OpenAI appears to be making a big push in developing and showcasing its yet-to-be-released text to video generator named Sora. Bloomberg reported that OpenAI has meetings with Hollywood studios “to form partnerships in the entertainment industry and encourage filmmakers to integrate its new AI video generator into their work.”
Meanwhile, on its website, OpenAI showcased yesterday the videos created by some artists it enlisted to experiment with Sora. The artists were the trio who go by shy kids, Paul Trillo, Nik Kleverov, August Kamp, Josephine Miller, Don Allen Stevenson III, and Alex Reben.
I liked the shy kids, Air Head video. It shows how AI generators can help creators visualize and create anything they imagine. Or, as shy kids explained: “as great as Sora is at generating things that appear real, what excites us is its ability to make things that are totally surreal.”
Or, as Paul Trillo put it: “Working with Sora is the first time I’ve felt unchained as a filmmaker. Not restricted by time, money, other people’s permission, I can ideate and experiment in bold and exciting ways.”
Imagining the impossible
AI generators appear to unleash creators–who can be anyone with a smartphone–so they can let their imaginations runs wild. An idle thought can now become real. Real at least in the sense in being embodied in a video, image, music, or other media. Everything imaginable can now be created. The laws of physics are no limitation.
And the cost to create is simply the cost of a subscription to use the AI generator. No need to build an elaborate set or travel to the far ends of earth. AI enables anyone to create by using words to capture their imagination.
Of course, this new form of creative production is not without controversy–plenty of controversy, including copyright lawsuits, potential job displacements, and backlash against AI. Yet, in analyzing any disruptive technology, it is important for society to assess both the costs and the benefits of the technology, and try to figure out ways to maximize the benefits and reduce the costs.
For example, in the copyright lawsuits, courts have available different doctrines, including fair use and the doctrine of volition for direct infringement, that lend themselves to a close analysis of costs and benefits. In the Google v. Oracle decision, the Supreme Court openly balanced, in Factor 4 of fair use, the potential harms and costs to the copyright owner against the public benefits derived from Google’s development of a new platform for smartphones. This isn’t to suggest what the outcome in the copyright lawsuits should be–juries and courts will decide them in due course. But the outcome should reflect a close examination of both costs and public benefits of a new technology.