Most active commenters
  • embedding-shape(3)

←back to thread

The Walt Disney Company and OpenAI Partner on Sora

(openai.com)
247 points inesranzo | 12 comments | 11 Dec 25 14:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
afavour ◴[11 Dec 25 14:47 UTC] No.46232022[source]▶
AI has driven the corporate suites of these companies insane.

> As part of the agreement, Disney will make a $1 billion equity investment in OpenAI, and receive warrants to purchase additional equity.

I don't know what kind of hypnosis tricks Sam Altman pulls on these people but the fact that Disney is giving money to OpenAI as part of a deal to give over the rights to its characters is absolutely baffling.

OpenAI and ChatGPT have been pioneering but they're absolutely going to be commoditized. IMO there is at least a 50:50 chance OpenAI equity is going to be next to worthless in the future. That Disney would give over so much value and so much cash for it... insane.

replies(11): >>46232048 #>>46232061 #>>46232089 #>>46232130 #>>46232149 #>>46232163 #>>46232173 #>>46232184 #>>46232522 #>>46232597 #>>46238161 #
1. embedding-shape ◴[11 Dec 25 14:58 UTC] No.46232163[source]▶
> but they're absolutely going to be commoditized

I've been thinking the same since GPT3 too, and since ChatGPT, and since Claude and... But here I am, still paying for ChatGPT Pro because it's literally has the best model you can get access to for a fixed price each month, and none of the others so far come close. I still use Anthropic's and Google's models to compare/validate against, because I assumed at one point they'd surpass OpenAI, but so far they haven't. This all makes me believe less and less each day that it'll actually be commoditized.

replies(5): >>46232247 #>>46232277 #>>46232286 #>>46232334 #>>46232402 #
2. camdenreslink ◴[11 Dec 25 15:03 UTC] No.46232247[source]▶
If 3 or 4 competitors can all provide a mostly identical product, isn't that a commodity? That is essentially the case right now, with the different companies playing around with UI, integrations and business model.
replies(1): >>46232266 #
3. embedding-shape ◴[11 Dec 25 15:04 UTC] No.46232266[source]▶
If all models were equal then sure. But for professionals who use these to solve complex problems and need correctness above all? The models and weights are not equal and interchangeable.
replies(2): >>46232555 #>>46240119 #
4. quietfox ◴[11 Dec 25 15:05 UTC] No.46232277[source]▶
That's interesting. I think besides the hard facts (like numnber of possible tokens before throtteling happens) the perceived quality differs from use case to use case. In that sense, ChatGPT is my daily driver, in terms of helping with coding problems or debugging Claude feels far superior to me. And when it comes to ideation and creativity (product idea validation, etc.) Gemini surpasses both of the other in my opinion.
5. mikepurvis ◴[11 Dec 25 15:05 UTC] No.46232286[source]▶
But what could possibly be the secret sauce? Whatever it is, eventually enough engineers will move between orgs to get that stuff cross-pollinated.

Certainly there’s little to suggest that it has much to do with Altman’s leadership or a culture of engineering excellence/care that has been specifically fostered at OpenAI in a way that isn’t present at Facebook or especially at Google.

6. afavour ◴[11 Dec 25 15:10 UTC] No.46232334[source]▶
I think OpenAI having the best model still isn't enough. The AI marketplace isn't really in a race to the top, it's in a race to the mass market middle. If Gemini is good enough for the majority of people to complete the majority of tasks they want to then market effects and bundling can get an already dominant company like Google to take over the market. And that's without considering the integration possibilities, e.g. Gmail and Google Docs.

That doesn't mean everyone will use Gemini. As a software engineer I prefer Claude Code and will pay good money for it. I'm sure there will be plenty of other specialisms that will have preferred models. But OpenAI's valuations are based on the idea that it's going to be everywhere, for everything, all the time. And I'm skeptical. ChatGPT Pro is a $200 a month product. That's not a mass market proposition.

replies(1): >>46232727 #
7. dolphinscorpion ◴[11 Dec 25 15:16 UTC] No.46232402[source]▶
And how much are you paying? I pay $20 a month, but I doubt OpenAI makes money on me; they probably lose a lot.
replies(1): >>46232458 #
8. tuckerman ◴[11 Dec 25 15:20 UTC] No.46232458[source]▶
Pro is the $200/month plan
9. mcphage ◴[11 Dec 25 15:27 UTC] No.46232555{3}[source]▶
> But for professionals who use these to solve complex problems and need correctness above all?

Is that the same thing as making bootleg graphics involving Disney characters?

replies(1): >>46233014 #
10. londons_explore ◴[11 Dec 25 15:39 UTC] No.46232727[source]▶
> good enough for the majority of people to complete the majority of tasks

It will never be this. There is always the expectation of being able to do more things.

"Log into my work email and deal with all of them whilst I have a bath".

"Start a company for me to earn some extra weekend cash by washing peoples driveways. Find and hire some people to do the actual washing"

"Find a nice house for me by a lake, negotiate a good price and buy it (get a mortgage if necessary) then book all the removals services and find me a new job nearby".

11. embedding-shape ◴[11 Dec 25 15:59 UTC] No.46233014{4}[source]▶
No? What kind of unrelated "gotcha" is this?
12. camdenreslink ◴[12 Dec 25 02:12 UTC] No.46240119{3}[source]▶
I use them every day for coding and Gemini 3 pro, Opus 4.5, and GPT 5.1 (haven’t tried 5.2 yet) are basically identical in terms of ability. Opus 4.5 has a slight edge in my personal experience so far.