Disney making $1 billion investment in OpenAI, will allow characters on Sora AI video generator

[MrPromey]

Well the receipts show we (including I) were having a discussion and you jumped in after the fact... so I think I'm sticking with my interpretation of what was being discussed.

I mean.. it's in the first post on the thread topic..

Fair enough

 

[flynnibus]

Interesting you say that. I assume you're aware that the bulk of Amazon's revenue is not in retail, right?

And I assume you're aware that Amazon became a profitable and viable business going forward (which was the point of the cite, the perception it wasn't going to be in its early years) YEARS before segments like AWS and 3rd party and subscriptions were a thing, right?

 

[Disney Irish]

When Bod says over and over that he's leaving and then he doesn't leave, time and time again... and then when he finally does, it's under the cover of night before coming back and doing nothing to improve the stock... doesn't that at least give you pause?

But I mean, you're right - he does have to leave some day, either on his feet or on his back. Maybe you'll be the villager still listening with the wolf actually comes for the boy.

Hence the joke I made about him using AI to stay forever.

I can't decide what to go with here. I'm stuck on "Fool me once..." and "even a broken clock is right twice a day" - not to you or what you're saying but to the guy we're supposed to believe.

Personally, I'll believe when the successor is announced and not a day before.

And that is probably a good stance to have, wait until the announcement.

 

[MrPromey]

If you followed along with the thread instead of just cherrypicking my post you wanted to comment on, then you'd know this whole thread has been beyond just the article and discussing AI in general.

I read the whole thread.

I've read everything you've said.

I replied to you holding up the dot.com bubble as an example of success when most of those companies and the billions invested in them are, for those investors, now gone. Disney is now a billion dollar investor in one major player that to me, seems least likely to stay intact if we are now in fact in a bubble.

Google and Meta can self-fund their way to success pretty much as long as it takes unless congress finally wakes up, understands how they're really making their money, doesn't get bought by them through lobbying to let it continue and actually takes steps to stop it. What's Open AI's road to profitability while having to compete with giants like those working on exactly the same thing?

I haven't seen any indication that even they think they know but if you want to cite something with details, I'll be happy to take a look.

I assume you won't though since you've already declined to provide sources to back up what you're saying.

Or are you thinking this is a patent/IP play for when investment runs out and the business gets carved or that when the value tanks and someone else picks them up for pennies on the dollar that Disney will have a highly diluted seat at that table?.. Maybe Microsoft's table?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Why is it taking so long to find a new CEO?

Are any of the potentials in anyway impressive?

This has been going on for the past 3 years with the same 3 or 4 internal candidates that Bob has worked with extensively.

We’ve gone from the “Hey Bob Chapek, you’re the new CEO now. Ok bye” to a never ending succession scheme that’s laughable at best.

But I guess it’s hard for low information people to follow.

I know the secret answer to this one…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Dot.com was certainly not a success…just no….nope

Tons of investor money blown and awful Wall Street gimmicks/habits that plague us more today

 

[MrPromey]

Dot.com was certainly not a success…just no….nope

Tons of investor money blown and awful Wall Street gimmicks/habits that plague us more today

I mean, Yahoo and AOL still technically exist.

And companies like Google who were still bootstraping at that point managed to grow out of the carcasses of that mess but that hardly did much for the people who were heavily investing in the hot companies of that era which simply ceased to exist in the blink of an eye.

Disney's investment which is big for them but small for tech seems to suggest they think Open AI will be one of the winners or at least, whoever ends up owning them will be.

It's quite possible there is some major info they have that we don't have access to - Bob certainly knew the right time to leave the first time around before the rest of the world did, after all - but their other showy efforts to create "shareholder value" have yet to move the needle so I find it hard to be excited about an announcement that includes footage of how someone can make a video of themself racing against Lighting McQueen as an example of the fabulous things this billion dollar deal will usher in and no mention at all of seats at tables for the areas where AI actually can be leveraged for profitability.

Of course, if the real plan is to use it for things like better tuning their dynamic pricing in real time, better focusing their targeted marketing by developing more precise consumer demographic models, de-anonymizing consumer details (shocking, seems like it should be illegal, seems like it should require consent but isn't and doesn't) and other stuff that is "just good business" which most consumers would consider shady, that could be why, I guess. That would be that thing that's the opposite of good press, right?

 

[monothingie]

I mean, Yahoo and AOL still technically exist.

And companies like Google who were still bootstraping at that point managed to grow out of the carcasses of that mess but that hardly did much for the people who were heavily investing in the hot companies of that era which simply ceased to exist in the blink of an eye.

Disney's investment which is big for them but small for tech seems to suggest they think Open AI will be one of the winners or at least, whoever ends up owning them will be.

It's quite possible there is some major info they have that we don't have access to - Bob certainly knew the right time to leave the first time around before the rest of the world did, after all - but their other showy efforts to create "shareholder value" have yet to move the needle so I find it hard to be excited about an announcement that includes footage of how someone can make a video of themself racing against Lighting McQueen as an example of the fabulous things this deal will usher in and no mention at all of seats at tables for the areas where AI actually can be leveraged for profitability.

Of course, if the real plan is to use it for things like better tuning their dynamic pricing in real time, and better focusing their targeted marketing that could be why, I guess. That would be that thing that's the opposite of good press, right?

Open AI is the safe choice and Wall St loves Sam.

They certainly weren’t going to invest in xAI, for obvious reasons.

 

[MrPromey]

Open AI is the safe choice and Wall St loves Sam.

They certainly weren’t going to invest in xAI, for obvious reasons.

You'll notice I've specifically not mentioned them at all in any of my posts.

 

[MrPromey]

And I assume you're aware that Amazon became a profitable and viable business going forward (which was the point of the cite, the perception it wasn't going to be in its early years) YEARS before segments like AWS and 3rd party and subscriptions were a thing, right?

But Amazon was an outlier who was able to maintain faith in funding until they were able to be profitable and at that point, they continued to reinvest rather than shed profit with an easy plan B to turn the spigot on that profit at any time going forward if investors started getting antsy.

Like music and movie stars, like the guys that make it to top positions in the illicit drug trade, there are countless more who never amounted to anything during the need to get lucky stage that nobody wants to mention when bringing up Amazon's success.

There were far more other business that naysayers also said wouldn't make it at the time... that didn't.

It's easy to look in hindsight and say it was all a repeatable successful strategy and there were clearly some very smart and convincing people steering that ship but their success as a busness was in no way preordained.

How well would Amazon have done if early on, Walmart had also directed a sizable portion of their weight in the same direction before Amazon was capable of being self-sustaining?.. or had just bought them out the way Disney did with BamTech?

If they had been taken seriously by their legacy competition before they were able* to to be profitable, I don't see how they'd be a major independent player today.

Sure seems OpenAI is being taken seriously by competitors with pockets far deeper than theirs to me is all I'm saying.

*differentiating able-to-be-profitable vs. profitable.

 

[Disney Irish]

I read the whole thread.

I've read everything you've said.

I replied to you holding up the dot.com bubble as an example of success when most of those companies and the billions invested in them are, for those investors, now gone. Disney is now a billion dollar investor in one major player that to me, seems least likely to stay intact if we are now in fact in a bubble.

Google and Meta can self-fund their way to success pretty much as long as it takes unless congress finally wakes up, understands how they're really making their money, doesn't get bought by them through lobbying to let it continue and actually takes steps to stop it. What's Open AI's road to profitability while having to compete with giants like those working on exactly the same thing?

I haven't seen any indication that even they think they know but if you want to cite something with details, I'll be happy to take a look.

I assume you won't though since you've already declined to provide sources to back up what you're saying.

Or are you thinking this is a patent/IP play for when investment runs out and the business gets carved or that when the value tanks and someone else picks them up for pennies on the dollar that Disney will have a highly diluted seat at that table?.. Maybe Microsoft's table?

I thought we were past this, as @flynnibus I thought did a good job summarizing my point which I thought you accepted. But if you actually read what I posted you'd know I never mentioned the dot.com bubble itself, referencing instead specific example technologies that many called "fads" at the time. Because the point I was making wasn't about the bubble itself or the money surrounding it but rather the supposed "fads" that came out of it.

Yes investor money was lost during and after dot.com, never claimed there wasn't, as is the case in the early days of emerging technologies when the bubbles form and eventually burst. I myself lost money during that time. For example I'm not ashamed to say I invested in WebVan, as I thought the idea was sound as seen by every grocery delivery service on the planet available now, it was the execution and the aggressive expansion at the time of that specific company that was flawed. But again that was never the point I was making, there is a reason I never mentioned specific companies. As @flynnibus said if people just want to have a discussion about the stock bubbles themselves and specifically about OpenAI that is one thing, but that again isn't the point I was making nor where many people were taking this discussion.

As for the path to profitability for OpenAI, it may never get there. Your guess is as good as mine on that. Licensing seems like the best way, but many think that isn't viable. Had a conversation about that awhile back. The patent mill also seems like a good way, but we'll see what becomes of that.

 

[flynnibus]

But Amazon was an outlier who was able to maintain faith in funding until they were able to be profitable and at that point, they continued to reinvest rather than shed profit with an easy plan B to turn the spigot on that profit at any time going forward if investors started getting antsy.

I think the point is the critics can't always see the future.. and a big part of that evolution of DotCom was the departure from the classic expectation of if you don't have a plan for profitability quickly.. you're doomed and oblivious. Many companies proved that investing and disrupting not only was worth it, but could lead to NEW profitable models that were unproven prior. There were many other unconventional tactics that evolved.. the just build the user base at all costs aiming for the buyout.. the build for global scale nearly at day 1.. the willingness to break, fix and move fast even in front of the customers.. the monetization strategy coming later vs up front.. microtransactions..

No not every company made it, nor was every company even a legitimate, viable thing that SHOULD have made it.. the point is more that the bold, fast moving, UNCONVENTIONAL approaches were doubted by many.. yet now decades later are still common and accepted. Radical evolution is not clean and safe.. it's often brash and destructive. Yes, BILLIONS will be lost by people in these AI wars and pitches.. but as a whole, winners will pull ahead, and models to make it workable will be flushed out.

Like music and movie stars, like the guys that make it to top positions in the illicit drug trade, there are countless more who never amounted to anything during the need to get lucky stage that nobody wants to mention when bringing up Amazon's success.

The point was never 'everything works' - It's that the boom was not all fake companies and something everyone realized was a total waste. There was excess (and why it was boom/bust cycle) but it was also revolutionary and it's legacy actually was here to stay.

 

[MrPromey]

I thought we were past this, as @flynnibus I thought did a good job summarizing my point which I thought you accepted. But if you actually read what I posted you'd know I never mentioned the dot.com bubble itself, referencing instead specific example technologies that many called "fads" at the time. Because the point I was making wasn't about the bubble itself or the money surrounding it but rather the supposed "fads" that came out of it.

Oh, I know you didn't. I did after you mentioned how the naysayers were saying it was going to fail, right before most of it did in fact fail - specifically because of the business models or lack there of.

Just to recap:

You rebutted by trying to say that the naysayers were saying the tech would fail. I asked you to cite any example of that being the case and you declinded to do so.

Yes investor money was lost during and after dot.com, never claimed there wasn't, as is the case in the early days of emerging technologies when the bubbles form and eventually burst. I myself lost money during that time. For example I'm not ashamed to say I invested in WebVan, as I thought the idea was sound as seen by every grocery delivery service on the planet available now, it was the execution and the aggressive expansion at the time of that specific company that was flawed. But again that was never the point I was making, there is a reason I never mentioned specific companies. As @flynnibus said if people just want to have a discussion about the stock bubbles themselves and specifically about OpenAI that is one thing, but that again isn't the point I was making nor where many people were taking this discussion.

As for the path to profitability for OpenAI, it may never get there. Your guess is as good as mine on that. Licensing seems like the best way, but many think that isn't viable. Had a conversation about that awhile back. The patent mill also seems like a good way, but we'll see what becomes of that.

Personally, I'm not saying that AI is not in some form here to stay. I never was.

It would be foolish to say that in five, ten, twenty years, everything we get out of a LLM today will simply cease to exist or that companies will not continue to use some variation on what we today think of as AI for simulation testing, software tuning, etc. or that we won't see it popping up in places like automated driving technology, medical research, etc. in a more significant way than we already do, even if business drop the term "AI" from the tech they're using due to a negative public perception.

But it's hard for me to see Disney's announcement of their clumsy baby-toe entry into it all as having anything to do with any of that.

... and if you're not even really talking about Disney with any of this, we may not even be in any sort of disagreement.

But again, it's entirely possible that like Magic Bands, they wanted to focus public perception more on what consumers could expect to see it do for them (hence the stupid character IP examples they trotted out) vs. Disney's true motives for investing so much in that... then again, due to their own ineptitude, that never panned out for them with the bands. Maybe they've learned?

 

[MrPromey]

I think the point is the critics can't always see the future.. and a big part of that evolution of DotCom was the departure from the classic expectation of if you don't have a plan for profitability quickly.. you're doomed and oblivious. Many companies proved that investing and disrupting not only was worth it, but could lead to NEW profitable models that were unproven prior. There were many other unconventional tactics that evolved.. the just build the user base at all costs aiming for the buyout.. the build for global scale nearly at day 1.. the willingness to break, fix and move fast even in front of the customers.. the monetization strategy coming later vs up front.. microtransactions..

No not every company made it, nor was every company even a legitimate, viable thing that SHOULD have made it.. the point is more that the bold, fast moving, UNCONVENTIONAL approaches were doubted by many.. yet now decades later are still common and accepted. Radical evolution is not clean and safe.. it's often brash and destructive. Yes, BILLIONS will be lost by people in these AI wars and pitches.. but as a whole, winners will pull ahead, and models to make it workable will be flushed out.


The point was never 'everything works' - It's that the boom was not all fake companies and something everyone realized was a total waste. There was excess (and why it was boom/bust cycle) but it was also revolutionary and it's legacy actually was here to stay.

I get you, I just don't see what the debate is, here.

Obviously, the invention of the wheel was a success though for the inventor, their heirs have nothing to show for it today other than the shared benefit we all have.

That many company's will try, that billions will be lost and that in the end, there will be tech that nobody involved in the creation of, benefits from, other than as a consumer of it themselves is of course, likely.

Are you guys trying to argue against someone who's saying the whole thing will just go away and we will go back to a period before it? Like someone arguing that cell phones are a fad and wired rotary will be staging a comeback anytime now?

Are you arguing against the notion that machine learning and self-training simulation models used in the industrial and medical fields is all just a bunch of bunk?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the opposition here but I don't think that's what people are referring to as the "scam".

It's clearly not and it's clearly been around a whole lot longer than what most of the public seems to think AI "is".

It feels to me that people are more arguing against it having staying power in practice as something like this:



And THAT seems kind of like what the Diseny character IP announcement is intended to look like but with Diseny animated characters instead of hitler mustaches. Again, that might not be the real play. It may just be either what Diseny had to bring to the table since they can't provide truly meaningful money for a company like OpenAI and this flashy partnership may help OpenAI continue to get investment from others or it's the aspect of the arrangmeent they would prefer the public focus on but I don't agree that Disney being willing to let people try using their IP for producing things like the stupid examples they've given has a long profitable future in and of itself.

If you don't either, I don't think we disagree on any of this and there are probably a lot of people you are arging against that either don't or don't know enough about the topic on the level your talking to know they wouldn't disagree if they understand that, either.

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh, I know you didn't. I did after you mentioned how the naysayers were saying it was going to fail, right before most of it did in fact fail - specifically because of the business models or lack there of.

Just to recap:

You rebutted by trying to say that the naysayers were saying the tech would fail. I asked you to cite any example of that being the case and you declinded to do so.

And as I said I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of trying to find article from 30+ years ago. As its not worth it to me, my point was made whether you agree with it or not. I lived and worked during that time, I don't need to prove that I did.

Personally, I'm not saying that AI is not in some form here to stay. I never was.

It would be foolish to say that in five, ten, twenty years, everything we get out of a LLM today will simply cease to exist or that companies will not continue to use some variation on what we today think of as AI for simulation testing, software tuning, etc. or that we won't see it popping up in places like automated driving technology, medical research, etc. in a more significant way than we already do, even if business drop the term "AI" from the tech they're using due to a negative public perception.

But it's hard for me to see Disney's announcement of their clumsy baby-toe entry into it all as having anything to do with any of that.

... and if you're not even really talking about Disney with any of this, we may not even be in any sort of disagreement.

But again, it's entirely possible that like Magic Bands, they wanted to focus public perception more on what consumers could expect to see it do for them (hence the stupid character IP examples they trotted out) vs. Disney's true motives for investing so much in that... then again, due to their own ineptitude, that never panned out for them with the bands. Maybe they've learned?

Unfortunately you're coming at this after others, and others were trying to say its a "fad" and other such nonsense, which was really what I was responding to. Things that seem like fads at the time end up changing our lives and the world. Yes some of the companies being discussed may not survive the AI Bubble, but that is the nature of business. Upwards of 90% of startups fail in the first 5 years. That doesn't mean however that every one of them didn't have a viable idea, just that for whatever reason they failed. And that is the point here, AI, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Natural Language Processing and all the other names for it is here to stay. Whether its OpenAI or some other company its here to stay and Disney will be invested in it.

The problem, as you probably know, is that what most here think is AI (the fake slop videos they see on their social media feeds) is only a small percentage of real AI. And yes that makes headlines, and probably to a great disservice to the technology. But I don't think that is really what Disney's true motives out of this are, as you alluded to. We're only seeing the hand they want us to see, not all their cards. So it'll be interesting from a technological standpoint to see what their motive really are.

 

[flynnibus]

Are you guys trying to argue against someone who's saying the whole thing will just go away and we will go back to a period before it? Like someone arguing that cell phones are a fad and wired rotary will be staging a comeback anytime now?

Yes, many advocate that AI is intrinsically 'stealing' and it shouldn't exist at all... because they don't understand how training actually works and that AI isn't just regurgitating.

And THAT seems kind of like what the Diseny character IP announcement is intended to look like but with Diseny animated characters instead of hitler mustaches. Again, that might not be the real play. It may just be either what Diseny had to bring to the table since they can't provide truly meaningful money for a company like OpenAI and this flashy partnership may help OpenAI continue to get investment from others or it's the aspect of the arrangmeent they would prefer the public focus on but I don't agree that Disney being willing to let people try using their IP for producing things like the stupid examples they've given has a long profitable future in and of itself.

The thing with AI is... the signal to noise ratio is very bad because it's early. Meaning, there is a ton of failures.. and there are a ton of STUPID or what look like trivial outcomes done.. but this is all part of the learning and rapid innovation. That's what I see as so different with AI vs other tools or trends of the last decade or two.. This is incredibly raw and fast moving.. like.. blitz speed. Approaches and toolsets changing in weeks.

So many haters will easily jump on 'see how stupid that is?' or 'see how bad that output is? its worthless' -- but that same thing that was worthless on Monday, maybe a monster by Friday. The rate of change here is absolutely mind boggling.. and I think that is going to make the investing boom go even more radical. People are going to throw money around to not be late.

Disney's openAI play here is a licensing deal.. this is Disney trying to get into the arena vs trying to prevent generative AI from happening (which is futile). I think Disney realizes to help shape how things end up, they need to be in the mix. The $$ spent is basically funny money... because they are really paying a price of admission, not necessarily rationalizing a specific ROI. But the key point here is Disney is jumping into the pool vs some who think they can stop the movement.

 

[MrPromey]

And as I said I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of trying to find article from 30+ years ago. As its not worth it to me, my point was made whether you agree with it or not. I lived and worked during that time, I don't need to prove that I did.

So did I and I have a pretty strong memory of it, too. I did cite some form of reference besides "believe me" but I'm ready to move on - just making sure I'm being clear.

Unfortunately you're coming at this after others, and others were trying to say its a "fad" and other such nonsense, which was really what I was responding to. Things that seem like fads at the time end up changing our lives and the world. Yes some of the companies being discussed may not survive the AI Bubble, but that is the nature of business. Upwards of 90% of startups fail in the first 5 years. That doesn't mean however that every one of them didn't have a viable idea, just that for whatever reason they failed. And that is the point here, AI, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Natural Language Processing and all the other names for it is here to stay. Whether its OpenAI or some other company its here to stay and Disney will be invested in it.

I don't think that is what people are calling a fad, though. At least, I haven't seen evidence of it in this discussion from the people you and flynnibus are arguing against.

The problem, as you probably know, is that what most here think is AI (the fake slop videos they see on their social media feeds) is only a small percentage of real AI. And yes that makes headlines, and probably to a great disservice to the technology. But I don't think that is really what Disney's true motives out of this are, as you alluded to. We're only seeing the hand they want us to see, not all their cards. So it'll be interesting from a technological standpoint to see what their motive really are.

We can only guess what Disney's really up to but if it's for what I'd imagine is actually useful for them, they'd have more reason to be quite about a partnership than to be splashy... again, unless publicity and brand endorsement was all they could really give OpenAI that was of true value for them.

... and talking about that potential aspect directly is something I'd find far more interesting than the millions of gallons of drinkable water that'll be wasted on making the Disnefied slop videos they've made the focal point of their announcement saying "The three-year licensing deal gives users access to short, user-prompted social videos featuring more than 200 characters from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars. These Sora-generated clips will be available to share across social platforms, and a curated selection will also stream on Disney+."

That's what people are focused on because that's what Disney is publicly focusing on.

 

[Disney Irish]

In case people forgot this isn't Disney's first foray into the AI world.

They have been working on using AI within AAs, previously announced was the BDX droids AI learning from earlier this year.

The Technology and Creativity Behind Disney’s BDX Droids | The Walt Disney Company

Disney's latest innovation, the BDX droids, are both lifelike and technologically advanced. Learn more about how the droids were brought to life here.

thewaltdisneycompany.com

So my guess is they will be continuing this initiative along with its use in other areas of the company.

Don't look at the direct announcements today, look at the other possibilities of where they can use the AI technology.

 

[MrPromey]

In case people forgot this isn't Disney's first foray into the AI world.

They have been working on using AI within AAs, previously announced was the BDX droids AI learning from earlier this year.

The Technology and Creativity Behind Disney’s BDX Droids | The Walt Disney Company

Disney's latest innovation, the BDX droids, are both lifelike and technologically advanced. Learn more about how the droids were brought to life here.

thewaltdisneycompany.com

So my guess is they will be continuing this initiative along with its use in other areas of the company.

Don't look at the direct announcements today, look at the other possibilities of where they can use the AI technology.

It's worth noting that you don't see the term "AI" used once in that article from Disney, though.
Instead they call it "reinforcement learning".

Not looking to debate anything - just sayin' "reinforcement learning" sounds a lot less Skynet-ish when talking about free-roaming robots than "AI trained", doesn't it?

I think a normal person could be forgiven for not making the connection from that to this discussion without a diagram but it's nice to know that what's probably the largest media company in the world today is on occasion, capable of not bungling the messaging.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's worth noting that you don't see the term "AI" used once in that article from Disney, though.
Instead they call it "reinforcement learning".

Not looking to debate anything - just sayin' "reinforcement learning" sounds a lot less Skynet-ish when talking about free-roaming robots than "AI trained", doesn't it?

Every now and then what's possibly the largest media company in the world today somehow manages to not bungle the messaging.

Maybe there's hope.

True; I think in one of the videos they do talk about AI directly when discussing the use of NVidia tech.

I expect more companies to start using alternative names to change the narrative and calm the “fears”.