@Bayesian Resolves NO

@JamesF Can you clarify what "sued over the model" means? Is this sued for damages due to video generated by the model, or sued over their use of training data for the model, or sued over using a proprietary file format as part of the model, or something else entirely?

I'm trying to get a feel for what kind of lawsuits should qualify, or if any lawsuit even slightly related to the model should qualify.

Latest Sora ‘short film’ released here - https://youtu.be/yplb0yBEiRo?feature=shared

But given most offical openAI videos only get max 2M I doubt it’ll reach 100M

Does this mean released to the public or does released to red teamers or even a corporation count

@JamesF good question, I didn't really expect what's happening with the 1st model to happen when i made that option. ig I'll go for:

if users or corporations can widely request access and a large # of em get access, it counts as released

open to feedback / disagreement, like if many ppl saw it differently im willing to consider N/A and remake the option more clearly

a few things here are brought up. not much that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere though

they say that they won't be making sora available "any time soon"..

I'm pretty sure it's unlikely to be both pay per use and accessible through chatgpt.

@ProjectVictory Why not? Is that not the case for the current models?

@Bayesian No; if you use Dall-E through your ChatGPT Plus subscription, I don't believe you're charged separately for the image generation.

@apetresc (Unless you mean, like, separately, because you could use DallE-3 through the API as well as use it for free through ChatGPT Plus)

Do both models need to be released separately? Or would this resolve YES if they never release the recently demoed version and then only release what is announced as a second version?

Would this resolve YES if the data created in a game engine were not created for the purpose of AI training, e.g. if the training data included a video of a game from YouTube? (I assume not, we already know it was trained on Minecraft videos)

@FH7979e That would not count

How does this resolve if it was banned at some point during the year, but was unbanned later in 2024 (a la ChatGPT in Italy)

@CharlesPaul the phrasing means it's asking about whether it'll be banned at the end of 2025. to ask whether it would be banned for any temporary amount of time in any EU country, you could ask "it'll have been banned in at least one EU country for at least some amount of time" or smth

does “free to use” resolve yes if they have a set up like “each user gets 30 minutes a month of video free, but you have to pay beyond that.” What about if they have a similar situation to GPT3 before Nobember 2022 where you got free tokens for signing up with them, but once they are gone you had to pay?

@Clark

@Bayesian I guess I'd argue YES in the first example and NO in the second- the difference being that the tokens renew themselves regularly and give the user continued use. Happy to defer to your resolution if it gets complicated.

what if it's free via, like, Bing Chat, and sustainably so, so not just a one-time free amount of tokens?

I would guess that would count as YES

It's interesting that people, given his NO positioon, are essentially betting that @EliezerYudkowsky will change his mind and state during the next two years that the Sora line is a threat to civilization.

I can see this logic, in that this model is the closest to "AGI" (whatever that means) there is now, and there could be some rapid advance that surprises everyone. He would see a capabilities advance very negatively, so I might take YES on this if it were cheaper.

@SteveSokolowski you could have a video model that outputs a perfect ten hour television series exactly to your specifications and i don't think it would be as dangerous as I expect LLMs in a few years to be

@SemioticRivalry I think I said in another market that people are missing the big picture with Sora.

It's not about video; watching movies is a sideshow. It's about Sora generating an internal scene, making predictions about what is going to happen, and moving through it. You can tell it to do a lot more than an LLM, and connect its output to take real world actions based on its time-series predictions.

@SteveSokolowski Training something to generate text can only be successful if that something itself understands human thought, but when generating videos (for most videos at least) you only need to understand concepts like 3d space, time, physics which are much less likely to lead to dangerous stuff like agency, planning, general intelligence than human thought (imo). There are some videos which do require understanding human thought to generate, so (imo) your proposed system will be possible, but I think it will always lag behind text-based model in "AGI-ness".