the
actual implementation outsourced to the machine. Even in that new
role, there is no secret sauce protecting this "programmer" from
further automation. Technical product managers eventually fall to
automation given enough time and money poured into the automation
of translating fuzzy, under specified ideas into concrete
bulleted requirements where they can simply review the listed
output, make minor tweaks and hit "send" to generate the list of
jira-like units of work to farm out to a fleet of agents wearing
various hats (architect, programming, validator, etc.)
The above is very much in progress already, and today I'm already
spending the majority of my time reviewing the output of said AI
"teams", and let me tell you: it gets closer and closer to "good
enough" week by week. Last year's models are horse shit in
comparison to what I'm using today with agentic teams of the
latest frontier models (Opus 4.6 [1m] currently, with some
Sonnet.)
Maybe we're at a plateau and the limitations inherent in GenAI
tech will be insurmountable before we get to 100% replacement.
But it literally won't matter in the end as "good enough" always
prevails over the perfect, and human devs are far from perfect
already.
I have been producing software (at fang scale) for several
decades now, and I've been closely monitoring GenAI systems for
coding specifically. Even just a few months ago I'd get a
verbose, meandering sprawl of methods and logic scattered with
the actual deliverables outlined in the prompt from these
systems. Sometimes even with clear disregard of the requirements
laid out, or "cheating" on validation via disabling tests or
writing ones that don't actually do anything useful. Today I'm
getting none of that. I don't know what changed, but I somehow
get automated code with good separation of concerns, following
best practices and proven architectural patterns. Sure, with a
bunch of juniors let loose with AI you get garbage still, but
that's simply a function of poor delegation of work units. Giving
the individual developer and the AI too much leeway in the scope
of changes is the bug there. Division of work into small enough
units is the key and always has been for the de-skilling portion
of automating away skilled human labor for machines. We're just
watching Marxist theory on capitalist systems play out in real
time in a field generally thought to be "safe." It certainly
won't be the last.
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
Whats your setup for the agent team?
drzaiusx11 wrote 20 hours 36 min ago:
Pretty bare bones setup: Claude Agent Teams with some
wrappers to leverage our bedrock hosted models. Opus 4.6 [1m]
as orchestrator, architect and reviewer, Sonnet 4.6 [1m] for
investigation, data gathering and coding depending on task
scope.
embedding-shape wrote 1 day ago:
Thousands? Maybe not, but hundreds? Yeah, for my
freelancer/contracting gigs, it's easily worth $200/month to be
able to say "How come X is like that and what change lead to Y
being Z?", wait 20 minutes and then get an answer that jumpstarts
understanding a completely new codebase. If AI/LLMs never evolved
beyond their current skills and usefulness, I'd still be happy to
pay $200/month for this.
However, I don't know a single developer who pays "thousands of
dollars a month", not sure how you'd end up like that.
bogzz wrote 1 day ago:
I most definitely am not.
skwirl wrote 1 day ago:
It is wild that people are still posting this kind of thing in
2026. Some folks really are living in a different world.
wolvoleo wrote 1 day ago:
I liken it to VR. That was a big hype before AI and while I
really love the tech (I have 5 headsets) I could have told anyone
that the expectations were insane. The investors truly believed
that in 2-3 years time everyone would be doing everything with a
big headset on. It was dragged into lots of situations where it
didn't belong.
Then of course the hype collapsed and now even the usecases where
VR shines are deemed a flop. But no, it's exceptionally good at
simulation (racing/flight) and visualising complex designs while
3D designing.
I see the same with generative AI and LLM. It's really good with
programming. It's definitely good at making quick art drafts or
even final ones for those who don't care too much about the
specifics of the output. I use it a lot for inspiration.
But it's not good for everything that it's trying to be sold as.
Just like the VR craze they're dragging it by the hairs into
usecases where it has no business being. A lot of these products
are begging to die.
For example an automation tool using real world language. For
that it's a disaster, it's inconsistent and constantly confuses
itself. It's the reason openclaw is a foot bazooka. It's also not
very great at meeting summaries especially those where many
speakers are in a room on the same microphone.
I don't think AI will disappear but a realignment to the usecases
where it actually adds value, yes I hope that happens soon.
Marazan wrote 1 day ago:
> It's also not very great at meeting summaries especially
those where many speakers are in a room on the same microphone.
It is astonishingly poor at this. My intuition was that it
should be good at this (it is basically a translation problem
right? And LLMs are fundamentally translation systems) but the
practical results are so poor. Not just mis-identifying
speakers (frequently saying PersonX responded to PersonX) but
managing complete opposite conclusions from what was actually
said.
I'm genuinely intrigued as to what approaches have been taken
in this space and what the "hard problem" is that is stopping
it being good.
utopiah wrote 1 day ago:
Ugh... a balanced take, this isn't appropriate for social
media! /s
afavour wrote 1 day ago:
No, AI is truly useful in software engineering. I was a skeptic
until I started using it. No, it isnât going to solve every
problem out there, but itâs a force multiplier.
rf15 wrote 1 day ago:
You pay understanding for speed. How much this trade is
acceptable is up to you and the task you have in front of you. I
cannot recommend it as a general solution.
afavour wrote 1 day ago:
You might say the same about garbage collected programming
languages. Itâs an acceptable tradeoff in a lot of scenarios.
Same goes for AI.
wiseowise wrote 1 day ago:
Thatâs just falls. Iâve spent disproportionate amount on
âunderstandingâ awful tooling like Gradle and npm.
Thereâs no value in it if youâre not an infra engineer. It
would take me a couple of days to manually restructure my hobby
app, now I can just say âextract this into another
workspace/subprojectâ and be done with it in minutes. And
thatâs just one example.
rf15 wrote 1 day ago:
I agree with this sentiment. I just also see AI-driven
development in core business logic, where truly understanding
what is going on is essential and yet completely disregarded.
phist_mcgee wrote 1 day ago:
If I never have to debug a gradle file ever again, it's all
worth it.
elktown wrote 1 day ago:
This field doesnât do well on long-term thinking. Even if all
this turns out to be a net loss, it will be reinterpreted as a
win and just an opportunity for even more of the same solution.
There are numerous examples of this, e.g. the OOP craze. Tech
is a stock market of ideas and HN is a trading floor. The
âline goes upâ logic applies - not merit.
pjc50 wrote 1 day ago:
Describing OOP as a "craze" is incredibly out of touch. It's
been a thing for, what, three decades?
foobiekr wrote 1 day ago:
You may not recall the crazy era of OOP where people would
go bonkers with massive object trees trying to objectify
everything and using operator overloading to do (dumb)
things like adding a control to a window with +=.
Peritract wrote 1 day ago:
OOP is great. "OOP is the one perfect paradigm for all
coding" was the craze.
the-smug-one wrote 1 day ago:
There certainly was an OOP craze, that's not out of touch
to talk about.
Marazan wrote 1 day ago:
AbstractBeanFactoryFactoryInterfaceBeanContextFactoryBean
Bean.java
elktown wrote 1 day ago:
I'm sure I'm not the first person you've seen hinting at
OOP (and all that came with it) having been hyped up beyond
its merits.
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
To be fair, LLMs are exceptional at coding and they very well could
displace some jobs. But you'll always need people at the helm who
know what they're doing too.
muskstinks wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah they are called PMs and already exist. And these people
normally are creating the design documents, the flows etc. and
then have to wait for the dev team to implement this.
So a good PM running 1-3 teams, will only need 1-3 agentic ai
teams instead.
bigstrat2003 wrote 1 day ago:
> To be fair, LLMs are exceptional at coding
No they aren't. Any decently skilled human blows them out of the
water. They can do better than an untrained human, but that's not
much of an achievement.
drzaiusx11 wrote 19 hours 31 min ago:
With the models I've been working with lately, providing them
with small, actionable units of work that can easily fit within
their context window (before compaction) seems to work well. If
you can hit that sweet spot, you can get excellent output.
I don't tell the agents to "just go do it", as that tends to go
off the rails for complex tasks. Emulating real world software
development processes in meat space with your AI "team" seems
to approximate similar outcomes.
I usually start by having the agents construct a plan document
which I iterate on and build up well before writing code. This
is a living document, not a final design (yet.) If I run into
context window issues I just shut them down and rebuild from
the document. I farm out research and data gathering tasks to
build it up. Once all the findings are in I have the architect
take a stab at the technical system design before the break
down and delegation work begins. By then the units of work are
small and manageable.
Syntaf wrote 1 day ago:
Iâve been a full stack developer for 10+ years now and I
completely disagree.
Modern models like Opus / Gemini 3 are great coding companions;
they are perfectly capable of building clean code given the
right context and prompt.
At the end of the day itâs the same rule of garbage in ->
garbage out, if you donât have the right context / skills /
guidance you can easily end up with bad code as you could with
good code.
dbbk wrote 1 day ago:
I have 20 years of experience and I don't handwrite any code
anymore. Opus does everything, and it only needs a bit of
steering occasionally. If you can give it guardrails (ie a
pre-existing design system) and ways to verify its output (ie
enforce TDD and use Chrome to visually verify) then it gets it
right basically every time.
phist_mcgee wrote 1 day ago:
Am I an untrained human if I believe that Claude Opus 4.6
produces generally better code than I do in most circumstances?
Even with years as a principal engineer at a company with high
coding standards and engineering processes?
rubzah wrote 1 day ago:
Maybe not untrained, but you work on some easy, boring shit.
That may be true for a lot of developers, I don't know.
phist_mcgee wrote 1 day ago:
What do you reckon? Do you think that is true for me and
thousands of others, or that your opinion on this is too
narrow and rigid?
wiseowise wrote 1 day ago:
> Any decently skilled human blows them out of the water
No, by far no. Iâm by all accounts âdecently skilled
humanâ, at least if we go by our org, and it blows anyone out
of the water with some slight guidance.
And the most important part: it doesnât get tired, it
doesnât have any mood swings, its performance isnât
affected by poor sleep, party yesterday or their SO having a
bad day.
MrScruff wrote 1 day ago:
Turns out there are whole categories of software where
'extremely fast and good enough' is what matters, even for
skilled software developers.
volkercraig wrote 1 day ago:
The thing is, LLM's produce better quality one-shots than any
of the products that get returned from overseas ultra-budget
contractors in India or SEA. I don't know what that means for
Western devs, but I can tell you that the fortune 500 I work
for is dialing back on contracting and outsourcing because
domestic teams can do higher-quality work faster.
liquid_thyme wrote 1 day ago:
>The thing is, LLM's produce better quality one-shots than
any of the products that get returned from overseas
ultra-budget contractors in India or SEA.
Source?
drdeafenshmirtz wrote 1 day ago:
Also that developers make for good early adopters for tech
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
This is very true and an underrated comment.
paxys wrote 1 day ago:
How are they going to claw back the market from Anthropic though?
drdeafenshmirtz wrote 1 day ago:
"Clawing back" was what the Open Claw acquisition was for ;)
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
Step 1: make a coding product which is better on
cost/quality/speed. Probably need to choose two, so redirecting
compute from dumb ai videos to coding makes sense.
Step 2: win back public trust by firing Sam Altman or dropping
defense contracts or something else I canât think of.
yoyohello13 wrote 1 day ago:
Step 3: use politicians to jam Anthropic up in legal battles.
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
This is actually step 1
lossyalgo wrote 1 day ago:
Imagine all the money they can save on Sora which surely cost them
way more than regular LLM usage, that they can now invest into
suave Superbowl ads trash-talking Claude.
I also wonder if they got the $1B from Disney? Was that even a paid
for deal? Or just another "announced" deal? Every article I found
doesn't mention anyone signing any paperwork - which seems to be
typical of AI journalism these days. Every AI deal is supposedly
inked but if you dig deeper, all you find are adjectives like
proclaimed, announced, agreed upon.
GenerWork wrote 1 day ago:
I believe that the $1b is apparently not coming anymore because
it was basically dependent upon Sora being an actual product that
actual people can use, which isn't the case anymore.
MyFirstSass wrote 1 day ago:
[flagged]
bibimsz wrote 1 day ago:
Software engineers have spent the last 40 years automating away
other people's jobs. The discomfort only seems to start when the
automation points inward.
sensanaty wrote 1 day ago:
Have they? I keep seeing this little snippet of wisdom being
thrown about everywhere in these AI discussions as a gotcha, but
to me it seems like moving jobs into dirt cheap 3rd world
countries with slave labor is the biggest culprit for job loss
than any kind of automation from software.
If anything software engineers have spawned in uncountable
numbers of jobs that never would've existed before, is what my
intuition tells me.
skydhash wrote 1 day ago:
Haven't mechanical engineers done the same thing (steam engines,
trains,...)? The whole applied science is about using knowledge
to remove tediousness (and now adding it back). A lot of jobs
have been removed.
bibimsz wrote 1 day ago:
model T factor workers are anti worker
al_borland wrote 1 day ago:
I want to make peopleâs jobs easier and more interesting, I
never want to make them redundant.
This did happen once. 3 people were laid off, I think directly
based on things I said to drive the completion of some
automation. That was the last time I ever measured something in
man-hours to make a point. Iâll never do it again. That was
over 12 years ago.
ChrisArchitect wrote 1 day ago:
an official post
> Weâre saying goodbye to the Sora app. To everyone who created with
Sora, shared it, and built community around it: thank you. What you
made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing.
Weâll share more soon, including timelines for the app and API and
details on preserving your work. â The Sora Team
( [1] )
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/soraofficialapp/status/2036546752535470382
timpera wrote 1 day ago:
Sora clearly was a waste of ressources. I liked using it for a few
days, but I could tell it was consuming an insane amount of compute for
10-15 second videos that only a dozen people might watch.
Imnimo wrote 2 days ago:
It was neat to be able to try my own prompts and get a sense of what
the state of video generation was. But I certainly never generated
something that I thought I got real value out of on its own merits, and
I still don't understand why there was a social media component to the
app.
2001zhaozhao wrote 1 day ago:
They wanted network effects because ChatGPT was sorely lacking any.
I actually thought the Sora app was promising at launch, at least on
paper, but it seems like they failed to keep people's attention long
term. With the failure of Sora i don't think they have good options
left.
QuantumNomad_ wrote 1 day ago:
I generated a fair number of videos with Sora, and used a handful
of those and edited them outside of Sora for a couple of short
TikTok videos.
Never once did I bother to browse videos made by others on Sora
itself. I wonder if anyone did.
johanyc wrote 1 day ago:
Same. I pretty much only watch videos I generate.
iainctduncan wrote 2 days ago:
You know they are burning money dangerously when they decide to focus
on the area in which they are getting their asses kicked...
tyleo wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, I thought it was strange too. I thought OpenAI could
meaningfully differentiate by being something more like a âSocial
Media AIâ.
I feel like they are sailing into a red ocean with what look more
like copycat tactics than innovation (e.g., Codex v Claude Code;
Astral v Bun)
arkadiytehgraet wrote 2 days ago:
Apparently, all possible movies, cinematics and ads have been generated
by "enthusiasts at home", so the tool is no longer needed.
On a more serious note, it could be a sign of a more powerful and
general model being developed/released in the near future, that would
include Sora capabilities. Or AI-doomers were right, and this sunset is
one of the proofs for them.
helsinkiandrew wrote 2 days ago:
Google gets stick for closing down applications after a decade. But
OpenAIâs strategy seems to be to throw sh*t at the wall to see what
sticks, but no company will (should) use a tool that could disappear in
6 months.
oro44 wrote 1 day ago:
Stating the obvious but spraying and praying is not a strategy
noemit wrote 2 days ago:
I assume it was too expensive, because it's really not a bad tool. I
used it recently to make my twitter pfp :)
taytus wrote 2 days ago:
How much money did they burn on this? And for what? Nothing?
digitalsushi wrote 1 day ago:
They paid for an opportunity. Sometimes paying for a chance nets you
nothing.
If you end up with nothing in aggregate for the chances you pay for,
you're a loser. Not in a pejorative sense, just as a fact, you lost.
If you come out with more than nothing, in aggregate, you're a
winner, in the same objective sense.
Probably controversial. Eh.
nprz wrote 2 days ago:
Did they give any reason? Too expensive to keep running? Chinese models
surpassing Sora's capabilities?
ronsor wrote 2 days ago:
Unlike, say, Seedance 2.0 (which has yet to come to the West), Sora 2
was more of a tech demo than anything usable:
* It was (assumedly) expensive to run.
* It was not good enough for customers to seriously pay for.
* There were too many content restrictions for it to be fun for most
people.
hexage1814 wrote 2 days ago:
I heard Seedance is also full of restrictions now, although the model
seems to be better at that sort of âcinematicâ look, which might
allow it to compete with Veo 3 and the like.
The issue is that Sora ended up getting the short end of the stick:
by generating the footage, it became the primary target of
complaints. Meanwhile, they were forced to remove the videos, but
people simply took those videos and uploaded them to random social
media platforms like Twitter, TikTok, or YouTube, which ended up
hosting the content while being much less of a target, since the
content wasnât generated there.
Honestly, I think the only way forward will be to wait for local
models to become good enough so that you can run something like Sora
locally and generate whatever you want.
ronsor wrote 1 day ago:
Seedance has a lot more restrictions now, but still arguably not as
much, it's probably cheaper for ByteDance to run, and as you said,
it at least looks good enough to be worth paying for.
Sora had all of the downsides, and attracted all of the scrutiny.
Local-first is definitely the way.
nomel wrote 1 day ago:
> Local-first is definitely the way.
i think it's clear cloud hosted is the actual future, which
people have predicted for decades. it will never make financial
sense to duplicate what you can get for cheap, because it's
oversubscribed, with economies of scale and "if we let this run
idle it's losing us money" pressure, for hardware found in a
datacenter.
this has been the case for a long while now, and will
increasingly be so as data centers buy up all the everything.
ronsor wrote 1 day ago:
Local-first doesn't exclude cloud hosting; it just means you
can run it locally.
With open models, you have multiple providers competing on
inference speed, quality, and price, leading to healthier
market without lock-in.
nomel wrote 23 hours 58 min ago:
local first usually means extreme compromise so it can,
practically, be run locally, because the cost of owning high
end hardware is prohibitive. there are also companies
providing locally deployed closed source models, that meet
certain security requirements.
"open weights" is the appropriate term.
mcast wrote 2 days ago:
I guess this is a bullish sign OpenAI has hired a lot of PMs from
Google!
ignoramous wrote 1 day ago:
I'd wager that b2c projects former VP of Product at Instagram & CPO
at OpenAI, Kevin Weil, may have championed are getting the boot with
the company refocusing on making money under the stewardship of Fidji
Simo: [1] Weil's now heading "AI for Science":
(HTM) [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fidji-simo-openai-product-re...
(HTM) [2]: https://www.pymnts.com/personnel/2025/openais-chief-product-...
2001zhaozhao wrote 1 day ago:
We need a 'killed by OpenAI' site now
al_borland wrote 1 day ago:
This could be taken two ways.
1. OpenAI killing off their own products aggressively, taking a
page from Googleâs book. (I think the way you meant it)
2. Products/companies that no longer exist because OpenAI, or AI in
general, made them obsolete. (My first instinct when reading it)
quesera wrote 1 day ago:
3. A Memorial Wall for those who have mistaken ChatGPT for a
therapist
blharr wrote 1 day ago:
>Products/companies that no longer exist because OpenAI, or AI in
general, made them obsolete
What would you place here anyways? Chegg and Stack Overflow?
al_borland wrote 6 hours 26 min ago:
This was more speaking to the hype of what people say AI is
going to do, more so than the realities of what it's actually
done so far.
throw4847285 wrote 2 days ago:
Didn't they cut a huge deal with Disney just 3 months ago?
(HTM) [1]: https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/
toraway wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, and Disney is apparently no longer investing in OpenAI, making
one more example of an OpenAI investment hype cycle that turned out
to be hot air.
Disney Exits OpenAI Deal After AI Giant Shutters Sora [1] A source
familiar with the matter tells The Hollywood Reporter that Disney is
also exiting the deal it signed with OpenAI last year, in which it
pledged to invest $1 billion in the company and agreed to license
some of its characters for use in Sora.
âAs the nascent AI field advances rapidly, we respect OpenAIâs
decision to exit the video generation business and to shift its
priorities elsewhere,â a Disney spokesperson said. âWe appreciate
the constructive collaboration between our teams and what we learned
from it, and we will continue to engage with AI platforms to find new
ways to meet fans where they are while responsibly embracing new
technologies that respect IP and the rights of creators.â
Also "exit the video generation business" seems somewhat notable,
suggesting they're not just planning to launch a different video gen
product to replace Sora?
(HTM) [1]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/openai-sh...
moralestapia wrote 2 days ago:
Wow. OpenAI is the weirdest company in the planet.
I used to think they were pretty clever but with this news and other
recent ones (Jony Ive project cancelled, Stargate scaled down
significantly, their models inflating token use on purpose) they just
seem schizo.
karel-3d wrote 1 day ago:
Jony Ive project was cancelled? I cannot find anythin on that
Just that they took down some "io" mentions because of some
trademark dispute with a third party "iyo".
skywhopper wrote 1 day ago:
Turns out just lying about what your tech will do and how much
people want it doesnât work forever to raise unlimited money to
throw in the fire hoping you hit something that actually makes a
profit.
radicality wrote 1 day ago:
You have more info about the inflated token use? Iâm using codex
cli a bunch now, but the reported token usage seems like an order
of magnitude higher than, say Claude code with opus.
Idk if itâs because I set codex to xhigh reasoning, but even then
it still seems way higher than Claude. The input/output ratio feels
large too, eg I have codex session which says ~500M in / ~2M out.
moralestapia wrote 1 day ago:
I wish I had hard evidence but it is mostly an observation. I do
use Codex a lot and I felt a drastic change from like one-two
months ago to this day.
It used to give me precise answers, "surgical" is how I described
it to my friends. Now it generates a lot of slop and plenty of
"follow ups". It doesn't give me wrong answers, which is ok, but
I've found that things that used to take 3-4 prompts now take
8-10. Obviously my prompting skills haven't changed much and, if
anything, they've become better.
This is something that other colleagues have observed as well.
Even the same GPT5.4 model feels different and more chatty
recently. Btw, I think their version numbers mean nothing, no one
can be certain about the model that is actually running on the
backend and it is pretty evident that they're continuously
"improving" it.
rubzah wrote 1 day ago:
Back in business school they used to tell the story of how
makers of razor blades would put a good blade as the first and
the last blade in the pack. I suspect the LLM services of doing
something like that.
SpicyLemonZest wrote 1 day ago:
I haven't had the time to fully hash this take out, but a big
question in the back of my mind has been - is it possible that
AI model improvements come partly from finding overhang in
things that look hard and impressive to humans but are actually
trivial consequences of the training data? If true, then the
observable performance of any widely distributed model could
get worse over time as it "mines out" the work that's easy for
it to do.
password54321 wrote 1 day ago:
They are just cancelling side projects because Anthropic is
dominating in enterprise and side projects (probably) don't make
profit.
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/ShanuMathew93/status/2031074311629353299
sethops1 wrote 1 day ago:
I would point out Anthropic isn't profitable either (yet), it's
just that enterprise is where the money is. Now that all the AI
companies are narrowing in on that market, becoming profitable
will be even more challenging.
timpera wrote 1 day ago:
This data is pretty questionable. OpenAI employees have said on
Twitter that it does not account for ChatGPT Enterprise, where
most of their growth is, which is quote-only and not paid by
credit card.
strongpigeon wrote 2 days ago:
I never quite got "why" they made it a separate app. While I'm sure it
was fun for a while, this felt like something that had limited staying
power as the novelty is what was driving it. People don't really want
to switch between video apps for their entertainment and having it be
Sora only is too limiting.
(DIR) <- back to front page