Can you even make "shows" with sora 2? I haven't used it but everytime I hear about it it's in the context of making "shorts". Making shows would require a technological leap from that point.
Would have preferred it going to aid workers in Gaza or something like that but an NED-funded dissident politician will do as long as it's not Donald Trump.
People are bringing up the AMD deal but isn't that giving it too much credence? The deal hasn't had any material consequences yet apart from stock market fluctuations. The bigger problem for me is that AMD doesn't seem like is going to be a player of note in the AI sphere. So this deal like many other big money AI deals look like optics to me.
> AMD doesn't seem like is going to be a player of note in the AI sphere.
I thought AMD is well positioned in the inference space? They have high VRAM, somewhat high connectivity, already shipping pods that are pretty ok for inference? Training is still dominated by nvda and their CUDA moat, but there's an increased need for scalable inference, and that should fit AMD well. Am I wrong in thinking that?
I haven't watched an airing anime ever. How good are fansubs? I found it very surprising that volunteers would write subtitles for free when I became aware of the phenomenon.
Given the data and research that goes into these sorts of high dollar races, I suspect it wouldn't be very interesting. It would be a relatively simple calculation (that I cannot do and do not know all the variables for) to determine when the benefits of batteries clearly outweigh the benefits of combustion engines with quick and simple refuels. These teams know exactly how many laps they need to complete and the speed they need to do it in order to be competitive. They track the fuel and refuels and other pit stops very closely, so as soon as they can see they would benefit from batteries I'd expect almost the entire fleet to switch over. There will be almost no overlap between electric and combustion cars in races.
The only benefit combustion engines have is the current faster refuel and run time. Everything else about electric motors is far superior to combustion. If and when F1 can hot-swap battery packs efficiently, combustion engines will be dead in that sport.
Combustion engines have in general benefit of energy capacity. F1 has not had refuelling since 2010. Pit stops are for in essence forced for tire changes and have something to actually happen in races. As tires could be designed to last entire race as well.
No. The first few seasons of Formula E were such that, half way through the race you jumped out of one car and finished the race in a second car. Because your battery was dead. Electric does not have the capacity to compete with even F1's artificially limited gas tanks.
This is despite dramatically reduced performance design and slower tracks.
Formula E is so much more fun than F1 though, because it doesn't have all the BS drama that F1 has adopted to buoy viewership. They do have silly gimmicks though. Before a race, viewers vote on which driver they like the best, and that racer gets a boost they can use during the race!
Also they use tires that are basically road ready, so that's fun.
It's a regulations driven race. It would be hard or impossible to make any kind of fair rules and it would still end up a race about which manufacturer and driver(s) can find the best spots in the rules to focus on.
Outside of Formula or Nascar or other monocultures, that would be interesting, though.
Yeah I don't see what the acquisition has to do here. Both Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard were pretty predatory before the deal. I can't imagine what they would have done differently being separate from each other. The biggest "concern" I can remember of was Call of Duty coming to Game Pass or leaving PlayStation but I don't know what came off that. I am guessing it didn't come to pass seeing how the console department at Xbox has imploded.
The common thread I am seeing with replacing creative work with AI is that of lowering the bar of acceptability and counterbalancing that with the (potential) savings from taking human labour out of the equation. The cost of labour is not just the raw cost but also the bargaining power that they can exercise by going on strikes etc. From my limited understanding, creatives seem to have more unions than programmers given that I have heard of at least two strikes from voice actors and writers and none from the tech sector. So it should be a win-lose for those who profit off of videos without taking part in the labour process of making one and lose-lose for everyone else.
> counterbalancing that with the (potential) savings
No. It's all about personalization. Even with all the money in the world you couldn't sit a filming crew, VFX specialist, foley artist, and voice actors next to every user of your app, ready to produce new content in 60 seconds.
I don't get why this keeps being framed as a labor thing, it's unlocking genuinely new forms of interactive media.
You write a sentence and get out media... what more personalization are you looking for?
And no, labor is not a factor in the way you tried to frame it.
There is absolutely no one tying up $250,000 in GPUs to let users spit out a funny clip of Sam Altman jumping over a chair because they think that's a smart way a way to get out of paying artists.
>I don't get why this keeps being framed as a labor thing, it's unlocking genuinely new forms of interactive media.
Because it directly impacts people's ability to earn a living. If you truly don't understand this, I think you should spend some time talking to people who are impacted by it. Artists, and so on. Seriously, this is a head-in-the-sand take.
It's very bizarre to act this is being done in order to replace artists.
I build gen AI for entertainment: I don't build to replace anyone, and if my product gets eyeballs existing creators can't, it's because it gives the consumer something they wanted to see in the world.
Past that you're just complaining that consumers don't want what you made.
Myopic view. Just because your motives may be pure and your greed may be a non-issue doesn't mean that multinational corporations who have aligned themselves with fascist regimes (Meta, Alibiba, etc -- point is that they're demonstrably amoral/immoral) do not intend to exploit the tech to its fullest extent.
However having said that, the intention/aim need not be to deliberately replace creatives. That is not the claim I am making or that anyone in this thread or general public discourse is claiming. The minimal claim is simply that the commodification of art decreases the value and employability of people who perform the same task as the AI. It is also not limited to artists. It is all-encompassing. If an employer can now use AI instead of a copywriter, they will often do that -- big and small business alike. The same can be said for many niche fields which previously required specialized education or training.
I am not saying this from an Anti-AI perspective. I own an AI startup.
But use your big boy brain. It is clear that the commodification of intelligence has a downward market pressure on the market value (which is the PERCEIVED value of an employee in the eyes of the EMPLOYER) for many, if not eventually ALL jobs/roles.
I like how you start with "myopic view" the tell me to use my "big boy brain" to see the ease of creation across the board going down as a negative thing.
The purpose of the society was never to pay money to people, and if we figure out how to get grains of sand to replace skilled labor, there's no amount of greed that can outpace what it will do for humanity.
