|
|
|
|
|
by xotesos
821 days ago
|
|
I couldn't really disagree more. It is a ridiculous comparison. Anyone into experimental film making can see this is basically the ultimate creative tool. If you can't see the creative possibilities here you just don't have much imagination. |
|
OpenAI doesn't have even that because they're an AI company, not a VFX company. Besides not even understanding the needs of their users, they see this model as a neat intermediate result on their path to the AGI, and as a progress report to raise more money. They're really interested in advanced emergent behavior it exhibits, not in artistic tools. For this reason they've never bothered to fix all the artifacts DALL-E 3 gives, let alone add any tooling to it. Sora will be the same, and its quality doesn't even remotely approach to what is required in production. It's more of an experiment.
What you see in the OP is simply a marketing material made by OpenAI in an attempt to make them look less nefarious to creatives by appealing to authority (took them quite long to understand that, usually they're superb at marketing). I can guarantee you won't see any real use of it in production because it's just not what OpenAI in there for. They already probably have another better model in the making, anyway.
Models made by actual VFX software companies will have a chance to be used because they care about the usability. Models made by Stability (SD3 has the same architecture as Sora, although it's for image generation) also have a chance because they are open-weights and have tremendous amounts of tooling around them. Models from OpenAI, unlikely.